Jerry Falwell Thinks Bush is Obeying the Constitution?

[David Floyd]

Cite, please.

Damn. Honestly I can't remember. I know I saw it somewhere, but it isn't necessarily integral to my argument anyway, because I don't tend to rely on actual SCOTUS decisions, which mostly tend to be bull****.

[David Floyd]

This is interesting link re: General Welfare Clause, though.

http://laissezfairebooks.com/index.cfm?eid=481&RequestTimeout=500

And another:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/foleyx-browse?id=General%20Welfare%20Clause

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Damn. Honestly I can't remember. I know I saw it somewhere, but it isn't necessarily integral to my argument anyway, because I don't tend to rely on actual SCOTUS decisions, which mostly tend to be bull****.

Yes, of course some libertarian self-appointed expert is more of a valid authority on the Constitution than those (the Congress and secondarily the Judiciary) who are empowered by the Constitution to interpret it's meaning.

Like it or not, since Marbury v. Madison and judicial review has become accepted, SCOTUS is the only relevant final authority for determining what is or isn't constitutional. The initial authority lies with the Congress itself, originally as representatives of the States and the People, now as representatives (at least in theory, but they keep getting elected) of the People.

[DinoDoc]

Sometimes I wish the Court would revive the "Political Question Doctrine."

[David Floyd]

Yes, of course some libertarian self-appointed expert is more of a valid authority on the Constitution than those (the Congress and secondarily the Judiciary) who are empowered by the Constitution to interpret it's meaning.

I think we can both agree that there have been plenty of ridiculous SCOTUS decisions, that either of us could have done better with.

[Berzerker]

DroseDARS -

Uh, didn't say it was in the constitution.

Which is kind of important for determining if it's constitutional.

And it most certainly IS NOT unconstitutional.

Yes it is, Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. The War Powers Act lets the President start wars as long as he notifies Congress after the fact (as if they couldn't figure that out). The War Powers Act allows for what the Framers were trying to avoid by giving Congress the power to declare war, they didn't want one person having the power.

After the debacle of Vietnam, Congress wanted to reassert it's powers regarding foreign policy.

Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

They contended the framers never intended for future presidents getting us into UNDECLARED wars.

And how does the War Powers Act prevent that? Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Serbia were all undeclared wars.

The War Powers Act of '73 forces every president since to reconsider engaging in conflicts that can't be resolved in one month's time using conventional forces.

And the Constitution says the President can declare wars if they last a month or less?

Almost every pres. has notified Congress of action and they've given their blessings before (though often short of a declaration of war).

After the actual war started, gee, who wants to be labeled traitor or whatever for not supporting US troops already engaged in a war.

[Berzerker]

MtG -

Yes, of course some libertarian self-appointed expert is more of a valid authority on the Constitution than those (the Congress and secondarily the Judiciary) who are empowered by the Constitution to interpret it's meaning.

Does that mean you rely entirely on Congress to tell you what the Constitution says? If Congress wants to ignore the Constitution, what chance is there for people who actually support the Constitution to get on the judiciary? I, as a citizen of this country, and as a libertarian, can read and understand the Constitution and don't need the SCOTUS to tell me it means the opposite of what it says. The fact this libertarian scholar you seem to think is unqualified to interpret the Constitution echoes James Madison's "interpretation" of the Constitution is a paradox created by your argument.

Like it or not, since Marbury v. Madison and judicial review has become accepted, SCOTUS is the only relevant final authority for determining what is or isn't constitutional.

And the SCOTUS is comprised of people nominated and confirmed by the President and Senate. But when Thomas Jefferson became President, he refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Act passed under the Adam's administration because he said it was unconstitutional. He didn't wait for the SCOTUS to tell him what the Constitution says. You've only explained why we no longer have constitutional government, not that all these unconstitutional programs are in fact, constitutional.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

President as Commander in Chief MAKES wars, or else there is no power as Commander in Cheif.

CinC gives the President the power to conduct wars that Congress declares, not declare war.

And yes Congress CAN cede some of their powers if they wish by simple law.

And you found this power to cede powers where in the Constitution?

Intent? Why aren't you using a textual argument?

If the separation of powers is fictional, then why did the Framers list certain powers under the legislative domain of Congress and other powers under the executive? Congress has the power to declare war. That statement makes no sense without a separartion of powers.

Seperation of powers is implied, but it ain't strict. Congress can give regulatory powers (which border on legislation) without problems.

