"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> <snip>
>
>>>> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which a
>>>> central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and as
>>>> they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of activities
>>>> to the individual states or the citizens of those states.
>
>>> Glorfindel:
>
>>> But it does not say that the citizens have to act only
>>> at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of
>>> the United States as a whole, and can act at a national
>>> level in the persons of their congressional representatives.
>
>
>> Congress may not pass laws that establish things not permitted to the
>> federal government in the Constitution.
>
> However, there is nothing in the Constitution which
> does not permit the national government to set up national
> parks.
The point I think Leif was trying to get across to you is that there is
nothing in the Constitution that allows it....
The presence of some specific don'ts does not mean that if they are not in
there they are OK....
>
> Some things are not permitted, for example to establish a state
> religion. These things are explicitly stated in the Constitution
> or the Bill of Rights. Things which do not violate any of the
> provisions stated in the Constitution can be established by the
> authority given to the people, by the elected representatives
> of the people in Congress.
Wrong... The authority is not given "TO"' the people it is derived "FROM"
the people. They give the authority "TO" the government... not through their
representatives, but through the rule of law... Constitutional Law.
Otherwise we have government by people, not government by law.
> If someone believes a specific
> law is unconstitutional, it can be challenged in court. That's
> what the legal system is for: to determine if something is
> constitutional or not.
>
> If you think national parks are unconstitutional, hire a lawyer
> and challenge the law. Don't you think you would be better
> occupied challenging the constitutionality of Bush's wiretapping
> scheme?
No I don't... but if you do, go for it!