Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[Revere]

War on Drugs?

NOPE!

You statists always head for the libertarian tall grass...until your government teat is cut off.

 

[jillian]

The less Congress does, the better.

and the less you post the better, trollboy, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

 

[Agit8r]

Air conditioning for B2 bomber hangers?

NOPE!

 

[Agit8r]

Nukes?

NOPE!

 

[Sallow]

The less Congress does, the better.

and the less you post the better, trollboy, the better, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

 

[Neotrotsky]

it provides for an ARMY and a NAVY... but there were no aircraft back then... hence NO ENUMERATION FOR AN AIR FORCE. Are they going to introduce a constitutional amendment so that they may continue with drone strikes?

I may have to go all out and get kettle corn

The Air Force began as divisions within the Army. For funding purposes, I am sure they are still considered that.

However, if you really think we need a Constitutional Amendment to keep the Air Force Legitimate. Then I highly doubt it will be difficult to pass if the issue comes up.

I doubt the issue is going to come up.

It should come up. There isn't a specifically enumerated power to operate an Air Force.

There is also no specific enumeration of power to operate ATF, FBI, NSA, DEA, CIA, NASA, Secret Service, FEMA, TSA, Dept of Agriculture... the list goes on and on...

specifically no, but when it comes to enumerated powers it was decided long ago

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)- Justice Marshall:

"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional,"

The Court held that for these reasons, the word "necessary" in the Necessary and Proper Clause does not refer to the only way of doing something, but rather applies to various procedures for implementing all constitutionally established powers. "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."
​

So we have a loose interpretation that allows many means to carry out their duties. But they still have to be within the scope of the Constitution.
It does not mean Congress can do anything it wants.

For example,

United States v. Lopez (1995)

held unconstitutional the Gun Free School Zone Act because it exceeded the power of Congress to "regulate commerce...among the several states."

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, "We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers." For the first time in sixty years the Court found that in creating a federal statute, Congress had exceeded the power granted to it by the Commerce Clause.


So your point about DEA, security etc not being allowed is really not true nor does it support the idea that a our gov't can do anything it wants.
Granted, some things you have mentioned ( I have not looked at all of them) could be not "constitutional" , but to this day no one has bothered to take them to court or make it big enough of an issue.

Needless to say, I hope, neither should popularity of something dictate constitutionality of it. I suppose if Congress passed a law that said you could have sex with your next door neighbors wife, some would like that law. (I have seem my neighbor's wife that would not be a good law)

 

[Agit8r]

lol. so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?

 

[Neotrotsky]

lol. so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?

Not at all, who said that?

But there is big political difference between building the White House for the President that has a shower (which was never specifically enumerated)
and trying to claim that gov't can do anything it wants because of a loose interpretation of the enumeration clause allowed for by the US Supreme Court

 

[Sallow]

lol. so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?

Absolutely.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's not the job of Congress to keep throwing extra-Constitutional shit at the wall just to see what sticks.

and as soon as you have the ability to know what is and isn't constitutional, i'm sure your trolling will mean something.

until then, let the grown ups speak.

Its really not that difficult to read the Constitution. I dont know why you think your some authority. especially when you are wrong.

 

[Avatar4321]

Security for supreme court justices?

NOPE!

You're not familiar with the necessary and proper clause are you?

 

[Neotrotsky]

I'm just glad that taxpayers won't have to be having to pay the $7.8 Billion to fund the TSA anymore, since it is not an enumerated power

This picture is better

 

[Avatar4321]

Deporting illegal immigrants?

NOPE!

Article 1 Section 8.

Do you have any idea what the Constitution actually says?

 

[Avatar4321]

lol. so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?

Hardly.

But then can you possibly explain how health care is neccessary or proper for anything in the Constitution?

 

[Sallow]

lol. so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?

Hardly.

But then can you possibly explain how health care is neccessary or proper for anything in the Constitution?

Falls under General Welfare and commerce.

Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.

Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?

 

[Avatar4321]

lol. so loose construction for what conservatives like, but strict construction for everything else?

Hardly.

But then can you possibly explain how health care is neccessary or proper for anything in the Constitution?

Falls under General Welfare and commerce.

Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.

Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?

Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution

And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.

Have you read the Constitution?

 

[Sallow]

Hardly.

But then can you possibly explain how health care is neccessary or proper for anything in the Constitution?

Falls under General Welfare and commerce.

Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.

Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?

Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution

And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.

Have you read the Constitution?

Have you?

 

[Intense]

Comrades,

This is most upsetting to me! How dare anyone question the supremacy of the state or of its' authority.

Who do these racist, misogynist, xenophobe, right wingers think they are?


Stating with the new congress, Republicans will require every bill to cite its specific constitutional authority, a reminder to color inside the lines drawn long ago by the Founding Fathers.


Needless to say, this is most upsetting to those of us on the progressive side for several reasons:

-how degrading that we must defer to the Constitution
-Once a bureaucracy is in place we know it's hard to get rid of
-Let us pass whatever we want and let the Courts worry about the rest
-Why remind people we are suppose to care about it
-We do enough hard work already passing bills we don't read

These are most troubling times indeed!

I love the idea.

 

[Avatar4321]

Falls under General Welfare and commerce.

Emergency (and free) healthcare was getting to expensive.

Now you can fill me in on where the Constitution allows for a permanent standing army under federal control?

Article 1 Section 8: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;There is no General welfare clause that grants any power whatsoever to the Federal Government in the Constitution

And the grant of power to regulate Interstate commerce to regulate the commerce between the States, not hand out "free" healthcare.

Have you read the Constitution?

Have you?

That just means they have to visit the funding every 2 years genius.

Which they do BTW

 

[liebuster]

Its a sad country we live in when politicians that swear to uphold the constitution are pissed because they are simply required to cite the constitutionality of a bill.