Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[goldcatt]

Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.

Are you kidding? That is exactly what SCOTUS does when they hear a case. The question of judicial review is not just about whether the judicial branch can determine a laws constituionality. Of course they do that. The question is how are they allowed to do it. Judicial review in my understanding essentially refers to the courts taking on the responsbility of determing the constitutionality of legislation WITHOUT actually hearing a case about it.

*facepalm*

Judicial review means just that. The JUDGES have the power to REVIEW, via an Article 3 case or controversy over which they have jurisdiction, legislative acts and other laws in order to determine their constitutionality. If there is no case they have no jurisdiction.

This is not rocket science.

 

[goldcatt]

Sounds like a great idea on the surface, but I doubt it will really change anything.

Expect this...

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

It will be interesting to see the pretzels they twist themselves into trying to avoid either of those.

Or what happens when one does end up in a case before the courts. Will the government be limited to a lobbyist's, excuse me, the author's interpretation of why it's constitutional or will they be able to advance alternate arguments to save the law?

It's going to be amusing.

 

[manifold]

Sounds like a great idea on the surface, but I doubt it will really change anything.

Expect this...

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

It will be interesting to see the pretzels they twist themselves into trying to avoid either of those.

Or what happens when one does end up in a case before the courts. Will the government be limited to a lobbyist's, excuse me, the author's interpretation of why it's constitutional or will they be able to advance alternate arguments to save the law?

It's going to be amusing.

Maybe they'll just include the entire text of the Constitution with every bill.

 

[goldcatt]

Sounds like a great idea on the surface, but I doubt it will really change anything.

Expect this...

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

commerce clause

general welfare

It will be interesting to see the pretzels they twist themselves into trying to avoid either of those.

Or what happens when one does end up in a case before the courts. Will the government be limited to a lobbyist's, excuse me, the author's interpretation of why it's constitutional or will they be able to advance alternate arguments to save the law?

It's going to be amusing.

Maybe they'll just include the entire text of the Constitution with every bill.

Nah, I thought the whole point was to get the Members of Congress to read the constitution? Hiding it in a bill would be pointless.

 

[nraforlife]

Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.

...............................

Simply not so. The words of the Constitution are very specific.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Without judicial review there would be no way to judge the constitutionality of laws. Period.

...............................

Simply not so. The words of the Constitution are very specific.

American history, American law, American government, and the American constitution disagree with your conclusion.

 

[Jackson]

I noticed today, watching on C-Span that members from both parties were reading from the constitution without objection.

Jesse Jackson Junior made a complaint that the 3/5ths person originally in the constitution was not read, only the amended constitution which omits it.

Jackson's point seems to be this: By only reading part of the Constitution, House Republicans glossed over its imperfections, and the whole notion that it ever needs or needed to be changed.

The true meaning or purpose of the 3/5ths clause was useful in the abolition of slavery; a concept that needs to be taught, and not ducked.
But to be deflected in a reading in the congress to take that up would've been bad form. It should however be taken up in after hours debate, to educate the public, and and the sooner the better.

Should Congress Have Read the WHOLE Constitution? Jesse Jackson, Jr. Makes the Case

That was not the point of reading the constitution. It was not meant to be a history lesson, but a framework for their laws in the future.

 

[rightwinger]

What is currently not covered by the Constitution

- Space Program
- Medical Research Funding
- Interstate Highways
- US Air Force
- FBI
- US Parks System
- FCC


It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)

 

[Jackson]

What is currently not covered by the Constitution

- Space Program
- Medical Research Funding
- Interstate Highways
- US Air Force
- FBI
- US Parks System
- FCC


It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)

What the votes in Congress say will be the deciding factor, not the Republicans.

Interstate Highways would be Commerce; Air Force could be an arm of the Army; FBI could be in part with the CIA; Parks system should go to the states;Medical research should be privately funded; FCC and Space program, I don't know. But of course, what do I know?

Hmmm... could they name buildings and days anymore? That would save time in the Congress if they didn't.

 

[Neotrotsky]

What is currently not covered by the Constitution

- Space Program
- Medical Research Funding
- Interstate Highways
- US Air Force
- FBI
- US Parks System
- FCC


It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)

Discussed earlier in the thread, but some liberals are slow learners

Here

"What is currently not covered by the Constitution"

Literal 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 FBI, 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)

 

[rightwinger]

What is currently not covered by the Constitution

- Space Program
- Medical Research Funding
- Interstate Highways
- US Air Force
- FBI
- US Parks System
- FCC


It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)

What the votes in Congress say will be the deciding factor, not the Republicans.

Interstate Highways would be Commerce; Air Force could be an arm of the Army; FBI could be in part with the CIA; Parks system should go to the states;Medical research should be privately funded; FCC and Space program, I don't know. But of course, what do I know?

Hmmm... could they name buildings and days anymore? That would save time in the Congress if they didn't.

The Air Force was an arm of the Army which is allowed. There is no provisions in the Constitution for a branch of service called the Air Force

 

[Neotrotsky]

What is currently not covered by the Constitution

- Space Program
- Medical Research Funding
- Interstate Highways
- US Air Force
- FBI
- US Parks System
- FCC


It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)

What the votes in Congress say will be the deciding factor, not the Republicans.

Interstate Highways would be Commerce; Air Force could be an arm of the Army; FBI could be in part with the CIA; Parks system should go to the states;Medical research should be privately funded; FCC and Space program, I don't know. But of course, what do I know?

Hmmm... could they name buildings and days anymore? That would save time in the Congress if they didn't.

