Justice Scalia Laughs At Rick Perry’s Tenther View Of The Constitution

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,656
Reaction score
8,813
Points
2,030
Location
Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
Justice Scalia Laughs At Rick Perry’s Tenther View Of The Constitution


A growing number of conservative lawmakers embrace tentherism, a radical overreading of the 10th Amendment which claims that nearly all of the federal budget is unconstitutional. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) believes that Social Security and Medicare “contradict[] the principles of limited, constitutional government that our founders established to protect us.” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) mocked President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for calling upon the federal government to provide “a decent retirement plan” and “health care” because “the Constitution doesn’t give Congress any of those powers.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) shares their belief that Medicare violates the Constitution, and he’d also eliminate all Pell Grants, student loan assistance and other federal spending on education. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, however, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia openly mocked their suggestion that his Court should simply declare all these programs unconstitutional in response to a question from committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT):
LEAHY: Justice Scalia, under our Constitution, what is the role, if any, that the judges play in making budgetary choices or determining what the best allocation of taxpayer resources is? Is that within their proper role, or is that somewhere else?
SCALIA: You know it’s not within our proper role Mr. Chairman. [laughs] Of course it’s not.
 

Conservative

Type 40
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
17,082
Reaction score
2,053
Points
48
Location
Pennsylvania
anytime someone on the right believes in something the left doesn't, they call it an '-ism'.
 

zzzz

Just a regular American
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
3,080
Reaction score
530
Points
98
Location
Yountsville
Abolish Social Security and refund all the money I paid into it over the years, with interest of course!!!
 

Kuros

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
69
Points
0
Location
Louisville
There's not enough context in the video or the link to suggest that Scalia was laughing at Tentherism rather than what would simply be an extremely robust judicial review.
 
OP
Synthaholic

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
47,656
Reaction score
8,813
Points
2,030
Location
Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
There's not enough context in the video or the link to suggest that Scalia was laughing at Tentherism rather than what would simply be an extremely robust judicial review.
Of course not....Synthia likes to make shit up.
Leahy is asking him exactly about tentherism.

LEAHY: Justice Scalia, under our Constitution, what is the role, if any, that the judges play in making budgetary choices or determining what the best allocation of taxpayer resources is? Is that within their proper role, or is that somewhere else?
SCALIA: You know it’s not within our proper role Mr. Chairman. [laughs] Of course it’s not.
 

Liability

Locked Account.
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
35,447
Reaction score
5,178
Points
48
Location
Mansion in Ravi's Head
Justice Scalia Laughs At Rick Perry’s Tenther View Of The Constitution


A growing number of conservative lawmakers embrace tentherism, a radical overreading of the 10th Amendment which claims that nearly all of the federal budget is unconstitutional. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) believes that Social Security and Medicare “contradict[] the principles of limited, constitutional government that our founders established to protect us.” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) mocked President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for calling upon the federal government to provide “a decent retirement plan” and “health care” because “the Constitution doesn’t give Congress any of those powers.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) shares their belief that Medicare violates the Constitution, and he’d also eliminate all Pell Grants, student loan assistance and other federal spending on education. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, however, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia openly mocked their suggestion that his Court should simply declare all these programs unconstitutional in response to a question from committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT):
LEAHY: Justice Scalia, under our Constitution, what is the role, if any, that the judges play in making budgetary choices or determining what the best allocation of taxpayer resources is? Is that within their proper role, or is that somewhere else?
SCALIA: You know it’s not within our proper role Mr. Chairman. [laughs] Of course it’s not.
The Leahy question (together with justice Scalia's answer) and the dopey OP's original contention are not discussing the same point.

Justices do not draft budget proposals nor do they allocate resources in that manner.

So of course Justice Scalia laughed at Leahy's plodding and pretty much meaningless question.

None of that has anything to do with the open question of whether the Federal Government has crafted Unconstitutional budgets.
 

Kuros

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
69
Points
0
Location
Louisville
There's not enough context in the video or the link to suggest that Scalia was laughing at Tentherism rather than what would simply be an extremely robust judicial review.
Of course not....Synthia likes to make shit up.
Leahy is asking him exactly about tentherism.

LEAHY: Justice Scalia, under our Constitution, what is the role, if any, that the judges play in making budgetary choices or determining what the best allocation of taxpayer resources is? Is that within their proper role, or is that somewhere else?
SCALIA: You know it’s not within our proper role Mr. Chairman. [laughs] Of course it’s not.
Not really. Here's the text of the 10th:

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.
Leahy is asking if justices legislate. They do not. Justices strike down unconstitutional laws. They never allocate resources or make budget choices, not even were they to declare social security unconstitutional.
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
Scalia is right to laugh at people like Perry and Lee, because their views do not survive even the most superficial contact with the text of the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “to lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States.” No plausible interpretation of the words “general welfare” does not include programs that ensure that all Americans can live their entire lives secure in the understanding that retirement will not force them into poverty and untreated sickness, or programs that ensure that young Americans can begin their careers with the skills they need to provide for themselves.


from the article
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Scalia is right to laugh at people like Perry and Lee, because their views do not survive even the most superficial contact with the text of the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “to lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States.” No plausible interpretation of the words “general welfare” does not include programs that ensure that all Americans can live their entire lives secure in the understanding that retirement will not force them into poverty and untreated sickness, or programs that ensure that young Americans can begin their careers with the skills they need to provide for themselves.


from the article
Perhaps you should actually read what Scalia said.
 

