My reference to the intent to expand congressional power is based solely upon Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Enforcing the provisions of the 14th hardly expands overall congressional power over states. Only 'appropriate' legislation is constitutional.
- Again, - most anti-14th rhetoric is hyped up propoganda, imo. -- States themselves can fight inappropriate congressional legislation in the USSC. - That they rarely do tells the tale.
The 14th is not a 'problem'. - Our problem is a political system out of control.
62 posted by tpaine
The Supreme Court has approved of Congressional remedies enacted pursuant to Section 5 that the Court had previously refused to employ on its own pursuant to Section 1. The powers specifically granted to Congress in these Civil War amendments (13-15) have been very effective.
- So what? - ALL these developments have been recent 'new deal' or even 'great society' events. -- The historical facts remain, - the 14th was not intended as a federal power grab. -- And it need not be allowed to be one.
- If we return to honoring the original intent of the constitution, the 14th will be rightly seen as a correction in a perceived flaw, a remedy for Barron v Baltimore, and a triumph for individual liberty.
I don't think that Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment or Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment are any more of a "federal power grab" than the commerce clause. Those sections just contain some additional express delegations of power to Congress. And, from time to time, Congress has used those powers quite effectively.