Can Congress Write Any Laws It Wants?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? … NO."

When Robert Bolt wrote that truism in his play A Man For All Seasons, his protagonist, Thomas More, was attempting to persuade the jury at his trial for high treason that all governments have limitations, and that the statute he was accused of violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful authority to enact. Sir Thomas was there appealing to the natural law as well as to the common sense of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of nature. As we know, he fared no better than those who today argue that Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and constitutional limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide them.

Jefferson wedded the natural law to American law in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that our rights are "inalienable" and come to us from "Our Creator." Not only does federal law recognize that, but the whole American experience recognizes the natural law as the ultimate source of our freedoms and as a restraint on the government. Thus, the traditional panoply of American rights is ours by birthright and cannot be interfered with by an act of Congress or order of the president, but only after due process.

Can Congress Write Any Laws It Wants? by Andrew P. Napolitano

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Short answer? Yes Congress can write ANY law it wants.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Short answer? Yes Congress can write ANY law it wants.

Point taken.

But the Judge meant do they have authority from the Constitution to write any laws that they want?

 

[Peejay]

I've seen this argument played out in IRS cases, Social Security and even driver license cases. The patriot movement makes all kinds of claims about natural rights, mostly based on what they see as issues of citizenship and how it relates to one's obligation to obey practically any federal law. Some of the arguments are pretty sound if you step back and look at human existence from a very open perspective. The ideas are not all bad but they often end with a clash that few can win. In as much as I do like some of these ideas and the notions of ultimate freedom, if you get close to the major proponents of these ideas you might find that they are extreme in religious and racist tones.

The Randy Weaver case at Ruby Ridge is an exercise in what can go wrong. I always respected what the guy stood for, respected his right to live as he chose. I have never seen any evidence that he was deeply involved in any of the extreme groups. But he got close, became a target, broke a federal law by sawing off a shotgun and a shit storm ensued that he could not win. Do I think the whole thing was absolutely a joke and one hell of an extreme reaction for sawing off the barrell of a shotgun ? You're damned right I do. But you can't win. Not like that.

 

[Peejay]

Sorry to stray a bit there off topic. But yeah, congress can write any law it wants.

I think the more important question is who must obey and who will enforce t.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sorry to stray a bit there off topic. But yeah, congress can write any law it wants.

I think the more important question is who must obey and who will enforce t.

We have to obey it, and the police with their guns will enforce it.

 

[Peejay]

Sorry to stray a bit there off topic. But yeah, congress can write any law it wants.

I think the more important question is who must obey and who will enforce t.

We have to obey it, and the police with their guns will enforce it.

Well yes, that's the short version. But there are all kinds of federal laws that are not obeyed and no one to enforce them. Alaska was long out of step with the Federal law on marijuana and there was very little federal movement to enforce there. The state police were under no authority to enforce beause there was no state law.

 

[Freemason]

Article 1 Section 9

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Article 1 Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility

Just one example.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? … NO."

When Robert Bolt wrote that truism in his play A Man For All Seasons, his protagonist, Thomas More, was attempting to persuade the jury at his trial for high treason that all governments have limitations, and that the statute he was accused of violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful authority to enact. Sir Thomas was there appealing to the natural law as well as to the common sense of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of nature. As we know, he fared no better than those who today argue that Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and constitutional limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide them.

Jefferson wedded the natural law to American law in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that our rights are "inalienable" and come to us from "Our Creator." Not only does federal law recognize that, but the whole American experience recognizes the natural law as the ultimate source of our freedoms and as a restraint on the government. Thus, the traditional panoply of American rights is ours by birthright and cannot be interfered with by an act of Congress or order of the president, but only after due process.

Can Congress Write Any Laws It Wants? by Andrew P. Napolitano

Did you bother to explain this to the President #43?

 

[del]

"Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? … NO."

When Robert Bolt wrote that truism in his play A Man For All Seasons, his protagonist, Thomas More, was attempting to persuade the jury at his trial for high treason that all governments have limitations, and that the statute he was accused of violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful authority to enact. Sir Thomas was there appealing to the natural law as well as to the common sense of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of nature. As we know, he fared no better than those who today argue that Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and constitutional limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide them.

Jefferson wedded the natural law to American law in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that our rights are "inalienable" and come to us from "Our Creator." Not only does federal law recognize that, but the whole American experience recognizes the natural law as the ultimate source of our freedoms and as a restraint on the government. Thus, the traditional panoply of American rights is ours by birthright and cannot be interfered with by an act of Congress or order of the president, but only after due process.

