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.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce L who wrote (21688)	10/3/2004 3:58:00 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 23153

Hi Bruce, re: [w]hen you speak of these men who "understood" these things mentioned above, WHO specifically do you mean? And can you cite anything that any one of them wrote that supports you? Sure I can. Our system of government is one that was created and which evolved through a unique process of founding documents, constitutional protections and judicial decisions. In order to understand its building blocks and how it works, you must understand civics. That means you must look to the words and actions of our founding fathers and our forefathers that followed, and then examine what they created as the cornerstones of our system. The critical documents are the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, early legislation, and the many early Supreme Court decisions that reflect the wisdom of our best minds in interpreting the principles and visions of those men and then applying the principles embodied in their wisdom to everyday life. The result is a rich fabric of constitutional and judicial law that "protects" individual liberties from the oppressive forces that will exist as long as men have access to power. When you question whether our system was "created by men who understood that in order for men to "pursue happiness," it was also necessary to free them from the tyranny of oppressive power, whether that power was the power of the strongest elements of society, the police power of the governemnt or, in some instances where religious or other deeply important rights were involved, even the power of the majority", I wonder whether you truly understand that complex process. Just look at the Bill of rights for examples. The freedom of speech, the freedom to associate, the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the writ of habeous corpus protections, freedom of religion, the anti-establishment clause, the right to a trial by a jury of our PEERS, and many of the other protections which our forefathers clearly felt were the most IMPORTANT and NECESSARY protections were all designed to protect us FROM THE POWER OF OUR GOVERNMENT. If you look at the most respected judicial decisions of our courts, a common theme is the need to protect our citizens from the foolish or arbitrary exercise of power at the hands of our executive or legislative arms of government. In fact, although the courts were given the ultimate authority to resolve conflicts the courts were given no police power to enforce such rulings. That was the system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of the police power of the state. It's a delicate balance and one that goes so far that at it's margins it even limits the power of a democratic majority. This is because the courts can, and are required to, strike down properly enacted laws which infringe on certain "constitutionally recognized" individual rights UNLESS the state can show a "compelling state interest" in limiting such rights. It all adds up to the incontrovertable fact that our forefathers recognized the danger of the "tryranny of oppressive power," especially power in the hands of the most dangerous threat of all; the state. In times like these we should remember that the same human impulses and tendencies and the same institutional dangers are just as present and just as dangerous today. Or do you have some basis for believing that our forefathers envisioned a system of government that somehow trusted in the intrinsic goodness of those who would wield the awesome police power of the state? If so, I'd like to hear your theory. Ed