Obamacare, that is. Not that Obama cares. Have to break eggs to make an omelette, doncha know?
13 thoughts on “Is It Constitutional?”
Comments are closed.
Obamacare, that is. Not that Obama cares. Have to break eggs to make an omelette, doncha know?
Comments are closed.
Unfortunately, I often feel as if we lost the “is it constitutional” argument a long time ago. It seems to me the federal government does so many things that are clearly not sanctioned by the constitution that, as much as I’d like it to be, this is no longer a consideration. If every unconstitutional federal government activity were suspended immediately, we’d probably have chaos.
Are there steps that could get us back there? Could a president actually be elected with a plank of his platform the promise to veto any legislation that does new things not sanctioned by the constitution and to start some kind of process of eliminating federal government activities that are unconstitutional? A process that successfully eliminated government programs. What an idea.
I’ve always thought that “it might even be a good idea, but if it is let your state government do it” is a good enough reason not to have a federal law or program, even beyond the rather obvious (to me) fact that government does pretty much everything it does badly.
Perhaps it should be required, through law or amendment, that every bill passed by Congress must cite where in the Constitution Congress is given the power to enact each part of the bill.
Combine this with requiring that a bill have a stated purpose and all parts of the bill must pertain directly to that stated purpose, and you just might be able to at least slow down the ever creeping expansion of government powers.
Though really all this does is buy time. If the government is consistently and continually expanding its powers, what is the end result? It can’t keep expanding forever.
I seem to recall something like this was in place after the mid-1990s, but before long the congressional clerks just had a rubber stamp made up that said, Authority: Commerce Clause.
Folks, this boat sailed in 1906, when the Commerce Clause was used to create the Food and Drug Administration. Since then, we got the FDIC, Social Security, Medicare and about 20 other things that I’m forgetting at the moment.
Folks, this boat sailed in 1906, when the Commerce Clause was used to create the Food and Drug Administration. Since then, we got the FDIC, Social Security, Medicare and about 20 other things that I’m forgetting at the moment.
Yes, well, the slavery boat had sailed when the Constitution was ratified, too. What’s your point?
The intractability of this problem is one of the most trenchant reasons for getting private space exploration going.
The core problem with the idea is that there is no democratic control over the Supreme Court other than constitutional amendment. We could elect a President or Congress, and they could write their own opinions on what the Constitution meant, but how do you make the Court play ball? The Court abrogated to itself the final authority on what the Constitution says and means (the first, but certainly not the last, of their constitutional inventions), and no one called them on it. Now it’s probably too late.
The way I see it the only way out of this mess is an amendment that specifically spells out which areas of law can be regulated by the Feds (I’m actually a fan of the FDIC and FDA, all things being equal) and specifically disclaiming the rest. This would also have to trim commerce clause down to its intended size (ports, rivers, interstate highways, wireless, telephone & fiber networks, airports, national power grid, oil & gas pipelines, etc.). We’d also need an amendment that makes it clear that the spending clause only allows spending on items that Congress has authority to do itself, and that the Feds can’t use the spending power to, e.g., force the States to legislate a minimum drinking age.
You can’t demoralize us into “accepting our fate” and acknowledging that “You won.” Fuck off. There’s always another election.
I do not aspire to become an omelet for the Democrats.
Well, as I said before, I’m certain that the “individual mandate” wouldn’t stand against a straight-up challenge, even in today’s perverted system. But, like Brown v. Board of Education, the reality is that it would have to be carefully planned with the right plaintiff, right venue, etc. to not be smacked on judicial whim or technicalities.
“I do not aspire to become an omelet for the Democrats.”
No worries! They never actually make the omelet. They just like breaking eggs.
The Commerce Clause has been warped and rended so much that it’s now pretty much a general police power. I’m not sure the government can be placed back in its shackles without a constitutional amendment. Not now.
I’m not sure the government can be placed back in its shackles without a constitutional amendment. Not now.
Nothing short of a Constitutional Convention after bloody Civil War II, my friend…
Nothing short of a Constitutional Convention after bloody Civil War II, my friend…
I thought of an amendment design goal that might work. The design goal would be to have the current federal laws become the state laws so that nothing changes immediately, but the states diverge over time as dictated by their legislatures.
Not as tricky as SSTO in concept. In practice…
Yours,
Tom