Question for all running for Federal Office

Constitutional limitations, (0.00 / 0)

To candidates: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause have a limit?

If yes, where in your opinion is that limit and how will We the People know that Congress is close to that limit? What is the measure of that limitation?

If your opinion is that the ICC does not have a limit, then is Congress now possessed with unlimited powers, notwithstanding Article I, section 8's listing of specific, delegated powers, since most if not all activities can be tied in some manner, even if remotely, to interstate commerce?

---

by: frank @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 10:14:36 AM CDT

SCOTUS draws the lines (0.00 / 0)

When Congress crosses the line, SCOTUS will push back.

The Founders were genius in their simplicity of design.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 10:48:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Would you reconsider, (0.00 / 0)

Would your comment change if it is pointed out that USSC opinions are not listed among the Supremacy Clause's authorities. What is more, the opinions of federal courts are not "law" as that term is constitutionally defined (Article I, section 7). The ability to make law belongs solely to Congress: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States," Article I, section 1, and at that, Congress can only make law which is itself pursuant to "this Constitution," Article VI, meaning of course the written document.

Would your comment also change if it is observed that Congress, in enacting an outrageous statute purportedly based on the authority of the ICC, could deprive the federal courts (including the USSC) from hearing any matter with respect to that statute. Congress is so empowered; Article III, section 2 (clauses 1,2). In such a circumstance, disputes under that statute would naturally devolve to the courts of the 50 states (the officials of which are themselves bound to support "this Constitution" as an inherent component of their oaths of office; Article VI). All sorts of different interpretations would likely result.

All of this is to say that the USSC would not necessarily be the institutional entity to provide the push back upon which you might be counting should Congress overstep its limits under the ICC. For this reason at least it is important that voters hear candidates' views of the breadth of the ICC and how likely those candidates might be in pushing the limits, whatever they might be, of the ICC.

---

by: frank @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 16:22:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll hang my hat on (0.00 / 0)

Marbury v. Madison. Stare decisis!

Based on this, we need no litmus tests on the ICC.

Btw, I'm not trying to persuade you, frank. I'm convinced you are beyond that.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 16:37:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Non-answer, (0.00 / 0)

Okay, now I get your style. Don't give any reasoning, but be quick with an ad hominem.  

---

by: frank @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 17:50:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's not kid around (0.00 / 0)

You are here to promote an agenda which is to the right of this forum. You have a style that is more fit for Granite Grok than BH.

Actually, that is OK with me, to some extent. That said, I'm not inclined to parry with unpersuadables. It is a waste of energy. Also, unlike some that are quick to wield our Founders and their writings, I am not a scholar of the Constitution.

That said, I laid my ass on the line to defend it, so I'll provide as much comment on the subject as my muse dictates.

So, frank, whatever your leanings on the context of applying the Constitution, I'm less than interested.

When you come in heavy, I'll state the obvious and move along. You can find someone else to play with.

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 18:14:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

Hoefer's thread solicited questions to be asked of candidates (D & R), particularly federal candidates. I posed a question seeking candidates' personal views on the breadth of the ICC. Since each successful federal candidate must take the Constitutional oath before he/she enters office, Article VI & 5 U.S.C. section 3331, candidate views on delegated powers are necessarily relevant. Further, conforming to a voluntarily-taken oath is indicative of character, a matter of importance to most voters.

My question centered on knowing the candidates' views on the restraint of government because restraint and limitation were/are the foremost motivations for a written Constitution and because government possesses power/s which can easily be used adversely to the interests of the people.

For wanting to know this information I am charged by one Jack Mitchell with promoting "an agenda." The information in my posts, including this one, was for the benefit of candidates, no one else, since Hoefer suggested that chances were good that candidates would read his thread. (Mitchell flatters himself in thinking that I desired to parry with him. Inasmuch as Mitchell provides no reasoning to support his empty one-liners, what's to parry?)

Who knew that obedience to the Constitution, the document to which each election winner, D or R, will pledge an oath to support, is "an agenda?" Mitchell knows nothing about me, but attacks nonetheless, looking for enemies, suggestive of a person who is often wrong, but never in doubt. Mitchell himself adds no substance, no citations, no learning to my posed question, only ad hominem. He admits to his lack of Constitutional knowledge, but doesn't let that deficiency stop him. Bluehampshire: discussion forum or echo chamber?

It has apparently escaped me, but I didn't realize that adherence to Constitutional text is today a matter exclusively in the domain of the political right. When did that decree come down? Does that mean Mitchell's favorite candidates, Hodes, Kuster, Tsongas, Patrick, will be taking their oaths with fingers crossed, or even with outright oath refusals?

