"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

In that case, Ed, you certainly should be able to disearn what entities are
in the Constitution and which is not. Take for example the department of
Education, which is alternatively praised and then threatened with
disbandment. Limiting Federal powers to those entities that are
Constitutional in nature is at the heart of libertarian thought. Wheras
through republican thinking, one might come to the conclusion that Federal
power should be limited to those things the States are unable to deal with;
under a civil free society. Then there is the democratic idea that Federal
power should be unlimited and seek to satisfy the desires of the masses. I
don't see how you can convey the meaning of this experiment in democracy
without understanding the differences in the basic ideas of our Republic.

Please educate us, educated one.

In discerning "what entities are in the Constitution" you will find
upon searching for the Cabinet--and all of the agencies included--that
not a single one of them is mentioned. Not only do you not find NASA
or DOT or DOE which you mention, you also don't find State, Defense,
the AG, SG, Interior, et. al. Not a one. You also don't find NSA--and
didn't until Eisenhower; or CIA, not till Truman, or SEC or FDA or any
mention of the Executive Office of the President. All you find listed
for the Executive branch is a Prez and VP. They are charged with a
number of functions and given the authority to organize as they see
fit to accomplish them.

Your initial description of NASA as an "extra-Constitutional entity"
is probably linquistically correct in that it is an agency not
described in the document, but legally incorrect in that agencies
would be described as "Constitutional" or un-Constitutional.

Libertarian thought, while enlightening in some instances it certainly
would create a workload for the President if it disbanded those
entities which are not described in the Constitution. Wonder how long
it would take George Dubya to deliver the mail to the entire country
with just him and Cheney doing the job?

Your description of (R)epublican "thinking" as the Feds only doing
what the States can't is really the "Anti-Federalist" thinking of
Thomas Jefferson--father of the Democratic Party. And your description
of the (D)emocratic idea that Federal power should be unlimited and
seek to satisfy the masses is really the great shift instituted by FDR
in response to the political process. The people in the depths of the
Great Depression demanded that the great White Father in Washington
rescue them--and, of course he responded. Today, both Republicans and
Democrats routinely beg Washington to solve every problem that society
encounters.

We are indeed "an experiment in Democracy", but if you examine the
Constitution (which you so freely refer to) you'll see that the
Founding Fathers weren't all that confident in the ability of the
"great unwashed" to govern themselves. Until the 17th Amendment,
ratified in 1913, the Senate was "appointed" by the various state
legislatures--not popularly elected. For the first 126 years of the
Republic, only the House was popularly elected. The Senate, the Prez,
the Judiciary, all were selected by a process that was isolated from
"we the people"--insuring the control of the elites, the Founders
themselves.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038