Jerry Falwell Thinks Bush is Obeying the Constitution?

[Berzerker]

C'mon Jerry, where in the Constitution did you find Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, corporate welfare, welfare for the poor, or any other group of people, the FDA, the DEA, HHS, HUD, and just about every other alphabet bureaucracy? Where in the Constitution does it say Congress shall have the power to authorise me, you, or the President the power to declare war?

[Sava]

Hopefully you aren't just realizing now that Falwell is an idiot...

[David Floyd]

If Jerry Falwell think Bush is obeying the Constitution, I'd hate to think the disaster that a Falwell Presidency would be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

C'mon Jerry, where in the Constitution did you find Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, corporate welfare, welfare for the poor, or any other group of people, the FDA, the DEA, HHS, HUD, and just about every other alphabet bureaucracy?

General Welfare Clause, Commerce Clause, both bolstered by the Necessary and Proper Clause (the most important one).

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress shall have the power to authorise me, you, or the President the power to declare war?

Um... the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. NO WHERE does it say in what way it has to declare war. It may allow the President to declare war when he feels it is the best time for it if it wishes.

[David Floyd]

General Welfare Clause, Commerce Clause, both bolstered by the Necessary and Proper Clause (the most important one).

The general welfare clause of Article 1 Section 8 has been found NOT to be a general grant of powers, and certainly not a general grant of powers for things such as Social Security. The Necessary and Proper Clause only applies to actions appropriate for carrying out the preceding powers in the same section.

Um... the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. NO WHERE does it say in what way it has to declare war. It may allow the President to declare war when he feels it is the best time for it if it wishes.

No, sorry. A branch of the government may not cede its Constitutionally mandated powers to another branch of the government without an Amendment. It's like saying Congress could pass a law ceding lawmaking power to the Executive Branch - it's a total violation of separation of powers.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and as to the Commerce Clause, we both know that has NOTHING to do with passing social welfare programs.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress shall have the power to authorise me, you, or the President the power to declare war?

Um... the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. NO WHERE does it say in what way it has to declare war. It may allow the President to declare war when he feels it is the best time for it if it wishes.

I believe that was his point. The debate about this surrounds the days and weeks after 9/11 when Congress gave Pres. Jr. the authorization (not the same as authority) to go after "those responcible" for the henious acts of that day. The concern is he might be trying to ride a bit further on that authorization than was originally given him. Iraq has yet to be connected, hell Suadi Arabia has more responcibility than Iraq.

The President DOES NOT have the power to declare war, only Congress does. The President may engage our forces for a limited time of 60 days (notifying Congress within 48 hours), but long-term commitments need Congressional approval (though declaration-of-war might still not be made).

[Berzerker]

Imran -

General Welfare Clause, Commerce Clause, both bolstered by the Necessary and Proper Clause (the most important one).

The general welfare clause is not a catchall for everything not mentioned in the Constitution, otherwise the Framers would have simply given us a Constitution authorising Congress to promote the general welfare and leave it all up to Congress to decide what promotes the general welfare without enumerating other powers. Why enumerate a power to establish a postal system, setting standards of weights and measurements, etc., if Congress can promote the general welfare? Btw, these programs don't even promote the general welfare (no coincidence the Dems chose "welfare" to name their programs), millions never even get to "benefit" like all the people who die before collecting a cent of social security. The Commerce clause, more accurately, the Inter-State Commerce clause gave Congress the power to regulate commerce among the citizens of the various states , not create a variety of government programs not involving the actual regulation of inter-state commerce. And the purpose of the Inter-State Commerce clause was to prevent the states from engaging in trade wars and provide us all with a neutral arbiter when disputes arose so we wouldn't have to go to the state of the person we are suing and conduct legal proceedings there. The necessary and proper clause, as David points out, pertains only to those powers enumerated, not fictions and lies written into the Constitution outside of the amendment process by politicians and voters who don't want the Constitution getting in the way of their ideologies. Read Federalist # 41 for Madison's definition of the "welfare clause"...