Written words are important. If Mitchell's employer violates his employment contract, such as short-changing him on salary, he'll be the first to break out his copy of the contract to see what it says and what his remedies might be. He'll put his trust in those written provisions. But oddly, citizens who want to know the views of their would-be representatives and senators respecting existing albeit somewhat ambiguously open-ended Constitutional provisions such as the ICC, and who ask questions to that end, is a right-ish sort of thing. (And, Jack, use a little common sense here. If a right-ish agenda were an objective, bluehampshire is hardly a target-rich environment.)

---

by: frank @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 08:50:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not bad (4.00 / 1)

How can I know anything about you?

You show up, using a first name. I'm inclined to believe, based on a gut reaction, that you are a conservative person of some note in NH. That you are using a fake name to accomodate your foray here. That you have graced us with your presence to expand our horizons.

It is clear you fancy yourself as a constitution-phile and that you are arrogant in your interpretations of our beloved document.

I will admit, you have bested me on arcane knowledge, but I will not concede that you are correct. The Constitution is an ink blot test of the American psyche. Your view is your own. The majority gets to hold the legend on how to decode it's meaning. Or, I don't think my views are any more correct, than yours.

You're a fairly literate person. It is clear you can adequately frame a logical movement from point A to point B, as you did above. But the outcome is of your own design. You ended up right where you intended when you began. That is due some praise. (h/t)

So I will not trifle with you, frank. In the blogscape, I am a skirmisher. I've pulled you out for others to see. Maybe they will engage?

PS. The "guilt by association" twisted logic was the weakest part of your narrative.


www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 11:07:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Somewhere, a farm is missing its scarecrow. (4.00 / 3)

Because there's a straw man here.

The Interstate Commerce Clause is not a blank check, but that does not mean it conforms to a definition promoted by those who would dramatically reduce the scope of national government.

Freedom is not a brand name, and there's more to it than a subjective measure of reasonable taxation and spending.  I'm still waiting to hear how certain people claiming to be strict constitutional adherents are more irked by fiscal policy than by this decade's indefinite detention, torture, warrantless surveillance and unreasonable searches.

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 17:40:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress broad powers, but... (0.00 / 0)

Article I, Section 8 does give Congress very broad powers... BUT Congresspeople do have to worry about being re-elected.  If the people don't like what the Congress is doing, they can vote the bums out.  

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 07:58:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

By way of an explanation. (4.00 / 1)

I'm sure the Kevin Landrigans of the world think it's a "big mistake" for me to focus on Judd Gregg so much instead of the people actually running for office.

But the pain and suffering that Judd Gregg is causing right now by denying jobless benefits to taxpaying Americans is unconscionable.

What's so maddening is that John McCain's economist says extending UI benefits is "vital" (heard on On Point this morning).

So basically, if we had a President McCain we'd have UI benefits right now.

That makes the politically motivated harm Judd Gregg is causing to Americans even more revolting.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 10:56:09 AM CDT

Laser Focus Thursday (0.00 / 0)

I'll delve deeply into this very question on my show tomorrow 7/8 with Michael Lind policy director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation.

He has substantial evidence that Americans want more stimulus spending, and that candidates who keep screaming "Cut Washington Spending" are out of line with voters. Even the recent "America Speaks" pro-deficit-cutting forums revealed support for more stimulus.

Noon to one Thursday on your very own computer at wscafm.org. What would you like to ask Lind?  

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 15:01:29 PM CDT

Will you protect Social Security? (4.00 / 4)

Will you make sure the worker's Trust Fund, including the loans it has made, is not raided?

Will you oppose schemes to raise the retirement age - laughable in the face of 9.7% unemployment?

---

by: elwood @ Wed Jul 07, 2010 at 17:24:31 PM CDT

recycling something I posted elsewhere (0.00 / 0)

Here is a little essay I posted to DailyKos.com a few weeks ago.  I was mocking the common assumption that the private sector's first impulse is to create as many jobs as possible.  (The private sector maximizes profits, NOT payroll--- which means that companies hire as few workers as they need, not as many as they can afford.)

There is an interesting hidden assumption behind the current debates over taxes and healthcare.  That assumption is that the first and foremost goal of corporate executives is to hire as many workers as possible, with a very secondary goal of paying them as much as possible.  If you give executives more money they supposedly will immediately and willingly hire more workers and/or pay their existing workers more; hence, the cliche "job-killing tax."

