No, BOTH are in the Constitution, and not only in the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments. For example, in Article One:
3.7 Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: . . .
5.4 Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
6.2 No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Not at all. I'm saying that if we're going to have a center of legalized Power, with people given the legal "right" to coerce others with impunity, those coercive powers had damn well better be listed carefully and restricted just as carefully, including with definite and severe punishment for misuse and for going outside the prescribed Powers.
Early Americans seemed to feel the same way, and thus their State representatives refused to sign off on the Constitution without the added and incorporated Bill of Rights.
Today's problems make clear the Founders and everyone else involved in crafting the Constitution did not go far enough in restraining the powers delegated to the federal government. One example pertinent to our situation today: one of the Founders (Benjamin Rush) famously wanted medical freedom specifically protected in the Constitution. Imagine how much trouble and pain THAT might have saved us.
From link above:
"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an underground dictatorship....To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic....The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."
The quote above is often attributed to one of the Founding Fathers of the Republic, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence. But is this exactly what he wrote?
These words do encapsulate Dr. Rush's viewpoint on medical freedom. However, no one has actually found this exact quote in any of his many writings. [etc]
No, BOTH are in the Constitution, and not only in the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments. For example, in Article One:
etc.
Not at all. I'm saying that if we're going to have a center of legalized Power, with people given the legal "right" to coerce others with impunity, those coercive powers had damn well better be listed carefully and restricted just as carefully, including with definite and severe punishment for misuse and for going outside the prescribed Powers.
Early Americans seemed to feel the same way, and thus their State representatives refused to sign off on the Constitution without the added and incorporated Bill of Rights.
Today's problems make clear the Founders and everyone else involved in crafting the Constitution did not go far enough in restraining the powers delegated to the federal government. One example pertinent to our situation today: one of the Founders (Benjamin Rush) famously wanted medical freedom specifically protected in the Constitution. Imagine how much trouble and pain THAT might have saved us.
From link above: