Skip to main content

View Diary: Dusting off "Inherent Contempt" (282 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The President has the power to advise Congress (0+ / 0-)

    He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

    In other words the President must appear before Congress in order to get the consent of 2/3 of the Senators present if they wish to give it. He is in other words designated to act as their agent, go to meetings, come back and report, and if he is skillful in this, possibly win their consent.

    Congress does in fact enter treaties with the ammendment process necessary to make a bill a law.

    If the president fails to communicate to congress what the treaties terms are he may well find Congress has the power to just say no.

    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

    by rktect on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 11:17:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Congress cannot negotiate treaties (0+ / 0-)

      That is plain as day.  Congress cannot go and enter a treaty with a foreign government.  Congress' role is limited to accepting or rejecting the treaty.  (It can amend it).

      Power to say "no" is quite different from power to proactively negotiate treaties.

      •  Sure they can ammend it (0+ / 0-)

        and provide advice as to whatever ammendments will be required to get the Senate to consent. That  obviously change the terms, so the abilities to just say no, to advise and to consent are much more effective in the decision making process than you may be aware. Essentially Congress gets to say do it our way or you don't do it at all.

        There are other ways to tinker with treaties that may or may not be constitutional. The 109th Congress just revisited the Geneva Convention and in the MCA changed the terms meaning it is now not the same document that is approved internationally and is thus repealed.

        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

        by rktect on Wed Mar 28, 2007 at 06:38:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, they can tinker with treaties (0+ / 0-)

          they can amend them.  But Congress cannot go to the government of Russia and negotiate a treaty from scratch.

          •  What do you think all those Congressional junkets (0+ / 0-)

            to for example Syria and Iran are about?

            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

            by rktect on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 04:59:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Variety of things (0+ / 0-)

              The point is Congress cannot negotiate a treaty and then present it to itself.  There is separationof powers.  President negotiates and signs a treaty and Congress gets to ratify and potentially amend.  Congress does not have the power orauthority to do that 1st step.

              •  Of course it can and does (0+ / 0-)

                Congressional leadership travels around the world jawboning what it thinks might be advisable and will consent to in regards to everything from trade and fishing rights to nuclear proliferation.

                Thousands of staffers from Congressional offices work closely with other staffers in the Executive Branch in an ongoing and continuing process of negotiation.

                This is then run back through the other parties to the treaty and then only after the negotiations are completed does the President meet with the foreign powers to get their approval and sign the treaty, which then goes back to Congress for their approval.

                Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                by rktect on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:06:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do cite me a single instance when Congress (0+ / 0-)

                  has negotiated a treaty when the President was unwilling.

                  Of course often people work together.  The point is, unless the President is willing to sign a treaty, there will be nothing to ratify, no matter how much or how well Congress attempted to negotiate.

                  •  Give me an example of the President (0+ / 0-)

                    ratifying a treaty when the Senate was unwilling.

                    Ratification of Treaties

                    The word "ratification" when used in connection with treaties refers to the formal act by which a nation affirms its willingness to be bound by a specific international agreement.

                    The basic purpose of ratification of a treaty is to confirm that an agreement which two or more countries have negotiated and signed is accepted and recognized as binding by those countries.

                    The procedure by which nations ratify treaties is a concern of domestic rather than international law. The Constitution does not use the word ratification in regard to treaties.

                    It says only that the President shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties.

                    The Constitution does not divide up the process into various component parts which can be identified today, such as initiation, negotiation, signing, Senatorial advice and consent, ratification, deposit or exchange of the instruments of ratification, and promulgation.

                    From the beginning, however, the formal act of ratification has been performed by the President acting "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

                    The President ratifies the treaty, but only upon the authorization of the Senate.

                    The Senate gives its advice and consent by agreeing to the resolution of ratification. After it does so, the President is not obligated to proceed with the process of ratification. With the President's approval, however, the ratification occurs with the exchange of the instruments of ratification between the parties to the treaty.

                    Treaties, unlike any other business considered by the Senate, stay before that body once the President submits them until the Senate acts on them or unless the President requests, and/or the Senate adopts an order or resolution authorizing, their return to the President or the Secretary of State. In 1937, 1947, and 1952, the Senate returned numerous treaties, including some dating back as early as 1910, to the Secretary of State or the President.

                    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                    by rktect on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 05:18:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Where did I say that the President can (0+ / 0-)

                      unilaterally ratify treaties?!

                      You are the one claiming that Congress possess all power, including executive and judicial.

                      •  The President is empowered to act (0+ / 0-)

                        as the agent of the Senate which is a part of the Congress which has all the power.

