DARTH-SHREDDER posted:Kimball, you say the federal government doesn have any powers that aren't granted to it by the people, or already in the constituion. But when new things come up, the federal governement does act on them and make federal laws against them. Like the environment for example. The government has made plenty of laws restricting what people do to the environement. But the constitution doesn't talk about the evironment at all. So then how could the federal governement restrcit pollution. The constitution doesn't grant it that power. So I guess the government couldn't have done that. Even thought they did. And nobody said they were out of place. I mean the government makes tons of federal laws all the time, and you say the only ones they are allowed to make are the ones granted in the constitution? That's a very small amount, not to mention we don't have an ammendment for all federal laws made.
DARTH-SHREDDER posted:Kimball, you say the federal government doesn have any powers that aren't granted to it by the people, or already in the constituion. But when new things come up, the federal governement does act on them and make federal laws against them.
DARTH-SHREDDER posted:Like the environment for example. The government has made plenty of laws restricting what people do to the environement. But the constitution doesn't talk about the evironment at all. So then how could the federal governement restrcit pollution. The constitution doesn't grant it that power. So I guess the government couldn't have done that. Even thought they did. And nobody said they were out of place.
DARTH-SHREDDER posted:I mean the government makes tons of federal laws all the time, and you say the only ones they are allowed to make are the ones granted in the constitution?
Kimball_Kinnison posted:Sorry about that. I had written an answer to that post, but it must not have gone through. The answer to that can actually be found in my last post: the Commerce Clause, and the abuse of that clause. The roots of it go back to FDR and the New Deal. Many of his first round of programs were ruled unconstitutional because the federal government lacked authority to interfere in intrastate commerce. Over time (and a series of Supreme Court appointments), FDR was able to get the Supreme Court to alter its interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and allow many of his programs. Since then, the Court has continued to widen that interpreatation until it basically argues that all commerce is considered interstate commerce. That may be how things are now, but that's not the way that the Constitution set up, and it's not the authority granted by the People. The authority came not from the People, but from the Supreme Court, who wrongly usurped that authority. Kimball Kinnison
ShaneP posted:No, the overreaching continues because we, the people, allow the judiciary to continue in its activist mode instead of forcing it back into its limited powers explicity set forth in the constitution.
Obi-Wan McCartney posted:Yo, you are totally misunderstanding my point, I'm not saying he misread constitution or that he read the articles by mistake, I simply meant to allude to it becaues it had more powerful states with a very weak national government, whereas the constitution created a more powerful federal government.
Obi-Wan McCartney posted:Now, if you have a beef with the commerce clause being abused, blame Congress, they are the ones writing all those laws! You can't blame the Supreme COurt, I mean, most of you probably think Marbury v. Madison was the start of the judicial usurping of power. SO what, you are mad that they DIDN'T usurp power delegated to Congress? I don't get it.
Obi-Wan McCartney posted:No way. No conservative, no liberal, would EVER cut off their power like that. Furthermore, not serious jurist could take the country back that many hundred years. I'm not saying you're wrong in your interpretation, perhaps you are correct, but Harriet Miers certainly isn't going to do that. John Roberts isn't going to do that either.