EVER SINCE THE DAYS OF THE FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT ADMINISTRATION, politicians with a taste for Statism have used three sections of the Constitution to justify the restrictions they put upon We The People. We were of course not present at the forging and signing of Our National Charter, however we are very certain that the Framers did NOT intend these passages to be used as loopholes large enough to steer an aircraft carrier through.
These passages are the PREAMBLE; and the "INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE" and the "NECESSARY AND PROPER" CLAUSE" contained in Article One Section Eight of the Constitution.
FIRST. STOP QUOTING THE PREAMBLE AS JUSTIFICATION FOR ANYTHING. It is an introductory statement outlining the goals the Constitution and the Federal Government are established to attain. That the Preamble says for instance that one goal is to "Promote the General Welfare" DOES NOT GIVE CARTE BLANCHE TO DOLE OUT MONEY TO EVERY DEADBEAT ON EVERY STREETCORNER. Indeed, that is NOT the meaning of "general welfare" at all. That has more to do with ensuring that we live in a decent country and are free and nothing to do with giving some sad-sack a check every month to buy booze with and food stamps to buy Vienna wieners with. "To insure domestic Tranquility" is also not a blank check to for instance establish a police state so that there are no riots. And there is also something to the fact that the word "INsure" rather than "ENsure" was used. Our Founders were educated men, who knew what a word meant.
The Preamble has NO bearing on whether a certain act of government is in compliance with the Constitution. The Constitution's binding legal authority begins directly below the words "Constitution for the United States of America".
SECOND; "TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER" is also cut-and-pasted by those who wish to justify whatever lunatic schemes the politiciand might want to push across. But as the REST OF THE CLAUSE MAKES CLEAR, "Necessary and proper" means to carry out the AUTHORIZED POWERS. For instance, you cannot decide that since (A) is needed - and therefore necessary - that it is "proper" to pass a law requiring it. At a MINIMUM, SOMETHING in the Constitution must put (A) within your purview, specifically. It doesnt matter WHAT you think. If it is not authorized, then it is not necessary nor is it proper. PERIOD.
THIRD; THE "INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE" IS THE MOST ABUSED CLAUSE IN THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION. The classic example of this is Millard V Filburn, wherein a farmer was arrested and fined for growing wheat beyond his quota for the purpose of feeding his own family. The justification for this was that since farmer Filburn made his own flour rather than buy bread in "Interstate Commerce", then he was "affecting" "Interstate Commerce" and thus the Federal Government was authorized to fine him for growing more wheat than some official thought proper. This was upheld by the Supreme Court, which was full of shit; but ever since that decision the Federal Government has claimed jurisdiction forever over anything which has at some point in time "Moved in Interstate Commerce". This means for example that the Congress assumes that if paper and ink moved from one state to another, then what is done with that paper and ink may fall under Federal control. In fact, abuse of the ICC is the foundation of the lion's share of all the Statist legislaation that has been passed or proposed since the Great Depression.
WHEN ACTOR/COMEDIAN/ENTERTAINER W. C. FIELDS, AN ATHEIST, WAS ON HIS DEATHBED, his nephew walked in on him as he was poring over a Bible. Asked why such a crusty old non-believer was perusing the Holy Book, W.C. responded: "Looking for loopholes, my boy! Looking for loopholes!" A modestly funny story, to be sure; but that is the way too damned many politicians view the Constitution. And it has to stop.
- ► 2017 (61)
- ► 2016 (77)
- ► 2013 (136)
- ► 2012 (123)
- ► 2011 (77)
- ► 2010 (43)
- ▼ August (10)