                        The thing about ownership is that you don't really own anything unless you can give it away. This is an example of where Congress finds it needful from time to time to call the President to service, and by giving him some of their power, accomplish a purpose.

                        In order to authorize him to speak for them with one voice, they give him their collective advice and consent to ratify the treaty.

                        From the beginning, however, the formal act of ratification has been performed by the President acting "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

                        The President ratifies the treaty, but only upon the authorization of the Senate.

                        Taken in the light of Article 1 section 8, which gives Congress all the power, its like the case in which the Speaker of the House recognizing a speaker from the majority party.

                        The recognized individual then gives some time to the minority party on the other side of the isle empowering them to speak and to be able to debate an issue.

                        The recognized individual then grants to themselves the option to speak for so much time as they shall consume.

                        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                        by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:14:47 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Jesus... President may be empowered to act (0+ / 0-)

                          But he can Act on his own.  He can enter as many treaties as he likes whether the Senate likes it or not.  The Senate simply doesn't have to ratify.

                          And "agent" implies that Senate can do the work on its own.  It can't.  It can't enter the treaties.  See, e.g., Kyoto, ICC.

                          •  Actually the president can't act on his own (0+ / 0-)

                            From the beginning, however, the formal act of ratification has been performed by the President acting "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

                            The President ratifies the treaty, but only upon the authorization of the Senate.

                            or if you prefer it

                            From the beginning, however, the formal act of ratification has been performed by the President acting "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

                            The President ratifies the treaty, but only upon the authorization of the Senate.

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:19:39 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We are not talking about RATIFICATION (0+ / 0-)

                            we are talking about beginning a treaty.  The President can negotiate whatever treaties he likes.  The Senate gets a chance to reject them.

                            Furthermore, even if the Senate really really really wants a treaty, but the President does not, there is nothing the Senate can do.  It is the President who decides which treaties to enter and when and whether to submit them to the Senate for ratification.  The President can refuse to submit a treaty for ratification and again, there is nothing the Senate can do.

                            Again, see Kyoto & ICC.

                          •  Ratification is how a treaty is made (0+ / 0-)

                            without it no treaty is made, just a lot of noise, so we are indeed talking about ratification.

                            The Constitution, Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2
                            describes the presidential role in making treaties

                            He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

                            That makes clear that the president has no power to make treaties unless by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:55:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  For the love of Pete... (0+ / 0-)

                            The treaty making power is obviously shared.  the point is Senate can do nothing without the President.  And vice versa.  Which means that neither has "all the power."

                          •  The treaty making power is (0+ / 0-)

                            by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

                            Thats shared like your dad giving you the keys to the car so you can go out on a date providing you agree to abide by his advice he will give his consent ... but ... if you don't get Pete and yourself home by curfew you aren't likely so see your Dad give his consent to handing over the keys to his car again til long after Pete finds another boyfriend...

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:28:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Once again, Senate has a power of VETO (0+ / 0-)

                            over a treaty.  It does not have affirmative treaty-making power.  What's so difficult to understand about that.  Senate can advise all it wants, but if the President refuses to sign a treaty there is nothing for Senate to vote on or consent to.

                          •  The Congress shall have the power... (0+ / 0-)

                            In this case, the Senate has the power of advise and consent. Nothing happens without its advise and consent. No treaty, nothing. zip, nada...

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:24:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's why the Senate has a power of a veto (0+ / 0-)

                            Thatios just what I said.  But ifthe Senate wants a treaty, but the President does not, also nothing happens.

                          •  The Senate does not have a Veto (0+ / 0-)

                            it has the power of advise and consent and does not need a veto as there is nothing to veto if it does not consent.

                            If the Senate wants a treaty and the President doesn't, then the Senate may still get what it wants through legislation or regulation by for example making a law that all imports from China must comply with US labor laws.

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:28:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Legislation unlike a treaty (0+ / 0-)

                            binds only the US.  It does not bind China.  for instance Congress can pass all the legislation it wants, but in the absence of a treaty there can be no extradition from China.

                            Furthermore, "refusing consent" and "veto" are one and the same.

                          •  To advise and consent is more than to consent (0+ / 0-)

                            if to refuse consent equates to a Veto, what about the part of the phrase that reads ...by and with the advise...?

                            Congress can take away Chinas most favored nation trade status simply by passing the legislation to do so. China may then refuse to trade with the US, call in its debts and bankrupt us.

                            We may then nationalize all their assets in the US and before long extradition from China is the least of our problems.

                            The time consuming investigations and deliberations of Congress that allow them to advise and consent are a big part of the process

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 12:18:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do explain how Congress can (0+ / 0-)

                            make an extradition treaty with China if the President is unwilling to do so.

