The U.S. Constitution

[y_feldblum]

Context makes clear that "precisely defined and very limited powers" have as their very precise meaning: powers strictly for the purpose of and as a means to protecting individual rights - firstly without violating individual rights, and secondly without having any other intent.

Your interesting point in reply to David Odden is incorrect: government's means of action is force, and force alone. Any action the strict purpose of which is not the protection of individual rights is therefore not the proper function of a capitalist government.

[FeatherFall]

I have identified the context of post #57 correctly. The statement, y_feldblum made regarding "precisely defined and very limited powers" was in reference to the constitution and it's preamble. Given that the founders explicitly authorized taxation, the document does not promote the protection of individual rights without contradiction. By "the protection of individual rights" they simply could not have meant what Objectivists mean today when uttering the same phrase. Regardless of intent, the founders made mistakes, and David Odden's suggestions would correct many of those mistakes.

This brings me to the point I made at the bottom of my last post. If Objectivists were to make a constitution today, or modify the existing constitution, they should not repeat the mistakes of the founders. A glaring mistake in the constitution was to omit from the articles and amendments the idea that a government exists soley to protect individual rights. This should have been made explicit within the working body of the constitution. Omitting it and assuming that people would be able to judge their intent based on the preamble, declaration of independence, federalist papers and other writings from the time, lead to government we have today. Are we to assume that Objectivists are immune to the same problem to which the founders succumbed? What evidence is there that people two hundred years in the future would judge the constitution based on Objectivist theory? Who is to say that more German philosophers of unreason will not infiltrate the country? The only effective safeguard is to make the purpose of government explicit in the basis of law.

Incidently, I was not able to determine where in The Ethics Of Emergencies Ayn Rand affirmed the government's immunity to property rights during war time. The article's point was that one should not sacrafice themselves during an emergency. Nowhere did it state approval of the violation of another's rights, nor say that rights are void in some circumstances.

I contend that soldiers do have a right to enter homes unasked during a battle at a city. But justification for this is not given in The Ethics Of Emergencies. Justification for this follows from the a government's monopoly on force, and can be invoked only when force has been innitiated in that city or region, and only when intrusions into homes are necessary for retaliation.

I have addressed at length where and why I agree with David's posts. It is safe to assume that any suggestion I advocate or agree with can benefit from the light of his suggestions in post #2.

On post #36, zynner made a suggestion for self-regulation, which I am very excited about, and agree with. I do not know how this should be worded. I also agree with Captain nate when suggested protection from court stacking in post #38.

Wow. I really mean it this time when I say no more championing someone else's ideas. Perhaps there should be an explicit barring of contradiction within the constitution. Maybe the court would need to affirm that a new amendment would not conflict with the rest of the constitution before the process of adoption begins. This may have been what David Odden intended in post #2, but I believe that this should be addressed separately so that it can be made explicit.

I have some other ideas for suggestions, but I would like to take some time to review the other threads on politics and law before I post them. I will likely have questions before I make a decision as to post or not, they will probably appear in separate threads. These posts will have to do with the acquisition of territory.