Re: ELDRED

interesting, the congress has powers, the people have the ultimate authority to grant and to take away the powers. So long as the congress limits its exercise of powers to those specifically granted to the three branches of government by the collective and individual rights of man..and so long as the collective and individual man(homo sapiens) is satisfied with the exercise of that power within the authorized scope?

What I cannot understand is the Supreme courts avoidance in considering the underlying "rights of man" in any constitutional question? the question of the scope of the authoritive grant would, it would seem, in conflicts which arise between the authority granted to government and the authority reserved exclusively to mankind; and to rights granted to non humans as opposed to rights granted to others, to those rights, held inalienable and unique to humanity.

I presume an essential assumption is: the living humans, are the representatives of mankind for the purpose of deciding the scope of the authorities conveyed. It will be the living humans who will be called to oversee the performance of their government and to enforce the fiduciary obligations of those who are allowed to operate the human empowered government.

That must be why Art. 5 does not limit the ways in which the constitution can be amended? It merely provides safe harbours ...? I have always wanted to understand this better? Thanks for bring it up. sterling

sterling

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Dodi Schultz wrote:

>
> Keith Handley writes,
>
> >> The Congress does not have rights; it has powers.
>
> Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.
>
> SCOTUS said that Congress was exercising Constitutionally granted *powers*
> when it enacted the CTEA.
>
> Okay? ;-)
>
> --DS
>
Received on Tue Jan 28 2003 - 03:26:47 GMT