Is our Government Doing Unconstitutional Things?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Zook, Feb 25, 2009.

  1. Zook
    Offline

    Zook Constitutionalist

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    36
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    I was born and raised in California
    Ratings:
    +4
    From what I hear the government is doing several Unconstitutional things. What ones do you know of? I don't know all things, Congress has given to much of its responsibility to the executive branch. One example they pretty much gave Bush a blank check and let him declare war when it is their responsibility. Its as if they don't want to be blamed for it so they let the president take the blame, giving him the power to do so. Also all bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. I also see that isn't how it always seems to be going. Please add to these Unconstitutional things that preferably are currently going on. Solutions to these problems would also be nice. Lets address this as americans not as a political party.
     
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,522
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,932
    The Department of Education is Unconstitutional. The Federal Government has no authority to meddle in Education at the State level. No authority to tax us for it and no authority to spend tax dollars on it.

    Medicare and Social Security and all welfare programs are Unconstitutional. The Federal Government has no authority to tax for nor spend on these programs at all.

    While the Federal Government has the authority to control Interstate Trade the Government classifies to many things that are NOT interstate as such and meddle Unconstitutionally in State Business.

    Housing and Urban Development is also Unconstitutional. The Federal Government only has authority for this in Washington DC and the Federal military bases.

    The Government has the authority to control Banks due to the Interstate nature of Banking in today's world BUT they do not have the Authority to run Freddie and Fanny. Housing is a State affair. There is no power listed in the Constitution for the Federal Government to be involved in this business at all.

    Those just off the top of my head. If one had a break down of all Agencies and programs the Federal Government runs, supports and funds one would find many more examples.

    The solution? Require that Congress list the specific authority in the Constitution for every dime they spend. For every regulation they pass. For every Agency they have or create.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Zook
    Offline

    Zook Constitutionalist

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    36
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    I was born and raised in California
    Ratings:
    +4
    Its sad how much our Gov does that it doesn't have the right to.

    So write our senators and congress men to pass some kind of law (Amendment?) to make them do that?
     
  4. amrchaos
    Offline

    amrchaos Pentheus torn apart

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    9,501
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +2,573
    Hey RGsgt, Does the constitution list all rights and powers explicitly, or are there powers that are implicitly assigned to each branch.

    Because, if the constitution explicitly assigns what can and cannot be done then then we have left constitutional jurisdiction along time ago.....But at least we still have our Republic, for now.
     
  5. Tech_Esq
    Offline

    Tech_Esq Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,408
    Thanks Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    Ratings:
    +558
    Yes the Constitution specifically states what power the Federal Government has. Many of Congress' powers to enact laws are laid out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Up until Roosevelt's time there was an actual firewall preventing the Congress from over-stepping its powers. This was provided by the US Supreme Court who, after Marbury v. Madison, had the power to say what the law is.

    In the late 1930s, Roosevelt, reacting to the USSC striking down most of his "New Deal" legislation as unconstitutional and ripping the heart out of most of the programs, proposed his "court packing" plan. This is where Roosevelt suggested that for each justice over the age of 70, another justice be appointed "to help with the case load" (never mind the justices never complained about the case load). This plan would have resulted in 15 justices on the court and a majority for the Roosevelt program. Roosevelt was even opposed by Dems over this but he persisted. He eventually dropped it but the court got the message.

    When Roosevelt ran for and was elected for an unprecedented 3rd term, things started to change with the court. My reading was they figured out they had a dictator and they better start getting in line. You can make your own analysis. In the seminal case of United States v. Darby Lumber Co., the USSC overturned previous USSC precedent and ruled the Congress could make laws that directly effected local private companies if their products eventually ended up in "interstate commerce".

    This broke the flood gates because almost everything is effected by "interstate commerce". How far has this argument gone? It was used in a case known as "Ollie's Barbeque" which was a civil rights case. There was a barbeque place in Alabama that make black folks get their barbeque at the back window in the 1960s. The justice department enforced federal anti-discrimination laws against base on the fact that even though there was no evidence that Ollie's placed any of its barbeque into "interstate commerce", they did receive goods such as napkins, straws and other materials routinely used in the business from interstate commerce.

    However you feel about anti-discrimination laws etc, it is clear after this case that there is virtually nothing the Congress can't enact if it uses interstate commerce as a pretext for the law.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2009
  6. johnrocks
    Offline

    johnrocks Silver Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,919
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    West Monroe, La.
    Ratings:
    +279
    From the Federal Reserve to farm and corporate subsidies.
     
  7. Zook
    Offline

    Zook Constitutionalist

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Messages:
    36
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    I was born and raised in California
    Ratings:
    +4
    Any One Else Have Any Thoughts??
     
  8. necritan
    Offline

    necritan Liberals are retarded

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,182
    Thanks Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Peoples Republik of Kalifornistan
    Ratings:
    +137

    Lol....Im sorry...Im not laughing at you...lol

    Lets add to the constitution a "You cant violate the constitution Amendment"....Lol

    I say...its tea time folks.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,522
    Thanks Received:
    5,898
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,932
    Yup totally Unconstitutional. The Interstate clause is solely about the DIRECT Interstate Trade. Once something is IN State and transfers outside the original interstate trade process it is no longer Interstate Trade.

    The original argument presented to oppose the Bill of Rights was that since the Constitution expressly limits the power of the Federal Government there was no need to list things it could not do. So much for that concept.
     
  10. sparky
    Offline

    sparky VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +341
    methinks there's more an argument of loosing our soverenity to federalization here , regardless of what is , or is not constitutional because the feds get to make the call

    one relevant issue might be gay marriage, an issue which has been slowly moved into the federal spotlight....

    but i guess as long as states are suckin' off the federal teat, they'll have a shoe in any door they like....
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
unconstitutional things going on in the us today
,

unconstitutional things the government does

,
unconstitutional things the government has done