Jerry Falwell Thinks Bush is Obeying the Constitution?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No other part of the government can intrude on the others.

Is there any reasonable check on SCOTUS power then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, yes... the President is in charge of enforcing the laws. He can always pull a Jackson and say enforce it yourself.

I guess the main critique lately is that SCOTUS is intruding on Congress' powers by 'legislating'. But the only recource is the President ignoring them OR (and this is always fun) denying the SCOTUS jurisdiction to hear cases outside what is specified by the Constitution.

[DuncanK]

You always have the army Mr. President.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

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

Then you're contradicting yourself...par for the course. What would constitute an intrusion if every branch of government can legislate?

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.

LOL, where in the 16th Amendment does it say Congress can spend money on whatever it wants? It doesn't, which is why you are now "combining" an amendment that does exist with with a fictional "spending" clause. Where is this "spending" clause? Explain why the Constitution says Congress has the power to fund a navy if Congress can already spend money on whatever it wants according to you.

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.

Most of the alphabet agencies are unconstitutional. Sure, show us how the inter-state commerce clause authorises the DEA. And don't give us that Republicrap that since money is involved, everything involving money qualifies as inter-state commerce.

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.

No Founders put forward arguments in favor of adopting the Constitution that contradicted the Federalist Papers, therefore, those papers are the benchmark for understanding the Constitution when confused people can't figure out what it says. Yes, Imran, I'll take the word of James Madison over the word of non-existent Founders who opposed his arguments.

It doesn't say they can't, ergo they have that power.

Then like I said, there is no point in a Constitution enumerating and appointing powers to the different branches of government. The Constitution says all legislation begins in the House. Do you read that and conclude the President, the SCOTUS, you, me, and every John Doe can initiate federal legislation too because the Constitution doesn't say we can't? Sheesh.

They cannot give away all of their power, but if they wish to give the power of creating regulations to agencies, they sure can.

Why not? You just said they can give away power, so why not all their power? If those regulations have the force of law, i.e., regulations concerning our behavior, then they don't have the power to turn bureaucrats into legislators. All legislation begins in the House, not with our friendly bureaucrat.

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

Congress writes the laws, the President vetoes or enforces the laws. If those regulations apply to the citizenry, then Congress has to write them. Btw, the President doesn't enact all the regulations dealing with the agencies under him, bureaucrats write them - and that is unconstitutional.

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

Propaganda has the connotation of deceit and I certainly would not call the Federalist Papers propaganda when the same word has been applied to the rants of Hitler and Goebels.

Because it doesn't say what declaring war IS!

Yeah, the Framers were ignorant of what declaring war meant, and Clinton wanted to debate the meaning of "is".

A statute saying that the Congress agrees with the President taking any action against some country can suffice. But it might not.

Lol, so a declaration of war might not actually be a declaration of war?

You are sooo deluded.

So you believe both interpretations are right?

I guess the main critique lately is that SCOTUS is intruding on Congress' powers by 'legislating'. But the only recource is the President ignoring them OR (and this is always fun) denying the SCOTUS jurisdiction to hear cases outside what is specified by the Constitution.

But according to you, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say the SCOTUS can't legislate, then it can legislate.

Imran, you need to read the 10th Amendment and spend some time thinking about what it means by "those powers not delegated".

[DuncanK]

Imran went to law school. I think he has read the Constitution

[Imran Siddiqui]

What would constitute an intrusion if every branch of government can legislate?

Um... When Congress gives executive branch groups regulatory powers the executive branch is NOT intruding on Congress' powers. You cannot intrude on A, if you are given A.

where in the 16th Amendment does it say Congress can spend money on whatever it wants? It doesn't, which is why you are now "combining" an amendment that does exist with with a fictional "spending" clause. Where is this "spending" clause?

I'll also tell you to get a Constitutional Law textbook.

16th says the government can tax. Under Art 1, Sec 1, Clause 1, Congress can spend US money on anything it deems for the common defense or general welfare.

Explain why the Constitution says Congress has the power to fund a navy if Congress can already spend money on whatever it wants according to you.

I assume you are refering to Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 13:

To provide and maintain a Navy

This clause gives Congress the power to have a federal navy, which under the Articles of Confederation, they did not! The federal government didn't even have their own army (it was only state militias). All this clause does is give the federal government the power to have a FEDERAL navy.

Sure, show us how the inter-state commerce clause authorises the DEA

Simple, drugs are usually NOT intrastate goods. They go across borders much more than not. And secondly, drugs interfere with commerce because the people that use them are less productive.

Come on, berz, that was amazingly simple.

