Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Constitution & Congress: Where’s their power to get involved in Schiavo case?
U.S. Constitution via House of Representatives website ^ | 3/21/05

Posted on 03/21/2005 12:05:39 PM PST by Wolfstar

United States Constitution

Article I. Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; delegated; houseof; power; representatives; schiavo; terri; terrischiavo; us
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 561-569 next last
To: LauraleeBraswell

If Congress is overturning a state court, which court is violating the federal Constitution (such as the 14th amendment's prohibition against state's deny citizens their right to life), then there's no problem with it. Federalism doesn't stand for the proposition that state court's are free to violate the federal constitution. What we object to is federal courts setting policy by perverting the Constitution or ignoring it.


181 posted on 03/21/2005 1:10:31 PM PST by holdonnow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

I notice you don't quote the whole Constitution. Maybe there is something in the Fourteenth Amendment which is germane?


182 posted on 03/21/2005 1:10:36 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters but PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
What about the right to LIFE LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness?

I thought the question was about the US Constitution.
183 posted on 03/21/2005 1:10:49 PM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow
Nobody, but nobody has contended, until you, that the Supreme Court regulates the jurisdiction of the lower courts...

I didn't say that either. You might want to go back and read the words I actually use. I said the Supreme Court governs/manages the lower federal courts, which is just another way of saying they have "administrative direction," as you put it.

184 posted on 03/21/2005 1:10:57 PM PST by Wolfstar (If you can lead, do it. If you can't, follow. If you can't do either, become a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: JoeGar

"His understanding of the constitutional issues was poor."

Poor as compared whom?? I didn't hear the whole show today but had him on in my car on an errand to the store today, as he was speaking of this action by congress being covered under Article III of the US Constitution. I looked it up in my little book on the US Constitution when I returned home, and by golly it was right there in black and white.

The fact is though, Rush was citing a legal expert on the constitution, at that time. I can't recall the name, but I'm sure someone around here does.


185 posted on 03/21/2005 1:11:12 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell (Hillary Rodhamclinton is phonier than a three dollar bill clinton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Congress can do what ever the heck it wants to in regard to the lower Federal Court. Political action does not take place in a vacuum. Read up on the 1789 Judiciary Act and get back to me.

Congress has the power to eradicate the lower courts if they want, heck, they have overturned over 300 Court decisions in the last 40 yrs. Congress has jurisdiction over the Court, and the Court is subject to such regulation and exceptions "as the Congress shall make".parentheses from 'Marbury'
186 posted on 03/21/2005 1:11:55 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow

The courts etc etc etc didn't respect his wishes when this first happened ten years, so he was supposed to remain in his own vegetative state until she passes naturally?
If they had respected his rights from the very beginning his current situation wouldn't appear so unusual.


187 posted on 03/21/2005 1:12:26 PM PST by the herald (Freeeeeeeeeedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: syriacus
The Constitution creates a silhouette when it comes to the judiciary. It is up to Congress to paint the picture. And the idea that this silhouette turns out to be more powerful than the other two branches in almost every respect is absurd.

Letting judges rule the country is a little like parents letting their teenage children run the family.

188 posted on 03/21/2005 1:13:08 PM PST by syriacus (Why ask for physician-assisted-suicide in OR, when you can save money by "peacefully" starving?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

The constant usage of ALL-CAPS is highly unnecessary and comes across as juvenile.


189 posted on 03/21/2005 1:13:19 PM PST by Blzbba (Don't hate the player - hate the game!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdGOP
HUH? Congress CONTROLS the courts? Doesn't that violate separation of powers? What happened to three branches of government?

No. Congress has equal control over the Executive branch as well -- i.e., the power of the purse. The Constitution only calls for a Supreme court and does not even specify how many justices there should be. All of the lower Federal Courts are creations of Congress as are all of the Executive branch agencies. Congress can make more of them if it chooses, or it can abolish them all if it chooses.

190 posted on 03/21/2005 1:13:52 PM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: eastsider

Um, speak for them when incapacitated. Are you married?


191 posted on 03/21/2005 1:15:09 PM PST by the herald (Freeeeeeeeeedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
...the Constitution which exists for the porpose of protecting innocent human life.

Sometimes the lack of education about our system of government shocks me. You could not be more wrong. The United States Constitution is a compact between the states and the federal government they created. The Constitution spells out the type of federal government, the method of electing its officers, its powers, and its relationship to the states, and through the states, to the people.

192 posted on 03/21/2005 1:15:21 PM PST by Wolfstar (If you can lead, do it. If you can't, follow. If you can't do either, become a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

I am amazed at how often Federal Courts do and don't involve themselves in matter depending upon the agenda of the particular Court. If these were dolphins stranded in a river and someone wanted to stop feeding them, you can bet your arse some Federal Judge, proded by some whacko environmental group, would find jurisdicition.


193 posted on 03/21/2005 1:15:21 PM PST by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Also read up on 'Marbury v. Madison' by the way. Like I said before, Congress can do what ever the heck it wants to the lower Courts.
194 posted on 03/21/2005 1:15:36 PM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I don't think Congress should have gotten involved in a state matter, which is the same reason the US Supremes were refusing to hear the appeals in this case.

Didn't the US Supremes just decide that states can't execute persons under 18 years of age????

195 posted on 03/21/2005 1:16:47 PM PST by syriacus (Why ask for physician-assisted-suicide in OR, when you can save money by "peacefully" starving?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell; holdonnow
The fact is though, Rush was citing a legal expert on the constitution, at that time. I can't recall the name, but I'm sure someone around here does.

His Constitutional expert is F. Lee Levin, the Great One. And, he is.

Mark, I finally got my own copy of Men In Black today. Even the liner notes are fabulous. :)

196 posted on 03/21/2005 1:17:07 PM PST by TonyInOhio (Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

There are plenty of bills passed that apply to only one individual. Get informed before posting vanities.


197 posted on 03/21/2005 1:17:35 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Smartaleck

"Now the shoe is on the other foot."


Yet the foot still stinks.


198 posted on 03/21/2005 1:17:40 PM PST by Blzbba (Don't hate the player - hate the game!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Are you saying the 8th Amendment only applies to criminal cases?

Are you saying the 5th Amendment doesn't guarantee that citizens cannot be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process?

Which constitution have you been reading?

199 posted on 03/21/2005 1:17:45 PM PST by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
The problem with this particular matter is that there doesn't appear to be a federal case for the court to hear at all, regardless of the grant of jurisdiction.

Try the Federal due process provision of the USC made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment.

Why is that so complicated for armchair constitutionalists here (and elsewhere) to understand?

200 posted on 03/21/2005 1:18:05 PM PST by HitmanLV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 561-569 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson