home

Expounding The Constitution

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional - Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court in McCulloch v Maryland

The House of Representatives spent the day reading the Constitution (or parts of it anyway) into the Congressional Record. They might consider reading from this 1819 Supreme Court case that discusses the Constitution and Congressional power created thereunder:

The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a Nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers to insure, so far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done by confiding the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of Congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conducive to the end. This provision is made in a Constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which Government should, in all future time, execute its powers would have been to change entirely the character of the instrument and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide by immutable rules for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur. To have declared that the best means shall not be used, but those alone without which the power given would be nugatory, would have been to deprive the legislature of the capacity to avail itself of experience, to exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation to circumstances. [. . .]

[. . . W]e think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional.

(Emphasis supplied.) But what did John Marshall know anyway? Now Scalia, he could tell you.

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | The Deal: Door Number 3 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I have no problem (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    With them opening the session by reading the Constitution.  I would like to ask them, however, about one of their promises - namely, that every bill they propose / pass will have the constitutional justification for it contained within the bill. Since when is the legislature in charge of interpreting the Constitution?

    Republicans don't like Marbury v. Madison (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 02:20:53 PM EST
    They want to go back to the Articles of Confederation....

    Parent
    Terry Jeffrey (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    on this crap:

    In their "Pledge," the Republican leaders said: "We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick."

    Where does Congress get the authority tell a private insurance company and its private customers that in a free society they cannot freely agree to an insurance plan in which there is some cap on the amount of money the insurance company must pay to the client in any given year, let alone over the course of a lifetime?



    Parent
    Wouldn't it be nice if they tried?? (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    Good heavens, no! (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 04:29:10 PM EST
    I don't want Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, Eric Cantor, et al interpreting the Constitution for me!

    We might as well have the cast of The Bacehlor or Real Housewives interpreting it!

    Parent

    You would prefer (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi.... to name just two...???

    Parent
    I would prefer (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 05:43:46 PM EST
    that the legislators do the jobs they are supposed to, but if you make me choose, then my answer is:

    In. A. Heartbeat.

    Parent

    Okay, that's good (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 07:28:54 PM EST
    But wouldn't it be great if every law was considered re constitutionally by the person(s) introducing it?

    I mean they could be wrong, but the attempt would still be made.

    Parent

    Re:Consitution (none / 0) (#23)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 08:33:05 PM EST

    Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

    ESCONDIDO, CA--Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

    Kyle Mortensen would gladly give his life to protect what he says is the Constitution's very clear stance against birth control.

    "Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

    Click Me

    Parent

    So?? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 11:17:12 PM EST
    What does that have to do with the fact that the more people get to read/know the Constitution the more you will have an informed populace that will force open and honest debates by our elected representatives?

    Are you against an informed and active citizenry?

    Would you rather have a high priest tell us what to think?

    We have laws, judges and lawyers. There's no need to worry about Joe Sixpack running amok.

    Parent

    Re:Satirical "Fake News" article (none / 0) (#25)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 06:22:57 AM EST
    What does that have to do with the fact that the more people get to read/know the Constitution the more you will have an informed populace that will force open and honest debates by our elected representatives?

    It was a satirical fake news article, but because the protagonist sounded like a Tea Partier, you act as though it described a real person.

    Are you against an informed and active citizenry?

    If by 'informed' you mean people who believe or entertain beliefs about Obama being a secret scary Muslim/Socialist/non-American citizen, then yes, I'm against that kind of 'informed and active citizenry'.

    Would you rather have a high priest tell us what to think?

    That's an unusual way to describe Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, et. al., but you're right, basing ones' opinion on what a right-wing nut says about the Constitution demonstrates a lack of independent thinking.

    We have laws, judges and lawyers. There's no need to worry about Joe Sixpack running amok.

    Read the whole article, you've been pwned again, PPJ.

    Parent

    You know Harry (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 08:48:18 AM EST
    or whoever you are......

    I remain committed to the belief that the more people pay attention, discuss, debate, read, watch, etc. politics in general.... that is a good thing.

    Now I know you, like DA in the past, must always stalk my comments and try and figure out some way to be disagreeable.

    Enjoy. Stalkers have rights too.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Got any more straw men to sell? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 09:02:40 AM EST
    Now I know you, like DA in the past, must always stalk my comments and try and figure out some way to be disagreeable.

    You throw a good pity party, PPJ.


    Parent

    Harry, no one wants to (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 09:18:22 AM EST
    read you and me disagreeing.

    I made a comment. You responded with a false claim.

    Now I am done with you. Keep stalking.

    Parent

    You understand (none / 0) (#29)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 09:29:14 AM EST
    the Constitution about as much as the fictitious gentleman I quoted, PPJ, so please, save your false indignation for another occasion when it might be more believable  :-)

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#30)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 11:01:17 AM EST
    the onion.  Keep linking the Onion.

    Parent
    Article I, section 8 (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 01:42:22 PM EST
    Enumerated powers sets the boundaries.  Not an arbitrary concept of the end justifies the means.

    clearly you do not understand (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 01:58:03 PM EST
    the republican concept of "constitutional"

    Parent
    necessary and proper (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 02:18:53 PM EST
    and promote the general welfare....

