Texas Republican Party Platform Thread 2

Brown County GOP Website ^ | June, 2002 | Republican Party of Texas

[Bigun]

The Republican Party of Texas Platform has been MUCH in the news of late because it is a CONSERVATIVE document and, as such, VERY controversial. I thought it would be an instructive exercise, for those of us who wish to do so here, to go through it plank by plank and see where we stand on these issues. Pursuant to that, I will post ONE plank of the Platform, every few days and anyone who wishes to can state their views as to that particular part of the platform.

Today we move to the subheading Preserving American Freedom:

Limiting the Expanse of Government Power
State Sovereignty/States Rights - The Party supports state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment which reserves to the states or the people all powers not specifically delegated in the Constitution to the federal government and opposes the institution of mandates that are beyond the scope of federal authority.

Previous thread is HERE

[rb22982]

Not necessarily because I'd prefer we didn't have things such as SS, Medicare, welfare, DoE, etc etc. That's what the states are there for. An Air Force would be one of the very few things I'd be ok with that isn't explicitedly in the Constitution.

[B Knotts]

I found very little that I disagree with in there.

Too bad the candidates don't stick to the views expressed therein.

[B Knotts]

I mean, in the whole platform, not that plank. Obviously, I agree wholeheartedly with that plank. ;-)

[Dog Gone]

All of those things can be challenged as unconstitutional right now, even under my approach.

[rb22982]

That would only happen if you had judges that were strict Constitutionalists. Unfortunately, since FDR's New Deal, too many of them see it as a 'living breathing Constitution'.

[Dog Gone]

Too bad the candidates don't stick to the views expressed therein.

I think it's probably a good thing that they didn't or we wouldn't have many Republicans in office.

But there's nothing preventing the people who wrote this platform from becoming candidates themselves to test my guess. Apparently, they didn't, or were defeated in the primaries.

[B Knotts]

So, basically, you think conservatism is something candidates should oppose, so that they can get elected? What's the point, then?

[Dog Gone]

I agree with you there. The danger with my approach is that it leaves the door open to liberal judges who want to change the framework of the Constitution.

There's a big difference between construing the intent of the Constitution and applying it to specific situations (my approach) and inventing brand new powers and "rights" that are outside of the Constitution or even completely contrary to the original intent.

[Dog Gone]

That's not what I think at all. What I think is that the Texas GOP Platform does not represent the views of all Republicans in Texas. In fact, I think the vast majority of Republicans in Texas would disagree with one or more of the planks.

The people who drafted this platform are human. Nobody divinely appointed them as the final arbiters of what conservatism is. It's their opinion, and they got a majority of votes at the convention to get the language adopted. It's not any more complicated or sophisticated than that.

[Bigun]

Before we pursue this further I need to axe you a question.

In your post #10 you said "As long as those implied powers are consistent with the specific framework in the written Constitution, I have no problem with them, and I don't think those who drafted the Constitution would, either.

Does that mean that, IYHO, any “implied powers” must be pursuant to a specific duty assigned the federal government in the Constitution?

[Bigun]

I mean, in the whole platform, not that plank. Obviously, I agree wholeheartedly with that plank.

Gottcha!

Hope you will join in our little exercise of going through the thing plank by plank!

[austingirl]

Chiming in here, yes, I think that any implied powers should be pursuant to a specific duty assigned the federal government in the Constitution.

In that light, forming an Air Force would be constitutional, while Social Security and welfare are not.

[Taxman]

AHA! Keep it up, Bigun!

[Dog Gone]

Does that mean that, IYHO, any “implied powers” must be pursuant to a specific duty assigned the federal government in the Constitution?

I believe so. I'm unable to think of any examples right now where I would disagree with that blanket principle, except in the type of situation I mentioned before with the Air Force.

At that point, I think it's fair to ask what kinds of specific duties were being assigned to the Federal Government, and use some common sense.

[Bigun]

I believe so. I'm unable to think of any examples right now where I would disagree with that blanket principle, except in the type of situation I mentioned before with the Air Force.

Hmmm If that be the case then what need was there of "implied powers" when the Constitution itself CLEARLY grants them ALL the powers they need to carry out those things they are charged with doing in that document?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18:

The Congress shall have the power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Air Force came into being as a part of the Army. There is NO reason, save men's egos, that it could not have remained right there just as Naval avation has done.

[Bigun]

What say ye to this?

[Dog Gone]

There's no reason, either, why lawmakers couldn't have expanded the role of the Navy into other things. You know, just slowly expand the definition of Navy until it includes school lunch programs or something.

But the necessary and proper clause is exactly what the courts have used to expand the role of the Federal Government. "Implied powers" and "necessary and proper" are the same thing.

[Bigun]

But the necessary and proper clause is exactly what the courts have used to expand the role of the Federal Government. "Implied powers" and "necessary and proper" are the same thing.

Ah Yes that and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 Which says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

With that I believe we have arrived at the nub of this discussion. You said that the necessary and proper clause is what the COURTS, and I believe you are exactly right in so saying, but WHERE in the Constitution does one find the authority for them to do THAT??? Those powers MUST be "Implied Powers" for they are not to be found in the document itself IMHO!

The COURTS have no PROPER role in expanding anything!

[Bigun]

BTW; I do NOT lay everything at the feet of the courts. The Congress itself has, IMHO, abdicated, also without any authority to do so, important powers granted it in the Constitution such as: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5:

The Congress shall have Power... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

What is their role, if there is one, in that today?

[Dog Gone]

You said that the necessary and proper clause is what the COURTS, and I believe you are exactly right in so saying, but WHERE in the Constitution does one find the authority for them to do THAT??

Nowhere. The Constitution doesn't give them that power.

On the other hand, as inspired as the Constitution is, it had a fundamental flaw. It failed to set up a mechanism for resolving disputes about what is constitutional and what is not.

And I don't buy the argument that some make that anyone can look at the Constitution and quickly and easily determine the answer to that question. It's not nearly that simple.

For example, take the constitutional provision which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Who determines what is unreasonable? It's certainly not the person being searched, or ALL searches would be unreasonable. It's certainly not the cops, or all searches would be reasonable.

It's certainly not Congress, because we can't take a vote after every search to get their opinion, and their votes don't carry the weight of a constitutional provision, anyhow.

The flaw had to be addressed, and I'm sure you've read Marbury v. Madison, where the Supreme Court asserted its claim to make these determinations. Although President Madison essentially ignored the ruling at the time, it was not long before it became accepted as the only possible solution for resolving disagreements over constitutional provisions.

I'm not sure it's the perfect solution, but I've never heard a better one offered. Do you have one?