Comment Re:Before everyone goes off on wasting the money (Score 1) 335
I read the Tenth Amendment, and I notice that it doesn't say "expressly" when refering to delegated powers, and this itself supports the idea, as expressed in a case I already mentioned, (which you ignored,) as well as many other cases, such every case involving the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection acts, were upheld. In fact, various Reconstruction policies were more in contradiction with the 10th than an non-military space program, which you somehow see as the fall of the Republic.
There has never been a unified decision on limiting Congressional powers, even back in 1791 regarding the First Bank of the U.S. You seem to posit that the Constitution is a perfect document, and therefore it is being obviously contradicted by nefarious powers.
Decisions go back and forth, and while the current Court is moving towards a limiting of Congrssional power, there is no movement for restricting Congress to only expressly enumerated powers, because Congress NEVER was limited to in that way, contrary to your belief. It has been a matter of record, for the most part, that Congress is allowed to exercise unenumerated powers in the act of carrying out powers expressely constitutionally delegated.
>So you are essentialy saying: If a branch of >government, empowered by the constitution, >ursurps the restirictions imposed by that >constitution, the transgression becomes >legitimate. Let me ask you: If you are falsely >convicted of a crime and executed, does the fact >that your death "still stands" legitimize your >conviction!?
As for this, this is such an obvious twisting of my words as not to be even commented on. I obviously do not agree with you that unenumerated powers are unconstitutional, so please do not say that I think so.
Congress did not suddenly one day start to pass acts that violated the Constitution, there is plenty of precedent dating back to the founding of the nation, that interpert the consittution this way. So far, all I've seen is a refernce to the 10th amendment. Please, give me something more useful to back up your notions.
There has never been a unified decision on limiting Congressional powers, even back in 1791 regarding the First Bank of the U.S. You seem to posit that the Constitution is a perfect document, and therefore it is being obviously contradicted by nefarious powers.
Decisions go back and forth, and while the current Court is moving towards a limiting of Congrssional power, there is no movement for restricting Congress to only expressly enumerated powers, because Congress NEVER was limited to in that way, contrary to your belief. It has been a matter of record, for the most part, that Congress is allowed to exercise unenumerated powers in the act of carrying out powers expressely constitutionally delegated.
>So you are essentialy saying: If a branch of >government, empowered by the constitution, >ursurps the restirictions imposed by that >constitution, the transgression becomes >legitimate. Let me ask you: If you are falsely >convicted of a crime and executed, does the fact >that your death "still stands" legitimize your >conviction!?
As for this, this is such an obvious twisting of my words as not to be even commented on. I obviously do not agree with you that unenumerated powers are unconstitutional, so please do not say that I think so.
Congress did not suddenly one day start to pass acts that violated the Constitution, there is plenty of precedent dating back to the founding of the nation, that interpert the consittution this way. So far, all I've seen is a refernce to the 10th amendment. Please, give me something more useful to back up your notions.
