DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Commenter Boojum Reborn Proves Constitutional Ignorance

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I apologize, first, for my absence on this website of late.  JASmius has been doing a great job keeping the content flowing.  My back problems decided to escalate for the Christmas Season, and anti-inflammatory medication and a lot of rest became the norm for me of late.  This article was written while standing with my laptop on the counter.  I have still not gotten to the point where I can stand sitting for any length of time, and then try to get up again.

While I rested, it turns out that Anti-Originalism hacks out there don't rest.  Back in September of 2009 I wrote an article titled, "Ignoring the Constitution," which pretty much lays out early in Obama's presidency where he was already acting unconstitutionally as President of the United States.  More than six years later, a person that opposes the original intent of the United States Constitution (or may I say someone who has been dreadfully misled regarding the U.S. Constitution) finally left a comment that proves my point about how badly the American Public has been led astray regarding the founding document.  First, I will present to you his full comment without any interfering comments or corrections, and then underneath I will breakdown how wrong the person's assumptions are, line by line...

Boojum Reborn said...

It is apparent you don't understand the Constitution. As to Congress power to regulate healthcare, first, it has been doing so for years (ERISA, COBRA); second, the grant of authority is clearly present, to with, Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States;

*. *. *

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

*. *. * ;
;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court case interpreting Constitutional rights. That is the Court's role, as set out in Marbury v. Madison.

"Czar" is a media term. If you will look at the actual position, you will find that they are all "such inferior officers" whose appointment is vested "in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay.  First the commenter says: It is apparent you don't understand the Constitution. As to Congress power to regulate healthcare, first, it has been doing so for years (ERISA, COBRA)

As for me not understanding the Constitution, my training involves original documentation, studying Madison's Notes that James Madison jotted down during the convention, and extensive inquiries into the ratification conventions, and letters and articles regarding the Constitution from the time period shortly after it was presented to the States for ratification.  Rather than believing the second hand information presented by professors, activist judges, and progressive politicians, who often insert their own political agenda into what they teach, spew, or vomit, I chose the original writings of those involved in the writing of the U.S. Constitution.  Unfortunately, the erroneous interpretations of judicial opinion over the last two hundred plus years is what most consider when they decide what is constitutional.

Regarding the commenter's second point about how Congress has been regulating healthcare for years (therefore, suggesting that since they've already been doing it, it must be constitutional), the federal government doing something without any successful rebuttal stopping it does not automatically make something constitutional, no more than everybody rolling through stop signs automatically makes failing to fully stop at a stop sign legal.

second, the grant of authority is clearly present, to with, Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States;

Health Care is not taxation, and remember at the time direct taxation was considered to be tyrannical.  The 16th Amendment, which was never properly ratified, now allows for direct taxation, and would be met with great disapproval by the Founding Fathers.  The 16th Amendment, along with the 17th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act, were unconstitutional manifestations of the Progressive Era, and have all caused great damage to the American System as it was originally intended.  If your point is not about taxation, but instead you meant to focus on the part that says "provide for the general Welfare of the United States," note the position in the sentence of that part of the clause.  It essentially says that Congress may collect all kinds of taxes for the purpose of paying debt and providing for a general sense that all is well.  In other words, general Welfare is a result of the uses of the money collected from taxation (one being to pay the debts of the country), not a reason for the taxation.  In fact, general Welfare was never intended to be a clause to allow Congress to do as it wants.  Read James Madison's veto of a public works bill in 1817 for clarification of the general Welfare clause.  http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

Then the commenter threw in the Commerce Clause: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The Commerce Clause was written with the sole intent to enable the free flow of commerce between the States.  If that is so, how can it be used as an instrument authorizing the federal government's intrusion into the private health care industry?  Learn more about my position on the Commerce Clause HERE.

Then the commenter uses the Elastic Clause as a part of his argument: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If health care is not expressly enumerated as an authority to the federal government, how can the Necessary and Proper Clause (Elastic Clause) be applicable?  The clause was included to ensure laws could be made to ensure a constitutional authority could be carried out.  For example, Article I, Section 8 authorizes the federal government to establish post offices.  But, there are no specific powers given regarding the construction of the post offices, or the maintenance and operations of the post offices.  However, because constructing a building to be used as a post office, purchasing the equipment necessary to carry out postal operations, and so on and so forth, are necessary and proper components in order to carry out the original power of "establishing post offices," those other things are constitutional as well.  But, how does this apply to Obamacare, especially when there is no authority granted regarding health care in the Constitution in the first place?

Our commenter then approaches Judicial Review: Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court case interpreting Constitutional rights. That is the Court's role, as set out in Marbury v. Madison. 
I've already written so much on this, I'd rather just leave a link.  In short, Marbury v. Madison cannot grant to the courts what is not in the Constitution.  Judicial Review is not granted anywhere in the Constitution, and if the authority being used is Marbury v. Madison, then what you are saying is that the federal courts granted that power to themselves.  I would consider that a seizure of power.  Also, think about it, the federal courts determining if a law is constitutional is to determine if the federal government has the constitutional authority to do whatever is being proposed by said law.  But the federal courts are a part of the federal government, which  means that the federal government through the courts are deciding for themselves what their own authorities are.  How is that limited government?  The federal courts are not supposed to interpret the law, they are supposed to apply the law.  Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional on many grounds.  First, the federal government has no authority regarding abortion, so they had no authority to take the case in the first place.  Second, if abortion is a State issue, the federal court has no authority to strike down a state law on a state issue.  Third, separation of powers dictates that all legislative powers belong to legislative bodies.  By striking down a law, and "legalizing abortion", the court acted legislatively, and therefore acted outside the allowances provided by a separation of powers and Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution where the document states that "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress". . . making, once again, Roe v. Wade unconstitutional.

Finally: "Czar" is a media term. If you will look at the actual position, you will find that they are all "such inferior officers" whose appointment is vested "in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

I repeat from the article in question: Czars are positions that are appointed without Congressional oversight, and are therefore unconstitutional. The Constitution reads very clearly on this matter. "Article II. Section 2. "He (the President) 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 consults, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein 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."

And I don't care which party the president is a member of. Either way, czars are unconstitutional because they are appointed without any Congressional involvement [or oversight].  In all cases, congressional involvement is a must.  Has Congress ever vested that czars can be appointed without congressional oversight, and that the czars may have the powers that they have?  Not to my knowledge.  Also, how many times have we seen czars act legislatively, in the name of the President?  That would be a violation of Article I, Section 1.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: