Posted on 12/05/2001 4:53:56 AM PST by Starmaker
Where are all those strict-constructionist Republicans who've been complaining about activist judges who don't respect the fact that the U.S. Constitution gives "all legislative powers" to the Congress? Don't those Republicans realize that it is just as unconstitutional to transfer legislative powers to the executive branch?
When it comes to legislative powers over trade matters, the U.S. Constitution is precise. Article I, Section 8, expressly grants Congress the sole power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" and "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises."
The Bush Administration and some Republicans are trying to pass Fast Track, a bill to unconstitutionally transfer those commerce powers to the executive branch. Fast track would give the President and his appointees a blank check to make trade deals with foreign countries.
This isn't the first time that misguided Republicans tried to do an end-run around the Constitution by unconstitutionally transferring power to the President. During the 1980s and 1990s, we had to endure the persistent efforts of some Republicans to impose the Line Item Veto, which was patently unconstitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court finally so ruled on June 25, 1998.
Newt Gingrich made the Line Item Veto a hallmark of the Contract With America and, for years, the Gingrich Republicans tried to make it a litmus test for fiscal conservatism. There was just one little problem: it was unconstitutional because it transferred to the President the power to change laws that Congress had passed.
In the hope of concealing the shady procedure of Fast Track, the Bush Administration has given Fast Track a sweeter-smelling name: Trade Promotion Authority. But Fast Track is exactly what this bill should be called because it will rush executive-branch agreements through Congress with mandatory deadlines, severely limited debate, no amendments allowed, only the chance to vote aye or nay, and rigging the process to evade the two-thirds treaty requirement in the Senate.
It's one thing for the President to push his agenda. But it's unfortunate that he has resorted to name-calling of those who disagree, as he did when he labeled them "isolationists" at his June 20 meeting with the Business Roundtable.
No doubt the managers of Fast Track in Congress will sanctimoniously use such arguments as "Don't you trust our President?" The response should be, Yes, we trust him to do what he said he would do, and he said his high priority under Fast Track will be to implement the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement, which would extend NAFTA to cover 34 Latin American countries.
When Bush signed the Declaration of Quebec City on April 22, he gave a "commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people." It is clear that "our people" means all the people of the Western Hemisphere.
Bush pledged that the United States will "build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order." He agreed to "the promotion of a Connectivity Agenda for the Americas (to) facilitate the beneficial integration of the hemisphere."
The Quebec Declaration is filled with United Nations doubletalk such as "sustainable development," "interdependent," "realization of human potential," "civil society," "international organizations," "reducing poverty," and "greater economic integration."
The media have never reported any public opinion polls on whether the American people want to be "integrated" with third-world, low-wage Latin American countries. The media don't ask questions when they don't want to report the answers.
Do we want to "integrate" our economies and currencies with Latin American countries, or assume the "national responsibility" to improve their "economic well-being"? Do we think that joining "a hemispheric family" with countries that do not respect the Rule of Law will give us "a more just and democratic international order"?
Even though Fast Track has not been voted on yet, the Bush Administration is behaving as though it has. Bush's U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick just met in Qatar with 142 World Trade Organization countries, where he agreed to submit the United States to international rules to invalidate our anti-dumping laws that protect our industries against foreign governments dumping their goods on us at unfairly low prices.
An earlier version of Fast Track was in effect when Bill Clinton rammed NAFTA and GATT through Congress in 1993 and 1994. Hidden in the 22,000-page GATT was the 14-page charter putting us in the World Trade Organization, where we have one vote, the European Union 15 votes, and the Third World 80 votes.
Fast Track advocates are mute about the failure of NAFTA and GATT to live up to their rosy predictions. To most Americans, the most visible result is the current plan to flood our highways with Mexican trucks that haven't passed U.S. inspection for safety and insurance.
It would be a constitutional travesty for Congress to surrender what one federal court called "the unmistakably legislative power" to impose, modify, or continue tariffs and import restrictions. Fast track violates our separation of powers, diminishes American sovereignty, and infringes on the rights of Americans to engage in the trade of our choice.
TJ, You're right in that respect anyway. But, You've got to understand, I don't take any of this stuff personal. I'm 56 years with no children and ain't planning on having any, so it's no skin off my nose whatever happens. I simply make the arguements from a factual point of view. I really think that this country has been good to a lot of people, and would like to see that continue for future generations to enjoy. And, a flat tax based on income from whatever source derived is the most equitable form of taxation ever devised. Religious organizations figured that out centuries ago. As far as my "politics of envy", I guess I could ask you about your politics of maintaining YOUR wealth for your future possibly slothful progeny and their possibly equally slothful progeny. That is what your head tax is designed to do. Maintain the status quo for future generations with no competition from "upstarts". Peace and love, George.
