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

To: Twodees
"Southack, anyone who claims that the President is acting constitutionally without citing the Article which empowers the action they're referring to carries the burden of proof for their assertion. Since I was not the one claiming the the President had the power, granted in the Constitution, to issue such an EO then I was not the one remiss in failing to cite from Article II."

But you were remiss. To wit, you claimed that:
"Bush just showed himself to be a Constitutional illiterate or a corrupt President."

Furthermore, you were incorrect in that claim. You base your claim on some tortured logic, in particular that:
"Article I, section 8 mentions that Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and to make rules concerning captures on land and water. It omits any power of Congress to delegate lawmaking powers to any other branch, as well as any power of Congress to empower the President to assume wartime powers absent a declaration of war.

That same section empowers Congress to establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, but fails to empower Congress to delegate that power to the President. According to the 10th Amendment, the only powers the federal government has are specifically enumerated in the Constitution. If it ain't listed, it ain't a federal power."

One problem with your logic is that you presume to distinguish between the "federal government" and "Congress". The 10th Amendment limits the powers given to the whole entirity of our government, not just Congress. Congress is given the authority to write the laws necessary to carry through its powers and obligations. This means that Congress can delegate its authority, so long as Congress had the specific authority granted to it by our Constitution in the first place.

But in your world, only Congress can execute its Constitutional powers even if Congress chooses or finds it necessary to delegate said powers. That's a gross mis-application and misinterpretation of the 10th Amendment (and would in fact deny Congress the ability to have various bureaucracies create their own rules and regulations, among other things).

302 posted on 11/19/2001 8:38:42 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies ]


To: Southack
Talk about tortured logic, yours takes the cake. Our form of government is divided into three branches, each with its own exclusive powers. This is known as separation of powers.

Congress is specifically granted its legislative powers in Article I. In section 1 the opening statement reads, "All legislative powers granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives." The President can't be said to fit that description. Congress is not granted the power to delegate legislative powers to another branch. That would override the designed separation of those powers.

If you're my age or older, which I think you are, all of this is 9th grade civics class material. The President is a few years older than I am and has a vastly superior education, yet he appears to have missed freshman civics in high school. If he opens his EO with the usual "by the powers vested in me by the Constitution and by act of Congress", then goes on to issue an order which usurps legislative powers of Congress, then he's either unread in the Constitution, or he knows better and is acting illegally anyway.

The 10th Amendment refers to the "United States" which is the name given by the framers to the federal government they were creating with the Constitution. That government is composed of three branches. There is no way to distinguish between any single branch and the federal government in regard to the limitations prescribed by the 10th Amendment. Those limitations apply equally to all three branches or they apply to none.

Consider what you just said. If Congress is to be able to delegate its legislative powers to other branches of the government, then they might hand over their power to legislate the institution of new taxes to the judiciary or to the President. They might be acting within their powers to delegate their power to determine the rules of Congressional proceedings to the President. That sounds like a sure prescription for disaster. Any President could seize dictatorial powers at will under your scenario, once Congress delegated any of the powers mentioned.

Each of the three branches of government are specifically empowered to perform certain duties. They are not granted blanket permission to do whatever they decide is expedient at any given time. You're arguing for the loose construction of the language of the document which is known as "the living Constitution". If we're going to accept that bizarre theory, we may as well have no Constitution.

303 posted on 11/20/2001 4:47:47 AM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies ]

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