It is strict, CONGRESS has the power to declare war. How do you read that and conclude it is ambiguous as to whom has the power?

Unfortunetly for you, no one close to being on the Supreme Court (or a Court of Appeals) agrees. 'Social Security' programs and departments have been held constitutional (according to the 17th Amendment and then Congress being allowed to spend money however they wish).

Most of Congress wants to ignore the Constitution when it conflicts with their desires, so citing people who want to ignore the Constitution as proof their conduct is constitutional is problematic. And where in the 17th Amendment (or anywhere in the Constitution) does it say Congress can spend money on whatever it wants? You can't find that power in the Constitution, that's why you're telling us the Constitution means whatever the SCOTUS wants it to mean.

No, especially when it only THREE founders, who did not speak for everyone. The writers of the Federalist did NOT wish for their words to be considered what the Constitution was about... it was simply propaganda.

"Propaganda"? It was the pro-federalist argument to convince Americans to adopt the Constitution. Yeah, ask scholars if the Federalist Papers are meaningless when trying to understand the Constitution. Who is the Father of the Constitution? James Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. But you think his opinions are less relevant than Bill Clinton's?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
MtG -

Does that mean you rely entirely on Congress to tell you what the Constitution says? If Congress wants to ignore the Constitution, what chance is there for people who actually support the Constitution to get on the judiciary? I, as a citizen of this country, and as a libertarian, can read and understand the Constitution and don't need the SCOTUS to tell me it means the opposite of what it says. The fact this libertarian scholar you seem to think is unqualified to interpret the Constitution echoes James Madison's "interpretation" of the Constitution is a paradox created by your argument.

Also answering David's point about SCOTUS decisions that are ridiculous: Yes, that's true, BUT, the only relevant interpretations are those that have the force of law, i.e. those made by whom the Constitution grants that authority.

Madison (at the time of writing the Federalist papers)didn't serve in Congress, nor did he sit on SCOTUS, so his interpretation of his vision of what the Constitution means is a nice reference for scholars to consider, but it has no force behind it. When Madison served in a capacity provided for by the Constitution under Articles I, II, or III, he then had a position of primary authority, until he left office.

And the SCOTUS is comprised of people nominated and confirmed by the President and Senate. But when Thomas Jefferson became President, he refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Act passed under the Adam's administration because he said it was unconstitutional. He didn't wait for the SCOTUS to tell him what the Constitution says. You've only explained why we no longer have constitutional government, not that all these unconstitutional programs are in fact, constitutional.

Jefferson (as the constitutional executive officer of the United States) made his own interpretation. The Congress made theirs (under Adams). That's the whole point, that the Constitution is subject to interpretation - it is after all, a relatively vague document, and extremely broad in it's scope. The ultimate remedy lies in the hands of the people, who can elect a new Congress, elect a new President, and eventually new Presidents will appoint and new Senates will confirm replacements for all the Article III appointees as they die, retire, or resign. That is the system set up by the Constitution. Originally, the States themselves had a direct role through their governments, in electing Senators.

The basic tenet is that something is constitutional unless (a) it is expressly forbidden or expressly reserved to another level of government by the Constitution; or (b) it is determined to be unconstitutional by those authorities deemed competent under the Constitution to interpret or carry out those actions; or (c) the people elect new legislators or a new executive who brings about result (b); or (d) the subject is addressed by amendment, per the requirements of the Constitution.

[DuncanK]

The Constitution was intended to be interpreted by each generation as that generation sees fit. General welfare means whatever we want it to mean. Too bad Libertarians. What are you going to do about it. Muhahahaha

[Berzerker]

MtG -

Also answering David's point about SCOTUS decisions that are ridiculous: Yes, that's true, BUT, the only relevant interpretations are those that have the force of law, i.e. those made by whom the Constitution grants that authority.

Where in the Constitution does it say only the SCOTUS can interpret the document? Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not what the SCOTUS tells us it means.

Madison (at the time of writing the Federalist papers)didn't serve in Congress, nor did he sit on SCOTUS, so his interpretation of his vision of what the Constitution means is a nice reference for scholars to consider, but it has no force behind it.

There was no SCOTUS at the time of the Federalist Papers. Those papers were the federalist's arguments for adopting the Constitution, so those papers do matter if sincere people disagree about possible interpretations.

When Madison served in a capacity provided for by the Constitution under Articles I, II, or III, he then had a position of primary authority, until he left office.

