RoR: Forum

Advertising is content. When I worked for Coin World newspaper, I was one of the two editors who was not a j-school graduate. The other was the "Trends" (pricing) editor, Stuart Segan. Coin World had a clear, bright line between Advertising and Editorial. Advertisers occasionally tried to buy "editorial content." We resisted. That said, though, Stuart often said, "Advertising is content." In other words, our readers cared about prices, about availability, about offerings.

Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw challenged the FDA. The FDA controls what can be published by sellers of foods and so-called "drugs." Durk & Sandy offered a compromise: Let the FDA have half the label to say whatever they want, and let the seller have the other half.

RIght now in Austin at the downtown corner of 6th and Congress, we suffer an evangelist who shouts that God hates you. "God hates sinners!" One firm I know of closed their offices and moved away from the the intersection to an office a couple of blocks away and a few stories up. How this rant is not hate speech is beyond me. However, unfortunately, I am downtown in the livery of my employers. If ever I there in mufti, I will find a cop and swear out a complaint against this hate speech.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/19, 7:08pm)

Post 1

Monday, November 19, 2012 - 7:01pm

duplicated

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/20, 4:16am)

Post 2

Wednesday, November 21, 2012 - 9:30am

Professor Machan,

I think somethings are just anomalies of history - the decision to exempt churches from regulation occurred at a time when the founders saw European nations creating state-run churches, and some of them had first or second generation experience with suffering the results of governments in bed with churches, and with the state expressing it's bias against other religions - sometime to the point of waging war. Further, at that time, when science was still a baby, religion was a stronger component of a culture's philosophy. Protecting religious freedom was in effect protecting the right to ones own beliefs in a wider context.

That was their perspective regarding religion and the state, and I don't see saying, or thinking, "Ok, we've exempted religion organizations, but now lets think up some ways to step in regulate other organizations." At that time, for the most part, they didn't have any federal regulation of other activities. They had no EPA, no Dept. of Commerce, no FDA, no Dodd-Frank, no Federal Reserve Bank, no IRS, etc. They thought that they had taken care of preventing government from getting into regulation of other areas with the 10th amendment and the idea that the federal government can only do what is spelled out in the constitution reigned supreme - at that time.

The first time a supreme court justice wrote an opinion that twisted the Welfare clause or the Commerce clause, or some other trickery with words to justify Federal powers the founders would clearly have objected to, the people should have risen up and passed a constitutional amendment removing that supreme court justice for the cause of violation of the oath of office where he or she promised to observe, obey and protect the constitution.

The founding fathers saw a free press as the way government was kept honest and that without it, you couldn't have informed elections (e.g. 2012). They never imagined this dishonest,, generations-long, progressive movement infesting our universities that would co-opt the media as 'secret' members while they were still in Journalism school. And because the press was so important, the founders named it specifically and assumed that the 10th amendment would protect every other occupation. After all, at that time, everyone knew that the government could only do what was explicitly permitted by the constitution. But look at how that has changed! Now, if you tap the average citizen on the shoulder and ask a question about some issue, he is likely to offer a solution that says, "Government ought to pass a law that...." and suggest outlawing something now legal. The progressive have a pretty clear win going for them in terms of the media and the populace at large. Today's average Jane or Joe don't see the liberties lost, they don't value the remaining liberties in the face of peer pressure to sacrifice for the common good, and they turn to government just as a frightened or hurt child turns to their parents.

The appearance that having some rights enumerated in the bill of rights was fought at the time by people who agreed with the rights, but said that if we single out those rights, it will appear that this document is implying that government can do anything not expressly prohibited and that is not what we are creating. They were right. But, their opponents while agreeing that it might be confusing, never-the-less, stated that certain rights were so critical that they needed explicit mention or they would be lost. They were right.

Post 3

Monday, November 26, 2012 - 6:59am

I wasn't concerned with history but with consistency. In my book, the former ought to accord with the latter. And I think the idea of the rule of law follows this point.

