Those, like, totally weird constitutionalists(A Yale/Stanford Lawyer's idiot view of law)

american thinker ^ | 9/23/10 | Mark J. Fitzgibbons

[bestintxas]

Dahlia Lithwick, who sports both a Yale undergrad and Stanford law degree, is senior editor and legal guru at Slate magazine. Yesterday she wrote this comment, which I find stunning:

I have been fascinated by Christine O'Donnell's constitutional worldview since her debate with her opponent Chris Coons last week. O'Donnell explained that "when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional." How weird is that, I thought. Isn't it a court's job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn't that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?

Again, you just can't make up this material the left feeds us. I'll let reader comments take it from here.

[bestintxas]

I guess the way the libs think is that anything goes in the halls of Congress as the Constitution means nothing, only to federal courts.

God help us with people like that graduating from universities in this country.

[allmendream]

Unfortunately the attitude is not as rare or ridiculed as much as it should be.

I remember when George Bush signed McCain's Campaign Finance “Reform” bill into law he said something along the lines of ‘Not sure it is Constitutional, but the SCOTUS will sort that out’.

BULL! No President should sign any legislation he feels is Unconstitutional, and no Congressman should ever push legislation they feel is Unconstitutional.

O’Donnell has the right attitude.

[DB]

Ya...

That’s why the President and congress take an oath to uphold the constitution... So only the courts can decide what is constitutional...

Real genius in action...

[Brookhaven]

Do they not teach even basic history in college anymore? If so, then even Ms. Lithwick would know that in the early legislatures, every bill that was considered in either the House or Senate had a section describing why it was constitutional.

[okie01]

...the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional." How weird is that, I thought. Isn't it a court's job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional?

In Dahlia Lithwick's view, then legislators shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about the Constitution. The judges get to decide that.

Is this how lawyers should approach the Constitution, too, Ms. Lithwick? Just do what they need to do...and not worry about a scrap of paper?

You gotta admit, though, it's a perfect name for somebody who a.) holds this particular view and is b.) a senior editor at Slate.

[Non-Sequitur]

Do they not teach even basic history in college anymore? If so, then even Ms. Lithwick would know that in the early legislatures, every bill that was considered in either the House or Senate had a section describing why it was constitutional.

I must have missed that part when I was in history, too. Can you point to some examples.

[J Edgar]

Proof positive that Yale and Stanford law degrees aren't worth the paper they are printed on!

Educational institutions, particularly higher institutions, are totally bankrupt today.

[jimfree]

The oath is to support and defend the Constitution. To leave the support and defense to others is to abandon that oath.

[Seven plus One]

Proof positive that Yale and Stanford law degrees aren't worth the paper they are printed on!

A degree from one of these schools is a badge that entitles the wearer to be taken seriously no matter how stupid she is. If she graduated from Northern Illinois, she'd be turning burgers, and we wouldn't have ever heard of her.

[allmendream]

Indeed!

[browniexyz]

Oh, I would have thought Lithwick went to Harvard, giving her very limited understanding of American law.

[bvw]

You wisely remembered and remarked:

I remember when George Bush signed McCain's Campaign Finance “Reform” bill into law he said something along the lines of ‘Not sure it is Constitutional, but the SCOTUS will sort that out’.

BULL! No President should sign any legislation he feels is Unconstitutional, and no Congressman should ever push legislation they feel is Unconstitutional.

George W. Bush, as President, abdicated the responsibility that EVERY President use to recognize. EVERY American, and certainly every elected Federal official has a hallowed duty to keep their actions and acts within the LIMITED authorities and powers that the Constitution grants. GWB was in that instance -- and others -- in dereliction of solemn duty and oath.

Grover Cleveland vetoed the Texas Seed Bill early in 1887. This legislation appropriated $10,000—a trifling sum even in those days—to allow the Commissioner of Agriculture to purchase seed grain for distribution to farmers in certain counties of Texas that had suffered from drought. The president’s veto message read in part as follows:

I can find no warrant
for such an appropriation in
the Constitution;
and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1329

Compare Cleveland's solemn and earnest sense of his Presidential duty to that of George Bush:

Q On campaign finance --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I signed the bill this morning.

Q But without much fanfare -- a signal that you're really unhappy with it?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I wouldn't have signed it if I was really unhappy with it. ...
This bill improves
the system.

Q Mr. President, the objection you raised in the last week of debate on the bill is that it didn't take effect immediately, the ban on soft money would not take effect until after the election. Do you find it ironic that given that that was your opposition, today, right after signing the bill you're out raising --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to lay down my arms.
I'm going to participate
in the rules of
the system.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020327-3.html

President Bush was of "The System"; President Cleveland was of "The Constitution".

[ridesthemiles]

It should never be up to the courts to make any of those decisions.

IF congress paid any attention to the Constitution, that is.

[70times7]

There is more to this than some are grasping. This liberal weasel knows full well that the comment is B.S. Her purpose was to demean O’Donnel while advancing the bastardization of the constitution through judicial activism and legislating from the bench.

[allmendream]

Thanks for the kind words and research!

I remember Cleveland's words well. I have long suggested that every bill before Congress, have, right up at the top, which of the limited and enumerated powers the bill was to be under.

Here is the list. Would be awful hard to justify most of the TRILLIONS of dollars in spending going by the following list......

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 borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[tacticalogic]

You can find people here who adopt the same attitude as soon as the topic turns to the drug war.

[bvw]

My friend, your post inspired that research, it is then like you did it yourself.

We need NO MORE MEN OF “THE SYSTEM”, whatever “system” that may be. That is not our Nation’s Greatness. Our Nation is a Nation under G-d, our Constitution is an awesome work of men surely inspired by Our G-d, and thrilled and joyful to create a new land dedicated to Justice, Integrity ad Liberty under G-d.

[Tublecane]

“Isn’t it a court’s job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional?”

No. Well, actually, yes, but it’s not their job alone. Why do you figure congresspeople and presidents and such take those oaths of office, anyway?

“And isn’t that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?”

Again, no. Not explicitly. Judicial review is what we refer to as an “informal amendment.” That is, some judge just made it up. There is a strong case to be made for it based on the fact that the Supreme Court is the final say on the law, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. But to that’s a long logical loop, and far away from it being “provided for in...the Constitution,” at least insofar as people normally take “provided for” to mean.

Furthermore, let it forever be remembered that the consitutional convention debated and shot down the idea of a judicial veto. We got it anyway, but by going off the books, as it were. Which is fine by me, except (in addition to such unfortunate occurances as the Dred Scott decision) the almost almighty power of SCOTUS (only formal amendments can officially counteract them) tends to obscure the many and diverse potentially constitutionally defensive powers possessed by the other branches.

For instance, what was to stop W. Bush from vetoing campaign finance reform? Nothing, save his deference for SCOTUS as the constitutional gatekeeper. Either that, or he was lying when he intimated that he wanted it to fail, and was trying to have it both ways.

[Tublecane]

“BULL! No President should sign any legislation he feels is Unconstitutional, and no Congressman should ever push legislation they feel is Unconstitutional.”

Exactly. Why does Bush think he had the veto power? Because it’s fun to stick it to Congress? To hold something over the heads of the opposing party? No! To defend the Constitution, that’s what! Otherwise, that whole venerated system of “checks and balances” is nothing but an elaborate game. Which I admit it often is, but that wasn’t the plan.

[BobL]

“That’s why the President and congress take an oath to uphold the constitution... So only the courts can decide what is constitutional...”

Great point. By definition, if an unconstitutional law is passed or signed in, then, obviously, people have FAILED to uphold what they swore to.

Therefore - JAIL THEM.