Posted on 12/04/2004 12:43:11 PM PST by forest
One does not expect honor from those operating in an illegal system. And let's face it, if our Constitution is supposed to be the "law of the land," the federal government we have now must be the most successful illegal operation in the history of this nation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said many times that when we look for an explanation of what is meant (what was intended by the authors) in the Constitution, one should turn to The Federalist Papers as an expert source for guidance. That being so, we see that we now have a government greatly different than what was intended by the Founding Fathers. It is, therefore, not a Constitutional form of government.
Our Constitution can be thought of as a contract between the people (through their States) and the central government. Federal officials cannot change provisions of that contract, or perform tasks not authorized by it, without the written consent of the people. Most officials in the federal government know perfectly well that they are operating something greatly different than the type of government authorized by the Constitution. They know they violate the Constitution every day. They just do not care to admit it.
Many public officials like to stay in government simply because they can work the system for personal gain. Most of them enjoy the title, pomp and circumstance. Many also enjoy wielding as much power over others as they can get.
All that being said, it is also no surprise that the usurpers of liberty on Capitol Hill become totally upset when anyone rocks their boat a little by asking them to take an honorable position on a matter that could, conceivably, impact on their chance for reelection. These are, after all, people disposed to milking the system, not doing what is right. We have already determined they do not intend to do what is right because no more than a small handful of them ever demands a return to a Constitutional form of government.
For instance, federal power is limited to the specific grant of enumerated powers in the Constitution and does not reach mundane questions of criminal law. No matter how worthy the purpose of a given federal statute, it remains invalid if it exceeds the constitutionally proscribed bounds. Which means, of course, that such things as gun, drug, labor, and environmental laws are inherently unconstitutional and only applicable on federal property.
Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Court in Cohens v. Virginia, (1821), noted that Congress had "no general right to punish murder committed within any of the States," and that it was "clear that congress cannot punish felonies generally." The Court's only qualification was that Congress could enact such laws for places where it enjoyed plenary powers -- for instance, over the District of Columbia. Thus, whatever effect ordinary murders, or robbery, or gun possession might have on interstate commerce (or on any other subject of federal concern) was irrelevant to the question of congressional power.
Of course, lawmakers will say that these laws are enacted pursuant to Congress's power to "regulate commerce among the several states." But, according to the Founding Fathers, that is baloney. The duty was to guarantee the free flow of commerce between the states, not to determine what can be marketed and how.
Back when Newt led the Republican takeover of the House, we were told that they would take the time to review all the present laws and regulations with an eye to deleting as many as possible. That sounded like an excellent idea back then and still does today. So, perhaps we had better light a fire under them to get it started.
After all, they have been passing laws, rules and regulations for a long time. That's enough, already! Now it is time to clean out the dead wood in the forest of federal law. Else, we will have to start cleaning out some dead wood in Congress.
Scotus uses the Fed Paps to interpret Cotus.
The Constitution is a contract our public servants are breaking. They like those freebies and power. [Instead of milking the system, they should be sent to the farm to milk.]
Federal power is limited to the specific grant of enumerated powers in the Constitution and does not reach mundane questions of criminal law.
The commerce clause does NOT give Congress unlimited powers.
It is long past time to clean the dead wood out of our laws and Congress.
Priceless.
You are correct.
After all, they have been passing laws, rules and regulations for a long time. That's enough, already! Now it is time to clean out the dead wood in the forest of federal law. Else, we will have to start cleaning out some dead wood in Congress.
But our “esteemed” representatives are LAW MAKERS!. The news readers call them that all the time! How can a lawmaker be expected to repeal a law? < / sarcasm>
I have even seen politicians run on their record of how many new laws they have passed. Never have I even heard of one bragging about getting an old law repealed – revised, but not repealed.
The law books just keep growing in size and number of volumes.
Excellent - thanks.
The unwritten consent of the people is the majority that WON'T vote... this last election has been an anomally.
Astonishly uninformed by orders of magnitude too vast to even warrant a response.
Bob Barr told me once that he thought Congress should only be allowed to make new laws in odd numbered years and in even numbered years they should only be allowed to remove existing laws.
No, but they seem to think the "general welfare" clause in the preamble certainly does.
bump
Very good.
Thanks again.
L
Power-Mad Liars.
In the above referenced article you stated, "But, according to the Founding Fathers, that is baloney. The duty was to guarantee the free flow of commerce between the states, not to determine what can be marketed and how." I beg to differ.
In United States v, The William, 28 Fed. Cas. 614, no. 16,700 D.Mass. 1808 , just 19 years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, it states:
"Further, the power to regulate commerce is not to be confined to the adoption of measures, exclusively beneficial to commerce itself, or tending to its advancement; but, in our national system, as in all modern sovereignties, it is also to be considered as an instrument for other purposes of general policy and interest."
Surely, some of the Founding Fathers were still alive in 1808 -- why didn't they rise up and say, "That's not what we meant!"
In Federalist No. 23, it states, "Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety? Are fleets, and armies, and revenues necessary for this purpose? The government of the Union must be empowered, to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. The same must be the case, in respect to commerce, and to every other matter, to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend."
Your comments?
Thanks and regards,
I can't take credit for the idea, but I thought it was significant that it was coming from (at the time) a sitting Congressman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.