Um... the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. NO WHERE does it say in what way it has to declare war. It may allow the President to declare war when he feels it is the best time for it if it wishes.

Congress has the power to declare war, not give the President the power to declare war. Assuming the resolution passed last fall by Congress was in fact a declaration of war, what do you think would happen if the President ignored the Congress and didn't send in the troops? No war? Hmm...what happened to that declaration of war?

DRoseDARS -

The President may engage our forces for a limited time of 60 days (notifying Congress within 48 hours), but long-term commitments need Congressional approval (though declaration-of-war might still not be made).

That isn't in the Constitution, that's the War Powers Act and is itself unconstitutional. Imagine the President running around the world ordering invasions whenever he felt like it only for Congress to decide whether or not to fund the wars 60 days after the fact. Once in a war, it's very hard to stop. And the Framers DID NOT want one person having the power to commit others to wars like happened all the time under the Kings and Queens in Europe.

[DRoseDARs]

Uh, didn't say it was in the constitution. And it most certainly IS NOT unconstitutional. After the debacle of Vietnam, Congress wanted to reassert it's powers regarding foreign policy. They contended the framers never intended for future presidents getting us into UNDECLARED wars. Getting imbroiled in the semantics of what is and is not war is very dangerous groung and Congress recognized that. The War Powers Act of '73 forces every president since to reconsider engaging in conflicts that can't be resolved in one month's time using conventional forces. Almost every pres. has notified Congress of action and they've given their blessings before (though often short of a declaration of war).

*Note: some of this is paraphrased from the book sitting in my lap. In a similar thread on this topic, I had a lot more material quoted and cited...and I really don't want to sit here that long again*

[David Floyd]

The point is that the War Powers Act transfers an unconstitutionally large amount of power away from one branch of the government to another branch.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, sorry. A branch of the government may not cede its Constitutionally mandated powers to another branch of the government without an Amendment.

Read a Constitutional Law textbook. Congress can most definetly say we will agree with a declared war when the President decides it is necessary. That is basically a declaration of war when the President decides to make war (which is HIS right by the Commander in Chief Powers).

Why isn't Congress' bill a declaration of war for when the President decides to initiate it?

Especially in the foreign realm, the President can exercise this power. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation.

It's like saying Congress could pass a law ceding lawmaking power to the Executive Branch - it's a total violation of separation of powers.

It is certainly Constitutional for Congress to cede power over making regulations to the executive branch. When the executive brach proceeds under congressional approval, it is then that executive power is at its highest. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (J. Jackson, concurring)

Btw, where in the Constitution does it say that seperation of powers must be STRICTLY protected?

The general welfare clause is not a catchall for everything not mentioned in the Constitution, otherwise the Framers would have simply given us a Constitution authorising Congress to promote the general welfare and leave it all up to Congress to decide what promotes the general welfare without enumerating other powers.

The General Welfare Clause and Commerce Clause by themselves mean little, but with the Necessary and Proper Clause allows them to do much more. It is necessary and proper to have these organizations to regulate commerce (especially Department of Transportation) and provide for general welfare in relation with the Tax Clause.

Furthermore, Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Executive Departments are right in the Constitution, even though they are undefined, and thus are Constitutional.

Also section 5 of the 14th Amendment allows creation of agencies to enforce the provisions of that Amendment.

Oh, and the Federalist Papers have no precedential value whatsoever.

[David Floyd]

Read a Constitutional Law textbook. Congress can most definetly say we will agree with a declared war when the President decides it is necessary. That is basically a declaration of war when the President decides to make war (which is HIS right by the Commander in Chief Powers).

The President has no power to create a war, that is the same thing as declaring a war, which only Congress can do. And Congress CANNOT cede any of their power without an Amendment.

Why isn't Congress' bill a declaration of war for when the President decides to initiate it?

Because Congress has explicitly stated it is not a declaration of war, among other things.

