[clue-talk] The stimulus bill

[Jed S. Baer]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 22:09:31 -0700
Nate Duehr wrote:

> Totally understand.  I knew you'd keep us straight on the "standing  
> Army" part of things, which is why I used the phrase.  It would perk  
> up the ears of the better Constitutional scholars in the discussion  
> here.  I figure again, like the defense attorney, that a standing army  
> is something people PROBABLY right now in our history believe is a  
> "right", also.  Semantics and maybe unfortunately, the Constitution  
> aside...
> 
> Thanks for keepin' it real, Jed.

You're welcome.

I have to add that I don't believe one need be a scholar in law to
understand what the Constitution means. The men who wrote intended for it
to be understandable, and it takes not a lot of looking into contemporary
sources and context to understand it. Regrettably, I think that many try
to make it harder than it is, because it helps to avoid the uncomfortable
conclusion that the govt. is operating far outside its boundaries. It's a
sort of intentional cognitive dissonance. I have no law degree -- no
college at all, in fact. And yet I have no trouble understanding terms
such as "regulated" in the context of history and language. Nor is it
difficult to read the writings of Jefferson, Adams, Mason, et. al., and
realize that the intent was a limited government, and the Constitution is
more of a "nothing except that which is granted" document than the other
way 'round. But then, the 10th Amendment seems to be a dead letter. And
for shame.

jed