                        •  And Art. I Sec. 8 most certainly (0+ / 0-)

                          does not give Congress all the power.  Congress' power is specifically enumerated and it is given power to pass whatever legislation necessary to advance those enumerated powers.  It cannot stray beyond those enumerated powers.  See also Amendment X.

                          •  Section 8. The Congress shall have power (0+ / 0-)

                            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.

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:22:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are completely misreading that (0+ / 0-)

                            It has powers to

                            1. make laws that are necessary to carry out foregoing powers and
                            1.  make laws to enable other people to carry out their powers.

                            Congress was certainly not assigned "all other powers."

                            Such a construction is contrary to the rules of English grammar, contrary to the rules of statutory construction, contrary to logic, and contrary to history.

                            1.  If Congress was assigned "all other powers" then there would be no need whatever to give a list of powers.
                            1.  Given the fact that the stated goal and belief of the Framers and ratifiers was a limited central government, it is hard to believe that they assigned all power to Congress.
                            1. The Tenth Amendment specifically limits Cognress to enumerated powers.
                            1.  As a matter of grammar it simply is nonsensical to say "The Congress shall have power and all other powers."  
                          •  Article1 § 8 The Congress shall have power (0+ / 0-)

                            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.

                            Article1 § 8 The Congress shall have all power ... vested by this Constitution

                            You argue that:

                            Such a construction is contrary to the rules of English grammar, contrary to the rules of statutory construction, contrary to logic, and contrary to history.

                            Were that so the Constitution would be unenforcably vague, but yet it has not been overturned on those grounds in more than two centuries.

                            Such a construction is not contrary to the rules of English grammar, it says what it says.

                            You argue that:

                            1. As a matter of grammar it simply is nonsensical to say "The Congress shall have power and all other powers."  

                            Article 1 § 8 begins by saying The Congress shall have power , it then lists some examples and summarizes by clearly stating the power of Congress is absolute ... The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers including those vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

                            Such a construction is not contrary to the rules of statutory construction. If you disagree then you should state why.

                            Such a construction is not contrary to logic.
                            The reason you give for this statement is based not on facts but belief. The document itself does not agree with your belief.

                            Its perfectly logical and indeed necessary that Congress in creating the Constitution, would do so in such a manner as to give itself the power which it then dispenses in authorizing the formation of a government by making its laws.

                            Such a construction is not contrary to history. See Findlaw for further discussion

                            You argue that:

                            1. The Tenth Amendment specifically limits Cognress to enumerated powers.

                            Read what Amendment X actually says.

                            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.

                            All powers are vested in the Congress by the Constitution.

                            That includes the powers enumerated in Article 1 section 8, including the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying them into execution and all other powers.

                            Of those some are delegated by Congress under its congressional authority to the United States and its departments and officers, and some are reserved to the states and the people.

                            Its very much like the way time is doled out to those who wish to speak to an issue.

                            The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers including those vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

                            None of these arguments you make pass muster.

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:16:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                            First of all, youcannot "overturn" the Constitution.  that is plain as day.

                            Second, did you ever learn the concept of the modifier in high school.

                            Section 8 reads that Congress has power to make laws to enable other officers to carry ut their duties.  It most certainly does not empower Congress to assume their power.  Congress' power is limited to making laws, not to executing them or to adjudicating them.

                            Third, It is ludicrious to suggest that Congress' power is absolute.  The framers created a limited government not an absolute centralized government.

                            Fourth, under your construction, since all power is delegated to Congress Tenth Amendment is meaningless.   Since all power is delegated, nothing by definition is reserved to the states.  

                            Fifth, under your construction, the rest of the Bill of Rights is also meaningless.

                          •  Continuing (0+ / 0-)

                            Sixth,

                            If Congress has all the powers, the enumeration of powers would be utterly unnecessary and superfluous.  A basic rule of statutory construction is to not render any words a nullity.  Under your reasoning, all of the enumeration would be a nullity because it would all be encompassed under "all powers."

                            Seventh, it is clear as day that Congress does not posses powers to appoint executive officials.  See Bowsher v. Synar.  Its role is limited to approving and maybe impeaching them.

                            Eighth, Congressional acts have been repeatedly struck down as being ultra vires.  That of course could never happen if Congressional power was absolute.  Nothing could be ultra vires.  See Lopez v. united States; US v. Morrison.

                            Ninth, Framers purposefully did not assign absolute power to any single branch as they expected that structural separation of powers both within the federal government and between federal and states is the greatest bulwark of liberty.  See federalist papers.