Especially in the foreign realm, the President can exercise this power. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation.

I certainly don't agree with that decision.

It is certainly Constitutional for Congress to cede power over making regulations to the executive branch. When the executive brach proceeds under congressional approval, it is then that executive power is at its highest.
(J. Jackson, concurring)

First of all, that's a concurrence, not a majority opinion. Secondly, if the Executive Branch is acting under valid authority, Congressional consent is irrelevant - there's no "highest" or "lowest" power, it's simply power that the Executive Branch can either exercise or not exercise. Thirdly, I don't agree that ANY branch of government can seize private property for a war such as Korea, because such a war is not in the public good, and thus the property seized cannot be for the public use. But in a broader sense, the move to seize the property was unconstitutional REGARDLESS of who tried to seize it under whatever circumstances, because immediate compensation was not offered.

And before you ask me where the 5th Amendment demands immediate compensation, I would argue that the phrase "just compensation" implies "immediate compensation", because it is inherently unjust for the government to seize your property today and give a vague promise of later payment.

Btw, where in the Constitution does it say that seperation of powers must be STRICTLY protected?

Strict protection of separation of powers is implied - that's the obvious intent.

The General Welfare Clause and Commerce Clause by themselves mean little, but with the Necessary and Proper Clause allows them to do much more. It is necessary and proper to have these organizations to regulate commerce (especially Department of Transportation) and provide for general welfare in relation with the Tax Clause.

Um, having the organizations is one thing, and their mere existence is pretty suspect, but their FUNCTION is something else entirely. The function of wealth transfer programs such as Social Security and the like is unconstitutional.

Executive Departments are right in the Constitution, even though they are undefined, and thus are Constitutional.

That's nice. Again, having organizations doesn't imply that those organizations can do unconstitutional things with my money. Their function is the important aspect.

Oh, and the Federalist Papers have no precedential value whatsoever.

So? It's much more important what the Founders meant than what the lawyers twist their word to mean, wouldn't you agree?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The President has no power to create a war, that is the same thing as declaring a war, which only Congress can do. And Congress CANNOT cede any of their power without an Amendment.

President as Commander in Chief MAKES wars, or else there is no power as Commander in Cheif.

And yes Congress CAN cede some of their powers if they wish by simple law.

Because Congress has explicitly stated it is not a declaration of war, among other things.

And where does it say that declaration of war must be explicitly stated?

I certainly don't agree with that decision.

Too bad.

First of all, that's a concurrence, not a majority opinion.

That's because there really WAS no majority opinion. The 'opinion' of the court was agreed to fully by 2 members. 3 other justices wrote concurrances.

And Justice Jackson's concurrance has become MUCH more important than Black's opinion, and has become precedent. For example: William J. Clinton v. City of New York

the Executive Branch is acting under valid authority, Congressional consent is irrelevant - there's no "highest" or "lowest" power, it's simply power that the Executive Branch can either exercise or not exercise.

Wrong. The executive acts under his highest power with legislative backing, and at his lowest against legislative backing.

Strict protection of separation of powers is implied - that's the obvious intent.

Intent? Why aren't you using a textual argument?

Seperation of powers is implied, but it ain't strict. Congress can give regulatory powers (which border on legislation) without problems.

Um, having the organizations is one thing, and their mere existence is pretty suspect, but their FUNCTION is something else entirely. The function of wealth transfer programs such as Social Security and the like is unconstitutional.

Nope, Congress gave them the power to regulate based on Congressional law and thus they can exercise it.

That's nice. Again, having organizations doesn't imply that those organizations can do unconstitutional things with my money. Their function is the important aspect.

Unfortunetly for you, no one close to being on the Supreme Court (or a Court of Appeals) agrees. 'Social Security' programs and departments have been held constitutional (according to the 17th Amendment and then Congress being allowed to spend money however they wish).

So? It's much more important what the Founders meant than what the lawyers twist their word to mean, wouldn't you agree?