Post 4

Thursday, November 29, 2012 - 7:46pm

Professor Machan,

Your article is entitled "Constitutional Anomalies" and the first paragraph contrasted the exemption of the press and religions from regulation, but not others. I commented on the historical nature of that 'anomaly.' History is what is left, unintended consequences and all, after a multitude of actions by different individuals of different beliefs and different intentions. History is evolutionary compromise - and that makes inconsistency a frequent player.

But the main thrust of your article was the outrage of government telling us what to do - regulating us, and shouldn't we be beyond that. All I can say is that I agree with all my heart. I wish we were beyond that, and that those of us who are outraged, horrified, and disgusted by this constant intrusion into our lives weren't such a small minority.

Of course the rule of law should consistently follow from the underlying principles of our right to free of this ugly progressive drive to regulate everything. But history shows what we got instead, and it pays to understand how that happened.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 11/29, 7:52pm)

Post 5

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 1:15pm

I am impressed with the argument that "regulate" for the framers had meant "regularize." It is consistent with the thrust of uniting the colonies and thus removing obstacles to interstate free trade (e.g., tariffs, duties, etc.).

Post 6

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 3:18pm

Professor Machan,

That's my understanding of the Framer's intentions as well. When they wrote they wanted to "regulate commerce... among the several states...", they were asking each state (each of which at that point in time, was almost a nation of its own) to forego interstate tariffs and other restrictions. The framers wanted them to let trade flow unrestricted across the state borders.

If we could update the constitution it would be very good to remove that phrase "regulate commerce" altogether, or to replace it with a clause saying, "Neither Congress nor any state shall pass any law restricting the flow of goods or services across its borders."

Post 7

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 5:44pm

TM: I am impressed with the argument that "regulate" for the framers had meant "regularize." It is consistent with the thrust of uniting the colonies and thus removing obstacles to interstate free trade (e.g., tariffs, duties, etc.).

Unfortunately, I own an 1828 Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language facsimile.

REG' ULATE v.t. To adjust by rule, method, or established mode; as to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

And this comes up, also, in discussion of the Second Amendment with its "well regulated militia".

Everyone loves the American Revolution. Howard Fast was a communist, seriously, and he wrote passionately about the American Revolution. You can claim that he betrayed it, but he would say the same about you. <Group hug.> We all want to read ourselves into the Founders.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/30, 5:47pm)

Post 8

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 6:39pm

Michael, contrary to your slightly smug insinuation of people reading what they want in to what the founders thought, this is from research into what they said, what they wrote, why they thought the way they did.

They didn't just put phrases into the constitution without a historical issue to be dealt with. In the case of "regulating commerce" they specifically wanted to stop the practice of one state taxing the goods from another state. And they saw the 9th amendment as the means of stopping the federal government from taxing the trade between states.

James Madison, author of the Constitution, described the regulation of commerce between states as a �negative and preventive provision.� He was very specific went on to say explicitly that it was not any power Congress may resort to for �positive purposes� (see James Madison's letter to Joseph C. Cabell dated Feb. 13th, 1829)

I'd also refer you James Monroe's statement in 1822 where he describes the commerce clause this way, "A power, then, to impose such duties and imposts in regard to foreign nations and to prevent any on the trade between the States was the only power granted." [Emphasis mine]

In 1785 Madison offered a resolution where no state would be at "liberty to impose duties on any goods, wares, or merchandise, imported, by land or by water, from any other state, but may altogether prohibit the importation from any state of any particular species or description of goods, wares, or merchandise, of which the importation is at the same time prohibited from all other places whatsoever.�

Here is Madison again, explaining the commerce clause in a letter to Professor Davis of the University of Virginia: "The power to regulate commerce among the States was well known and so explained by the advocates of the Constitution when before the people for their consideration, to be as a necessary control on the conduct of some of the importing States toward their non-importing neighbors. A recurrence to the angry legislation produced by it among the parties, some of whom had passed commercial laws (duties and imposts on articles of import) more rigid against others than against foreign nations, will well account for the constitutional remedy."

