Is our Government Doing Unconstitutional Things?

[Zook]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Zook]

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.

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?

 

[amrchaos]

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.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

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.

 

[johnrocks]

From the Federal Reserve to farm and corporate subsidies.

 

[Zook]

Any One Else Have Any Thoughts??

 

[necritan]

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.

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?

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

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.

 

[sparky]

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....

 

[Xenophon]

So much was lost to the Imperial President.

 

[bluedoe]

I would say yes....The Federal Government (taxing mostly the wealthy to give to the poor) is giving money to state governments that have no option, and forcing them to spend it on what they feel is most important. This is unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure the state governments used to be separate from the federal government. I didn't think the things Bush did were constitutional and this isn't either, but I do not see Democrats screaming unconstitutional when it serves their ideals.

 

[statusquobuster]

Talk about unconstitutional things done by Congress! Consider that Congress has flagrantly violated a very specific clause in Article V that gives the public and the states the option of a convention of state delegates to propose constitutional amendments. There is only one specific requirement that is supposed to be used by Congress to call a convention and that has long been satisfied, with over 700 state applications from all 50 states. Learn all the facts at foavc.org and become a member of Friends of the Article V convention.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Any One Else Have Any Thoughts??

Without a doubt: House will give a non-state a vote in Congress: "bill still faces another fight from Senate Republicans who contend that the measure is unconstitutional.

They say the Constitution clearly states that House members must be chosen "by the people of the several states" and that the District is not a state. "

Washington Times - Voting rights near for District?

I'm really going to miss America.

 

[KMAN]

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.

I assume that's a rhetorical question but if not...YES!

 

[sealybobo]

Is this gov doing unconstitutional things.

Says the retard 8 years too late.

 

[BrianH]

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.

Yes, it does state specific powers. However, the 10th Amendment was design to address powers that were not designated in the Constitution. However, the USSC decided to stomp all over the 10th Amendment by saying that it was not to be taken literally, but was "truistic" in nature. So it seems now that the government is taking powers that weren't delegated to them in the Constitution...(powers of which the 10th Amendment addressed)

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

USSC United States v. Darby (1941) stated....
"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers"

"13. The Tenth Amendment is not a limitation upon the authority of the National Government to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end. P. 123."

United States v. Darby

 

[BrianH]

Is this gov doing unconstitutional things.

Says the retard 8 years too late.

Oh sealy, did you forget to wear your helmet today?

It's been going on FAR longer than 8 years.

 

[Gunny]

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.

The Tenth Amendment covers your argument nicely. Easy to find on Google. You should give it a try BEFORE posting.

But the gist of it is that any power not EXPLICITLY given to the US government belongs to the states.

 

[garyd]

What it has the constitutinoal authority to do is quite limited. It has already been pointed out where. In the preamble to the constitution, it states provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

Some one please explain to me how stealing from A, giving 10% of the proceeds of this theft to B and using the remainder to grow the size and scope of the federal government does any of that.