Originally Posted by Skerlnik

SCOTUS'S job is to make determinations if X is contrary to the Constitution or not. The fact that we haven't seen dozens of departments, programs, and systems struck down by the Court implies that everyone (except strict Constitutionalists) view these things as valuable, and reasonable, necessary executive tools to fulfill the government's duty to the people. Generally in response to the People's wishes, too.

And, if the People all got together and decided to pitch the Constitution tomorrow, it would be wrong to keep it. The Constitution is there to serve the People, not the other way around.

Honestly, joe, if everything the government does had to be ratified as Amendments to the Constitution, we'd never have become the advanced, modern world power we are.

Unless something is specifically denied in the Constitution (like making an official religion or something) then it is ON the table, and Congress certainly may legislate. You are arguing the dead opposite, that ONLY what's in the Constitution is allowable, holding us back to 200 year old standards with very, very little possibility of progress.

It's simply not practical, and best of luck to you, in lobbying to turn back the clock.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

I think that's it, joe, the central core of the disagreement.

Using something like the FDA as an example, I would assert that this agency is allowable Constitutionally, because the Executive Branch may form sub-branches tasked with enforcing certain policies, i.e., food inspection.

You might assert that because the Founders didn't give any thought specifically to the creation of an agency charged with food safety 200+ years ago, and not mentioned in the Constitution, that it's not allowed, and would take an Amendment to create that agency.

Practicality and history appear to favor my argument, that unless the Constitution specifically prohibits it, it's a go. It's certainly easier to list what cannot be done, rather than what can.

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

Laws are passed so can be amendments, it is nothing more than a blatant disregard of the law (and their oath of office).

Just because there is a history of government illegality does not make it a good thing.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Well, we're irreconcilable, then. So be it. Not much use going further, and boring everyone else....

Originally Posted by BoneDaddy

That is nonsense and completely contrary to to will and intent of our founders. Regardless of practicality, this line of thinking will eventuall push our country into conflict.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Nexttime we see a Founder, we'll ask.

Oh, no, wait. They're all dead.

The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on any one thing, let alone libertarian notions. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them: few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. Thus, looking to the founders for "original intent" is silly: it will vary amongst them. Not to mention that "original intent" (or original understanding) is just as open to interpretation as the Constitution itself because while there is lots of explicit data, it is from many contradictory sources.

Critiques Of Libertarianism: A Non-Libertarian FAQ.