Just like when Congress tried to impeach Clinton.. nothing.. a lot of hot air being vented and little else..
Nothing done when the NBPP members were intimidating voters with batons outside the Polling location in PA.
Nothing done when the NBPP put a bounty on Zimmermans head of 10K....violating the Rico Act.
Nothing done when Acorn was advising people on how to avoid paying.
Nothing Done, Nothing Done, Nothing Done...........Racisim at it's finest....IMO.
Now if you actually want this Federal Law Enforcement Arm to be Constitutional, start an amendment drive to make it so. That is the beauty of the Constitution. The FF inserted a mechanism to allow future generations to adapt it to the needs of the time (or to destroy the whole thing). If you don't like what the Constitution says, and you can convince 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures you are right, POOF - it is changed. Until then, however, it says what it says.
SD is a reference to a former member "SelfDefense" who was very opinionated on constitutional issues.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
With your diversions from the issues and attempts to mislead, I've been trying to decide whether you truly believe what you have been saying or are intentionally pulling an elaborate prank by trying to twist things to fit your purposes, the later of which no amount of rational explanation/education would do anything other than to add to the level of amusement that you may already be receiving from it. As I can't read your mind, to know for certain, I can only determine how important the misguided statements of one person is/are.
So, in hopes that I am not merely the brunt of an elaborate hoax for your amusement, I will ask you a question.
* As Congress has the power to make all laws needed to run the American Government;
* As Congress has all authority to make the rules by which the Government runs;
* As Congress had the power to and actually created the Lower Federal Courts with which to prosecute Laws;
* As Congress has the Power "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."
Do you not see where in order to Execute all of those Powers, that the Congress could not DO what is Necessary and Proper to Enforce all those laws that they have created, without creation and oversight of various Enforcement Divisions?
Just to present a few of those Departments that are not specified:
* ICE = Immigration and Customs to enforce the Import Laws..
* DOJ = To oversee all Law Enforcement Agencies
* IRS = To account for and enforce the 16th Amendment The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Just to name a few that are not specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution but were/ARE Necessary and Proper for our Government to operate under the laws that Congress has passed.
Think long and hard about your answer and be sure to provide more than simple rhetoric as justification for your beliefs.
I agree with what you posted in the first set of "*" above being items specifically called for in the Constitution with the limitation that the laws Congress makes are supported by their limited scope of duties as enumerated in the Constitution. I also agree that the second set of "*" are being done in response to laws passed by Congress. Where we part company is on whether the second set of "*" are Necessary and Proper to enforce the first or even if some of the enabling laws passed by Congress are Constitutional.
In the absence of states and their law enforcement capability, which is not against the US Constitution, a federal LE could possibly be read into the Constitution. The desire for the FF to have the states be the primary soverign (other than the people) and the federal government secondary and supportive to the states, there is nothing to suggest that the federal government would not rely on state LE efforts to enforce both state and federal laws. Heck, even to raise an army, the feds had to call on the states and people to participate.
Yes there was a navy authorized in the Constitution, but that was for border defense and to provide a common defense against external enemies and required certain capital assets that could not be quickly raised. Today's army also has such assets and it would be pretty tough to defend a nation with what a militia could bring, so we have a standing army which is practically in violation of the Constitiution. The government gets around this provision, not by being faithful to the intent of the Constitution and honest with the people. Congress passes enabling resolutions every 2 years as a work-around to the Constitution. A government that wanted to be faithful to its governing document would have amended it to allow for a standing army and the people today would have no problem with such an amendment.
Yes, there were certain FF that were in favor of a strong federal government, however, they had to compromise to have a less powerful federal government to get the Constitution ratified. The Constitution is not a document that allows the states and people certain privledges from an all-powerful federal government as some would like to see it. It was a document written and ratified by the states representing the people that created a limited federal government. The Constitution is the document that describes what that federal government is allowed to do - period. If it is not in the Constitution, the feds are not allowed to do it. I hear you on the necessary and proper clause, but that was not designed to be used to facilitate support for all manner of laws that are not in the federal purview. Another clause that has been tortured to the benefit of the feds and detriment of the states and people is the interstate commerce clause. That torture started with another Federalist - John Marshall in the very early 1800s. That makes it historical, not Constitutional.
Abusing the necessary and proper clause as well as the interstate commerce clause has resulted in things like EPA, the Department of Education, DOE, BATFE and a host of other agencies that perform duties that have nothing to do with Constitutionally enumerated duties of the feds. The nature of any government is to expand, grow in size and power and, if left unchecked, consume those it is supposed to serve. Reading items into the Constitution is one way the Goverment has rationalized its expanding mission and the people have not been bright enough to say - get back in your box. At some point, and that point may be in the past, the government will be powerful enough (legitimately or not) to turn citizens into subjects. We will all rue that day.
Where we differ is in how we read the Constitution. I think that it means exactly what its drafters said in it. Others want to read in or interpret what it says, in effect, guessing at what the FF meant. Folks, the Constitution was written to be understood by the common farmer of the day when it was written. It was not designed to be word-smithed, psycho-analyzed and otherwise tortured to work in what one wants to see there. There is a mechanism for that and it's called AN AMENDMENT.
