Brew wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 7:55am:I guess the big difference between the socialist view here and the constitutional view is that there is no provision in the US Constitution for a nationalized healthcare system. I happen to believe in a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.
Aside from the topic at hand, while Jefferson made many verbal efforts to interpret the Constitution, such as what is said about him here, which seem aligned with your post,
Quote:The purpose of a written constitution is entirely defeated if, in interpreting it as a legal document, its provisions are manipulated and worked around so that the document means whatever the manipulators wish. Jefferson recognized this danger and spoke out constantly for careful adherence to the Constitution as written, with changes to be made by amendment, not by tortured and twisted interpretations of the text.
his actions however did not follow strict adherence. And whether any departure from its provisions may constitute a socialistic view, that can be perhaps thought about by his description of the Louisiana Purchase, where he seems fully aware of it being unprovided for, yet consenting its good.
Quote:"[The Louisiana Purchase was] laid before both Houses [of Congress], because both [had] important functions to exercise respecting it. They... [saw] their duty to their country in ratifying and paying for it so as to secure a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their power. The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union. The Executive, in seizing the fugitive occurrence which so much advances the good of their country, have done an act beyond the Constitution. The Legislature in casting behind them metaphysical subtleties and risking themselves like faithful servants, must ratify and pay for it and throw themselves on their country for doing for them unauthorized what we know they would have done for themselves had they been in a situation to do it. It is the case of a guardian investing the money of his ward in purchasing an important adjacent territory and saying to him when of age, I did this for your good; I pretend to no right to bind you. You may disavow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can. I thought it my duty to risk myself for you. But we [were] not disavowed by the nation, and their act of indemnity [confirmed] and [did] not weaken the Constitution by more strongly marking out its lines." --Thomas Jefferson
A key note reoccuring today is that "case of a guardian" that is an untrustful or resentful factor, even considered infringing liberty. But it may have happened back then that, with "their act of indemnity", perhaps not unwise, had made a strengthened America, also providing a breadbasket, despite "unauthorized" and paid for as a nation. He writes his "risk" allowed for whatever criticism, but was not "disavowed".
Wrong or right, he chose with awareness to willingly act out of bounds of the Constitution and acknowledged this "duty" of deciding an "important function" in the "situation".
Actions here have shown departure from strict constructionist views, seemingly differing with the verbal description of the first quote and yet not seemed to "weakened the Constitution", in the circumstance by T. J.'s opinion.
Home
Pages: 1 