Here is the founding father, Edmund Randolf in a comment made while he was the Attorney General under President Washington in 1791: That power is "little more than to establish the forms of commercial intercourse between the States, and to keep the prohibitions which the constitution imposes on that intercourse undiminished in their operation; that is, to prevent taxes on imports or exports.� [Emphasis mine]

Further evidence of the intent is found in Article I, Section 9, "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
-----------

There are many, many, many examples of what the founders were thinking when they framed the constitution, contrary to what Progressive imply in their attempts to weasel-word totally different meanings into the constitution.
-----------

And no one needs to get their knickers in a knot over the word "militia" in the second amendment. Because the reason the founders wanted the freedom to bear arms was to stop tyranny. How people are suddenly buying into the Progressive arguments that only guns proper to game hunting or sports should be allowed, and not "assault weapons" is beyond me. It is specifically the weapons that are used to kill people that the founders had in mind.

Post 9

Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 1:53pm

Article I. Section 10 is explicit and in Federalist 44 Madison says that no further discussion is necessary. The primary intention as understood there and in Number 22 by Hamilton was to prevent states from entering into commercial treaties with foreign nations. Also, preventing states from tariffing goods passing through them was also mentioned with allusions to Germany (Hamilton in 22) and Switzerland, Germany, and Netherlands (Madison in 42).

The Constitution forbids export duties from any state. (That made Jefferson's embargo unconstitutional.) However, the Constitution does allow states to levy import duties, with the consent of Congress. Furthermore the net proceeds of those duties go to the Federal Treasury, not to the state's. (Net proceeds means that the states can keep what they need to operate the collecting of the tariffs in the first place.)

At that time, no Ninth Amendment existed. It is the Ninth that many libertarians look to to limit the power of the federal government. But the Ninth applies clearly to "the people" whereas the regulation of commerce between the several states was a different matter entirely.

In the mid-19th century, county sheriffs were thwarted by train robbers. You rob the train in one county and get off the train with your loot in another county. The sheriff in pursuit had no jurisdiction. The sheriff in the arrival county had no warrant.

Before railroads, every town kept local time. Railroads invented time zones because even at 20 and 30 mph, train schedules could not be kept with local time.

You can argue that the Interstate Commerce Act was overly broad. I spent two years earning a certificate in interstate commerce, so I can agree easily and cite more examples than you can imagine. But the very fact remains hat the federal government had the power to regulate interstate commerce, to control it by law, as intended in the Constitution. Moreover, the technological demands of civil society outran the 18th century. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed broader powers. If it had not been found in the Commerce Clause, a new amendment would have been required.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 1/31, 1:57pm)

Post 10

Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 5:40pm

Michael,

But the very fact remains hat the federal government had the power to regulate interstate commerce, to control it by law, as intended in the Constitution. Moreover, the technological demands of civil society outran the 18th century. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed broader powers. If it had not been found in the Commerce Clause, a new amendment would have been required.

We disagree.

1.) I say the federal government only has the power to prevent states from imposing tariff or otherwise impeding commerce from other states. And that is the proper interpretation of the constitution as intended by the founders.
2.) Technological changes don't change the relation between states and the federal government in terms of a balance of power, states rights, or the basic concepts of individual rights.
3.) Broader powers were "found" in the commerce clause by misreading the constitution. The only new amendment that is needed is to eliminate the commerce clause as written, and rewrite the clause to make it clear that the federal government has no business telling the states what they can and cannot do within their boundaries as commercial activity. It should only be prohibit them from enacting trade wars or tariffs with other states.

What possible individual right is being defended by the federal government when it uses these "broader powers" you refer to?

Post 11

Friday, February 1, 2013 - 6:34pm

I cited a dictionary from 1828 because that is the best available source to show what the founders meant by "regulate." They meant "control by law."

You cited letters from the same era, but private communications 30 years after the fact do not supersede The Federalist Papers.

