Congress can legislate on ANY legitimate issue. Even if not enumerated in the Constitution.

Some folks on the right have ben trying to tell us that Congress can legislate ONLY about what is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. You know... raising revenue (taxes), establish Post Offices, impeach Presidents (except if their last name is Trump), organizing and arming the militias, .... all the things mentioned in Article 1, but not MORE.

However, the last clause of Article 1, Section 8 ends with a very "cryptic" power, Clause 18 (The Necessary and Proper Clause) says that Congress can also do the following:

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.​

What that means has been interpreted in the last 200+ years by ALL political parties the way Chief Justice John Marshall described it in his opinion of McCulloch v. Maryland

“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.”​

So Justice Marshall says that Congress can legislate on ANYTHING that meets the following criteria:

1- That the end is legitimate
2- That it's within the scope of the Constitution
3- That the means are legitimate and plainly adapted to the end
4- That it is not prohibited (besides the Bill of Rights, Section 9 lists legislation explicitly prohibited)
5- That it's consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution (the latter is explained in the Preamble)

Notice something missing? It does NOT say that they can legislate ONLY about what is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Now... you don't have to agree with Chief Justice Marshall. But for over 200 years Congress, regardless of which party had control, has been passing legislation based on this interpretation. So changing it now would mean overturning quite a big chunk of our laws.

This opinion doesn't tell us WHAT Congress can legislate about. It only tells us the CRITERIA it needs to need. In other words, it tells us NOT to ask that "where is it enumerated that Congress has a right to legislate about X?" It tells us we need to ask those five questions. And if the legislation meets all five, then it's legitimate.

 

link? who are these "some folks"?

Read that again. It's not quite as much a wildcard as you think. "necessary and proper" and "all OTHER POwER vested by this Constitution". carries a lot of weight.​

. True, and long as they are necessary and proper and consistent and proper with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

So who IS trying to change it. Please document your assertion (Should be simple from your voluminous research)[/quote][/quote]

 

​

Oh, don't worry about that. Just a bunch of irrelevant dummies who don't deserve me publicizing a link to them. The purpose of this thread is to rebut what they believe. Not to discuss THEM.

 

So, you have no examples other than unfounded mental machinations. And your "rebuttal" non-existent people?

 

So, and example a poster in another thread was discussing. Just an example. Not the topic: gun legislation. Is gun legislation Constitutional? By which I mean legislation to own firearms. Notice I am NOT answering the question of whether owning guns is legitimate or not (as defined by Marshall). I am only using it as an example.

1- Is the end is legitimate?
The end is to save lives. So the discussion would be if saving lives is a worthy goal or not.

2- Is it within the scope of the Constitution?
It is if you believe keeping people from dying is within the scope of the Constitution.

3- Is the means legitimate and plainly adapted to the end
The topic to discuss would be whether or not the legislation helps keep guns away from people that would use them to fire at innocent people.

4- That it is not prohibited (besides the Bill of Rights, Section 9 lists legislation explicitly prohibited)
Tricky... Some people will point to the 2nd A. I have shown that the 2nd A does not refer to owning guns. But the point is that THAT is the dialogue we'd need to have.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

5- That it's consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution (the latter is explained in the Preamble)
Do you believe that not getting shot would contribute to the purpose to "Insure domestic Tranquility". Another debate to be had.

 

Absolutely! And Marshall gives us a glimpse of what that basis would have to look like.

The OP of this thread and the post right above this one might provide hints.

 

This thread looks like a solution in search of a problem.

 

he's trying to pretend that the commerce clause was a proper basis of constitutional jurisdiction for the FDR gun control laws even though nothing in the constitution even remotely suggested that the federal government had any powers whatsoever over private citizens and the arms they own

 

my favorite is the specious claim that the right to keep firearms somehow doesn't matter because OWNERSHIP is not guaranteed. If you have a right to keep (possess and control) an Item-how can the government say you cannot own it and WTF difference does it make.

 

what kind of dressing do you serve with your word salad?

 

my favorite fertilizer is the claim that saying the federal government does not have the power to interfere with private citizens KEEPING firearms still allows the federal government to ban citizens from OWNING those same firearms

 

Without even having read the thread, just the first post, I bet I can guess that either gun regulation (heavy to complete ban) or Trump (ORANGE MAN BAD!!!) is the main goal of the OP. I'll check back later after I wake up to see if I was right....

 

So, you have nothing...as usual?

 

the haters of gun ownership desperately trying to pretend they aren't enemies of the constitution

 

The left blames the right for the mass shootings. Has it ever occurred to any of them, that they share the blame? The practice "hate the police" rhetoric. They don't want to put the criminals in jail because it really isn't their fault they are a criminal. They refuse to prosecute because the crime wasn't really bad enough to justify prosecution. They ignore gun killings in their own big cities which grossly outnumbers those killed in "mass shootings". They live in a screwed up world of their own creation and blame the republicans for what goes wrong.

 

[/quote][/QUOTE]
He just makes up crap as he goes along.

 

I don't see much place for blaming the right. But your point is well taken

 

I'd stay in bed, if I were you. You haven't been right in years...

 

100% they share the blame! By not enacting proper legislation when they've had the opportunity. AND many of them for having been in the pocket of the gun industry for years. Just like Republicans.

It's not until the last 10 years or so, when mass shootings have gotten out of control, that the majority of left wing politicians have started to take this seriously.

I don't know what you're talking about. But I agree it's bad if anybody did engaged in some "hate the police" rhetoric. However, not as bad as the "beating up the police for wanting to impede Trump from being a dictator is ok" rhetoric

 

I disagree with some things justices have said. Even justices disagree with what other justices of said so I’m not alone in my position. I think this interpretation is 100% wrong. The constitution clearly gives the power to the states that the constitution does not give to the federal government as per the tenth amendment. The constitution clearly is designed to limit the federal government and not give it open ended jurisdiction over anything they want to legislate against.

 

I also disagree with what some justices say (to be clear, I do agree with this one). But I'm not talking about justices making up bogus historical and linguistic arguments to pass gun legislation a few years ago. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion has been precedent for hundreds (thousands?) of laws written over the last 200 years. So it cannot be taken lightly. Right or wrong, taking it out of judicial review now would mean putting a large portion of the country's judicial code passed by ALL parties on the brink.,

 

[/quote][/QUOTE]
Well done sir. And please note far from freeing the Congress to do whatever it damn well pleases Roosevelt's courts and congress found it to be so restricting that they began to use the commerce clause in an attempt to circumvent the entire remainder of the constitution. This should be something else that the Robert's court addresses at some point in the future but it probably won't as the idea is simply so ingrained in current jurisprudence that no one even thinks to tackle it.

 

The government can do whatever it pleases. That bit about We The People is just lip service and sophistry. If the government says jump, libs as "how high?"

Liberty dies to thunderous applause, Chuck Schumer says so and he never lies.

 

Something I posted a while back

 

What is the average number of deaths per year for mass shootings?

Once you get that answer, you might want to concentrate your efforts elsewhere. There is an old rule for businesses you might recognize. Often a business can save more total money on a small percent of a large volume expense than they can save on a large percent of a small volume expense.