>> The founding fathers were, for the most part, rich white landowners
> who wished to establish a form of government that protected their way
> of life. Remember, in most of the states, non-landowners were
> disenfranchised, and there was no direct voting for senators or
> president. Our concept of "the people" has evolved considerably
> beyond that, and "the intentions of the founding fathers" should be
> read in the circumstances of their time.
>
This "politically correct" revisionism is not even applicable here. So I
won't even waste time dicrediting it here. Trying to vilify the Founding
Fathers to justify violating the
Constitution is ludicrous! We have enacted ammendments to account for
the situations you mentioned. Reinterpretation of intentions is not a
valid argument for violating Costitutional Law. The proper way to solve
this dilema is to call a Constitutional Convention and repeal or ammend
the portions society no longer accepts. When you get the requisite
number of states to sign on, then make your "evil founders" argument. Until
then, the Constitution stands as written. Live with it.
> I grew up in the 40's and 50's, and can assure you that the abuses of
> state governments, particularly in the area of civil rights, paled in
> comparision to anything contemplated by the power-mad federal
> bureacracy.
>
So? Just because the states broke the law it's OK for the feds to break
"little laws"? Something is right or wrong, and when defined as such it
should be treated appropriatly. If criminal A has commited 10 murders
and criminal B has committed 4, does that make criminal b "less" of a
murderer? Come on, past abuses do not justify "its not so bad" to allow
rampant federal agencies to run roughshod over the citizen's of this country.
Cheers,
Andy