"Unfortunately, that's our system. But from the embarassing Dred Scott case to Brown v. Board of Education, it's the same court.
Q, But, that is NOT "our system"! NOWHERE in the constitution is it written that the supreme court can "interpret" the constitution itself. That is itself a matter of case law since Marbury vs Madison, when among the wording of the ruling were the words {Paraphrased}, "Only the Supreme Court has the power to 'interpret' the Constitution." Those who practice case law {which is NOT law} since that ruling have gleefully TAKEN that power onto themselves. Judicial review in this country is limited by the constitution's words themselves. Or, is supposed to be anyway.
Lex Rex. The LAW is King. But, those who would, as soon as they were given the opportunity to do so corrupted that magnificent document with their own whims, not seeming to realize that those who follow might do the same thing, but with entirely different agendas and whims. Rule by the whim of man {even nine learned {much redundancy in learning because of type of education that got them there} folks sitting behind a bench. Through time, those nine change either through retirement, or death, and their followers might not be as benevolent when "interpreting" the words that govern this nation. Peace and love, George.
Regards,
Callahan
Why not ask me? I'd be happy to defend the doctrine of private property.
I guess you have a problem with passing on one's property to his heirs?
The commies have a problem with that too. Robert Reich has proposed a 100% death tax.
Georgie boy, people who love me don't envy my wealth or my ability to pass it on to my heirs, possibly slothful or not.
You sound more and more liberal with every post and I have to tell ya George, I don't love liberals.
TJ, Where did you come up with that one. I think Property taxes are second behind head taxes as being the worst form of taxation. and "death" taxes are an abomination. What I am saying is that if your heirs happen to be lazy or incompetent, the tax system should NOT favor them as your head tax does. THAT is socialism. The true flat tax would tax them only on the money they make, however that money is made.NOwhere else. You and DG can sure put words into people's mouths. THAT is why it is imperative that nine politically appointed bureaucrats NOT be allowed to "interpret" The words of the constitution. I heard some rectal orifice the other day making the arguement that "back then", the word "shall" meant "might possibly do", and that the word "will" meant that it was imperative to perform the function mentioned. That is exactly assbackwards from how it was.But, they were trying to justify eliminating the right to keep and bear arms. I REALLY don't like folks who redefine words to fit their need at any given time. Peace and love, George.
You are one strange dude Georgie. You make these statements and ask questions and then you wonder why people think you insinuate things. I'll make it a project tomorrow to go back and cut and paste all the things you have said in this exchange and then you can look at them and see where you give yourself away.
I have no illusions that you will see what a blind man could see in a minute. Your communication skills are pathetic. Piece and wuv Geo.
As I said, it's also been a part of our judicial system that judges can interpret law (and the Constitution is the law of the land) since before the Constitution. Much of the way our judicial system is built isn't in the Constitution, it goes along common law. In our system of law, precedent is law, case law is law. You are thinking Napoleonic Law, where what is written, and only what is written, is law. Move to France if you like that system.
But let's say you have your way, and the Supreme Court cannot interpret the Constitution. Take the cases of the precedent I quoted and the current case of Fast Track should it be passed and declared Constitutional. In both cases, the Supreme Court upheld (or will have upheld) the will of Congress, so whether they can or can't interpret, the results would be exactly the same.
Under your system, Congress passed a law, and it went into force. If that law did something that you think is unconstitutional (delegating trade authority), too bad -- it's law.
Your only hope is for a Supreme Court that has the ability to interpret the Constitution, thus striking down Fast Track.
You said: "But you're wrong. A true flat tax based on income, from whatever source derived, with no deductions, and/or exemptions does not do that. It gives equal economic opportunity to all."
Now I say: Yes it does. A change to an absolute flat tax with no exemptions, for example, would probably reduce money given to charity from the current system's levels. If you're going to take money from people according to a certain plan, it will affect how people will spend their money.
But I agree with you in that it's the fairest (there's that word again) of all possibilities. In this spirit, it's time to get rid of the church tax exemption, and the exemptions allowing the 7 of the top 200 corporations to pay no taxes (including GM and Texaco).
"THE President is to have power, ``by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur.'' - Federalist #75
"However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration." - Federalist #75
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties..." - U.S. Constitution - Article II, Section 2
"First. That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution was pointed out by authors of The Federalist in 1787,9 and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court." - U.S. Supreme Court, HINES v. DAVIDOWITZ
P.S. - I'm not a lawyer ;)
On another thread with George, I believe we're down to whether the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. But the question of whether such delegation has been done in the past by Congress and has been upheld by the Supreme Court is over.
First off I disagree with this statement...and perhaps this is the crux of the arguement.
I read your previous posts...and I see that you have not come down either way on Fast Track.
For simplicity's sake, I'll just say that I feel that Fast Track sidesteps the Constitutional requirement of advise and consent by disallowing the submission of ammendments.
