Then the FD should (if they have any sense) help people remove keys from their Knox Boxes until they get new boxes.

I passed by Knox Boxes for years until I stumbled upon what the hell they were... I doubt the average person is going to know and say "OMG I'VE GOT A KNOX KEY, LET ME BURGLE!"

Realistically speaking though, what's the harm? So now a bad guy has the keys to your building... that same bad guy could have just thrown a brick through the window or kicked down a door and gotten in anyway.

Well then, thank god for the Knox Box so they can just get the key from right beside the door...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knox_Box

Taxation is not covered under the Commerce Clause, that's why there's a Taxing and Spending Clause.

The provision of services is not covered under the Commerce Clause, that's why each state is responsible for educating their own citizens.

The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce... Just because a law applies to more than one state does not make it interstate nor relate it to commerce.

Congress could pass a law saying every state has to have a bird feeder at their respective Capitol... it would be unconstitutional.

Legislators don't read every line of every bill (in a lot of cases they don't read ANY of the bill). They use their staff and analyses from the research service of whatever legislature they work for/party they are a member of to understand implications. When written properly and thoroughly, these analyses are just as good as reading the bill... if not better, because when reading an analysis you don't need to run and find a copy of the existing law to understand what happens when "section 15 is amended by striking "Slashdot" and entering "reddit"".

The Constitution EXPLICITLY provided that slavery would be legal until 1808 and that it COULD NOT be amended to change this. Congress prohibited it as SOON as they could.

So, let's all stop dragging slavery into the Bill of Rights arguments.

Fifth Amendment*

The provision of the DMCA that allows "takedown first, fight later", can be interpreted by some as an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment right to due process.

The former.

The Taxing and Spending Clause was not intended to be an independent grant of power. It has evolved that way due to court decisions, but it was originally intended to give Congress the power to tax in relation to another one of their powers. That's why it says they shall 'have the power to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare'. Not "have the power to tax, have the power to spend, AND have the power to provide for the general welfare". If they enact something under the Commerce Clause, they can levy a tax and spend that money for it with the Taxing and Spending Clause.

Congress can provide for the general welfare by exercising the power of the purse in another way, as well. The drinking age is not 21 at a Federal level, because there's no Constitutional basis for Congress to set it that way. Instead, Congress passed a law saying they would withhold Federal funding for any state that didn't raise the age to 21. Boom, general welfare provided for without being unconstitutional. (That's also how we got stuck with No Child Left Behind.)

That's not an equal protection issue. The unenforceable pledge of an elected official to vote X because his constituents say so does not rise to the level of state action to be protected under the equal protection clause. Just like a broken campaign promise can't be prosecuted as election fraud. He has a duty to represent the people of his district and how he chooses to do that is his business. The law says that X district shall elect Y members who shall represent them faithfully in Z body. Additionally, there is nothing stopping the other members from doing the same thing, thus they are protected equally.

Even if there WAS an equal protection clause violation, it'd be subject to the rational basis test. It'd be constitutional if there's a rational basis for it and it serves a legitimate government interest... which this does.

Again, even if there WAS an equal protection clause violation to be found, there is no equitable court-enforceable remedy for it, therefore it's moot. You cannot enjoin him from serving. Nor could you really enjoin him from proceeding as planned (more of a logistical limitation). The Vermont Senate has control over the conduct of its members and they could expel him, if they saw fit (not definitive as I haven't read the rules or the Vermont Constitution on this).

It's a not a "change" and it wouldn't be unilateral. It would be a voter-mandated philosophy. Protection for minorities from the tyranny of the majority is not a Constitutional guarantee nor protected under the equal protection clause. Otherwise, actions taken during pro forma sessions of the Senate when there are only one or two members around would not be valid, for the protection of the majority against the minority. Elections where a plurality instead of a majority were obtained would also not be valid, for the protection of the majority over the minority.

Additionally, the Vermont Senate has multi-member at-large districts and he would be 1 of 3 members from that district. The people of the district are still adequately protected.

The percentage of persons participating in his experiment would never be 100% of his constituency, thus, they are just like lobbyists. Elected officials make voting promises to lobbyists routinely.

It's the method of enactment to implement the preceding 16 items and "all other powers vested'.

Having the power is not sufficient, there must also be a method to exercise it and that is what this clause provides.

No. But since the Constitution does not grant the right to impose this mandate and does not prohibit the states from handling it, it's a Tenth Amendment right reserved to the states.

Tenth Amendment:

YOU need to look it up.

"general welfare" appears twice in the Constitution.

Once in the preamble, which has NO force and effect.

And once in the Taxing and Spending Clause, "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".
The General Welfare (sub-)Clause applies ONLY to how Congress may spend money. It does not give them authority to implement the healthcare mandate, merely give them authority to spend money on it,

There is no equal protection clause violation here. The proportionality of votes to districts to people doesn't change because he's subcontracting the decision. In the end, he's still one representative with one vote. In a way, he's just allowing everybody to be a lobbyist.

The Permanent Rules of the Vermont Senate provide for the following Oath (www.leg.state.vt.us/misc/Senate%20Rules.pdf):

"I, __, Senator from __ County (or Counties), in the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, do solemnly swear, that as a Member of this Assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State; but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and ability. So help me God. I do solemnly swear that I will be true and faithful to the State of Vermont, and that I will not, directly or indirectly, do any act or thing injurious to the Constitution or Government thereof. So help me God. I do solemnly swear that I did not at the time of my election to this body, and that I do not now hold any office of profit or trust under the authority of Congress. So help me God. I do further solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the State of Vermont and the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

Winston Churchill allegedly once said something along the lines of, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

- If your constituents would like a law implemented that runs afoul of the oath how would you react?
- How can you execute the will of the people without question while still being in compliance with your oath when the will of the people is often what is in their own best interest at the present moment and not in the future?
- How does your idea not directly conflict with "but will in all things conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and ability". It seems that prohibits substituting the desires of the voters for your own without question.
- How will you represent the views of residents of your district who choose not to participate? You still owe them representation.
- As a legislative official, you would have a duty to more than your district; you would also have one to the state as a whole. How will you balance that given the constraints listed?

Any school who withholds a transcript for an overdue Perkins loan is probably doing the right thing since they're indirectly suffering economic damage. Not so okay for other loans.