Monday, July 12, 2010

ANOTHER ARGUMENT AGAINST "ORIGINAL INTENT"

(h/t Anthony Lewis at the NYRB)

Wingers have been asking "but where in the Constitution does it say to create Social Security" or some other federal program they detest. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice Marshall gave the rebuttal to this foolish notion:
The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, as far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done by confiding the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of Congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conducive to the end. This provision is made in a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which government should, in all future time, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur.

No comments: