Posted on 10/14/2009 7:36:34 AM PDT by Huck
I wrote my congressbastard urging him to support the “enumerated powers act”.
I got a letter back which, in essence, stated that due to some USSC ruling, congress can do anything it damn well pleases through the interstate commerce clause.
His honesty was refreshing, but this is the stuff that revolutions are made of.
Bump to further reading after work...
There is a separate effort to alter the size of the US House (greatly expanding membership) so that each US Rep would represent only a set number of people (the number 500,000 is in my head, but I may be wrong). Do you happen to know the name of this effort?
Admins, could you please change title from Federalist 10 to Federalist 46?
And if you've studied Commerce Clause jurisprudence, you will know that virtually anything will pass muster. As long as it has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce. And before you go counting on conservative justices, even Scalia as affirmed that test (see Raich)when it pleases him to do so.
Can you lay out the advantages & disadvantages of that change in representation?
Sounds dangerous to me... gives the population centers even more power and the rural areas less.
That’s true. But when has a “moral and religious people” ever been a safe bet? I’m not saying without the Constitution we’d retake Eden. I’m saying we’d have one less government to worry about.
Overturn Wickard v Filburn.
The OT is replete with examples of the nation of Israel being destroyed, over and over again, when they refused to obey God.
We’re just going through another cycle.
CORRECTION: I MISTAKENLY ATTRIBUTED THIS AS FEDERALIST 1O. IT;S ACTUALLY #46, THE OTHER OF THE TWO MOST FAMOUS MADISON PAPERS. JUST GOT A LITTLE MIXED UP. SORRY! THIS IS FEDERALIST 46. 10 DEALS WITH FACTIONS, AND IS REFERENCED IN THIS POST. CARRY ON.
My recollection is that some US Reps have a vast number of constituents and that therefore huge amounts of money become available to sway their vote. If there were (wild number) 10,000 US Reps, then the interests of the local voters would be paramount for each Rep and the dreaded "special interests" would be less capable of using money to bend the political process.
I don't know if I like it, but it seemed interesting.
As far as the Senate goes, I'm happy with 2 senators for each state, I just wish they were appointed by the state legislatures to support the interests of the state, rather than popularly elected to serve the interests of the mob.
I don't know if that's going to happen. Have you read Raich, where Scalia of all people reaffirms Wickard? Stare decesis is nasty stuff. And anyway, while your at it, we gonna overturn McCulloch v Maryland? Marbury v Madison? Might as well start over. It'd be easier.
BTTT
2 senators per state was part of the “Great Compromise”, and a good idea.
The senators were to represent the States, whereas the HR was to represent the people.
Direct election of senators is an abomination to the Constitution.
Overturn it by amendment, if necessary, but applying the argument of stare decesis to Wickard is the same as saying that once a Congress has violated a Constitutional principle and a court has allowed it, we are bound by the precedent to go right on violating it.
That case gets a bad rap, because jurists cherry pick a certain phrase in isolation. But in its own context, the holding is fine. When the constitution and a congressional enactment are at odds, which should prevail? In this case, SCOTUS determined that it lacked jurisdiction, because the jurisdiction of SCOTUS is established by the constitution.
Contrary to popular opinion, the case was not meant to stand for the proposition that the Courts could write their own status - although there is a substantial body of court-made common law, there is (supposedly) no federal common law.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. ...Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
In response to your entire article.
So? ...
You’re welcome.
THIS is Fed 46. Fed 10 deals with faction. Again, sorry for the error.
That is what most justices seem to believe. Again, read Raich, where Scalia sides with the liberals, using Wickard as the basis for the decision. Once you get a case cited as the basis for other cases, they are very reluctant to overturn--and they know that when they do it. So Scalia basically was voting for Wickard. Shocking.
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.