General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSomething for the "strict Constitutionalists"
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7:
To establish Post Offices and post Roads
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html
--
LonePirate
(13,420 posts)unblock
(52,213 posts)i think part of the appeal of "strict" interpretation is that it's so easy to twist words to justify whatever end result you want.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)No offense but the intent of the OP is confusing. If you want them to be strict constructionalists vis-a-vis the USPS and interstate highways does that mean we want to reinforce their arguments on everything else missing from Article 1, Section 8 or subsequent amendment?
I think the safer ground is to NOT reinforce their first principles.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)My belief is that those who claim to be "strict constitutionalists" haven't a clue what they are talking about and this would throw them a bit considering how much RW'ers hate the postal service.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)one of those arguments that loses when it wins.
Still, your basic assertion of arumentum ad absurdum is well-placed. There is certainly much hypocrisy/lack-of-cluefulness in those who would privatize the USPS and road maintenance. I'm just suggesting that if you say, "Let us go here" you present the other side the opportunity to say, "and no further."
In a world of compromise the opposition's end-point should never be your start-point.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That you were very gracious in hearing-out my comments. Thank-you for not taking them as a criticism because they were never intended as such.
I only say this because I've seen/had some very innocuous posts dragged through the vitriol wringer lately and finding people who can accept dialogue for what it is and do so cordially is refreshing.
Your OP brought out a very salient point and I thank-you for courteous replies to my comments.