A Constitution that didn't even exist at the time of the Federalist Papers.

Jefferson (as the constitutional executive officer of the United States) made his own interpretation. The Congress made theirs (under Adams). That's the whole point, that the Constitution is subject to interpretation - it is after all, a relatively vague document, and extremely broad in it's scope.

And one interpretation is right, and the other is wrong. The fact people have different interpretations doesn't mean all interpretations are equally valid or that the interpretation of the SCOTUS, Congress, or the President are automatically superior to all other interpretations. But Jefferson acted on his (correct) interpretation without a need for the SCOTUS to tell him he was right.

The ultimate remedy lies in the hands of the people, who can elect a new Congress, elect a new President, and eventually new Presidents will appoint and new Senates will confirm replacements for all the Article III appointees as they die, retire, or resign.

Or through impeachment, but you're right, Congress is a product of the people. And if the people don't care about the Constitution, then the Constitution will be ignored. But let's not pretend everything the Congress does is constitutional just because the SCOTUS says so.

That is the system set up by the Constitution. Originally, the States themselves had a direct role through their governments, in electing Senators.

Yup, which is why the amendment allowing for the election of senators hurt the prospect for constitutional government by further attacking the 10th Amendment.

The basic tenet is that something is constitutional unless (a) it is expressly forbidden or expressly reserved to another level of government by the Constitution; or (b) it is determined to be unconstitutional by those authorities deemed competent under the Constitution to interpret or carry out those actions; or (c) the people elect new legislators or a new executive who brings about result (b); or (d) the subject is addressed by amendment, per the requirements of the Constitution.

(A) and (C) are the problems, the 10th Amendment is largely ignored, and the majority doesn't care.

[Arrian]

Responding to the thread title, having not read a single post:

Who the hell gives a flying **** what Jerry Falwell thinks?

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Where in the Constitution does it say only the SCOTUS can interpret the document?

It doesn't. Most people seem to think Marbury v Madison was a good decision though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then there is no point to separation of powers.

Um.. yes there is. No other part of the government can intrude on the others.

Congress has explicitly stated that their authorization is NOT a declaration of war

WHEN? Congress gave the President power to deal with Iraq. Nothing in the bill said it was not an authorization of war. Certain Congressmen saying it doesn't means jack. The text of the statute is the only thing that matters.

It should be, and I would think the vast majority of the founders would agree with me.

a) That's you opinion
b) The founders are dead, and even if they weren't they left the Constitution vague so it could be interpreted anew with successive generations.

Yes, yes but Congress can't Constitutionally pass those types of laws to begin with.

WHO SAYS?!

Congress certainly cannot spend money any way that it wishes.

Unless where explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, the Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 can spend the money it makes in any way, where that spending would used for the common defense or to promote the general welfare. This is how the court has interpreted the Tax and Spending Clause since the beginning!

What does the direct election of Senators have to do with this topic, by the way?

Sorry, I meant 16!!

"The Congress shal have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"

Combining the 16th Amendment and the Taxing and Spending Clause: They can tax your income and then spread that money to promote the welfare of the US. THERE is your justification for Social Security.

MtG:

Oh, and Berz & Floyd: NAME any agency that you think that does unconstitutional things (because to say agencies in general are unconstitutional is amazingly ignorant), and I'll show you where the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the 14 Amendment comes into play.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Those papers were the federalist's arguments for adopting the Constitution, so those papers do matter if sincere people disagree about possible interpretations.

Those papers were THREE PEOPLE'S arguments for adopting the Constitution. To say they are 'The Founders' beliefs is akin to taking three people out of 30 who sponsored a law and saying their statements were what the whole agreed to.

And you found this power to cede powers where in the Constitution?

It doesn't say they can't, ergo they have that power. They cannot give away all of their power, but if they wish to give the power of creating regulations to agencies, they sure can.

And btw, Regulations are simply executive actions dealing with vague legislative statutes.

"Propaganda"? It was the pro-federalist argument to convince Americans to adopt the Constitution.

Me thinks you need to find out the defintion of propaganda.

CONGRESS has the power to declare war. How do you read that and conclude it is ambiguous as to whom has the power?

Because it doesn't say what declaring war IS! A statute saying that the Congress agrees with the President taking any action against some country can suffice. But it might not.

And one interpretation is right, and the other is wrong.

You are sooo deluded.