Comments on: Enumerated Powers Act

By: David

David — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:59:27 +0000

Carl,

Fair question. You can read the text of the bill. The short answer to your question is that the EPA requires each bill to cite the “chapter and verse” of the Constitution that grants authority for the bill. In other words a statement such as – “under the authority of Article I, Section 4, Paragraph 7 of the Constitution.”

Section 2 of the bill serves as an example of what they are seeking from all future bills.

By: Carl

Carl — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:49:27 +0000

I read the article you linked to, I’d like to know what kind of citation the EPA asks for. As Tom points out, Congress can do a whole lot simply by citing the Commerce Clause. David, your reply touches on the window dressing of Tom’s comment but not the substance. What does the EPA want (other than a reduction of pollution)?

By: David

David — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:24:26 +0000

Perhaps if more people were aware of how the commerce clause was used to excuse legislation that Congress should not be passing then they would demand a new interpretation of that clause.

And you are absolutely right Tom, there are officials at all levels of government who blatantly ignore the Constitution to pursue their goals.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:27:28 +0000

I have heard “that’s not permitted by the Constitution” on one issue … when anti-immigration groups proposed U.S. Citizenship not be granted by children of illegals born in the U.S. But it’s certainly a phrase we hear infrequently.

Were such an act passed, the authorization section wouldn’t always make sense. For example, the interstate commerce clause has a long and interesting history that is now generally interpreted by federal courts to mean Congress can do pretty much whatever it likes so long as it connects to commerce in some way–even if only on a local level (because, the argument goes, it’s connected as part of a system to national commerce).

Of course, I would contend constitutionality isn’t always a foremost concern of state officials either….

By: David

David — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:46:10 +0000

Good idea not to hold your breath. It is unfortunate that I can even wonder if many of them have read the Constitution – but I do wonder.

By: Reach Upward

Reach Upward — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:50:16 +0000

I’d love to see a congressional rep or senator tell a constituent or special interest group, “I’m sorry, we can’t do that. It’s not permitted by the Constitution.” But I’m not holding my breath.

By: David

David — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:53:46 +0000

Your moral is right – which is why we need the Enumerated Powers Act. My depiction of the Sixteenth Amendment should not have implied that Congress went through the proper procedure before trying to ignore the Constitution.

By: Jesse Harris

Jesse Harris — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:34:06 +0000

You’re a bit wrong on the history on the income tax. Congress tried multiple times to enact taxes on income (starting back in the Civil War) and repeatedly had their actions overruled by the Supreme Court as un-Constitutional. Then and only then did Congress go forward with the Sixteenth Amendment.

The moral of the story: Congress will get away with whatever we, the Executive and the Supreme Court will let it get away with and it’s been doing it for a lot longer than we’d like.