In partial support of nirvana, I agree that a lot of things the federal government has done since the New Deal have been unconstitutional, but I agree with you that most of those will never be rolled back because it would disrupt society.
The danger is that the consequences of government sticking its fingers into almost everything will eventually become worse than the disruption that would be caused by a reset.
Do you think in this case what the FBI did is a legitimate exercise of federal power? If not, where do you find a limit to government power forbidding them from doing this? It's the same exercise that nirvana is engaged in: finding justification for excluding certain things from government power, when there is no longer any principled way of making that determination. Whether something becomes a law and is considered constitutional depends on the mood of Congress and the Supreme Court. Nothing more. In some cases well-grounded principles can be found. In most cases they cannot.
We're not talking about mistakes. We're talking about crimes.
Under federal law, enforcing any laws that are not constitutionally enacted by federal employees, while armed, is a felony. This makes every TSA agent who is armed a felon. The unarmed ones are effectively felons as well due to the cumulative sentences for their crimes.
It doesn't matter that the congress and the president signed a law creating the TSA, under Mabury vs. Madison unconstitutional laws are null and void the moment they are passed. (which makes your lie about my position on Mabury obviously dishonest, but then, what should I expect from you?)
I'm unlikely to respond because you always post the same stuff, generally ad hominem, and you never defend your points. But your running around and engaging in ad hominem is apparently not embarrassing enough even when others point it out. You and the others doing the same thing destroyed HN, you've made rational discussion impossible.
The danger is that the consequences of government sticking its fingers into almost everything will eventually become worse than the disruption that would be caused by a reset.
Do you think in this case what the FBI did is a legitimate exercise of federal power? If not, where do you find a limit to government power forbidding them from doing this? It's the same exercise that nirvana is engaged in: finding justification for excluding certain things from government power, when there is no longer any principled way of making that determination. Whether something becomes a law and is considered constitutional depends on the mood of Congress and the Supreme Court. Nothing more. In some cases well-grounded principles can be found. In most cases they cannot.