The federalists intended to control commerce between the states. They did not intend to control commerce between individuals residing in different states. It is difficult for us to differentiate those, but the founders did -- or thought they could.

As for the railroads, technology is the application of scientific truth to practical effects. If changes in technology could not budge the Constitution, could the explosion of the Moon? Really, physical reality is not to be ignored unless you want to make a traditionalist religiion out of the Constitution.

The interstate commerce act, the federal income tax, the federal civil rights law, all were flawed, but that is a consequence of their depending ontologically on the agreements (compromises) of millions of people. By that standard, the only perfect law is in Wolferville. Given the federal union, the Interstate Commerce Act was necessary and proper, even though (I agree 100%!) it was riddled with errors at all levels.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/01, 6:37pm)

Post 12

Saturday, February 2, 2013 - 2:13am

Michael,

I've never seen you make such sloppy arguments. You wrote:

I cited a dictionary from 1828 because that is the best available source to show what the founders meant by "regulate." They meant "control by law."

You really think that a dictionary is better than the explanations from the founders themselves about what they meant?!?!?!
---------

Then you wrote:

You [Steve] cited letters from the same era, but private communications 30 years after the fact do not supersede The Federalist Papers.

It is your dictionary that is 30 years later, and I quoted Madison, the author of the constitution. One quote from him was from 1785. I quoted George Washington's Attorney General, 1791. You mention the Federalist Papers as a good source of what the founders intended. I agree. I've read them. But you also need to read the Anti-federalist Papers, and the notes from the states' ratifying conventions. All of these sources lead a reasonable person to the same understanding which is that they intended states to not restrict trade with one another - they did NOT intend the federal government to start regulating any business whose products or services crossed state lines.
--------

You seem to have gone to the moon when you wrote this:

As for the railroads, technology is the application of scientific truth to practical effects. If changes in technology could not budge the Constitution, could the explosion of the Moon? Really, physical reality is not to be ignored unless you want to make a traditionalist religiion out of the Constitution.

Who mentioned railroads? Or the Interstate Commerce Act? They don't come under question till AFTER the constitution's commerce clause is interpreted.

And, no technology doesn't 'budge' the constitution. The constitution defines the legal foundation and structure of our government. It is the defense of our rights by having clear limits on the power of government. The only people I've ever heard argue in favor of reinterpreting the constitution because of advances in technology are the progressives. The constitution is the mechanism for limiting the power of the federal government and that isn't religion, it is sound political engineering for those who want a government that is limited.

Once upon a time you were an anarchist. Now you say that the Interstate Commerce Act was necessary and proper - and the Federal Income Tax is only "flawed"! The legalization of income theft, a theft that is "progressive" i.e., attacks those in proportion to their productivity, and that has allowed government to grow to the point it has today... and you only think it is "flawed"?

I feel like you are all over the place. Please tell me what way the Interstate Commerce Act protects individual rights as we Objectivists understand them. Because to me it was the federal government expanding its unconstitutional powers to interfere with businesses and it brought into being the first of the regulatory agencies focused on making up rules for businesses. But you like that act? An act based upon Marxist concepts of government preventing monopolies to protect the common man from the robber barons?

Post 13

Sunday, February 3, 2013 - 6:22am

IBM in the 80s wants special tax treatment for its overseas operations, and buys Moynihan in pursuit of their special interests. But there is this Graham-Rudman requirement that new legislation be "paid for," and so, IBM dreams up IRS 1706 and a theory that software engineers, when they start their own businesses as consultants, are more likely to cheat on their taxes than attorneys, accountants, florists, chiropracters, or any other profession other than software engineers. This theory is the basis for creating a special set of hurdles aimed only at software engineers and similar making it more difficult for them to conduct business as self-employed contractors -- an extra set of burdens not aimed at any other profession.

The actual effect of this law is to coral software engineers at places like IBM, so IBM 'engineered' a two-fer. They 'paid' for their special tax treatment with a law which corralled their most valued employees as slaves to their fascist deal with the guns of state.

