Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: freeus who wrote (135504)	7/4/1999 10:25:00 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

There was also a lot of "editing" by the Congress on Madison's proposal and quite a bit of his text was edited out but the two missing amendments, i.e. those that were not ratified... Limitations on the number of members of the House of Representatives. "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be 1 representative for every 30,000 until the number amounts to ____, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that the number shall never be less than _____, nor more than ______, but each state shall, after the first enumeration, have at least 2 representatives; and prior thereto." Restrictions on Congressional Raises "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of representatives." On the fourth and sixth amendments, IMO, your point of "all but meaningless" is a gross exaggeration. You could legitimately claim they are all but meaningless if they were rarely followed which is hardly the case. With your reasoning I could say that "the second amendment is all but meaningless" because we keep handguns out of the hands of convicted felons and innocent children...the second amendment provides for no such restrictions. The first amendment is all but meaningless because it's against the law to yell "fire" in a movie theatre or because it's against the law to threaten the life of the President of the United States. Is the charge of disturbing the peace a first amendment infringement? The 8th amendment, "Excessive bail shall not be required..." are there not accused that are held without bail? These may be in conflict with the Bill of Rights, on the face of it but are they in conflict with the intent? More often than not this is a most difficult task to determine. I've followed the Supreme Court rulings for the last several years as a matter of interest; I no longer read any press accounts of rulings as they often misrepresent the rulings, presumably for a "better story". If there is one thing that I have learned it is that Constitutional law is no easy task. There is no doubt in my mind that each of the Justices rules to the best of their abilities and each of them believes they rule in the spirit of the Framers, though it is rare to see a ruling without a dissenting view. I haven't researched the asset forfeiture laws from a constitutional perspective; of those laws that I am familiar with, they hold little constitutional interest to me. But I would dare to be so bold as to say that they are pale in comparison to the violations that occurred as a result of the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II; the seizure of Indian lands; the practice of slavery by our founding fathers and subsequent generations to follow...due process in any of those cases? Slavery until the 1860's was cited by presidents as Constitutionally protected! These injustices have been corrected within the framework provided by the Constitution and without any need for revolt. The republic survived and the Bill of Rights is stronger now than it was in any time in our history. You may recall that we have a government of checks and balances. A law may be passed and it may or may not be Constitutional; it is my recollection that the framers established a federal court to determine Constitutionality when it is raised to the Court. For example, the War Powers Act, a lot of concern over the constitutionality but it has never been brought to the court. So I might ask for those asset seizure laws that you are so concerned over, were they challenged through the federal courts? If not, why not? Did the court(s) refuse the case or hear it? If so what Constitutional basis was cited? Was there a dissenting view? The House has just passed a proposed law that has the ten commandments to be posted in schools; a first amendment violation, IMO, yes. Though I would hardly say that the religion clause of the first amendment is all but meaningless...even if the particular law was held up in court...which I doubt. In fact after seeing the House in action this past year, I give a special thanks that the Framers gave us a Senate, an Executive, and a Federal Court. It may be the case that the American people won't take up arms to fight for their freedom; not because they are wimps but because the overall picture is that they (we) have the best government on earth and the framework works. The perception that I have, at least, is that freedom is alive and well; challenged from time to time, but alive and well. I think that we may have pushed the limits of patience with the good people of the Dell thread. If you would be interested in continuing this discussion, especially on the asset forfeiture laws, I would be more than interested in doing so but I think off thread through PM might be the better approach. Best Regards, Jim P.S. On the URL cited, what the author omits of import is the context of what led to that point. First the attendees where sent to the Convention to amend the Articles of Confederation not write a Constitution; there were members who left on this account, including Hamilton [though on his way back to New York he reconsidered and thought it better to be present and influence the document]; other members who left the convention but didn't leave Phildelphia were dragged forcibly by the residents back to the convention and were locked inside to complete the task and the debate was lively! It was reported that Franklin manuevered several representatives into signing the Constitution with language that said something to the effect of all the parties present agree that this is the document that was written (not necessarily agreed); the language also let the receiving states have the impression that "all the parties present" meant unanimous consent...Franklin didn't think it was necessary to point out the three that left...sly old fox, wasn't he? It is also interesting to note that the direction from the Convention to the States was that there was to be NO public vote on ratification though a few states as I recall ignored this guidance. The last state to ratify (Rhode Island?) voted twice in a popular vote to NOT ratify; Subsequently, Washington, through the equivelent of an executive order directed that states who had ratified would not be allowed to conduct commerce with states who had not ratified...Rhode Island subsequently ratified the Constitution! Extortion does work!