Posted on 08/30/2002 5:32:48 AM PDT by Bigun
That's not a serious argument, in my opinion, unless you are willing to argue that Congress was supposed to open a mint in the basement and stamp out coins in their spare time.
Congress delegated these powers to the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Congress could take it away tomorrow.
Congress delegates almost all of the responsibility for managing the duties assigned to it under the Constitution, subject to Congressional oversight. Granted, the oversight it exercises over the Fed is minimal, but I don't think it has given up the constitutional ability to do so.
Thank you! You are an HONEST man!
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.
I'm not so sure that was, in fact, a flaw. The PLAIN ENGLISH words of the document itself would seem to me arbitor enough. But you have already said you disagree with that. In any case we HAVE Marbury vs Madison and, as a result, are NO LONGER the Federal Republic set forth in the Constitution but instead a JURISTOCRACY.
Alexander Hamilton, NEVER a fan of the republican form of government, was made secretary of the treasury by President George Washington, at a time when the U.S. government was broke; its foreign credit no good; and when there exsisted a number of influential men in Congress who stood to make LOTS of money if the nation’s finances could be repaired in a hurry. Hamilton obliged in spades! He invented out of thin air this thing called “implied powers” in the Constitution, which would permit the federal government to create a national bank even though the Constitution had not granted it that power. Congress allowed him to get away with it for the earlier mentioned reasons. Some brushed off the transgression as an unimportant just-this-once exception; but others realized what had REALLY happened was that the camel's nose was under the tent. The U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall (a follower of Hamilton, and another power in the Federalist party) then procced to bring the rest of the camel into the tent.
In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court gave itself the right to overturn legislation enacted not only by Congress but also by the state legislatures.
NOTHING has been the same since.
If I could do so I would amend the Constitution in some fashion so as to KILL FOREVER the notion of "Implied Powers". You might have guessed that I suspect! LOL!
That's true, but I'd argue that it didn't take very long at all for the problem I described to surface, and a solution had to be found.
I don't think you've really adequately addressed my question. The Constitution guarantees a "speedy trial" in the Sixth Amendment. Tell me how 100 people could look at that language, and an arrest date on a calendar and decide independently on what day the trial should start.
Yep! Now WHERE does it say they can do that?
We agreed early on that the framers did not spell out specifically HOW the duties of the federal government were to be carried out but, IMHO, they were QUITE CLEAR as to WHO was supposed to carry out which duties!
I would argue that when that became a problem it should have been a matter for the CONGRESS, not the courts, to resolve.
That's the necessary and proper clause. Congress can't run a Navy. That's why they created a Department of Defense. It's the same difference.
Then you're essentially arguing that the Constitution is whatever Congress decides it is. You haven't fixed the flaw. You've chosen a different branch of government to decide the disputes.
That's no more constitutional than what you're complaining about.
I believe that the congress still has oversite of the Department of Defense but I doubt that isn't true of the Fed so it ISN'T the some thing to my mind.
I do thank you or the lively conversation this evening! I have truly enjoyed it!
But THEY have the power to pass amendments and offer them to the states for ratification do they not? A long, drawn out process to be sure, but it IS the only Constitutionally provided method in my view.
I could come up with another 1,000 examples if you'd like. ;-)
No, I am arguing that the Constitution is whatever the Congress AND the several states say it is! Painful as that it is it is the ONLY Constitutional method for fixing flaws in the Constitution.
So, if we need a resolution as to whether Congress has passed a law that is unconstitutional, we need to ask Congress?
Somehow, I don't feel too protected by that.
We badly need iron teeth sitting over the heads of all elected officals, ready to bite them in half should they step out of line.
Yes and those "Iron Teeth" should be the electorate!
If we hire a lawn person to do our lawn we supervise them.
If we hire people to work in our business we supervise them.
If we hire ad infinitum...
We hire people to work for us in government and DO NOT supervise them!
That's CRAZY IMHO!
We were told VERY early in the game that our Constitution was sufficient for the governance of a MORAL people but for any other purpose it is sorely inadequate. Do you think we are still a moral people?
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance!
If it were ONLY the congress I would agree with you but it wouldn't BE just the congress it would also be the legislatures of the several states as well.
The fact is that the founders intended that the supreme court be a VERY boring place to work. They gave us a Constitution requiring an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of EVERY elected officer of the government EVERY time he is sworn into office. They supposed that, in a MORAL society, those who rose to high office would be HONORABLE men and HONOR that oath.
All 435 members of the house, the 100 members of the senate, and the president are ALL supposed to be, first and foremost arbiters of the constitution and REFUSE to vote for things not allowed by the Constitution. All of us, the electorate, are supposed to be arbiters as well and REMOVE any one of these who dishonors his oath but we don't and THAT is the problem.
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.