    Those are in the Consitution.....

    Parent

    A Founding Father come to life!!! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 02:22:02 PM EST
    Here's the thing - what we are discussing is NOT what YOU think it should be, but what the Constitution did.

    It simply did not do what you say, for better or worse.

    Parent

    WE and YOU are abitrary and subjective (none / 0) (#10)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 02:46:41 PM EST
    regardless of which side of the aisle one sits.  Hand in glove with the definition of opinions.

    Parent
    Sheesh (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 02:58:33 PM EST
    A unanimous Supreme Court made up of folks who were part of the ratification of the Constitution disagree with you and Nino.

    I'm sorry but there is nothing but pap and air for your position on what the Constitution did (as opposed to what you wish it did, which is a perfectly reasonable position . . . not really.)

    Parent

    Selective excerpts work both ways (none / 0) (#12)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    The words of Chief Justice Marshall in the cited case:

    The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land.

    Emphasis mine, but a very powerful and clear acknowledgment of enumerated powers.  Considering that McCulloch v. Maryland dealt with bank charters, making it stretch to carte blanche for any and all legislative actions is actually where the pap starts.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 04:23:44 PM EST
    We can argue the scope of the field of policy  but not what can be done to achieve ends within those fields.

    What field of policy do you want the feds to retire from?

    Parent

    Policy falls short of legislative mandates (none / 0) (#17)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 05:28:07 PM EST
    and laws that can exceed federal government powers.

    Specific to your question (starting at the cabinet level):

    Dept of Education - eliminate
    Dept of HHS - drastically scale back
    Dept of 'HUD' - eliminate
    Dept of Energy - scale back
    Dept of Veterans Affairs - eliminate
    Dept of Labor - scale back
    Dept of Agriculture - drastically scale back

    Just for starters, without dropping to to agencies like the EPA.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 05:50:26 PM EST
    Article I, Section 8 also specifically says things like Congress' power extends to:

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

    It also says:

    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.


    Parent
    Absolutely correct (none / 0) (#20)
    by BTAL on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 06:25:53 PM EST
    However, let's have a look at the size, scope and reach of said departments then apply an objective eye as to what they have become.

    No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

    ~ Ronald Reagan



    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 06:43:53 PM EST
    A Ronald Reagan quote doesn't do much for me. A man who exploded the deficit and whose followers give him sole credit for the fall of communism? (Um, no, I think Lch Walesa and the Pope played a much larger role).

    I mean, this is also a man who said things like:

    "All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk."

    And

    "Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal."

    And

    "Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders."

    I even refuse to call it "Reagan National Airport".

    Parent

    Size doesn't (none / 0) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 04:09:58 PM EST
    have a damn thing to do with what the federal government can and cannot do and what the Constitution allows or prohibits.

    You're looking at this as an ideological partisan.

    Another thing:

    Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!

    ~ Ronald Reagan

    WRONG.

    Just off the top of my head HOLC a depression era program to help prevent foreclosures closed down in the early 50s. Made a profit by the way.

    I wouldn't quote Reagan.  One of our worst Presidents is not a worthy model and he loved to tell tall tales.  The question with him is whether he knew he was telling tall tales.  The welfare queen and her Cadillac spring to mind.
    If he knew he was spewing bunk makes him a genuine humbug if he was too stupid to know the difference ...  need I say more.

    One little bit from his own fevered little mind.  He thought an ICBM could be recalled after launch.

    That's your hero.  The destructor of nations.

    Parent

    To borrow a phrase from the gentler gender (none / 0) (#34)
    by BTAL on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 05:30:14 PM EST
    Yes, size does matter.

    Power corrupts and the larger an organization becomes the absolute power it obtains - You then can apply the remainder of the analogy.

    HOLC is a minority and exceptional example.  Start making a list of the govt programs that have started and never died, even though everyone will agree they serve no legitimate purpose and the results are categorically clear.

    Parent

    Congress (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    Why aren't your friends reading (none / 0) (#9)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 02:25:15 PM EST
    the pro-slavery parts of the Constitution?.  

    Since it is a divinely inspired document, why not read all of it that was so inspired in 1789?

    Where is the mention of God or the Creator in the Constitution?....

    Parent

    I read somewhere they did (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 04:39:45 PM EST
    not read the parts that later amendments changed.

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    you didn't read Marshall's decision.  Or, more probably, you were unable to understand.

    Enumerated powers are just that.  Power to act NOT a specification of what those acts can be.

    If an act is not expressly forbidden then it's Constitutional.

    You, along with other Conservatives, have it exactly backwards.

    As Marshall says, such limitations would reduce the Constitution to a mere legal code.

    Parent

    The quote below is where liberals go off the rails (none / 0) (#33)
    by BTAL on Fri Jan 07, 2011 at 05:16:40 PM EST
    If an act is not expressly forbidden then it's Constitutional.

    The exact opposite of what enumerated powers means.  

    A free vocabulary lesson...

    Enuerated:
    to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list


    Parent

    You still (none / 0) (#36)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 12:00:29 AM EST
    don't get the difference.  You're hopeless.

    Parent