Congress says it’s Constitutional. Do you agree?

Liberty Maven ^ | December 29th | Mike Miller

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

The Enumerated Powers Act (EPA) requires that every bill must specify its source of Constitutional authority. This would prove very embarrassing to Congress, because there is no Constitutional authority for most of what they pass.

[scooby321]

No . Congress is not granted the authority or that kind of power over People and States.

[gwilhelm56]

LIBS, Rino and Weenie Repubs, being the lazy asses that they are, and truly don’t give a Damn about the Constitution, will use the “””General Welfare””” clause.. it’s been tried before, when repubs were in charge.. and that’s exactly what happened. Needless to say.. it didn’t LAST LONG.

[Hoodat]

I seriously doubt that half our current legislators have even read the Constitution.

[RexBeach]

The Constitution is a contract. It is not a living document. It contains limits...limits on the power of the federal government. Those limits should be observed.

[Don Corleone]

Vote them ALL OUT!

[Man50D]

Congress asserts it can compel Americans to purchase health insurance because NOT purchasing health insurance impacts interstate commerce.

If the Interstate Commerce Clause in Article 1 Section gave Congress unlimited powers then the founding fathers would not have bothered to specify in Article 1 Section powers granted to Congress. They would only needed to have written the ICC in Article 1 Section 8. Moreover they would not have bothered to write the 10th Amendment and the wording "Any powers not delegated to the United States" if all powers were delegated to Congress.

Also as poiBut for decades Congress has allowed states to bar their residents from purchasing health insurance from another state. * Which means Congress never previously believed that the purchase (or non-purchase) of health insurance was interstate commerce.

Also as pointed out in the article for decades Congress has allowed states to bar their residents from purchasing health insurance from another state. Which means Congress never previously believed that the purchase (or non-purchase) of health insurance was interstate commerce.

[IbJensen]

I never agree with Congress on anything.

[Dead Corpse]

Congress says a lot of things. Very little of which are true.

They can say something is Constitutional. A plain reading of the Constitution is all that is required to prove the lie.

[Huck]

If the Interstate Commerce Clause in Article 1 Section gave Congress unlimited powers then the founding fathers would not have bothered to specify in Article 1 Section powers granted to Congress. They would only needed to have written the ICC in Article 1 Section 8.

The problem, of course, is that the Framers created a supreme Judicial branch, empowered to decide on cases where questions of constitutionality would arise. These decisions are without appeal, and the Judiciary, being co-equal to the other branches, cannot be moved in its decisions. Common law practices ensure that decisions of the court, over a period of time, become fixed, and carry the weight of supreme law. Expansion of commerce clause powers goes back almost to the very beginning (McCulloch v Maryland), and its expansive meaning (Wickard v Fillburn) was most recently affirmed by Justice Scalia, along with the liberals of the court.(Raich)

Though this defect was identified during the ratification process, Madison and his colleagues poo-pooed the danger, until, of course, it bit them in the ass a few short years later.

Moreover they would not have bothered to write the 10th Amendment and the wording "Any powers not delegated to the United States" if all powers were delegated to Congress.

They didn't bother to write the 10th. They had to be forced into allowing amendments in the 1st Congress in order to secure ratification. Madison opposed the 10th amendment as worthless. It's one area where I actually agree with him. The 10th is worthless. It merely begs the question.

[Huck]

A plain reading of the Constitution is all that is required to prove the lie.

A plain reading and a dollar get you a cup of coffee. The question is how to enforce it? The only sure way to do that is by amendment. That is the only way to prevent the Judiciary department from having the last word. And it better be worded very clearly and carefully, because in fact, the Judiciary will have the last word on the amendment, without appeal.

[K-oneTexas]

Proposed in 2007 (110th Congress) by John Shadagg [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1359].

Not passed. With just 53 sponsors ... I doubt it ever will be passed.

[Huck]

Those limits should be observed.

Wish in one hand, crap in the other, and see which fills up first. The limits must be ENFORCED. The only power the people possess under the Constitution to do that is by amendment, and even those amendments will be subject to the interpretation of the supreme Judiciary, without appeal.

One could argue that the people also have the ballot box, but the expansions of power codified in law by the Judiciary department cannot be touched by the elected branches. For some bizarre reason, that is how the system was designed. Big mistake.

[Huck]

My Congressman is a co-sponsor of this bill. I had no doubt in my mind, but checked anyway. I am not voting him out. Voting for him is the one time I actually enjoy electing someone. Until that changes, he's got my vote.

Scott Garrett, NJ-5

[Dead Corpse]

The question is how to enforce it?

If the Judiciary won't do their job...

Then we need to do ours...

[Huck]

The Judiciary is doing its job, as far as the law is concerned. They get to say what the law is, without appeal.

Further, if you think a rabble with pitchforks can solve our problems, look up the Whiskey Rebellion. Our first president established the precedent for dealing with those who refuse to bow down to Federal power. He sent in troops---nay, he personally LED the troops to Pittsburgh! (actually, he begged off in Carlisle and let his soul mate Hamilton lead the troops through the streets of Pittsburgh.

The Whiskey Rebellion was a crushing political defeat for the Republicans. It's a bad idea and it won't work. The only means available is amendment.

[grumpygresh]

This bill should be retroactive to expunge the health care mandates. Realistically, it could not be passed until 2013 when a Republican president and compliant congress would be in charge.

[PubliusMM]

Via the amendment process, the people establish the ‘constitutionality’ of the proposal. Once ratified, SCOTUS cannot properly dispose of it as ‘un-constitutional’.
In short, constitutionality is what the people say it shall be. That is why we should all be very, very concerned about calls for a constitutional convention. A better process, IMO, is to elect conservative representation at the federal and state levels. Then, amendment proposals can be pushed via the state legislature processes as has been done in recent history.

[Huck]

Via the amendment process, the people establish the ‘constitutionality’ of the proposal. Once ratified, SCOTUS cannot properly dispose of it as ‘un-constitutional’.

That is correct, but as we have seen, nine judges can create quite a lot of mischief, especially when they are completely unchecked. They cannot declare part of the Constitution unconstitutional, but they can, with the force of law, decide what the wording of the amendment means. They can further add various tests and rules for judges to use in applying the amendment in future cases. And they can combine pieces of various amendments and text in creative ways (e.g., substantive due process).

In short, constitutionality is what the people say it shall be.

Ultimately, that's not exactly true. The people decide the text of the Constitution. In the end, the Judiciary decides what the text MEANS. Therefore, the Judiciary say finally and without appeal what is or isn't constitutional.

A better process, IMO, is to elect conservative representation at the federal and state levels. Then, amendment proposals can be pushed via the state legislature processes as has been done in recent history.

Amendment is the only way for the people to have any real say in constitutional construction. I would think the amendments (a new Bill of Rights?) should be drafted first, THEN we should find representation that supports them. Not the other way around.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Most everything CONgress does is unconstitutional. They have been getting away with it for decades. There will be no stopping them now. All they need to do is declare themselves legal and who is to stop them? Them? They are the only authority that can do so.