Are national parks constitutional?
Emsworth:
Quote from: opebo on October 02, 2005, 11:49:13 AM
Of course they do, emsworth, as they may be visited by American citizens from any state.
The operation of a national park does not extend throughout the country, but rather to one particular place alone. It does not matter whether people from other states will benefit; all that matters is whether the actual operation of the system is general, not local.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The Constitution does not distinguish between states and municipalities; the governments of the latter are considered extensions of the former.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
My constitutional views are not based on what I like or dislike. I have no particular opposition to abortion, for example, and believe that it should be legal, yet recognize that the Constitution does not require it to be.
opebo:
Quote from: Emsworth on October 02, 2005, 11:56:57 AM
Quote from: opebo on October 02, 2005, 11:49:13 AM
Of course they do, emsworth, as they may be visited by American citizens from any state.
The operation of a national park does not extend throughout the country, but rather to one particular place alone. It does not matter whether people from other states will benefit; all that matters is whether the actual operation of the system is general, not local.
This is quite meaningless. Any bureaucratic agency will have local offices, and any government operation must take place in a physical locality, regardless of the universality of its effect. No, the park is not at all a 'local' institution, but rather a cog in the national machine which ensures the well being of the citizenry - the Federal Government.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The Constitution does not distinguish between states and municipalities; the governments of the latter are considered extensions of the former.[/quote]
Interesting. This is how I see the states relative to the federal government.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
My constitutional views are not based on what I like or dislike. I have no particular opposition to abortion, for example, and believe that it should be legal, yet recognize that the Constitution does not require it to be.
[/quote]
Sure, sure. What good is the constitution then, if it cannot protect basic human rights? Of course the answer is - not much.
In any case interpretation is always subjective, and in your case perhaps you don't care much for the rights of women, but bear a particular grudge against the operation of national parks. To each his own, just don't pretend objectivity.
A18:
1. 'General Welfare' extends only to those national things that are outside the sphere of state government.
2. That's not how the Constitution sees states relative to the federal government.
3. The value of the Constitution is irrelevant to what it says. Interpretation is very objective when you adhere to the original meaning of the text.
opebo:
Quote from: PropertyRights™ on October 02, 2005, 12:15:11 PM
1. 'General Welfare' extends only to those national things that are outside the sphere of state government.
Clearly parks which may be visited by any americans, not just citizens of a particular state, are part of the 'general welfare'.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Yes, I am aware of that horrible archaism.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
So if it said that the means of production should be owned by the State it would be of equal 'value' to your subjectivity?
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
No, one is interpreting the 'original meaning' as well.
A18:
Uh, no, clearly they are not. You don't understand how the word 'general' was used at the time the Constitution was written, and should really quit pretending otherwise.
Would it be of equal value to me? No. But that would not change what the document so clearly says.
You don't seem to understand the difference between 'interpretation' and 'making things up.' I have to interpret your posts to respond. Interpretation is clearly very objective; that's how people communicate.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page