Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-07-2016, 10:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But the Constitution clearly states that the Supreme Court decides what is to be regarded and what is not. The only "limits" (besides those stated in the bill of rights and other amendments) are spelled out in section 9 of article 1.

There were procedures written to change the constitution, including amendments and constitutional conventions.  These both involved the approval of a supermajority of states.  The Supreme Court was never intended to allow rewrites of the Constitution, but to interpret it.  

(09-07-2016, 10:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That, as you know, is an improper and very conservative literal interpretation. Article 1, Section 8 says the congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the USA. Article 2 section 3 says that the president shall see that the laws are faithfully executed. The idea that such powers be limited to the needs of the 1780s as spelled out in the enumerated powers is a wrong interpretation, and such an interpretation could never meet the needs of the country. The constitution says the congress shall make laws necessary to carry out the enumerated powers and all other powers allowed under the constitution. It did not say that only the forgoing powers shall exist.

The theory on which the constitution was written is that the states remain sovereign powers, that the federal government only has those powers specifically enumerated.  This is why the powers were enumerated.  What you consider an 'improper and very conservative" interpretation is the interpretation used while the authors of the constitution were still alive.

As the proposed constitution was being ratified, there was a big debate on whether a Bill of Rights was necessary.  Some said no.  As the constitution did not enumerate a power to censor speech, what need was there for a Right of Free Speech?  As there was no enumerated power to regulate firearms, what need was there for a Right to Keep and Bear Arms?  While this logic seems sound enough, during the debates leading up to ratification, an awful lot of people wouldn't pass the new constitution without suspenders to go with the belt.  They wanted a Bill of Rights.  It didn't look like the Constitution would be ratified until both groups agreed that the first order of business would be to pass a Bill of Rights.  That this debate took place at all clearly indicated that the original intent of the authors was that the list of enumerated powers was intended to be meaningful and binding.

(09-07-2016, 10:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't disagree with much there, but the idea that we should need to rewrite the constitution every time the president and congress agree to do something which goes beyond the enumerated powers, would mean we would have to convene such a convention as an ongoing body. The Constitution provides for making the laws that are needed for the needs of the time, without having to call conventions or make amendments all the time.

The original intent was not that the federal government would get to expand its power whenever it feels like expanding its power.  Expanding federal power was supposed to be ratified by a supermajority of states.  Granted, the founding fathers did not anticipate how technology would explode, that the Industrial Revolution would essentially render a document perfectly adequate for an essentially agricultural society quite obsolete.  At various times, the constitution was ignored because it was necessary.  At other times, it was ignored for more nefarious purposes.  The Jim Crow Supreme Court ruled that as the federal government is granted no police powers, it has no power to enforce the Bill of Rights.  Thus it was up to the southern states to protect the rights of negroes.  They...  didn't.

Constitutions are not supposed to go into bitter detail.  The Constitution is very short.  At this point, I would not add a new line saying the federal government shall have the power to dredge harbors.  I'd say it has the power to build and maintain interstate transportation infrastructure.  Or do we really want to give them that blanch a carte?  Still, the constitution for the European Union is much longer than ours.  An awful lot of issues have become important since the founding father's time.  I would like to see them seriously addressed.  I would badly like to see a return to a limited government whose powers are limited by law.  What we've got now is a runaway truck.