Skip to main content

View Diary: Constitutional Foundation of the US Economy: Powers are Implied Not Enumerated (29 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

    As a student of American history and having suffered many a self-righeous professor, I know that history instructors rarely agree and will vociferously defend their pov to the death, as it were.

    In my opinion, be it ever so humble, the terms "Progressive" and "Libertarian" are mutually exclusive, because, broadly speaking so as not to get into the weeds, Progressives favor people over property and Libertarians the opposite. I suspected your libertarian leanings when you so painstakingly defended Hamilton and then obliquely critzed FDR's New Deal:

    You failed to mention that FDR's "New Deal" was continually being struck down by the Supreme Court, including provisions against child labor laws.

    So, although your comment was couched in very scholarly language, your libertarian biases are plain, furthermore, your comment was just not convincing, instructor.

    “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.” ~ Charles Dickens, from Oliver Twist

    by ozsea1 on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 10:27:37 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Rofl... the one thing that makes us truly free is (0+ / 0-)

      the power to define the terms themselves.

      Progressive=equality for all, social justice, economic justice.
      Libertarian= individual liberties cannot be subjugated by the tyranny of democracy (tyranny of the majority).

      Put them together and we can do anything we wish as long as we either follow the constitution or change it when necessary.

      I wasn't painstakingly defending Hamilton, the diarist used Hamilton as the basis for their argument, ignoring what he actually said about the scope and power the constitution was granting to the central government.

      As for FDR getting his new deal handed back to him, ignoring that he padded the court and then tried to unsuccessfully expand the court to suit his desires is dishonest history telling.

      What I'd ask the diarist to do, be honest about these things...note that it took FDR festering public dissent against our judicial system to "make them change their tune". Were their original arguments invalid?

      This is the point here, it was never so "black and white" and still isn't today.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:51:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site