Post AEqcAp8pcs1vwjITWC by cjd@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by cjd@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #AEohRmdeIPhUYqhKvw by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T03:24:25Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
My biggest single complaint about the US government:The majority of it is predicated on "creative interpretations" of the US Constitution which the founders would never have intended.
(DIR) Post #AEohRoPBj9K02Zwofg by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T03:32:39Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
If you sit and read the constitution, you are liable to conclude that the DEA, FDA, ATF, IRS, FED are all extralegal entities whose actions are without force of law. Some even go so far as to refuse to pay taxes.
(DIR) Post #AEohal3PYYfoFl1lHU by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T03:33:31Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
But this is not actually true, because the Supreme Court does not say it's true.The actual problem is that the Supreme Court is weak, and has been since time time of FDR.
(DIR) Post #AEooYg41pzmRsQGsbI by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T03:36:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
To be perfectly clear, I'm not even saying that the DEA, FDA, ATF, IRS, FED, etc. are undesirable. What I'm saying is that in a perfect world, the Supreme Court would tell the administration that their reading is not OK and to come back with a constitutional amendment.
(DIR) Post #AEooYgUGGSlRBmXpUO by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T03:54:33Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Creative interpretation is harmful.The principle of Rule of Law is that our Ruler (our King) is a written document, and not a person nor group of people.But when people become powerful enough that they can insist on a new interpretation, the document is no longer in power.
(DIR) Post #AEooYguqfc20WEz3vk by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T04:46:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
There are cases where creative interpretation is necessary, such as with in ancient religious texts which make no provision for their amendment.But amending the US Constitution requires only 2/3s vote in both houses of congress. It is as easy as overriding a presidential veto.
(DIR) Post #AEooYhIxDzJVj0GJVI by yes@social.handholding.io
2021-12-27T04:54:15.040081Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd there is far too much unchecked power in the executive branch thanks to bush and obama.
(DIR) Post #AEpJifomhh8waaO51k by herag@dobbs.town
2021-12-27T10:43:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd ever since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has decided that it is a Supreme creator of law and no one can refuse it. So they are essentially 9 dictators that can't literally create law through interpretive endeavor.They are part of the reason that the Pres can now go to war without approval of Congress. They are also the reason that the all the ABC bois are allowed to exist. The very concept of the FBI and of any sort of ID card is extra-constitutional.
(DIR) Post #AEqbYLeCprPJT5cqA4 by mistermonster@firebird.zone
2021-12-28T01:37:54.772494Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd don't forget ratification, much harder to do.
(DIR) Post #AEqcAp8pcs1vwjITWC by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T04:56:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
In my personal opinion, amending the constitution should actually be harder, but as things stand today - the failure of the federal government to formalize itself through clear constitutional amendments demonstrates a lack of reverence for the institution of the court.
(DIR) Post #AEqcApg9cygXc4t5SS by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T05:10:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
CORRECTION: For those reading over the twitter bridge@anji has corrected me that an amendment must be further ratified by 3/4 of the states, which is indeed much safer. Though I stand by my core argument there is a lack of reverence for the court.
(DIR) Post #AEqcAq760oEgxdUbS4 by anji@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T05:23:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd yw. Your take is interesting, but I'm not sure it's fully supported by the text of the constitution. Congress has the power to make laws while the executive branch is given the duty to execute them (art 2 clause 5). As long as these laws do not infringe on states rights (ie. a big part of the constitution), the existence federal agencies to implement laws seems to be constitutional without requiring specific amendments. Now the 10th and the 18th vs certain current laws, that's interesting..
(DIR) Post #AEqcAqY2OdmqJC67Rg by mistermonster@firebird.zone
2021-12-28T01:44:52.237338Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@anji @cjd this is only partly correct. The constitution also protects *rights of the individual* by way of the bill of rights from intrusion by the federal government, and as of the 14th amendment, from the state governments as well.But it explicitly says all other power not reserved to the federal government are reserved for the states. So *anything* that the federal government does that the constitution does not explicitly grant as a privilege to the federal government is in fact a violation of states rights.It comes down to the courts to decide (or not decide, an important power as well), but the federal government foes a lot of unconstitutional things. I wouldn't say forming executive agencies is one of them, but I would say lots of the tastes of the agencies are unconstitutional, and I'd say that in many cases the size and scope creep of them to the point we have now is definitely not constitutional.
(DIR) Post #AEqcAuHAXIfbs2Ehhw by anji@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T05:39:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd Also, I have to think "refusing to pay taxes" is a not really a thing for a federal agency? The only legal federal taxes in the US are tariffs and income taxes (16th amendment), of which the latter specifically applies to the states.
