Oh those Constitutionalists!

[JoeTheJuggler]

As to your assertion that the commerce clause is not infinite, I would agree with it only in that it is not literally infinite.

What other kind of "infinite" is there? [ETA: isn't "not literally infinite" another way of saying "finite" or "limited"?] Again, the commerce clause is well-defined. It is the authority to regulate activity that has a significant effect on interstate commerce. That's the way the judiciary has interpreted the clause, and it is entirely consistent with the intent and wording of the clause itself.

It's a broad power indeed, but broad is not infinite. It doesn't, for example, give the federal government the authority to tell states what to charge for fishing licenses, or which homicides to prosecute as murders, and so on, ad infinitum. (Yes, what falls outside the CC authority is infinite!)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Amending the Constitution by judicial fiat is not better under any different wording.

So no, it's not.

Your beef is that you disagree with specific decisions the judiciary has made. There's no honest way to characterize it as "amending the Constitution by judicial fiat". (That's rather like referring to judges who give decisions one disagrees with "activist judges".)

You're not really arguing about some sort of usurpation of power by the judicial branch. When cases like Wickard v. Filburn--cases that hinge on a dispute as to the interpretation of the law including the Constitution itself-- are brought before them, they are authorized to resolve the cases. This is what we usually refer to as the authority to interpret the law including the Constitution.

If you think something fundamentally different is going on, how would you handle these cases? Can they be resolved without making a decision about the disputed interpretations of the law?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Anyway, your interpretation of the commerce clause may be "well-defined", but it certyainly does not comport with a national government of few powers.

The Federalist has no legal standing. (At most, you're talking about Constitutional legislative history.) There is nothing that says we have to be a national government of few powers. FWIW, the broad interpretation of the CC authority isn't adding to the "few powers" anyway. It's still just the CC authority, which is but one of the enumerated powers. (FWIW, the supremacy clause tells us that the powers of the federal government are supreme to those of the state when they are within the authority of the federal government. So don't confuse "few and enumerated" for something like impotent and small in scope.)

The Preamble to the Constitution, while not having the weight of law, has been recognized as helping the judiciary understand the purpose of the Constitution and the government it composes. It makes some pretty sweeping and broad statements of what the raison d'etre of the federal government is. I think the liberal interpretation of the CC authority is entirely in keeping with this rather grand vision of the federal government.

Reasonable minds can disagree, and we can certainly debate the pros and cons of the liberal interpretation of the CC authority, but it's not at all reasonable to paint it as a usurpation of powers or "amending the constitution by judicial fiat".

 

[MattusMaximus]

Amending the Constitution by judicial fiat is not better under any different wording.

So no, it's not.

Define "judicial fiat"; and "rulings I don't like" doesn't count.

 

[RandFan]

When Abu Ghraib came to light and after the Patriot act came to light like many I had some concerns. At that time I was still listening to Limbaugh. I remember him saying, "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact". Meaning that if a president believed that we we're in clear and present danger it would be justified to violate our most cherished principles. Of course there was no clear and present danger.

I don't buy the BS of most who make absolute claims about the constitution. In the end it's our principles and pragmatic realities that matter.

If you don't know then you are in the wrong thread.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If there is an empirically demonstrable way to promote the general welfare and we reject it because it's not spelled out in the constitution then we are idiots.

I accept Limbaugh's argument for very specific and narrow instances of danger, clear and present. Too bad our irrational fear allowed us to trample on what is plain and precious to us.

 

[shadron]

"The government is broken and is acting in defiance of the original Constitution! It said nothing about things like income taxes without population apportionment!"

"Didn't the original Constitution specifically allow for the creation of new laws through the amendment process?"

"We need to go back to the Articles of Confederation!"

"Wouldn't that make commerce a nightmare with all the states having their own currency and trade policy?"

"Where's a King when you need one!"

I believe they're all quotes (or perhaps paraphrases) from this thread:

Newt's latest zany idea: go back to gold standard

Robert Prey gets a little rambunctious with his own interpretation of the constitution, vis-a-vis the constitutional authority concerning money.

 

[Travis]

Yep. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you find yourself inventing quotes to attribute to your opponent, it's a pretty good sign you're arguing against a straw man.

Eh, strawman or not I thought it was worth discussing.

I believe they're all quotes (or perhaps paraphrases) from this thread:

Newt's latest zany idea: go back to gold standard

Robert Prey gets a little rambunctious with his own interpretation of the constitution, vis-a-vis the constitutional authority concerning money.

We have a winner. I didn't want to derail that thread but as I kept seeing RP constantly talk about the need to divest authority of currency to the states I couldn't help but wonder what Constitution he supposedly wants to revert back to.