That is kind of back-asswards: employing workers is in fact viewed as a necessary evil.  The goal of a corporate executive is in fact to make as much MONEY as possible, NOT to employ as many workers as possible. He or she wants to maximize profit, NOT payroll.  Even in labor-intensive industries, companies will try to hire as few workers as they need to get the work done, for the simple reason that even the most underpaid employees are expensive.

There is an interesting hidden assumption behind the current debates over taxes and healthcare. That assumption is that the first and foremost goal of corporate executives is to hire as many workers as possible, with a very secondary goal of paying them as much as possible. If you give executives more money they supposedly will immediately and willingly hire more workers and/or pay their existing workers more; hence, the cliche "job-killing tax." That is kind of back-asswards: employing workers is in fact viewed as a necessary evil. The goal of a corporate executive is in fact to make as much MONEY as possible, NOT to employ as many workers as possible. He or she wants to maximize profit, NOT payroll. Even in labor-intensive industries, companies will try to hire as few workers as they need to get the work done, for the simple reason that even the most underpaid employees are expensive.

In government, where there is no profit motive per se, there is much less pressure to minimize the workforce.  In fact there is some political pressure to maximize it.  Although high taxes and big government are harmful in many ways, if you wanna create jobs right away, the most direct way to do that is (ironically) to raise taxes and use the revenues to finance more government.  In the short run, cutting taxes actually destroys jobs.

In NH, as in many other states, we have businesspeople running for high office on the premise that they have a commitment to--- and a magical capacity for--- creating jobs. Maybe these businesspeople made a lot of money during their business careers, but they always claim that it is never about the fortune, or even the fame. It's always about creating jobs. One of them, a Senatorial hopeful and retired plastic-bag magnate named Bill Binnie, recently embarrassed himself by forgetting that the First Amendment was the section of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion was. His excuse was, and he said this during a debate: "Let's be clear about this: I'm not a lawyer, I know how to create thousands and thousands of jobs."  In his case, he asked We the People to assume that his magical ability to create jobs was all that should mattered to us as we decided who to choose as our Senator: it trumped even the fact that he evidently knows nothing about the U.S. Constitution.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 08:05:20 AM CDT

There is plenty of work to be done and there are (0.00 / 0)

plenty of people willing to do it.  However, now that we've adopted a monetized economy, money is needed to lubricate the transactions and the financial wizards are not willing to give up the power and thrill they get from hoarding the lubricant.  Or, if you will, money is another kind of oil that's being withheld from the market in hopes of making it more valuable (more people willing to do more work for less money) later.

Now, whether or not the actual supply of the oil in the ground is running out or hasn't yet been found or is being kept in reserve as speculative assets on the oil companies' books, what we need to lubricate the economy is a figment of the imagination that's created as needed by the financial class and the U.S. Treasury.  Indeed, since it is the good faith and credit of the American people that support the value of our currency, the big question is why we let private sector middlemen set the conditions of use. How and when are we going to regain control over our currency?

There are some people who have been nattering about "wage slavery."  They've got it wrong on two counts.  First, historical slavery wasn't defined by workers not got getting paid money, but by the fact that they were legally prohibited from living and working where they liked.  In fact, some slaves were hired out and their owners collected money for their work and left them a portion for their own use (cheaper than having to feed, clothe and shelter them).
So, the problem now is a sort of reversal of the slave system.  People are theoretically able to live and work when and where they want and they aren't purchased in person, BUT no-one is willing or able to hire them for pay because there's not enough currency in the system.  Instead of involuntary servitude we've got involuntary unservitude, a condition that's intended to make voluntary servitude (aka "stop loss") an acceptable alternative.

The issue is power.  Fact is that work for fair pay is an egalitarian system and equality is the antithesis of a stratified society.  If people can't consider themselves superior to whoever's being deprived of the necessities of life, their only avenue to high social status is socially valued achievement.  But that takes effort.  Looking down on the deprived is so much easier.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Jul 08, 2010 at 15:17:46 PM CDT

Will you support increased federal funding for infrastructure projects? (4.00 / 1)

And specifically:

1. An extension of the Boston-Lowell MBTA Commuter Rail line up through Nashua, Manchester, and Concord (the Capital Corridor project)
2. Widening Interstate 93 between Manchester and the state line
3. The long-discussed North Station-South Station rail link in Boston, finally connecting Northern New England by rail to the rest of the northeast megalopolis
4. True high speed rail like they have long had in Europe and Japan

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 10:28:28 AM CDT