No, especially when it only THREE founders, who did not speak for everyone. The writers of the Federalist did NOT wish for their words to be considered what the Constitution was about... it was simply propaganda.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


The general welfare clause of Article 1 Section 8 has been found NOT to be a general grant of powers, and certainly not a general grant of powers for things such as Social Security. The Necessary and Proper Clause only applies to actions appropriate for carrying out the preceding powers in the same section.

Cite, please.

[David Floyd]

President as Commander in Chief MAKES wars, or else there is no power as Commander in Cheif.

You're right in a sense - he can carry out a war once Congress declares, or makes, it.

And yes Congress CAN cede some of their powers if they wish by simple law.

Then there is no point to separation of powers.

And where does it say that declaration of war must be explicitly stated?

Even if I admitted that it did not, you are missing the point. Congress has explicitly stated that their authorization is NOT a declaration of war, therefore it cannot be one.

Too bad.

I agree. Things would be a lot less bad if I wrote SCOTUS decisions.

Wrong. The executive acts under his highest power with legislative backing, and at his lowest against legislative backing.

Yes, yes, that's basic government textbook language. The point is that if the President is exercising an exclusive power that is clearly his, he doesn't NEED legislative backing. You might argue politically he is stronger with it, but his actual Constitutional power is unchanged.

Intent? Why aren't you using a textual argument?

Because, again, intent is more important than what lawyers twist what the Constitution says.

Seperation of powers is implied, but it ain't strict.

It should be, and I would think the vast majority of the founders would agree with me.

Nope, Congress gave them the power to regulate based on Congressional law and thus they can exercise it.

Yes, yes but Congress can't Constitutionally pass those types of laws to begin with.

Unfortunetly for you, no one close to being on the Supreme Court (or a Court of Appeals) agrees.

Not just me, unfortunately for all of us.

'Social Security' programs and departments have been held constitutional (according to the 17th Amendment and then Congress being allowed to spend money however they wish).

Congress certainly cannot spend money any way that it wishes. It can't, for example, give donations to churches. That would violate the 1st Amendment.

What does the direct election of Senators have to do with this topic, by the way?

I think what you are referring to is Article 1 Section 9:

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

And this clause is written in the section of Article 1 that DENIES powers to Congress - this is simply saying that money can't be drawn from the treasury except for lawful appropriations. Keyword there being lawful, which also means Constitutional. Congress still can't spend money on unconstitutional programs - see the example above of donating money to churches.

No, especially when it only THREE founders, who did not speak for everyone. The writers of the Federalist did NOT wish for their words to be considered what the Constitution was about...

Granted, but I seriously doubt you can find ANY Founder who would agree with such a loose interpretation WRT federal power as exists today.

[David Floyd]

Cite, please.

Damn. Honestly I can't remember. I know I saw it somewhere, but it isn't necessarily integral to my argument anyway, because I don't tend to rely on actual SCOTUS decisions, which mostly tend to be bullshit.

[David Floyd]

This is interesting link re: General Welfare Clause, though.

http://laissezfairebooks.com/index.c...estTimeout=500

And another:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin...lfare%20Clause

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Damn. Honestly I can't remember. I know I saw it somewhere, but it isn't necessarily integral to my argument anyway, because I don't tend to rely on actual SCOTUS decisions, which mostly tend to be bullshit.

Yes, of course some libertarian self-appointed expert is more of a valid authority on the Constitution than those (the Congress and secondarily the Judiciary) who are empowered by the Constitution to interpret it's meaning.

Like it or not, since Marbury v. Madison and judicial review has become accepted, SCOTUS is the only relevant final authority for determining what is or isn't constitutional. The initial authority lies with the Congress itself, originally as representatives of the States and the People, now as representatives (at least in theory, but they keep getting elected) of the People.

[DinoDoc]

Sometimes I wish the Court would revive the "Political Question Doctrine."

[David Floyd]

Yes, of course some libertarian self-appointed expert is more of a valid authority on the Constitution than those (the Congress and secondarily the Judiciary) who are empowered by the Constitution to interpret it's meaning.

