Posted on 07/26/2002 6:49:52 PM PDT by Marianne
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a smart man and an excellent writer. He is also a living example of how bad political and philosophical premises can put great talent in the service of an evil cause.
In November, while speaking at the University of Missouri, Scalia was asked what he thought about proposals to impose a national ID card on the American people. Scalia said he personally opposes the idea and would vote against it if it were put to a vote. But when a student asked him whether a national ID would violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” Scalia pointed out that the Amendment says nothing about an ID card.
Then he went on to say (I quote from an Associated Press report), “‘If you think it’s a bad idea to have an identity card, persuade your fellow citizens’ through the amendment process, rather than asking courts to make policy.”
Scalia here is saying that the government may require everyone to carry an ID unless the people amend the Constitution to prohibit Congress from enacting such a measure. He implies that the government can do virtually anything unless the Constitution expressly forbids it. No surprise here. Scalia has long made his views known.
But his views are based on an incorrect — indeed, a pernicious — notion of what the U.S. Constitution was and is supposed to be. In fact, he stands the Constitution on its head. Instead of a document that protects individual liberty by reining in government power, Scalia would make it one that protects government power by reining in individual liberty.
James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said that the central government was delegated powers that were “few and defined.” This is backed up by the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 8 contains a short list powers given to the Congress. To reinforce this point, the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which was adopted at the urging of those who thought the Constitution would allow the government to grow too powerful, says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The upshot is that the national government was not given a general grant of power to do whatever it thinks is right. It was given specific powers and only those. Any others belong to the states or the people. Or to put it more bluntly, if it’s not expressly in the Constitution, the national government can’t do it.
This is not only clear from the constitutional text, it is the only scheme consistent with the idea of a constitutional republic. A constitution such as ours is needed only if the intent is to limit the powers of government in behalf of liberty. A “constitution” that limits liberty in behalf of government power is a contradiction.
The Founding Fathers wanted to safeguard individual freedom. So they made the task of amending the Constitution difficult. But Scalia’s way of thinking, which first seized politicians and judges long ago, reverses the Founder’s basic intention. If government can do anything except that which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution, then the onerous burden of amending the Constitution, instead of falling on those who favor expanded power, is now on those who favor preserving freedom. The Founders must be spinning in their graves.
Scalia’s remark shows clearly how America’s political system has been turned against liberty. It is thus a perfect illustration for a new book, Dependent on D.C., by Professor Charlotte Twight of Boise State University (Palgrave/St. Martin’s Press). In this important book, Professor Twight demonstrates how government leaders have inverted the American system, first, to keep the people from knowing what the politicians are doing and, then, to make it costly for the people to object. She calls it “manipulating the political transactions costs.” Twight demonstrates her thesis with several case studies, including the passage of Social Security and Medicare.
If we are to restore our liberties and get government under control again, it behooves all Americans to understand what Charlotte Twight has to say.
|
||
Damn right--the courts make enough policy as is. Do things the right way, and get off of your ass and associate with your fellow men and women to TEACH and LEARN instead of getting the courts to solve your problems.
Sadly, the GOP is more concerned with global corporate freedom.
In conducting the Census the Constitution specifically gives Congress Authority to determine the manner for the actual Enumeration. How to conduct that Census is not spelled out so the method is left to Congress to determine. The enabling language allows congress to pass laws that are necessary and proper for carrying into execution its enumerated powers. Whether the use of National ID is appropriate to the census is a question left to Congress to determine.
The postal service is mentioned in the Constitution and a National ID might facilitate the operation of the postal service, at least it is a legitimate issue for Congress to address.
Declaring war, putting down insurrection and rebellion are powers granted to the Federal Government. This is the authority under which the question of National ID is currently being addressed.
While I don’t support a National ID I find several ways for Congress to legitimately address the issue and no prohibition against it.
My sentiments exactly, unless, of course, Congress recommends branding.
I went there to see it and as I was reading it, a guard came by and politely told me that I was not allowed to rest my elbows on the glass. He also informed me that when the building is closed, the Constitution drops down through the floor by elevator into a special safe.
Personally, I think the Constitution dropped out of sight long, long ago.
They do it all the time.
Within the powers granted congress has broad authority to determine the means of implementation. If the majority of Congress decides that a National ID is necessary and proper to the Conduct of the Census, the Postal Service or the war on terrorism then it has the authority to implement it. Just because you and I think it is a bad idea does not mean it is unconstitutional.
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.