rabble wrote:Could anyone who's read those books please tell me what the ninja's talking about?
I always thought the constitution and the bill of rights was all about defining what the government could and could not do to its citizens, not that it was all about letting them do whatever the hell they wanted to.
I'm fine with either theory, I just wish ninja had a better argument than "read these books."
I think it's mostly a semantic argument to be honest. Ronald Reagan once taunted Gorby (no way I'll spell his name right) by stating that the Soviet Constitution spelled out what the government allowed it's people to do, while the US Constitution spelled out what the people allowed their government to do.
In theory, since we are a government of, for and by the people it would seem both interpretations are correct. As a matter of practice several of the first 10 amendments specifically state what rights the government cannot infringe on, and some specifically states rights the citizen's have. And the 9th and 10th pretty much state that if the government can't just give itself more power.