The FF knew that the Constitution would have to change to support our country in times that were different than theirs, so they gave us a mechanism to do that. Convince 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures that a change is needed and you will get your change. There are many things the feds do that are not Constitutional that they could amend the document to allow - a standing army for instance - but they are too lazy to do the work. We the people should stand up and say - This is what the Constitution says, if you don't like it, change it, but until you do, abide by it.
I guess we are all entitled to our thoughts and our rationalizations even when they don't comport with reality.
Federal Kidnapping Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its an Alice in Wonderland viewpoint where posters here think they are the
Queen, and 2 centuries of jurisprudence and practical reality count for nothing. They think the words "necessary and proper"
have no meaning.
Those who violated Federal law, typically taxation and embargoes, were caught and tried very early on in our constitutional history.
An ex Vice President was hunted down and tried, though not convicted. Uncle has been in law enforcement from day 1, even in the days of the Confederation.
I'm constantly amazed at all the former "Federalists" who post here who were happy to be "Federalists" during the prior administration but
have suddenly decided The Executive should have no implied powers, and do nothing. Got news for you, especially the bunch who like
to quote the Federalist Papers with no clue as to what they are: it is in there. (Not that it is law.)
If you recall Jefferson did not want to turn over certain diplomatic letters that were evidence in Burr's trial. Jefferson ended up surrendering enough of the documents that the Chief Justice who was presiding was satisfied and did not order him to surrender the rest.
SD was controversial here because he adamantly held that Marshall lacked the powers which SD asserted Marshall arrogated to himself and the court.
So, if there is a bottom line to this sort of endless discussion--- it works the way it works, and not necessarily because
of the exact words in our constitution, but because of precedent and history.
I just got a email from my House Representative, Vicky Hartzler about the email I sent her on the subject. I would like to share it with you all.
Knowing of your interest in government transparency and the urgent need for reform in the Department of Justice, I wanted to update you on recent Congressional actions related to the scandal known as Project Gunrunner, or Operation Fast and Furious. Since assuming office, I have grown increasingly concerned about the gross overreach of power and disregard for our Constitution displayed by many officials in government. Several months ago, I called on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign due to his failure to instill accountability and respect for our laws at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Note: Please be sure to fill out the survey on the right side of this e-mail and let me know how you feel about the latest developments on Project Gunrunner. By doing so, you will also be added to my weekly newsletter list. Thanks so much for participating!
The House of Representatives has called on Attorney General Holder to account for his role in Operation Fast and Furious in particular. As we learn more details about this gun-trafficking operation, we find astonishing recklessness and an appalling cover up effort. The Attorney General appears to have made troubling decisions to hide information from the public and from a Congressional inquiry. His lack of appropriate oversight during this operation ultimately allowed guns to disappear into criminal networks, and resulted in the death of at least one American law enforcement officer, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Unbelievably, of approximately 80,000 documents that DOJ has identified as pertaining to Fast and Furious, only 6,000 of them have been released for review. And, of the seventy DOJ officials involved in Fast and Furious, Members of Congress have been refused access to almost fifty individuals.
These troubling actions by Attorney General Holder became more blatant at a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing earlier this month. The Committee questioned Attorney General Holder repeatedly for the rationale behind transferring 2,000 weapons to Mexican gangs. Committee Chairman Darrel Issa has been exceedingly respectful of the Attorney General during these hearings, even allowing the deadline for submitting documents to be pushed back again and again. However, my colleagues and I are losing our patience with Mr. Holderís equivocation and obstruction. In a failure this profound we need truth and transparency. That is why Congressman Issa threatened the Attorney General with contempt for failure to share the information which has been subpoenaed for so long.
I will continue to support Congressional efforts to hold the responsible parties accountable for their participation and approval of a flawed program that has contributed to the loss of American life. Given the obstructive nature of the Attorney Generalís recent Congressional testimony and demonstrated failure to fulfill his duties, I believe Attorney General Holder should resign. I believe that a public official who has failed to uphold integrity and has apparently misled the American people is no longer fit for service. I will be monitoring this issue closely in the months ahead.
As always, please do not hesitate to share your perspective with me. It is a privilege to be your voice in Congress.
Member of Congress
The Poll was asking if I thought Holder should be asked to resign. I voted YES.
So Hopyard if the three branches are co-equal, and one was to assert that a certain branch was not entitled to make demands on another then, all being equal, none could make demands on any. If the Executive did not have to answer to the legislature they would not have to answer to courts either, Nixon would have won and never had to produce the tapes. A president could rule by executive order. The legislature and executive could pass any law they wanted and simply ignore the Constitution. Judges could simply rule on any case how they saw fit and dismiss cases with prejudice if they didn't like the law that was broken. And the judiciary not being subordinate in any way to the legislature or executive there would be no way to remove such judges from the bench.
Do you agree that the three branches are equal or do you feel there is a pecking order?
As to your last sentence. They are equal in their own spheres. There is no pecking order. At various times in our history
one or the other believed itself on top. Presently, I'm afraid it is the Judiciary which has too much apparently arbitrary power.
So though I think Marshall correct (I know his views were Adam's views), I could throw my towel in on SD's side of the discussion just to keep the conversation lively.