Q, Where do you see that in my writing or in the constitution? THAT is the ONLY duty of the supreme court. To throw out unConstitutional laws passed by Congress or anybody else. Our Constitutional form of government has not been seen before or since it was developed. WHERE in the Constitution do you see that "judges are to 'interpret' the constitution"? Are you saying, "Well... they just didn't put it in there." WHERE do you see that judges opinions after the constitution was written could supercede the document itself? WHERE do you see that "case law {precedent} is law?? Now, I understand that the "courts" {Judges} HAVE made themselves above the law with this method. "THEY ARE THE LAW!!! BUT, is it legal UNDER the law?? Or is it merely the whims of man given the color and force of law withOUT legitimacy?? The Founding Fathers knew one thing that few judges seem to understand today. That the whims of even the most high are fallable. Even themselves, so they put provisions in the Constitution to facillitate changing the law itself. Just because that has been corrupted, are you in the opinion it should remain so??
You might consider changing the word "Congress" to "The Court" in the following phrase. Peace and love, George.
"Under your system, Congress passed a law, and it went into force. If that law did something that you think is unconstitutional (delegating trade authority), too bad -- it's law."
Q, NOW we're getting somewhere!!! YEAH, YEAH!! And hospitals and any and ALL "non-profit" organizations. There's NO such thing. If they are truely non-profit, they go out of business. Maybe an exception for FREE REPUBLIC!! Peace and love, George.
Actually, the duty to throw out unconstitutional laws is the one not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (it was merely assumed as a power of judiciary in our common law system). The rest, explicitly mentioned, mainly involve stating where the Court has original jurisdiction (as opposed to appellate, where the throwing-out comes in).
We're basically arguing semantics now. In order to decide whether a law is unconstitutional, the Court must interpret the Constitution (whenever you read a document, you're interpreting it -- that is, ascertaining its meaning, message and/or intent) and see if there is a conflict between the law as passed by Congress and the Constitution. If judges do nothing else, they interpret law, and the Constitution is law (they're not just there to sit pretty and say "Overruled" and "Sustained").
However, most people when faced with a SC ruling they agree with will say "They upheld the Constitution," but when faced with a ruling they don't like they shout "Activist judges, interpreting the Constitution to their own politics!"
You may want to ask yourself if you just don't like Fast Track, and will therefore make any justification for its defeat. In that case, you're arguing Constitutional principles not based on those principles alone, but on how they apply to a case you don't like. In that case, you should just argue Fast Track, not Constitution.
Me, as I've said, I don't have an opinion on Fast Track yet, as I can see both its advantages and dangers. I am just objectively arguing Constitutionality.
Let me put it this way. Despite what any of us may think, it will be upheld as law, and be in full force and effect, if the Supreme Court thinks it's Constitutional.
"For simplicity's sake, I'll just say that I feel that Fast Track sidesteps the Constitutional requirement of advise and consent by disallowing the submission of ammendments."
That's my main problem with it. The original plan was great: the President negotiates, but keeps the Senate informed all the way and listens to their concerns, so that when the time came for ratification, it was a shoo-in. Either that way or Fast Track will give the one advantage I think Fast Track has, which is that when we negotiate a treaty with a country, that country will know at least that it's either a done deal or not -- not if it'll get torn to hell by a bunch of special interests.
That said, I think we've established that Fast Track will not necessarily deal with treaties, but simply trade agreements, making any of our above concerns moot as far as Constitutionality goes. Instead it will deal with a quite Constitutional (according to precedent and Constitution) ability of the Congress to delegate its authority to the Executive Branch. In this case, it's the authority to control commerce with other nations that it's delegating (well, not completely since they can vote it down).
Q, But, they are. There rulings are supposed to be within the bounds of the Constitution just as the laws made by congress and signed by the President are. If they step outside those bounds, and get into the rule making business {laws} through their "interpretations", they should be impeached forthwith, as the Constitution calls for. They are breaking the "law". That which they take a sworn oath to uphold.
One of the more egregious "activist" acts by a jurist were the judge in I think{?} Kansas City that created a tax and mandated that it be paid into a new school system. I don't know if the case ever made it to the supreme court, or not. I do know that the "new school system was and is a dismal failure. Some say that Roe vs Wade was the supreme court making law. I disagree. It IS the woman's body. And, besides, any government that has the power to arbitrarily force a woman to bear a child to term, has the power also to force women to have abortions. I.E. China today. But, like I say, it's no skin off my nose whatever the bums decide to do. I know HOW "they" are manipulating the law in "their" facor, but, it is NOT written into the Constitution {The law of the Land? Or not?} that they have the right to do so. They have TAKEN that power, while Congress smiles on benevolently. I don't like the idea. It sets a BAD "precedent" for future judges who might not be as nice as these guys. Peace and love, George.
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.