Some suggested books
/b>
Posted on 08/17/2002 3:57:17 PM PDT by gcruse
Outside view: What is the Constitution?
By Sheldon Richman
A UPI Outside view commentary
Washington Politics & Policy
Desk
Published 8/17/2002 12:46 PM
FAIRFAX, Va., Aug. 13 (UPI) -- 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 a dangerous 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 opposed 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.
He then went on to say "'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, one of the fathers 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 of 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.
To put it more bluntly, if it is 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 Founders' 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 Prof. Charlotte Twight of Boise State University (Palgrave/St. Martin's Press).
Twight argues that government leaders have inverted the American system to keep the people from knowing what the politicians are doing and to make it costly for the people to object. She calls it "manipulating the political transactions costs."
If we are to defend our liberties and get government under control again, it behooves all Americans to pay as much attention to what Twight has to say as they do to the comments of Justice Scalia.
-- Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine.
-- "Outside View" commentaries are written for UPI by outside writers who specialize in a variety of important global issues.
Copyright © 2002 United Press International
I presume most people are similar to myself and have no idea how to oppose both parties at the same time when they violate the Constitution, ie. Patroit Act.
What are you referring to ?
What are you referring to
Vote Libertarian! We are the ones that actually learned how to read despite the public school system and want the constitution enforced all the way. You might also stop calling us all "druggies" when we point out that the limited power of the federal government does not extend to the prohibition of drugs and therefore the War on Drugs is a violation of the constitution.
Actually, the way we fight the War on Drugs, we encourage hard drug use. By putting all the drugs in one basket, we are telling kids that they are all terrible. When they see their friends using Marijuana without consequence, they assume the govt is lying on everything and are more likely to use the hard stuff.
Just a lesson that lying is not a good idea. No one believes anything you say after that. Reminds me of the biblical lesson in that respect. In Genesis, Adam told Eve not even to touch the tree of knowledge when the rule was just not to eat of the fruit. This gave the serpent the ability to demonstrate that touching caused no problem and he got her to eat the fruit.
The Constitution says nothing about abortion either.
If the SCOTUS is going to assert that a "right to privacy" is sufficient to give women the right to kill their children, than I think it hardly a stretch to conclude that a "right to privacy" would preclude the "papers, please" scenario that a "national ID card" would be intended to facillitate.
I see no hypocrisy in Scalia's statement.
See the dissent in US Term Limits, Inc. v Thornton, 514 US 779 (1995), written by Justice Thomas and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia and O'Conner.
In a nutshell the opinion held that "where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people."
An adherence to the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Some suggested books
/b>
You are correct. The requirements for office for FEDERAL offices is spelled out in the constitution and the states cannot add conditions. On the other hand, they are free to add term limits on state offices.
If we want term limits on Congress, it will take an amendment-just like we already did for the office of president.
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.