Yes, Imran, I'll take the word of James Madison over the word of non-existent Founders who opposed his arguments.

And the problem of legislative history reveals itself.

there is no point in a Constitution enumerating and appointing powers to the different branches of government.

Why? Constitution gives Congress powers, but doesn't say those powers cannot be partially ceded to other branches to carry out those laws (ie, EXECUTE those laws). What do you think those 'alphabet' agencies do by their regulations? They execute the statutes Congress has passed.

You just said they can give away power, so why not all their power?

Because the Supreme Court said so.

Propaganda has the connotation of deceit

Your ignorant connotation of the word is totally irrelevant.

Lol, so a declaration of war might not actually be a declaration of war?

What is a declaration of war? How do you 'declare war'?

So you believe both interpretations are right?

Yes, both can be right. Whichever one wins depends on the composition of the court.

if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say the SCOTUS can't legislate, then it can legislate.

SCOTUS cannot intrude on Congress' power, when Congress hasn't given them that power.

However, Congress, by its inaction after Marbury has given SCOTUS the power.

you need to read the 10th Amendment and spend some time thinking about what it means by "those powers not delegated".

I already have. You need to read the rest of the Constitution and think about what delegated powers actually mean.

Imran went to law school. I think he has read the Constitution

Yep... and you'd be suprised at how much ignorance based on the Constitution could have been avoided if people took a Con Law class in law school. Even Con Law classes in college do not do justice.

[David Floyd]

Um... When Congress gives executive branch groups regulatory powers the executive branch is NOT intruding on Congress' powers. You cannot intrude on A, if you are given A.

But you're missing the point. Granting another branch of government part of your power IS intruding on separation of powers.

16th says the government can tax. Under Art 1, Sec 1, Clause 1, Congress can spend US money on anything it deems for the common defense or general welfare.

Then, again, as berzerker said, there is absolutely no point to specific powers, such as the power to maintain an army, or things of that nature.

This clause gives Congress the power to have a federal navy, which under the Articles of Confederation, they did not! The federal government didn't even have their own army (it was only state militias). All this clause does is give the federal government the power to have a FEDERAL navy.

And the point is, if the federal government can already do anything it wants for the general welfare or common defense, this power is obviously superfluous. If your interpretation is what was intended, surely the Founders wouldn't have wasted their time with superflous powers, right?

Simple, drugs are usually NOT intrastate goods. They go across borders much more than not. And secondly, drugs interfere with commerce because the people that use them are less productive.

So your argument is that the federal government can regulate anything that makes me less productive?

In theory, then, the federal government could ban computer games under interstate commerce? Or what about books? Reading a lot makes me less productive. Maybe the federal government should be able to ban hour lunch breaks, because I'd be so much more productive if I only took a 15 minute break.

Come on. Even if you are able to twist the words around so that they mean what you want them to, you must admit that it's highly unlikely that was the intent.

Constitution gives Congress powers, but doesn't say those powers cannot be partially ceded to other branches

And because the Constitution is silent on it, Congress can't do it (nor can any other branch). To assume otherwise makes the presence of specific enumerated powers meaningless.

What is a declaration of war? How do you 'declare war'?

We both know damn well that the Founders did not want the US getting involved in foreign wars, or in foreign alliances, and that their intent was to require a specific declaration of war. You declare war by passing a bill of some sort containing clear language setting forth the fact that a state of war exists. You do not declare war by trying to transfer your warmaking power to the President, which you cannot do.

A declaration of war is necessarily simply that: a declaration of war. This is clearly what was intended, regardless of how lawyers and judges try to twist the language.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But you're missing the point. Granting another branch of government part of your power IS intruding on separation of powers.

You can't intrude on something when it is granted to you. When I invite you to my house, you are not intruding on my property once you enter.

Then, again, as berzerker said, there is absolutely no point to specific powers, such as the power to maintain an army, or things of that nature.

Power to maintain an army is a different thing. What that clause does is assert the power that the federal government can raise a true federal army, and the states can't. It is basically asserting federal dominence over the states.

And the point is, if the federal government can already do anything it wants for the general welfare or common defense, this power is obviously superfluous.

Once again, you misunderstand the clause. What it does is assert the supremacy of the federal government over state government (in something that the Supremecy Clause would not be useful in).

So your argument is that the federal government can regulate anything that makes me less productive?

Well that argument has been validated by the Supreme Court, if persuasive enough.

In theory, then, the federal government could ban computer games under interstate commerce? Or what about books? Reading a lot makes me less productive.