(DIR) Post #AEqcAvzs8a1TCy9v1c by anji@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T05:48:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd You are correct to note and wonder about the odd vagueness of where limitations of federal powers under the constitution lie though. This grey area is commonly discussed as federalism in the US, all the way back to the 1780s, and a mutating concept to this day...
(DIR) Post #AEqdVgQ9LPCMw1uLCq by mistermonster@firebird.zone
2021-12-28T01:59:51.853645Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@anji @cjd this is only partly correct. The constitution also protects *rights of the individual* by way of the bill of rights from intrusion by the federal government, and as of the 14th amendment, from the state governments as well.But it explicitly says all other power not reserved to the federal government are reserved for the states. So *anything* that the federal government does that the constitution does not explicitly grant as a privilege to the federal government is in fact a violation of states rights.It comes down to the courts to decide (or not decide, an important power as well), but the federal government does a lot of unconstitutional things. I wouldn't say forming executive agencies is one of them, but I would say lots of the roles of the agencies are unconstitutional, and I'd say that in many cases the size and scope creep of them to the point we have now is definitely not constitutional.
(DIR) Post #AEtI9ypigw4k6dYdY8 by TMakarios@theres.life
2021-12-27T05:07:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjdThe IRS? Are you sure?Amendment 16: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."According to Wikipedia, this came about precisely because the Supreme Court struck down an earlier income tax as unconstitutional.
(DIR) Post #AEtI9zH13RuTTIKR60 by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T05:17:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TMakarios I'll accept correction regarding the IRS. That amendment, and it's timing along with the internal revenue act, does seem to hold the intent quite clearly.But I doubt you can justify all of the alphabet-soup agencies without resorting to tricks such as creative interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
(DIR) Post #AEtI9zknGjjGxeGDVg by seachanged@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T06:17:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd @TMakarios IRS, FDA formed by acts of Congress.ATF formed by the executive branch, delegated with tasks being performed by the IRS.DEA created by the Executive branch to enforce a law created by Congress.Federal Reserve created to implement an Act of Congress.In my opinion, calling the creation of these bureaus and agencies a "creative interpretation" of the Constitution seems like a infantile discounting of the irreducible complexities of governing in an old, wise and wicked world.
(DIR) Post #AEtIA0D9ZIPkNbWriK by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T06:37:00Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@seachanged @TMakarios In your own words "irreducible complexities of governing", you yourself are admitting that necessity leads interpretation.I am not here to argue for Jeffersonian government. But the 10th amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.And if this should not be the law of the land, let it be changed by the process prescribed.
(DIR) Post #AEtJlq5jk0THx7fLXc by seachanged@mastodon.social
2021-12-27T08:58:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd @TMakarios Congress has been delegated the power to make laws. That alphabet soup derives from the Constitution-delegated power of the Executive to enforce them. No interpretation is needed: these powers spring directly from the Constitution.
(DIR) Post #AEtJlqVGD6t7EHbjKC by TMakarios@theres.life
2021-12-28T04:58:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@seachangedDoes the constitution limit the scope of the laws Congress is allowed to pass? If not, what is the meaning of the 10th amendment?@cjd
(DIR) Post #AEtJlqtikASCS93GS0 by seachanged@mastodon.social
2021-12-29T07:49:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TMakarios @cjd Oh yes, the Constitution does define the scopes of the laws that Congress may pass.... but there is great debate on the middle that you seem to want to exclude with the negation in your subordinate clause.You might as well ask, "If so, what is the meaning of the 10th amendment", as well.Max Farrand's records of the Constitutional Convention seem like a good place to start. Did the delay their publication unfairly reduce our general understanding of the Convention?
(DIR) Post #AEtJlrKf800LnhemRc by TMakarios@theres.life
2021-12-29T08:52:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@seachangedAs I understand it, the accepted justification of drug prohibition is the commerce clause — "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" — in particular the interstate part. So it seems to be accepted that no other part of the constitution gives congress the power to pass laws prohibiting certain drugs.@cjd
(DIR) Post #AEtJlrjTdjr12fGb7g by TMakarios@theres.life
2021-12-29T08:52:29Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@seachanged @cjdGonzalez v. Raich — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich — holds that this power to prohibit interstate commerce in drugs extends to the power to prohibit growing drugs for personal use.The phrase "creative interpretation" seems like an understatement for this state of affairs.