I think we can both agree that there have been plenty of ridiculous SCOTUS decisions, that either of us could have done better with.

[Berzerker]

DroseDARS -

Uh, didn't say it was in the constitution.

Which is kind of important for determining if it's constitutional.

And it most certainly IS NOT unconstitutional.

Yes it is, Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. The War Powers Act lets the President start wars as long as he notifies Congress after the fact (as if they couldn't figure that out). The War Powers Act allows for what the Framers were trying to avoid by giving Congress the power to declare war, they didn't want one person having the power.

After the debacle of Vietnam, Congress wanted to reassert it's powers regarding foreign policy.

Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

They contended the framers never intended for future presidents getting us into UNDECLARED wars.

And how does the War Powers Act prevent that? Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Serbia were all undeclared wars.

The War Powers Act of '73 forces every president since to reconsider engaging in conflicts that can't be resolved in one month's time using conventional forces.

And the Constitution says the President can declare wars if they last a month or less?

Almost every pres. has notified Congress of action and they've given their blessings before (though often short of a declaration of war).

After the actual war started, gee, who wants to be labeled traitor or whatever for not supporting US troops already engaged in a war.

[Berzerker]

MtG -

Yes, of course some libertarian self-appointed expert is more of a valid authority on the Constitution than those (the Congress and secondarily the Judiciary) who are empowered by the Constitution to interpret it's meaning.

Does that mean you rely entirely on Congress to tell you what the Constitution says? If Congress wants to ignore the Constitution, what chance is there for people who actually support the Constitution to get on the judiciary? I, as a citizen of this country, and as a libertarian, can read and understand the Constitution and don't need the SCOTUS to tell me it means the opposite of what it says. The fact this libertarian scholar you seem to think is unqualified to interpret the Constitution echoes James Madison's "interpretation" of the Constitution is a paradox created by your argument.

Like it or not, since Marbury v. Madison and judicial review has become accepted, SCOTUS is the only relevant final authority for determining what is or isn't constitutional.

And the SCOTUS is comprised of people nominated and confirmed by the President and Senate. But when Thomas Jefferson became President, he refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Act passed under the Adam's administration because he said it was unconstitutional. He didn't wait for the SCOTUS to tell him what the Constitution says. You've only explained why we no longer have constitutional government, not that all these unconstitutional programs are in fact, constitutional.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

President as Commander in Chief MAKES wars, or else there is no power as Commander in Cheif.

CinC gives the President the power to conduct wars that Congress declares, not declare war.

And yes Congress CAN cede some of their powers if they wish by simple law.

And you found this power to cede powers where in the Constitution?

Intent? Why aren't you using a textual argument?

If the separation of powers is fictional, then why did the Framers list certain powers under the legislative domain of Congress and other powers under the executive? Congress has the power to declare war. That statement makes no sense without a separartion of powers.

Seperation of powers is implied, but it ain't strict. Congress can give regulatory powers (which border on legislation) without problems.

It is strict, CONGRESS has the power to declare war. How do you read that and conclude it is ambiguous as to whom has the power?

Unfortunetly for you, no one close to being on the Supreme Court (or a Court of Appeals) agrees. 'Social Security' programs and departments have been held constitutional (according to the 17th Amendment and then Congress being allowed to spend money however they wish).

Most of Congress wants to ignore the Constitution when it conflicts with their desires, so citing people who want to ignore the Constitution as proof their conduct is constitutional is problematic. And where in the 17th Amendment (or anywhere in the Constitution) does it say Congress can spend money on whatever it wants? You can't find that power in the Constitution, that's why you're telling us the Constitution means whatever the SCOTUS wants it to mean.

No, especially when it only THREE founders, who did not speak for everyone. The writers of the Federalist did NOT wish for their words to be considered what the Constitution was about... it was simply propaganda.

