Posted on 07/03/2023 8:48:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Before you begin wondering if my account was hacked by activists from the Southern Poverty Law Center, allow me to assure you that wasn’t the case. The title is a reference to a recent op-ed from Frank Miele at RealClearPolitics titled, “We Need a Constitution That Means What it Says.” Rather than arguing that the Founding Document was poorly written or that its authors somehow got it wrong, Frank is pointing out that the Supreme Court has taken to ignoring the actual words that were written. Despite receiving many accolades from Constitutional conservatives following recent decisions, some of the rulings we’ve seen were handed down were based on a very revisionist interpretation of the Constitution rather than an originalist one. As a prime example, he points to Moore v. Harper, where the court rejected the so-called “independent state legislature” theory when setting election laws. But as Frank points out, that’s not “a theory.” It’s the literal wording of the Constitution.
The mainstream media (and of course their Democratic Party allies) celebrated the court’s decision in Moore v. Harper that rejected the so-called “independent state legislature” theory. The New York Times called the theory “dangerous.” Vox said the ruling was a “big victory for democracy.” Those who supported the independent state legislature “theory” were called extreme, fringe, radical, and worse. In other words, they were Trump supporters.
The only problem is that if the theory is extreme, then so is the U.S. Constitution, because no matter how much the 6-3 majority insists otherwise, it isn’t a theory at all. It is the plain language of the Constitution. Check it out for yourself.
Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution says specifically, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
The author goes on to note another recent decision regarding the appointment of presidential electors. That’s another case where the Constitution specifically assigns the responsibility for how that process is handled to the legislatures of the states. But it hasn’t actually worked out that way in the modern era.
In reality, the U.S. Constitution has, over the years, been abused more badly than an underage cartel drug mule. And some trends have taken place over such a long period of time that people seem to simply accept them. Take, for example, the rampant abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which has been going on for centuries and has been used to swell the powers of the federal government vastly at the expense of the states.
A careful search of the full federal legal code will find the Commerce Clause referenced in more laws than you can count. That’s because Congress passes a lot of laws that they should have no business passing. Yet if they can point to any instance where money changes hands, they invoke the Commerce Clause. But the Founders wrote that clause envisioning a collection of powerful and occasionally competing states. That’s not how the country evolved, unfortunately. And yet the courts allow Congress to get away with this trick over and over again.
With all that in mind, I would quibble a bit with the wording Frank Miele chose regarding a Consitution that “means what it says.” The document means what the Founders meant when they wrote it. The words remain the same today, but they are being interpreted in different ways that favor more centralized power and less control by the states. Unfortunately, none of the authors have survived to stand and defend themselves in the 21st century. And the people making the final call today see things differently.
All totalitarians abuse written law.
The problem is not the Constitution in any way, shape or form. It has been abused going back further than even Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Choosing senators!! The 17th amendment MUST be repealed. Filth/graft/absolute power.......I suggest treason at those who pretend to practice law in the U.S. senate
They also envisioned an economy where most of what people used would be produced locally, and goods would be relatively generic. They didn't envision an economy where things people used would be produced across the country or across the world, and processed brands replace generic staple goods.
So in your opinion the Commerce Clause is fully validated in any application ?
Nope, the real problem is corrupt politicians who ignore the Constitution.
No. I’m just pointing something out that the writer should deal with.
I doubt that's true. Why did Jefferson write into the Declaration of Independence:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:They were very aware of regional growth of fruits and vegetables, wheat and corn, cotton and barley, fish, trees, coal and sulfur, granite and limestone, etc.
They didn't expect the regions to horde what they had; they expected them to trade what they had to obtain what they did not have.
-PJ
Imported products tended to be luxury goods, and weren’t usually articles of everyday use.
Wheat, cotton, barley, coal, and even imported goods like coffee and tea, were simple goods, not complicated products like cars, or televisions or pharmaceuticals. Regulation wasn’t really required.
Plus, in Jefferson’s day, you’d use the wood outside your house for heating, not coal. You’d use local stone and wood, not marble. If wheat wouldn’t grow, you’d eat corn or buckwheat or rye. You might eat meat that you hadn’t killed, but it didnt come from two thousand miles away. In spite of national and international trade, it was a simpler world.
Certainly there were industries, but their impact on your life wouldn’t have been what it is today.
No, we need a constitution that politicians know, respect and follow.
Why has Congress let the Court keep this power? Because the job of a typical Congressman is simply to be reelected. Having the Court decide on all the controversial issues keeps them from losing votes by having to take sides.
The Constitution did put in a remedy for this inevitable decay of liberty with Article V. Unfortunately it is so powerful a remedy nobody dares to use it because of the fear that the other side will get the upper hand.
“Choosing senators!! The 17th amendment MUST be repealed.”
I read this many times before, but understand why people think this. No matter how the person is placed in the position of power they are supsectable to corruption - they are still a humane.
This is my biggest beef with the Feds. They, through a huge power grab initiated by the SCOTUS (!), have decimated the 10th Amendment into practical non-existence.
What's the way out of this? Educate people on the supremacy of the 10A over the Feds (and their Commerce Clause), as it should be.
Yes, it will take time, but isn't it worth it?
I am sure we agree that once the Court began to apply made up tests, such as whether an activity had an "impact on commerce" or an "effect on commerce," the commerce clas Use became so misshapen that Congress siezed the power to prohibit growing a crop for the owner's own use, i.e. Wickard v Filburn (Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustmen Act so that it could balance the forces of supply and demand in the same manner as Soviet Russia, while the NYT suppressed its awareness of the holomodor, but I digress)
All that being said, the nature of the commerce passing over state borders, whether it be harvested crops or Amazon packages containing electronics, should really not be a salient factor.
The Constitution would surely benefit from an update, to clarify the meaning of certain phrases, but getting there won’t be easy.
For example, the meaning of the word “regulate” has evolved over the years. What once meant “make regular” today implies “micromanage” by our crooked overlords. Clarifying the meaning of the 14th Amendment wouldn’t hurt, either.
But to change even a single word of the Constitution would open EVERY word to meddling and that could be dangerous.
Just the fact that our senators take donations from people from other states (and countries [spit]) is reason enough to repeal the 17th.. The 17th. has made a total mess of things..
We need our republic restored.
The real battle was lost when the “general welfare” and “interstate Commerce” clauses were hijacked.
I don’t think anyone has a reason to blame the founders or even the government officers themselves in a lot of ways for the slow burning of the Constitution. I don’t think the founders were aware of the immense change in the world when they were penning it. The failure is two way and is not in the original document, but what it has been changed into and it’s inability to stay up with the changing world.
The position of politicians changed from the originals. I believe they considered the whole as a unit. Bu they didn’t work for money on this except at certain times.
The Founding Fathers only paid the senators and representatives a ‘per diem’ amount when in session as the founding fathers knew if Congress were ever to be paid salaries (which they could vote to increase themselves), then Congress would no longer be ‘of the people’ but rather ‘above the people’. And by offering themselves a stout workable wage, like today, their business interests (pork) would become a hindrance to the consistency and sometimes fairness of the candidates by buying votes thus supplying the ruling positions with agendas not for the whole. And that’s where the Constitution failed due to it’s own vulnerability and the greed of the people that are running around it. So they traded ruling by other countries rulers for creating politicians that were placing themselves in the same mask. It’s not the document in its origins, it’s the politicians in their questionable business. And now it’s at all levels of government.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.