DUH! But it doesn't NEED the 'productive' argument to do so. Computer games AND books are involved in interstate commerce .

Maybe the federal government should be able to ban hour lunch breaks, because I'd be so much more productive if I only took a 15 minute break.

Actually you'd probably be less productive with a 15 instead of an hour long break. Breaks rejuvenate people, so the SC would probably end up saying the 'productive' argument is unpersuasive here. Basically the tests for the Commerce Clause are what the SCOTUS says they are.

However, in terms of drugs, the SC would probably uphold it. Because there is a good argument that using drugs makes you less productive in the workforce.

Come on. Even if you are able to twist the words around so that they mean what you want them to, you must admit that it's highly unlikely that was the intent.

Why does intent matter? I've never been a fan of legislative intent, because it is one of those things that is twisted around FAR more than words.

And because the Constitution is silent on it, Congress can't do it (nor can any other branch). To assume otherwise makes the presence of specific enumerated powers meaningless.

Au contraire. The SC has said they can. They can give consent for a war, but allow the President to decide when war should be started (due to the nature of foreign affairs). They can pass laws and then say that regulatory agencies, while executing those laws, can pass regulations to further the purpose of those laws.

The Constitution isn't an exhaustive list and has never been one.

Btw, you keep saying that the rest of Art 1, Sec 8 would be rendered meaningless. Can you tell me, according to your view of the Constitution what 'meaning' the General Welfare Clause has (... and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...)? And after all, it must have SOME meaning, right?

Are you one of those people that believe SCOTUS has no right to declare laws unconstitutional because the Constitution does say they can... and at the same time believe that Congress passes way too many unconstitutional laws .

We both know damn well that the Founders did not want the US getting involved in foreign wars, or in foreign alliances, and that their intent was to require a specific declaration of war.

Once again, I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT INTENT!

A declaration of war is necessarily simply that: a declaration of war.

Why isn't Congress, saying that they will back the President whenever he decides to begin a war, declaring war?

---

Could it be Floyd that you are confusing 'Right or Wrong' with 'Constitutional'?

[David Floyd]

You can't intrude on something when it is granted to you. When I invite you to my house, you are not intruding on my property once you enter.

Sure, but you have the power to invite me in. One branch of the government doesn't have the power to transfer their exclusive powers to another branch.

Power to maintain an army is a different thing. What that clause does is assert the power that the federal government can raise a true federal army, and the states can't. It is basically asserting federal dominence over the states.

Umm, how does this statement,

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

say that a state can't raise an army?

Well that argument has been validated by the Supreme Court, if persuasive enough.

Lot's of arguments have been validated by SCOTUS. That doesn't make them right.

DUH! But it doesn't NEED the 'productive' argument to do so. Computer games AND books are involved in interstate commerce

So your position is that Congress could pass a law limited how much time I can spend playing computer games each day?

Surely you don't think that was the intent of the Founders? Oh, I know you don't care about intent, but just answer the question - do you think the Founders wanted the federal government to be able to regulate my private life?

Why does intent matter?

Clearly because those who write laws have a better feel for what they mean than judges 100 years later.

Au contraire. The SC has said they can. They can give consent for a war, but allow the President to decide when war should be started (due to the nature of foreign affairs). They can pass laws and then say that regulatory agencies, while executing those laws, can pass regulations to further the purpose of those laws.

SCOTUS has said lots of things. Such as "separate but equal".

The Constitution isn't an exhaustive list and has never been one.

If you mean an exhaustive list of rights the federal government must protect, you are right. If you mean an exhaustive list of federal powers, then yes, it is.

Can you tell me, according to your view of the Constitution what 'meaning' the General Welfare Clause has (... and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...)? And after all, it must have SOME meaning, right?

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.txt

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/foundingdocs/constitution/studygenwelfare.html

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

http://www.constitutionparty.com/the_general_welfare.htm

http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/healthcarewelfareorsocialsecurity/general.shtml

Try reading a few of those.

Why isn't Congress, saying that they will back the President whenever he decides to begin a war, declaring war?

Because they aren't declaring war. They are saying they will support the President when he declares a war. But this is not only an implied transfer of power from one branch to another, which is unconstitutional, but also a usurpation of power by the President, when he decides to act.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One branch of the government doesn't have the power to transfer their exclusive powers to another branch.

Why not? What is the Constitution prevents that? Where in the Constitution is the seperation of powers stated?

say that a state can't raise an army?

It says that the federal government's power over a federal army invalidates any attempts by the states to formed armed forces. It works hand in hand with Art. 1, Sec. 10, Clause 3.

Lot's of arguments have been validated by SCOTUS. That doesn't make them right.

