Enumerated powers of the Constitution

Let's take them seriously, why don't we?

If the choice is between a non-functional world government, and playing a little fast and loose with the constitution, the proper solution is the latter. The time to address this was two hundred years ago.

As for those who say "WELL WE AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE-" the problem is that the larger your sample size (aka the voter base), the less deviation from the center you're going to get. In short, a 3/4ths majority of states, plus both houses with, what, a 66% in the senate?, is statistically impossible except on the most universal measures. And, seeing as how, the party in a position of weakness in congress always has an incentive to reduce the powers of congress, there is never the political will in order to ensure that Congress has the power necessary to actually function as a first world economy.

Which ones, exactly?

^^ The last constitutional amendment was done in 1992. It's doable today.

The last ratified amendment was one of the first ever proposed, though.

The Constitution doesn't matter. Whatever it says, it means whatever Anthony Kennedy wants it to mean.

More to the point, the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause can justify anything. If the Feds wanted to, they could argue that the length of traffic lights affects how long it'll take for a truck to cross state lines with cargo, and therefore traffic control falls under federal jurisdiction.

United States v Lopez (1995) says otherwise.

An amendment that helps protect congresses salaries. Yeah, real tough sell.

It's possible to amend the constitution but only if there's political impetus there. And for the reasons I stated above, for anything regarding expanding/contracting Congress' powers, that will isn't there.

^There's lots of contradicting court cases on lots of varying matters. It's up in the air. But the kind of "congress can't do shit" policy that Libertarians espouse is not the reality of the United States, nor should it be.

edited 6th Aug '11 12:17:54 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

What about the 17th?

Also, if enough of the state governments want the same thing, they can petition for a convention. Ultimately, amendments are powers of the states. If they feel strongly enough that they need to regain their powers, they can, if only they will act.

Still not that simple. It requires a fair amount of effort to do even that.

The difficulty in amending the US Constitution is a feature, not a bug.

As for the "world government" Tomu mentioned up-thread, setting aside the whole false dilemma fallacy thing (only two options, really? Riiiiight...) what does the Constitution have to do with that? The US is hardly unique in not wanting to surrender its sovereign identity to the UN or some similar body, nor is it the only "major power" lacking that particular desire.

(My opinions on the value of a world government are being set aside because this thread isn't about them or world government.)

Ummmm what? Oh I see, I phrased that wrong. I'm not sure why I used the term "world government" in that context, when I really mean a government of the world. Would have responded earlier, but my power went out.

I'm not saying we need to be part of a world government. The exact opposite-we need to be competitive with other nations in the global economy. If our government focuses on states rights, we cease to be one big super power, and suddenly become fifty fairly shitty nations. We lose access to the economies of scale which give places like China such a big advantage (there are other things as well of course, I'm not downplaying their willingness to stomp all over human rights or anything).

edited 6th Aug '11 4:12:24 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

ITT: Tropers deny the importance of the rule of law.

^ Uh, yeah? There's a reason Lawful Neutral is the least popular alignment.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

All else being equal, the closer to the Rule of Law the better, but human beings are not computer programs where binary solutions can solve every issue. Given an infinite amount of processing power and the infinite wisdom of policy makers, perchance it would be possible to have perfect law that requires no work-arounds.

However, that's not the case we're in. The choice is between functional government, and non-functional government, with the latter better fitting to the Rule of Law as it pertains to the constitution (at least, according to the Limited Government buffs). It is my opinion that the added value by better subscribing to the Rule of Law by virtue of limited government does not outweigh the hugely significant gains by having a federal government that is actually capable of governing.

Certainly, the best of both worlds would be a constitutional amendment that makes the congressional actions of such things as forming the FDA and the like actually legal, but you can never expect to get that passed.

^ You only expect failure because the cause and argument for such proposals to be blunt sucks compared to what has been amended. They don't warrant widespread persuasion and ultimately agreement. That's the reason why the amendment process is so difficult. So that populist fads don't end up ruining the one thing that truly separates us from the tyrannical states.

Um not really Tom.

It is made so difficult because the idea was we are all in it together so we all more or less need to agree on the changes. It was also done to keep knee jerk reactionary style changes in check among other issues.

@Tom: Indeed, there's not much need for an amendment to unrestrict congress because congress acts in an unrestricted manner as is-the only effect of the amendment would be so that the next time one party doesn't want congress to pass something, they can't stamp their feet and bitch about how "congress is overstepping its bounds."

Of course, if you want to talk about the actual effectiveness of having a viable congress or not, well, that's a stronger argument, at least to people who are actually paying attention. I'll grant that the "Common Sense Solutions" style inane talking points have a bit more persuasive power, because they don't require complicated accurate explanations.

@Tom: so instead we end up with a state full of fatalists who try to amend it anyways to codify their ideology into the law.

• cough cut cap and balancecough*

And thus frequently find themselves on the wrong end of a Supreme Court ruling. That right there is living proof the US Constitution is a document of no, not an enabler.

^ Why do you think I said what I said? Populist fads fail because the Constitution is so hard to amend. The Constitution is so hard to amend to prevent populist fads from easily coming to be. To get an amendment done, you have to have widespread agreement that it must be done either because a flaw was found in the existing system (like Amendment 11) or things have changed and enough people have agreed this must be changed. (Women's right to vote, voting rights at 18, civil rights by way of the 14th, to name a few.)

edited 6th Aug '11 7:31:07 PM by MajorTom

There are two arguments. One is whether or not Congress needs to have actual power at the federal level. The other is about whether or not the constitution has to be amended in order to accomplish this.

Which point are you arguing for or against, because it's too easy to prove one and pretend you've proven the other.

^ The answer to one answers the other.

So instead of evading the question asnwer it. Kind of pointless to discuss it otherwise.

No it doesn't, Tom; that's why I make the distinction.