The Right Scoop- Anonymous
Joe Miller is the bomb! I love his beard. Wonder if he’ll shave it when he gets to Washington.
- Don17k
Every Congress has changed the meaning of the Constitution… beginning with the 1st ones. They’ve all expanded the powers, beginning with Hamilton pushing for the creation of the Bank of the United States… which power is nowhere mentioned in the document.
This appears to be the way it was meant to be…. each generation will interpret it according to their own politics, to serve their needs as they recognize and identify them. It’s not a living breathing document… but it is dynamic rather than static.
- Rich
And every so often we need to hit the reset button and go back to basic interpretation.
Also, the establishment of a central bank isn’t so hard to imagine under the commerce clause. However, because we’ve continued to imagine more and more things under the commerce clause, we’ve now reached the point that somehow a private person and a private business can be forced into a contract with one another under the supposed power of the clause. Again, the reasons we need to hit the reset button.
- Anonymous
No you don’t hit the rest button as this is too much of a shock. In fact, you cannot reset because there is no way to understand how the proceeding generations actually understood the intent. So no matter what you think the rest button is only a reinterpretation of the text within the context of our current time. If you could go back in time to 1800 you would stand out like a sore thumb in every way. You entire understanding of the world would conflict with their needs and problems. You cannot just reset… this is just a means to fog the actual intent which is to impose their personal interpretation under the idea that it was original intent. BUNK!
- Don17k
The thing is, they would never have got ratification had the Constitution included the setting up of a national bank. The southern states had a much simpler economy, didn’t need one and didn’t trust such an institution, which would certainly be run exclusively by northerners. I think Hamilton, who was an accountant and wanted the central bank from the beginning, realized this and when ratification was going to require three-fourths of the legislatures, he backed off, figuring it would be much easier to get it done afterward, requiring only a simple majority in Congress and his friend Washington’s signature.
I agree with Muffler… we can’t put the genie back in the bottle at this point. There’s far too much that goes beyond the enumerated powers, and it began with the Founders themselves, and the American people have come to depend on it far too much for it to be turned over to the private sector. Everything from the NLRB, to the NTSB, to OSHA and MSHA, the FDA, FCC, FAA, Interstate highway system, NOAA, the SEC, FDIC, CFTC, NASD… just to name the basics, and without the obvious Federal Reserve, CMS and SSA.
We passed the point of no return long ago.
Moving on….
- Anonymous
Wait a second. If the constitution was a fixed and non-living document please explain the intent of the founders for the capability to amend it. Please see Article V of the Constitution. It’s not an easy event and requires quite an acceptance criteria. The interpretation part is done through intellectual and historical reference including judicial precedence – which the Robert’s court seems to ignore so as to subscribe their own interpretation.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
- KeninMontana
Perhaps because the founders recognized the fact that they were not omnipotent and may have missed a few things,which also explains why they put such a high bar in place when undertaking amending the Constitution.
Historically, the use of precedents in interpreting whether a law passes constitutional muster is a fairly recent development for which we have the Harvard Law School to thank. The SCOTUS traditionally used the writings of the founders (Federalist Papers) and the rather exhaustive work of Justice Joseph Story when establishing or “interpreting” the intent of the founders in regards to the Constitution.
- Anonymous
You point on precedent is not correct. The use of precedent is as old as common law or even older. It is based stare decisis. This provides for stable consistency and avoidance of “saw blade” interpretations over time.
The “Harvard Law” school jab is just a lash out at “elite” education. I subscribe the second definition of the word “elite” to conversations with means simply the best. SCOTUS uses more than just the federalist papers to define any ruling as constitutional as the papers do not handle many of the modern issues which require scrutiny. To apply them is to issues not covered is to do exactly what you say they should not… interpret meaning to particular and maybe unrelated events.
- KeninMontana
“Stare decisis” is used in case law,the use of case law to decide the constitutionality of laws did originate at Harvard Law,not a jab,just a fact.
- Don17k
Personally, I believe they erred in relying overmuch on the writings of the Framers of the Constitution to interpret, because that only goes to the Framers’ intent. I think it’s appropriate and important to consider how it was understood by the various state legislatures. After all, without their ratification, it would be no more than a set of intentions. To me, it’s important to consider what the states understood they were ratifying. I think the southern states always believed they had the right to secede, if their needs weren’t being served. If they’d been given the Soprano option… “Once you’re in, there’s not getting out!”… Do you think they would all have relinquished their sovereignty?
I think it’s also suggestive that while the Federal Congress is required to have a two-thirds supermajority to approve any amendment… the states need only a simple majority to do so. If they were required to have the same two-thirds approval, there wouldn’t have been 9 ratifications, because 5 of the 13 passed it by slimmer margins. A couple passed it by a margin of only 1 or 2 votes.
- KeninMontana
I’m familiar with the amendment process,but apparently you’re a bit foggy on it as you left out the requirement of three fourths of the states ratifying it.
- Don17k
I did not leave out the requirement that three-fourths of the legislatures approve. I even pointed out that state legislatures, when they do approve, aren’t required to approve by a two-thirds supermajority (which is required for each chamber of Congress). For the legislatures, a simple majority is sufficient. If they were also required to approve by two-thirds, it’s doubtful they would have got three-fourths of them on board.
- KeninMontana
You covered the fact that the states need only simple majorities, but you did not mention the three fourths requirement. Go back and re-read your post.
- Don17k
Sorry… I thought I included when I said that they probably wouldn’t have got 9 ratifications, and 5 of the 13 had less than 60%.
Next time, I guess I have to spell it out for you, but I thought you, of all those reading, would understand the nuance of 9, and 5 of 13…
Mark Levin had Joe Miller on his radio show tonight right after he and Murkowski finished their last debate. Miller said that Murkowski referred to the Constitution as living and breathing during their debate, which is the typical liberal line that allows them to change the meaning of the Constitution as they see fit. Alaskans must make sure to vote Joe Miller next week! Please!
Enjoy!
If you want to donate, visit www.joemiller.us and donate. He is one of the best candidates we have running for Senate.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.