Kuros

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
69
Points
0
Location
Louisville
Scalia is right to laugh at people like Perry and Lee, because their views do not survive even the most superficial contact with the text of the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “to lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States.” No plausible interpretation of the words “general welfare” does not include programs that ensure that all Americans can live their entire lives secure in the understanding that retirement will not force them into poverty and untreated sickness, or programs that ensure that young Americans can begin their careers with the skills they need to provide for themselves.
Incorrect.

First, don't divide up the language in the Constitution. Here's the taxing and spending clause in its entirety:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To pay debts, provide for defense, and general welfare MODIFIES the power to tax. This means that the Federal government can tax cigarettes because it believes cigarettes are bad, even though the money is taken out of circulation and not used to pay debts or pay for the military. It does not mean the Federal government can act outside its specifically enumerated powers.

This was the understanding of the Federalist drafters of the Constitution. I refer you to Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 31-32. The subject of each of these is "concerning taxation."

Alexander Hamilton (31) said:
[W]e find, in fact, that the antagonists of the proposed Constitution, so far from acquiescing in their justness or truth, seem to make their principal and most zealous effort against this [tax and spend clause]. It may therefore be satisfactory to [sic] analize the arguments with which they combat it.

Those of them which have been most laboured with that view, seem in substance to amount to this:

It is not true, because the exigencies of the union may not be susceptible of limitation, that its power of laying taxes ought to be unconfined. Revenue is as requisite to the purposes of the local administrations, as to those of the union; and the former are at least of equal importance with the latter, to the happiness of the people. It is therefore as necessary, that the state governments should be able to command the means of supplying their wants, as that the national government should possess the like faculty, in respect to the wants of the union. But an indefinite power of taxation in the latter might, and probably would, in time, deprive the former of the mean of providing for their own necessities; and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the national legislature. As the laws of the union are to become the supreme law of the land; as it is to have power to pass all laws that may be necessary for carrying into execution the authorities with which it is proposed to vestit; the national government might at any time abolish the taxes imposed for state objects, upon the pretense of interference with its own. It might allege a necessity of doing this, in order to give efficacy to the national revenues: and thus all the resources of taxation might, by degrees, become the subjects of federal monopoly, to the entire exclusion and destruction of state governments.
This mode of reasoning appears sometimes to turn upon the supposition of usurpation of the national government; at other times, it seems to be designed only as a deduction from the constitutional operation of its intended powers. It is only in the latter light, that it can be admitted to have any pretensions to fairness.
Then, Hamilton moves on to the next article to explain how an unfettered power of taxation could coexist with a Federal government of enumerated powers.

Alexander Hamilton (32) said:
An entire consolidation of the state into one complete national sovereignty, would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the state governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before hand, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation of state sovereignty, would only exist in three cases:

[1] where the constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the union;
[2] where it granted, in one instance, an authority to the union, and in another, prohibited the states from exercising the like authority
[3] and where it granted an authority to the union, to which a similar authority in the states would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,529
Reaction score
14,209
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
A growing number of conservative lawmakers embrace tentherism, a radical overreading of the 10th Amendment which claims that nearly all of the federal budget is unconstitutional.
In Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court ruled that Social Security was Constitutional and did not violate the 10 Amendment. Needless to say the ruling has been unpopular with conservatives for well over seven decades. Despite this opposition, however, Social Security is among the Nation’s most successful programs, has in no way undermined individual rights, and is considered settled law in the judicial community. Scalia knows this.

Consequently, anyone who argues Social Security is ‘un-Constitutional’ or the Federal budget ‘violates’ the 10th Amendment is either exhibiting his ignorance or pandering to his partisan base.
 
Last edited:

Kuros

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
69
Points
0
Location
Louisville
A growing number of conservative lawmakers embrace tentherism, a radical overreading of the 10th Amendment which claims that nearly all of the federal budget is unconstitutional.
In Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court ruled that Social Security was Constitutional and did not violate the 10 Amendment. Needless to say the ruling has been unpopular with conservatives for well over seven decades. Despite this opposition, however, Social Security is among the Nation’s most successful programs, has in no way undermined individual rights, and is considered settled law in the judicial community. Scalia knows this.

Consequently, anyone who argues Social Security is ‘un-Constitutional’ or the Federal budget ‘violates’ the 10th Amendment is either exhibiting his ignorance or pandering to his partisan base.
Right, and Social Security is virtually the ONLY Federal program premised on the tax and spending clause. And that makes sense, because Social Security is simply a giant tax and repayment scheme, a mere insurance program in which the Federal government doesn't act outside of the collection and repayment of money.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,091
Points
245
Justice Scalia Laughs At Rick Perry’s Tenther View Of The Constitution


A growing number of conservative lawmakers embrace tentherism, a radical overreading of the 10th Amendment which claims that nearly all of the federal budget is unconstitutional. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) believes that Social Security and Medicare “contradict[] the principles of limited, constitutional government that our founders established to protect us.” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) mocked President Franklin Delano Roosevelt for calling upon the federal government to provide “a decent retirement plan” and “health care” because “the Constitution doesn’t give Congress any of those powers.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) shares their belief that Medicare violates the Constitution, and he’d also eliminate all Pell Grants, student loan assistance and other federal spending on education. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, however, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia openly mocked their suggestion that his Court should simply declare all these programs unconstitutional in response to a question from committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT):
LEAHY: Justice Scalia, under our Constitution, what is the role, if any, that the judges play in making budgetary choices or determining what the best allocation of taxpayer resources is? Is that within their proper role, or is that somewhere else?
SCALIA: You know it’s not within our proper role Mr. Chairman. [laughs] Of course it’s not.
You are stretching Synth. He was not asked about their view, he was asked about the judicial branch making budgetary choices. Completely different subject altogether.
 

Gadawg73

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
14,426
Reaction score
1,617
Points
155
Location
Georgia
A growing number of conservative lawmakers embrace tentherism, a radical overreading of the 10th Amendment which claims that nearly all of the federal budget is unconstitutional.
In Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court ruled that Social Security was Constitutional and did not violate the 10 Amendment. Needless to say the ruling has been unpopular with conservatives for well over seven decades. Despite this opposition, however, Social Security is among the Nation’s most successful programs, has in no way undermined individual rights, and is considered settled law in the judicial community. Scalia knows this.

Consequently, anyone who argues Social Security is ‘un-Constitutional’ or the Federal budget ‘violates’ the 10th Amendment is either exhibiting his ignorance or pandering to his partisan base.
Social security is the worst thing to happen to the youth of this country since inception. High school kids earning minimum wage that earn a little extra $$ have to pay into it at age 16. Social security has changed the landscape of poverty forever in America. The largest transfer of wealth from one generation to another. As a result of it poverty wears a diaper these days. 15% of ALL earned income in this country goes to seniors. An injustice to all young workers.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,091
Points
245
A growing number of conservative lawmakers embrace tentherism, a radical overreading of the 10th Amendment which claims that nearly all of the federal budget is unconstitutional.
In Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court ruled that Social Security was Constitutional and did not violate the 10 Amendment. Needless to say the ruling has been unpopular with conservatives for well over seven decades. Despite this opposition, however, Social Security is among the Nation’s most successful programs, has in no way undermined individual rights, and is considered settled law in the judicial community. Scalia knows this.

Consequently, anyone who argues Social Security is ‘un-Constitutional’ or the Federal budget ‘violates’ the 10th Amendment is either exhibiting his ignorance or pandering to his partisan base.
In Plessy v Fergusen the court ruled that separate but equal is fair and does not violate the Constitution. Needless to say the decisions was completely wrong, consequentially anyone that argues a Supreme Court decision is the final word on anything is an idiot.
 

Inthemiddle

Rookie
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
6,354
Reaction score
675
Points
0
In Plessy v Fergusen the court ruled that separate but equal is fair and does not violate the Constitution. Needless to say the decisions was completely wrong, consequentially anyone that argues a Supreme Court decision is the final word on anything is an idiot.
Well, it's not the final say, per se. But the SCOTUS is indeed the highest arbiter to address questions of federal law. At times the court has found compelling reason to deviate from earlier precedent, or has, in addressing a case, found compelling reason to disagree with some portion of previous case law. When that happens the court has shown a willingness to create new case law, but these situations are rare. As it turns out, 99% of the time a Supreme Court decision IS the final word on a question of US law. Rare exceptions should not be viewed as routine phenomena.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,091
Points
245
In Plessy v Fergusen the court ruled that separate but equal is fair and does not violate the Constitution. Needless to say the decisions was completely wrong, consequentially anyone that argues a Supreme Court decision is the final word on anything is an idiot.
Well, it's not the final say, per se. But the SCOTUS is indeed the highest arbiter to address questions of federal law. At times the court has found compelling reason to deviate from earlier precedent, or has, in addressing a case, found compelling reason to disagree with some portion of previous case law. When that happens the court has shown a willingness to create new case law, but these situations are rare. As it turns out, 99% of the time a Supreme Court decision IS the final word on a question of US law. Rare exceptions should not be viewed as routine phenomena.
SCOTUS can be wrong, and the many people that thought Plessy was wrong fought it for decades, and eventually prevailed. If they had an attitude like Jones we would still have Jim Crow. Jones is arguing the people who disagree with SCOTUS decisions are wrong because they disagree with SCOTUS decisions, that makes him an idiot. If you want to support that position that makes you an idiot.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top