I am sure he had his reasons, but Dave Price closed the comments on the previous post “Are Mandates Constitutional?” at what strikes me as an odd juncture and I wanted to say something about the constitutionality question.
If anyone else wants to comment and also feels hurt and abused by virtue of Dave’s rejection of you, why you can comment right here along with me! ;-)
{ 13 comments }
Mainly, this: You can never answer the question of whether something, say Widgetation, is constitutional, by asking whether that thing is “in the Constitution.” It is not an argument to say, “Where does it say anything about Widgetation in the Constitution?”
Because, you see, it is a constitution, not a legal code.
Maybe comments get auto-closed after they leave the front page? I dunno.
They are set to default to a certain amount of time, yeah. I have been out of the loop since then so in fact it turns out there’s more time since that post went up than I first realized.
The issue certainly is back, anyway.
But it’s from the Constitution that the government gets its legal authority and has the boundaries of that authority defined. If the Constitution isn’t a legal document, how can it grant legal authority to a body?
Yes, but the Constitution does not, and cannot axiomatically, contain a laundry list of what the legislator can and cannot do. It can only give the legislature categories of power. Unfortunately, this does bring with it the risk of intellectually dishonest categorical “interpretations” whereby a luncheon counter becomes “interstate commerce.” On the other hand, this is not a terrible balance against the previous 75 years of federal neglect of the Constitution at just such luncheon counters… I mean, look, it’s government. You can only be so doctrinaire.
But I digress. Or do I?
Ron,
I’ve never closed comments on anything (not really my style). It must be automatic.
I’m still not going on a date with you, though, so you may continue to feel hurt and rejected (abuse will cost extra).
If Dave had closed the comments, it would certainly be constitutional. Poor form, perhaps, but Dave isn’t Congress (or a state government that’s had the bill of rights incorporated onto it by the 14th amendment) and thus he can restrict the exercise of free speech on a privately-owned-and-managed forum delegated to his control all he wants.
Yes but why should practical concerns give pause to Originialist intent when those very same practical concerns were ignored when the overreaching was made into law?
Either the Constitution means what it says or it does not. The 10th Amendment limits the power of the federal government to those powers specifically enumerated within the document. When this Amendment is violated it is in our best interested to correct the error. Should an error that has been institutionalized be free from correction simply because it’s been around for an extended period of time?
But if we may look at your “Widgetation” example, if a law were to be enacted by Congress that would make “Widgetation” binding upon all states in the Union one must as if such a law is permitted to be passed by the powers given Congress by the Constitution. This should be done in each and every instance Congress wishes to pass a law.
The “Widgetation” in this case is health care. Does Congress have the Constitutional authority to enact such legislation? Is so, where is this power enumerated? Either the authority exists or it does not and if it does it is the burden of Congress to point it out when demanded by the people – the body that gives that Constitution its power to give Congress its.
So, within the confines of the Constitutional authority of Congress to pass laws, where is the authority to pass a universal health care bill?
Again, the 10th Amendment specifically states that powers not given to the United States (see: The Three Branches of Federal Government) by the Constitution are reserved for the states themselves or the people. If such a power doesn’t exist, Washington cannot make the health care bill into law. And if Washington wants such power, it must propose and then have ratified a Constitutional amendment giving it such power.
Or else:
Maybe Dave P is too busy to argue endlessly over minor points of punctillio about who gets to say what and to whom on a blogsite.
But there’s nothing to stop you from posting your own thoughts and keepin the thread open to your heart’s content, or possibly the process loops built into the software that runs these blogs.
Speaking of which. Now that I am a contributing editor, sort of, how do I get listed in that little column of the Immortals on the right hand side of the screen when you get onto Dean’s World?
You guys and gals would not want to treat me like a second-class poster or something like that, would you?
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold,
Contact John Eddy. He should have the power to add your name.
LOL not that it matters, Arnold buddy. I think there are about six of us who read it at this point, right? Half the people on the masthead probably don’t even have this blog bookmarked any more…
True. I think the list should be trimmed a bit.
Coincidentally, just saw this today: “What would Scalia have done in Brown v. Bd. of Education?”
Comments on this entry are closed.