They paid for nothing, on the backs of others.

I managed to get around it for the last 30 years; if the government wants to go after my clients and claim I was working for them as an employee, then they will largely be going after themselves. Oddly, they aren't interested in enforcing their own rules against themselves. And to a nation that tolerates such rules, thank you for paying your taxes.

They've since moved on to the H1B arena as their means of putting forth effort only in Congress.

This is our government acting under the elastic Commerce Clause. It doesn't deserve our respect, it deserves a massive fragging.

We can put lipstick on that pig, but it doesn't get any better than that.

regards,
Fred

Post 14

Sunday, February 3, 2013 - 10:05am

Steve, once again, you attribute to me opinions which I do not hold. (We all know this line of - ahem - "reasoning": "You like Mozart, therefore you are a Kantian muscle-mystic who denies reality.") I am not an anarchist; and I do not advocate on behalf of the Interstate Commerce Act.

I only point out what "regulate" meant to the men who wrote the Constitution.

REG' ULATE v.t. To adjust by rule, method, or established mode; as to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary ...

As for commerce between the states. I point, again, the Constitution itself.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The ban on export duties had nothing to do with the natural individual right to commerce and everything to do with the mercantilist theory that exports must always happen, but imports could be restricted if necessary.

I only point to the actual words by the real men. I cited Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language in support of that, lest we be led astray by nuances that have changed over time. A dictionary does not set the standard, but only reports what the standard is. Someday, our dictionaries may include excape, Valentimes, and irregardless; and let magazine articles be "entitled."

You also cited works from the generation after the Constitution. Madison's letter to Joseph C. Cabell dated Feb. 13th, 1829 ... James Monroe's statement in 1822 ... The letter from Madison to David is dated to 1832. (Here, I believe, is the first hit you found returned by Google.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces21.html) The difference is that in your citations one man is explaining his thoughts to another man, whereas the Constitution and Webster's Dictionary are common communications of the time and place.They are more original.

Fred: See above. As I said before, I know plenty of annoying things in the Act to Regulate Commerce. I am not defending it. I only point out that it is consonant with the Constitution. Despite Steve's easy gloss that this had to do with "monopolies" it was broader and more detailed than that. For one thing, railroads were forbidden from giving free passes, and from charging different prices to different people for the same service. Myself, I have no problem with either of those practices.

On the plus side, after the civil rights leaders met with President Kennedy to explain to him in black and white why they just could not sit down and discuss their differences with the southern sheriffs and governors as he thought (being the son of an ambassador), he called on the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commerce Clause for the power to desegregate the bus terminals.

Again, we can argue whether and to what extent it was non-objective law, but it was within the powers intended and expressed by the Constitution.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/03, 10:10am)

Post 15

Sunday, February 3, 2013 - 10:37am

Michael,

I am not an anarchist; and I do not advocate on behalf of the Interstate Commerce Act.

I didn't say you ARE an anarchist, I said, "Once upon a time you were an anarchist." I did not say you 'advocate on behalf of the Interstate Commerce Act' - I said, "Now you [Michael]say that the Interstate Commerce Act was necessary and proper..." and those were your exact words in post #11.
----------------

Madison was the author of the constitution and his statements as to what the clause was intended to mean have been consistent over time and were understood at the time and they were consistent with the issues that clause was intended to address.
-----------------

You stay fixated on your dictionary entry (as if that were the last word), yet it was published at about the same time as those letters I quote. And you are telling us that because those letters are a "generation after the constitution" they are somehow not meaningful. That's nonsense.

And you ignore this from Madison, in that same post of mine:

In 1785 Madison offered a resolution where no state would be at "liberty to impose duties on any goods, wares, or merchandise, imported, by land or by water, from any other state, but may altogether prohibit the importation from any state of any particular species or description of goods, wares, or merchandise, of which the importation is at the same time prohibited from all other places whatsoever.�

------------------

And if you believe that founders intended the constitution's Commerce Clause to give the president the kind of power such that he could desegregate bus terminals, then you are sadly confused. Your literacy, fluency with details and ability to deal with fine nuances are all admirable, which makes it a shame they are so often adrift from the key principles involved.