The Air Force was an arm of the Army which is allowed. There is no provisions in the Constitution for a branch of service called the Air Force

Again, your analysis is flawed

see post above your last


Just a FYI

The Air Force originated as the Army Air Corps probably to be more "pure" in allegiance to the Constitution (1926-1947)

What we know as the "Air Force" today was formed in 1947. Of course, coming off the era of FDR, the era of the "constitution did not mean that much" or the "flexible constitution" was started, this should be no surprise.


Thanks to westwall adding the following history

Actually the Air Force began as a branch of the Army Signal Corps (called naturally enough the Aviation Section) in 1914 and their first operation was the punative operation against Pancho Villa in 1916 and by that time the unit was called the First Aero Squadron.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your approach is attempting the false notion of people be accepting of some gov't therefore should be accepting of all and any forms of collectivism.
Of course using that approach, one could say "hey if you like how the Post Office is run, wait till we get you health care" or if you like the way DMV works......etc


In fact, it is based on the Rousseauian vision (Jean Rousseau) holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God, that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.




Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist groups are all based and have their "roots" in the Rousseauian vision.

Our Founding Fathers based our society on Locke's political philosophy of the individual and individual property rights and that any "social contract" with a gov't is created by the transfer of some these rights by the people.

Of course, for the "great" social planners of our society this has proven inconvenient at times. Thus, you see for many, the attempt to pretend such choices do not exist. Therefore, things like "Statism does not exist" is a common defense or attempts to equate the most banal of gov't functions (eg postal service) with the larger and more intrusive gov't functions that they so desire. There is even the naive belief by some that somehow they will be able to "control" the gov't to stop the erosion of individual rights...

Good luck with that one

 

[JakeStarkey]

What is currently not covered by the Constitution

- Space Program
- Medical Research Funding
- Interstate Highways
- US Air Force
- FBI
- US Parks System
- FCC


It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)

Discussed earlier in the thread, but some liberals are slow learners

Here

"What is currently not covered by the Constitution"

Literal 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 FBI, 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)

Thank you for a good discussion, Neo. Yes, SCOTUS will make the final determination of constitutionality of the law, while we will have our own private opinions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The exclusion of Rosseau's influence on the Founders' thinking and philosophy, by some, reveals a shallow, uninformed, and illiterate understanding of the document itself. The Founders clearly recognized both Locke's concept of liberty and freedom and the necessity of Rosseau's social compact for an united country.

 

[manifold]

What is currently not covered by the Constitution

- Space Program
- Medical Research Funding
- Interstate Highways
- US Air Force
- FBI
- US Parks System
- FCC


It should be interesting as the Republicans declare everything unconstitutional (except the programs they like)

There is a difference between 'unconstitutional' and 'not guaranteed by the Constitution.'

None of the things you list are guaranteed in any way by the Constitution. The debate over their 'constitutionality' is a little more nuanced and gray, even if largly academic today.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The exclusion of Rosseau's influence on the Founders' thinking and philosophy, by some, reveals a shallow, uninformed, and illiterate understanding of the document itself. The Founders clearly recognized both Locke's concept of liberty and freedom and the necessity of Rosseau's social compact for an united country.

No exclusion was stated or can be found, except in your mind. However, most would agree that it was extremely less when compared to others.
Of course, some would say that your attempt to characterize it as such reveals is shallow and pathetic personality. But what do they know....


Even Rousseau's recognized that man could not have any 'social contract' without abandoning their claims of natural rights.

No doubt, you would agree that any attempt to make Rousseau's influence appear to supersede Locke's on our Founding Fathers would be sheer buffoonery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You clearly do not understand R's impact or its quality on the Founders and the Constitution. If you think a social compact was not a deliberate quality of the deliberation, you are either illiterate to the process or deliberately deceitful.

Neo, you can't rewrite history. Repeating the lie over and over and over does not make your silliness so.

 

[Neotrotsky]

You clearly do not understand R's impact or its quality on the Founders and the Constitution. If you think a social compact was not a deliberate quality of the deliberation, you are either illiterate to the process or deliberately deceitful.

Neo, you can't rewrite history. Repeating the lie over and over and over does not make your silliness so.

Oh you mean like cutting out people's remarks from your post-
got it

From my former post, I stated:

No doubt, you would agree that any attempt to make Rousseau's influence appear to supersede Locke's on our Founding Fathers would be sheer buffoonery.

​

Do you really want to go on the record and say that Rousseau had a greater influence than Locke?



Just a side note

In your "claim" that I do not understand Rousseau, I would like to point out that at least I can spell his name correct. (see your post from before #294)

Granted, a "Red Herring", but in this case with your pontification, it is all too fun.

I am glad to see that we can add to your interesting history of the world

Along with your claim that statism exists nowhere in the world, we can now add that Rousseau had more influence over the founding of this nation than Locke.

Jake, did you ever work at Pravda?

 

[Vanquish]

The debate over their 'constitutionality' is a little more nuanced and gray, even if largely academic today.

And this is what pisses me off about Republicans. (Trust me, Dems piss me off too!) They want to make the Constitution into this simplistic checklist...without any understanding of the constitutional doctrines and case law that have unfurled over the years. All of it based on what IS constitutional...but not actually IN the constitution.

They've done a great job at pushing a SIMPLE message that resonates with people...but it's pulling the wool over people's eyes...and that's what's so damn frustrating.

This whole mantra of "It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!It's not in the Constitution!!" sounds great coming out of Palin's mouth, but it's a complete manipulation of middle America.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I love it. Such foolishness on open display:

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

The concept of federal supremacy was developed by Chief Justice John Marshall, who led the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835. In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), the Court invalidated a Maryland law that taxed all banks in the state, including a branch of the national bank located at Baltimore. Marshall held that although none of the enumerated powers of Congress explicitly authorized the incorporation of the national bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause provided the basis for Congress's action. Having established that the exercise of authority was proper, Marshall concluded that "the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action."