-Caveat Lector-
MICHAEL SPITZER wrote:
Also does anyone know the status of H.J. RES. 17, proposing an
amendment to the Constitution to repeal the twenty-second
amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms
a president may serve?
MJ:
WHAT limitations? By utilizing the Marshall Court's decrees, the
twenty-second amendment does NOT state EXPRESSLY that Bill Clinton
cannot run as many times as he so chooses ...
Besides, why should we concern ourselves with the Constitution
in THIS instance when it is ignored in practically every other?
Regard$,
--MJ
Chief Justice Marshall
McCulloch versus Maryland:
Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of
establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But
there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the
Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or
implied powers and which requires that everything
granted shall be expressly and minutely described.
Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose
of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been
excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only
that the powers "not delegated to the United States,
nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the
States or to the people," thus leaving the question
whether the particular power which may become the
subject of contest has been delegated to the one
Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend
on a fair construction of the whole instrument.
The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced
the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this
word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably
omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution,
to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of
which its great powers will admit, and of all the means
by which they may be carried into execution, would partake
of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be
embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be
understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires
that only its great outlines should be marked, its
important objects designated, and the minor ingredients
which compose those objects be deduced from the nature
of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained
by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to
be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the
language. Why else were some of the limitations found in
the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also
in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use
any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a
fair and just interpretation. In considering this question,
then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are
expounding.
============================================================
Discuss the US Constitution, current events and more
... empty message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Discuss Boortz (show and site www.boortz.com)
... empty message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