Post 16

Monday, February 4, 2013 - 7:57pm

A dummy's view of Constitutional Rights

Post 17

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 - 4:14am

MEM in #11 "Given the federal union, the Interstate Commerce Act was necessary and proper, even though (I agree 100%!) it was riddled with errors at all levels."

In 1785 Madison offered a resolution where no state would be at "liberty to impose duties on any goods, wares, or merchandise, imported, by land or by water, from any other state, but may altogether prohibit the importation from any state of any particular species or description of goods, wares, or merchandise, of which the importation is at the same time prohibited from all other places whatsoever.�

SW: "And if you believe that founders intended the constitution's Commerce Clause to give the president the kind of power such that he could desegregate bus terminals, then you are sadly confused."

1. By 1886, a hundred years after the Constitution was created, it was obvious by inspection that very little commerce took place entirely within any one state. Even if such could be found, it remained that no state could enact laws limiting or controlling (or encouraging) interstate commerce. Only the Federal government could do that.

2. This is a proposal from Madison, only. It was rejected. It seems to me inconsistent for you, an Objectivist, to offer this an example as Madison assumes that the states could prohibit the importing of some things, as long as it did so regardless of their origins. A state could forbid the importing of tobacco completely, just not tobacco from only Connecticut. And that, too, is problematic on many levels. We have problems now with toxic molds in construction drywall made in China. What if it had been made in Ohio? Ohio's regulations might establish lower standards than Pennsylvania's. Maybe Pennsylvania's legislature should ban Ohio drywall. This is complicated beyond some fine words about the Constitution. The founders always expected interpretation, as English law is "bench made" law.

See my article, "Unlimited Constitutional Government" on my blog here. The Constitution has no power of its own. It is only a statement of specifics that define, outline, and describe the parameters of government operations. I point out that "freedom of religion" (so-called) was never incorporated to the States and that the last restrictions on atheists was only struck down by a state appeals court (Supreme Court of South Carolina) about 20 years ago.

3. I believe that President Kennedy had other powers to desegregate public spaces. Certainly, you do not think that racial segregation of public utilities should have been tolerated. Myself, I place less investment in top-down law. I look to the organic changes, such as the desegregation of Major League Baseball, as indicative of culture. Clearly, however, the President of the United States cannot rely on the folkways of baseball for his executive powers.

On a related topic now in the news and discussed here on RoR --
lUS Postal System "Near Collapse" -- despite the wide-ranging opinions here, the language of the Constitution is plain. Congress can buy the services by contract - as it does with paper and ink - or it can make its own, as the US Federal Arsenal at Springfield made rifles for the army. Both (or any mix) are constitutional. I do point out that for many rural areas even today, the Post Office is the one place in town that flies the American flag because it represents the presence of the federal government.

By comparison with that, twice in 1800 and 1802, Republicans in the Senate introduced bills to close the US Mint, Even though Congress has the power to coin money, nothing requires that Congressmen themselves operate the machinery. Objectively, Congress should have no such powers. Historically, US federal coin was always a minor current in the streams of commerce, until 1857 when Congress declared that only federal money would be legal tender.

See Bob Schreiner's web pages "Spanish Coins on American Notes" especially the American private banknotes organized by state here.

All and all the Constitution is a brilliant piece of applied political science. It was innovative and inventive for its time - a new paradigm. It was copied (in style, though not substance) by just about every one of the almost 200 national governments today. They all have constitutions. None rests on oral traditions. The separation of powers and the balance of powers were the mechanisms of regulation as the men of 1789 understood them to be. But however fine the machinery inside, we, the people, take the vehicle where we want it to go.

If you want to define that direction, you need to deeply influence the common culture with an objective philosophy.

Post 18

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 - 9:35am