Yes, actually it does. Read MtG's post about the 'correct' interpretion of a Constitution.

So your position is that Congress could pass a law limited how much time I can spend playing computer games each day?

No, but you didn't ask if Congress could pass a law limiting your gaming time. You asked if 'the federal government could ban computer games under interstate commerce'. STOP CHANGING THE QUESTION . They most definetly can ban any computer game they want.

Clearly because those who write laws have a better feel for what they mean than judges 100 years later.

What the law means change. This is why the 'founders' wanted vague language in the Constitution to make it a 'living document' to be reinterpreted by succeeding generations.

It is not rigid, because if it was, the United States would have fallen long ago.

Try reading a few of those.

And they confirm what I've been saying. The SCOTUS has basically said the 'general welfare' clause allows Congress to spend on what they wish.

As said in your first link:

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

You quote says that Congress can provide for the common Defense and general Welfare by the expenditure of money. What I've been saying all along.

Because they aren't declaring war.

Why not? They believe they are declaring war. The President believes they declared war. Why can't a declaration of war be conditional?

[MrFun]

I'm surprised Jerry Falwell believes Bush is following the Constitution, considering that the Bush administration refuses to legalize lynching of homosexuals.

I mean, according to Falwell, homosexuals were obviously at fault for 9/11. I'm surprised he didn't blame homosexuals for the Columbia disaster.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Um... When Congress gives executive branch groups regulatory powers the executive branch is NOT intruding on Congress' powers. You cannot intrude on A, if you are given A.

Have you noticed how the Constitution contains sections for the Senate, the House, and the President with certain powers ascribed to each body? Where do you think these powers came from? They came from the states and the people. If I give you permission to drive my car, did I give you permission to lend my car to all your friends too? Of course not. Where in the Constitution does it say the House can affirm treaties or court nominees - powers given to the senate? Where does it say the Senate can give the House the power to do the Senate's job? Again, read the 10th Amendment - it say those powers delegated to the federal government belong to the federal government. That means the Constitution, affirmed by the states and the people, authorises Congress certain powers, it is not a blank check to exercise powers that are not authorised by the Constitution - the states and people.

I'll also tell you to get a Constitutional Law textbook.

Telling me to read the writings of people who've subverted the Constitution as proof their subversion is valid is illogical.

16th says the government can tax. Under Art 1, Sec 1, Clause 1, Congress can spend US money on anything it deems for the common defense or general welfare.

No it doesn't, those are, as Madison explained in Federalist # 41, mere chapter headings to be followed by specific powers dealing with the common defense and general welfare specific powers that are made redundant by your argument.

To provide and maintain a Navy

This clause gives Congress the power to have a federal navy, which under the Articles of Confederation, they did not! The federal government didn't even have their own army (it was only state militias). All this clause does is give the federal government the power to have a FEDERAL navy.

Yes, but why give Congress this power if Congress already has the power to spend money on whatever it wants in the name of the general welfare and common defense?

Simple, drugs are usually NOT intrastate goods. They go across borders much more than not.

But the DEA doesn't ask people with drugs if they produced them in their state or not. Look at the DEA busts of people growing pot in California for patients. These people are not engaged in interstate commerce. According to your argument, we didn't need an amendment to allow for alcohol prohibition. Why was an amendment needed to ban booze but not other drugs?

And secondly, drugs interfere with commerce because the people that use them are less productive.

So now Congress has the power to force us to be productive? Hmm...I didn't know the Constitution was a communist document. You're turning the power to regulate interstate commerce into a power to regulate intrastate and non-commerce.

And the problem of legislative history reveals itself.

Once again you are telling us that the opinions of people who violated the Constitution negate the Constitution.

Why? Constitution gives Congress powers, but doesn't say those powers cannot be partially ceded to other branches to carry out those laws (ie, EXECUTE those laws).

That's the point, if Congress is not given the power to share power among the various branches, then why create 3 branches with their own powers?

What do you think those 'alphabet' agencies do by their regulations? They execute the statutes Congress has passed.

Unconstitutional statutes.

Because the Supreme Court said so.

Where? And where in the Constitution does it say the SCOTUS can tell the House it can give some of it's power to the Senate and that both can can give some power to the President?

Your ignorant connotation of the word is totally irrelevant.

That connotation is in the dictionary.

Yes, both can be right. Whichever one wins depends on the composition of the court.

The Alien & Sedition Act is constitutional, and it's unconstitutional too.

SCOTUS cannot intrude on Congress' power, when Congress hasn't given them that power.

