Republican Party Hack Lisa Murkowski Fails Constitutional Law (Miller/Murkowski Debate Included)

Conservatives4Palin ^ | Saturday, August 21, 2010 | Ian Lazaran

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Well OK. What about the Constitutionality of the standing army period?

[Non-Sequitur]

Well OK. What about the Constitutionality of the standing army period?

Article I, Section 8: Congress shall have the power to "raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years..."

[onyx]

Sorry to be off topic, but when was that photo of Sarah Palin taken? She looks tired.

The photo was taken in Searchlight, NV, (Reid's hometown), this past March. A little windblown maybe, not tired, It was a fantastic day. "Tea Party Express" - crowd of over 10,000+.

[The Pack Knight]

Well then let's look at a couple of others: NASA, the national air traffic control system, USDA food inspectors, the Department of Veteran's Affairs, and the FBI. Constitutional or unconstitutional?

Some of it would be, some of it wouldn't. It's all pretty much moot now, though. The Hamiltonian construction of the taxing and spending power won out in the post-1937 New Deal cases, and I don't see how we could ever go back to the Madisonian construction now. Also, while I might prefer the Madisonian construction, the very fact that the Constitution's two most prominent advocates couldn't agree on it suggests that both interpretations have validity. The Supreme Court has spoken on the issue - the Hamiltonian spending power is the law.

For the benefit of others reading this, I should probably define those terms. The "Madisonian" interpretation of the Taxing Clause holds that Congress only has the power tax and spend in direct support of its other enumerated powers. The "Hamiltonian" interpretation holds that the taxing and spending power is a separate enumerated power all its own, and that Congress has the power to appropriate funds for any purpose so long as it is "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Obviously, since the New Deal, both Congress and the Supreme Court have held the Hamiltonian view.

It's an interesting intellectual exercise to examine the constitutionality of those agencies under the Madisonian interpretation, though. I'd say all five of those other than NASA are related closely enough to Congress's enumerated powers get in under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The FBI - The Constitution clearly anticipates that Congress's exercise of its enumerated powers would result in a federal criminal law, and therefore the establishment of a federal law enforcement agency would seem to be "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" Congress's enumerated powers.

The national air traffic control system - Air traffic control deals directly with the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, which Congress has the power to regulate even under more narrow interpretations of the Commerce Clause.

Department of Veteran's Affairs - Providing for Veteran's Affairs is necessary and proper in order to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy. Failing to provide for veterans would make it awfully difficult to recruit soldiers and sailors.

USDA food inspectors - This deals directly with the objects of interstate commerce. It was constitutional even under pre-1937 interpretations of the Commerce Clause.

NASA would be the most problematic. Maybe it's closely related enough to both interstate commerce and the operation of our army and navy that it's "necessary and proper", but it would be more of a stretch than the others.

Of course, it should be made clear that few of these are the justifications actually used by Congress. Most of the statutes simply invoke the Commerce Clause or find that the establishment of those organizations serve the general welfare and/or security of the United States.

[Non-Sequitur]

Aren’t implied powers fun?

[The Pack Knight]

Yeah. I think some people are under the impression that the Constitution was drafted by Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand. It isn’t the Libertarian manifesto some people think it is.

[Melian]

Thank you so much for finding out, onyx. I worry about her. The pressure must be so intense at times. Good to know that it was months ago. The photos I’ve seen of her lately look relaxed and confident- as she should be!

She is such a wonderful example for our daughters!

[onyx]

You’re welome! I was interested to know for certain myself. I had a feeling it was NV’s clear blue sky, but I wasn’t sure about the outfit she was wearing that day! There was a wonderful thread posted here for the event and I guess I didn’t save it. :(