Can Congress Write Any Laws It Wants? by Andrew P. Napolitano

Did you bother to explain this to the President #43?

try the other 87 keys, liberace.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? … NO."

When Robert Bolt wrote that truism in his play A Man For All Seasons, his protagonist, Thomas More, was attempting to persuade the jury at his trial for high treason that all governments have limitations, and that the statute he was accused of violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful authority to enact. Sir Thomas was there appealing to the natural law as well as to the common sense of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of nature. As we know, he fared no better than those who today argue that Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and constitutional limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide them.

Jefferson wedded the natural law to American law in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that our rights are "inalienable" and come to us from "Our Creator." Not only does federal law recognize that, but the whole American experience recognizes the natural law as the ultimate source of our freedoms and as a restraint on the government. Thus, the traditional panoply of American rights is ours by birthright and cannot be interfered with by an act of Congress or order of the president, but only after due process.

Can Congress Write Any Laws It Wants? by Andrew P. Napolitano

Did you bother to explain this to the President #43?

When was Bush a member of Congress?

But had you read the article you would have noted how Napolitano states that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

 

[DavidS]

Short answer? Yes Congress can write ANY law it wants.

Point taken.

But the Judge meant do they have authority from the Constitution to write any laws that they want?

Yes.

 

[DavidS]

Can Congress Write Any Laws It Wants? by Andrew P. Napolitano

Did you bother to explain this to the President #43?

When was Bush a member of Congress?

But had you read the article you would have noted how Napolitano states that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

Bush made things law without congress approving it.

 

[jillian]

Short answer? Yes Congress can write ANY law it wants.

Point taken.

But the Judge meant do they have authority from the Constitution to write any laws that they want?

congress can write any law it wants.

and then the Supreme Court can decide if it's constitutional.

checks and balances are a beautiful and wonderous thing.

 

[manu1959]

Short answer? Yes Congress can write ANY law it wants.

Point taken.

But the Judge meant do they have authority from the Constitution to write any laws that they want?

congress can write any law it wants.

and then the Supreme Court can decide if it's constitutional.

checks and balances are a beautiful and wonderous thing.

congress is about to write a law thar targets individual citizens.....the rules of the game say they should not do that.....but hey why let rules get in the way of outrage and blame for their own ineptitude.....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Short answer? Yes Congress can write ANY law it wants.

Point taken.

But the Judge meant do they have authority from the Constitution to write any laws that they want?

Yes.

Then why do we have a Constitution?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did you bother to explain this to the President #43?

When was Bush a member of Congress?

But had you read the article you would have noted how Napolitano states that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.

Bush made things law without congress approving it.

Unconstitutionally.

 

[jillian]

Point taken.

But the Judge meant do they have authority from the Constitution to write any laws that they want?

congress can write any law it wants.

and then the Supreme Court can decide if it's constitutional.

checks and balances are a beautiful and wonderous thing.

congress is about to write a law thar targets individual citizens.....the rules of the game say they should not do that.....but hey why let rules get in the way of outrage and blame for their own ineptitude.....

you talking about the bill taxing the AIG bonuses?

It will work it's way through the courts, like everything else. I do think it funny that such a bill offends the right so much more than interfering with the contracts of union auto workers, but there ya go.

politicians, of all stripes, do things to make it look like they're doing *something*... even if they know the court will undo it.

kind of like when bush got up in the middle of the night and ran to sign the schiavo bill... it was the only time in eight years he left his little ranch on an emergency basis.

you think that was because they were so competent? or do you think it was for show?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Short answer? Yes Congress can write ANY law it wants.

Point taken.

But the Judge meant do they have authority from the Constitution to write any laws that they want?

congress can write any law it wants.

and then the Supreme Court can decide if it's constitutional.

checks and balances are a beautiful and wonderous thing.

The fact that the first amendment states "Congress shall make no law..." makes your statement absolutely false. All three branches of the government are supposed to take into account the constitutionality of a law, not just the Supreme Court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry to stray a bit there off topic. But yeah, congress can write any law it wants.

I think the more important question is who must obey and who will enforce t.

We have to obey it, and the police with their guns will enforce it.

Congress can pass any law it so deems necessary.

I am stongly opposed to the bill that attacks the AIG execs, and was passed to redirect public attention.

I believe that it is unconstitutional, so I spoke to a friend who is a lawyer, and he said that congress can knowingly pass such a law even if it is expected to be tossed out.

The point is that the public has a short memory, and the taxes will have been paid long before the courts adjudicate same.