And Congress has this power? Where did you find it in the Constitution? Where did the states and the people tell Congress it can give away power granted only to Congress?

I already have. You need to read the rest of the Constitution and think about what delegated powers actually mean.

Delegated powers means powers granted by the states/people. Where did the states/people grant the President the power to declare war if Congress gives him that power? Did the states/people say Congress shall have the power to declare war and that Congress may give that power to the President? No, that's the problem with your analogy about giving someone permission to enter your property, you gave them permission, you did not give them permission to let the neighborhood in as well. The states/people gave Congress permission to declare war, we did not give Congress permission to let other people declare war.

Imran went to law school. I think he has read the Constitution

Yep... and you'd be suprised at how much ignorance based on the Constitution could have been avoided if people took a Con Law class in law school. Even Con Law classes in college do not do justice.

And Bill Clinton taught constitutional law.

You can't intrude on something when it is granted to you. When I invite you to my house, you are not intruding on my property once you enter.

If you invite me into your house and I then invite all my friends too, I have intruded. That is the appropriate analogy since the states/people are the ones who granted the power to declare war, and they gave that power to Congress, not the President. For Congress to have the power to allow the President to declare war, the states/people had to give Congress that power first. They didn't, the Constitution is extremely clear on that.

Power to maintain an army is a different thing. What that clause does is assert the power that the federal government can raise a true federal army, and the states can't. It is basically asserting federal dominence over the states.

Then you'll have to explain why the Constitution mentions state militias if the states can't have armies.

Why does intent matter? I've never been a fan of legislative intent, because it is one of those things that is twisted around FAR more than words.

It matters because many people can't figure out the obvious. But as for twisting words, look at how you and others have twisted "general welfare". How does locking up millions of Americans for using drugs "promote" their welfare while the rest of us suffer increased crime rates because of the black market in drugs? That's the problem with general welfare, it has been changed to, ostensibly, the welfare of the majority at the expense of the minority.

Btw, you keep saying that the rest of Art 1, Sec 8 would be rendered meaningless. Can you tell me, according to your view of the Constitution what 'meaning' the General Welfare Clause has (... and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...)? And after all, it must have SOME meaning, right?

It has the meaning Madison, the author of those words, said it means in Federalist # 41. It is a generalised chapter heading to be followed by enumerated powers that promote the general welfare. In the 1790's, Madison was a member of the House and someone from Maryland introduced an appropriation to provide French refugees money from the treasury to start over in the USA. Madison said he could not put his finger on that power authorising Congress to provide charity. And he further added that if that appropriation was allowed to pass, there would be no end to the mischief of politicians buying votes with money from the treasury. Tell us Imran, why did we need a 13th Amendment to abolish slavery if Congress had the power to do whatever it wanted in the name of the general welfare?

What the law means change. This is why the 'founders' wanted vague language in the Constitution to make it a 'living document' to be reinterpreted by succeeding generations.

It is not rigid, because if it was, the United States would have fallen long ago.

Then I guess the amendment process they put in the Constitution was meaningless too if we can merely re-interpret the Constitution to suit our needs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A. The power to declare war DOES NOT come from the states. A great discussion of this is in US v. Curtiss-Wright. Foreign powers transfered directly from the Crown of Great Britain to the federal government of the United States, which is why foriegn powers are different than domestic powers. The states NEVER had foreign power rights... ever.

B. General welfare is in relation to spending. Therefore your silly comparison to abolishing slavery has no merit as argument. Congress could, however, entice the states to abolish slavery by offering them money to do so. That would definetly be valid under the general welfare section of the spending clause.

C. Why do Madison's words have any more power than anyone else's? Why do his words have more power than the first three President's of the United States, who created a cabinet (Washington), passed laws restricting dissent (Adams), and added and subdivided property (Jefferson), even though none of that is explicitly stated in the Constitution? Why should I listen to Madison, when other 'founders' read the Constitution as being open?

D. Drug laws are not based on general welfare clause. You speak so much about twisting words around while doing it. I never said that everything was based on general welfare, just spending. Drug laws are based on the commerce clause.

E. The Constitution has been interpreted as having loose seperation of powers. The line between Congress and President is blurry, and just because it doesn't say Congress cannot give up some minor part of its powers, doesn't mean it can't. After all, the Constitution also doesn't say that SCOTUS can declare Congressional laws unconstitutional and it also doesn't say that you can join new land and create territories and states from that new land, at least not explicitly.

F. YES, the Alien and Sedition Acts can be Constitutional and unconstitutional based on who you talk to. That is the beauty of a vague document.... it adapts over time.