"Propaganda"? It was the pro-federalist argument to convince Americans to adopt the Constitution. Yeah, ask scholars if the Federalist Papers are meaningless when trying to understand the Constitution. Who is the Father of the Constitution? James Madison, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers. But you think his opinions are less relevant than Bill Clinton's?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
MtG -

Does that mean you rely entirely on Congress to tell you what the Constitution says? If Congress wants to ignore the Constitution, what chance is there for people who actually support the Constitution to get on the judiciary? I, as a citizen of this country, and as a libertarian, can read and understand the Constitution and don't need the SCOTUS to tell me it means the opposite of what it says. The fact this libertarian scholar you seem to think is unqualified to interpret the Constitution echoes James Madison's "interpretation" of the Constitution is a paradox created by your argument.

Also answering David's point about SCOTUS decisions that are ridiculous: Yes, that's true, BUT, the only relevant interpretations are those that have the force of law, i.e. those made by whom the Constitution grants that authority.

Madison (at the time of writing the Federalist papers)didn't serve in Congress, nor did he sit on SCOTUS, so his interpretation of his vision of what the Constitution means is a nice reference for scholars to consider, but it has no force behind it. When Madison served in a capacity provided for by the Constitution under Articles I, II, or III, he then had a position of primary authority, until he left office.

And the SCOTUS is comprised of people nominated and confirmed by the President and Senate. But when Thomas Jefferson became President, he refused to enforce the Alien & Sedition Act passed under the Adam's administration because he said it was unconstitutional. He didn't wait for the SCOTUS to tell him what the Constitution says. You've only explained why we no longer have constitutional government, not that all these unconstitutional programs are in fact, constitutional.

Jefferson (as the constitutional executive officer of the United States) made his own interpretation. The Congress made theirs (under Adams). That's the whole point, that the Constitution is subject to interpretation - it is after all, a relatively vague document, and extremely broad in it's scope. The ultimate remedy lies in the hands of the people, who can elect a new Congress, elect a new President, and eventually new Presidents will appoint and new Senates will confirm replacements for all the Article III appointees as they die, retire, or resign. That is the system set up by the Constitution. Originally, the States themselves had a direct role through their governments, in electing Senators.

The basic tenet is that something is constitutional unless (a) it is expressly forbidden or expressly reserved to another level of government by the Constitution; or (b) it is determined to be unconstitutional by those authorities deemed competent under the Constitution to interpret or carry out those actions; or (c) the people elect new legislators or a new executive who brings about result (b); or (d) the subject is addressed by amendment, per the requirements of the Constitution.

[DuncanK]

The Constitution was intended to be interpreted by each generation as that generation sees fit. General welfare means whatever we want it to mean. Too bad Libertarians. What are you going to do about it. Muhahahaha

[Berzerker]

MtG -

Also answering David's point about SCOTUS decisions that are ridiculous: Yes, that's true, BUT, the only relevant interpretations are those that have the force of law, i.e. those made by whom the Constitution grants that authority.

Where in the Constitution does it say only the SCOTUS can interpret the document? Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not what the SCOTUS tells us it means.

Madison (at the time of writing the Federalist papers)didn't serve in Congress, nor did he sit on SCOTUS, so his interpretation of his vision of what the Constitution means is a nice reference for scholars to consider, but it has no force behind it.

There was no SCOTUS at the time of the Federalist Papers. Those papers were the federalist's arguments for adopting the Constitution, so those papers do matter if sincere people disagree about possible interpretations.

When Madison served in a capacity provided for by the Constitution under Articles I, II, or III, he then had a position of primary authority, until he left office.

A Constitution that didn't even exist at the time of the Federalist Papers.

Jefferson (as the constitutional executive officer of the United States) made his own interpretation. The Congress made theirs (under Adams). That's the whole point, that the Constitution is subject to interpretation - it is after all, a relatively vague document, and extremely broad in it's scope.

And one interpretation is right, and the other is wrong. The fact people have different interpretations doesn't mean all interpretations are equally valid or that the interpretation of the SCOTUS, Congress, or the President are automatically superior to all other interpretations. But Jefferson acted on his (correct) interpretation without a need for the SCOTUS to tell him he was right.

The ultimate remedy lies in the hands of the people, who can elect a new Congress, elect a new President, and eventually new Presidents will appoint and new Senates will confirm replacements for all the Article III appointees as they die, retire, or resign.

Or through impeachment, but you're right, Congress is a product of the people. And if the people don't care about the Constitution, then the Constitution will be ignored. But let's not pretend everything the Congress does is constitutional just because the SCOTUS says so.

That is the system set up by the Constitution. Originally, the States themselves had a direct role through their governments, in electing Senators.

Yup, which is why the amendment allowing for the election of senators hurt the prospect for constitutional government by further attacking the 10th Amendment.

The basic tenet is that something is constitutional unless (a) it is expressly forbidden or expressly reserved to another level of government by the Constitution; or (b) it is determined to be unconstitutional by those authorities deemed competent under the Constitution to interpret or carry out those actions; or (c) the people elect new legislators or a new executive who brings about result (b); or (d) the subject is addressed by amendment, per the requirements of the Constitution.

(A) and (C) are the problems, the 10th Amendment is largely ignored, and the majority doesn't care.

[Arrian]

Responding to the thread title, having not read a single post:

Who the hell gives a flying **** what Jerry Falwell thinks?

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Where in the Constitution does it say only the SCOTUS can interpret the document?

It doesn't. Most people seem to think Marbury v Madison was a good decision though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then there is no point to separation of powers.

Um.. yes there is. No other part of the government can intrude on the others.

Congress has explicitly stated that their authorization is NOT a declaration of war

WHEN? Congress gave the President power to deal with Iraq. Nothing in the bill said it was not an authorization of war. Certain Congressmen saying it doesn't means jack. The text of the statute is the only thing that matters.

It should be, and I would think the vast majority of the founders would agree with me.

a) That's you opinion
b) The founders are dead, and even if they weren't they left the Constitution vague so it could be interpreted anew with successive generations.

Yes, yes but Congress can't Constitutionally pass those types of laws to begin with.

WHO SAYS?!

Congress certainly cannot spend money any way that it wishes.

Unless where explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, the Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 can spend the money it makes in any way, where that spending would used for the common defense or to promote the general welfare. This is how the court has interpreted the Tax and Spending Clause since the beginning!

What does the direct election of Senators have to do with this topic, by the way?

Sorry, I meant 16!!

"The Congress shal have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"

Combining the 16th Amendment and the Taxing and Spending Clause: They can tax your income and then spread that money to promote the welfare of the US. THERE is your justification for Social Security.

MtG:

Oh, and Berz & Floyd: NAME any agency that you think that does unconstitutional things (because to say agencies in general are unconstitutional is amazingly ignorant), and I'll show you where the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the 14 Amendment comes into play.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Those papers were the federalist's arguments for adopting the Constitution, so those papers do matter if sincere people disagree about possible interpretations.

Those papers were THREE PEOPLE'S arguments for adopting the Constitution. To say they are 'The Founders' beliefs is akin to taking three people out of 30 who sponsored a law and saying their statements were what the whole agreed to.

And you found this power to cede powers where in the Constitution?

It doesn't say they can't, ergo they have that power. They cannot give away all of their power, but if they wish to give the power of creating regulations to agencies, they sure can.

And btw, Regulations are simply executive actions dealing with vague legislative statutes.

"Propaganda"? It was the pro-federalist argument to convince Americans to adopt the Constitution.

Me thinks you need to find out the defintion of propaganda.

CONGRESS has the power to declare war. How do you read that and conclude it is ambiguous as to whom has the power?

Because it doesn't say what declaring war IS! A statute saying that the Congress agrees with the President taking any action against some country can suffice. But it might not.

And one interpretation is right, and the other is wrong.

You are sooo deluded.