                            Tenth, since the Constitution was created by assent of the states and by states voluntarily surrendering some of their own powers to the feds, it is bizarre to say the least to suggest that the states (some of which were quite skeptical about the whole thing) voluntarily surrendered the entirety of their sovereignty to a remote ruler.  It is especially bizarre to suggest that the states did it right in the wake of American Revolution.

                          •  Since your argument would require that (0+ / 0-)

                            perhaps you may be wrong.

                            Please do instruct me about all you have learned so far about modifiers in high school.

                            Section 8 reads that Congress has power to make laws to enable other officers to carry ut their duties.  It most certainly does not empower Congress to assume their power.  Congress' power is limited to making laws, not to executing them or to adjudicating them.

                            Maybe you have a different Constitution in front of you than I do, but mine doen't read that way at all.

                            mine says

                            Section 8. The Congress shall have power to ... 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 kind of an American refers to the Constitution as ludicrous??? Your Federalist Society hears about this they will revoke your membership...

                            The framers created the Congress which then created the Constitution. Suprise, Suprise, ... The Constitution gives all the power to the Congress...

                            The Congress, since it has all the power and makes all the laws says in the tenth ammendment

                            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.

                            Rights can't be granted or taken away regardless of how powerful the Congress is.

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:02:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  WHAT?! (0+ / 0-)

                            Framers created Congress that then created the Constitution?!?!?!

                            Which history book are you reading?!

                            Constitution was drafted by Constitutional Convention which finished its work on September 17, 1787.  It was ratified by states by June 21, 1788.  The first Congress convened march 4, 1789, a full year and a half after the Constitution was drafted!

                            Second, you are arguing that ALL powers were delegated to Congress.  Thus, under your logic, there is nothing left to the states.

                            Third, as to modifiers.  "all other power" is modified by "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper..."  It is not a separate grant of power.

                          •  The Constitution was created by Congress (0+ / 0-)

                            Over a period of fourteen years. It began with the Declaration of Independance in 1776 and the Articles of Confederation which provided for a loose association of states.

                            The Constitution wasn't complete when drafted, It needed to be ratified and ratification wasn't an easy process.

                            The Congress of the Confederation or the United States in Congress Assembled was the governing body of the United States of America from March 1, 1781, to March 4, 1789.

                            It comprised delegates appointed by the legislatures of the states. It was the immediate successor to the Second Continental Congress; the membership of the Second Continental Congress automatically carried over to the Congress of the Confederation when the latter was created by the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

                            On June 7, 1776, a resolution was introduced in the Second Continental Congress declaring the union with Great Britain dissolved, proposing the formation of foreign alliances, and suggesting the drafting of a plan of confederation to be submitted to the respective states.

                            Independence was declared on July 4, 1776; the preparation of a plan of confederation was postponed.

                            The articles of Confederation were precedent to the United States, the Congress and the Constitution

                            Articles of Confederation
                            It was not until November 17, 1777, that the Congress was able to agree on a form of government which stood some chance of being approved by the separate States.

                            The Articles of Confederation were then submitted to the several States, and on July 9, 1778, were finally approved by a sufficient number to become operative.

                            They were mostly based on English common law principles which went back as far as the Magna Carta.

                            The key idea was to make a union of Colonies which could stand together with enough power to resist the Tyranny of kings.

                            Ridding the Colonies of the abuses of kings and Tyrants was the central idea on which a Congress of representatives of We the People was based.

                            Thats why the Congress has all the power, and the President has to take an oath to preserve protect and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

                            The United States Constitution was partly based on ideas from the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom, such as Article 39 from the British Magna Carta of 1215, which states:

                            No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.

                            The British Bill of Rights also acted as a source of ideas for the United States Constitution. For example, like the British Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution requires jury trials, contains a right to bear arms, and prohibits excessive bail and of "cruel and unusual punishments".

                            The Declaration of Independence also acted as an important guide, keeping the minds of the delegates fixed on the ideas of self-government and preservation of fundamental human rights.

                            Ratification by the 13 colonies was begun in 1775 and completed toward the end of 1789.

                            The need for only nine states was a controversial decision at the time, since the Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of all the states. Despite this, the new Constitution was ratified by all 13 states.

                            Three members of the Convention—Madison, Gorham, and King--were also Members of Congress.

                            They proceeded at once to New York, where Congress was in session, to placate the expected opposition.

                            Aware of their vanishing authority, Congress on September 28, after some debate, unanimously decided to submit the Constitution to the States for action.
                            It made no recommendation for or against adoption.[4]

                            The Congress having begun the process did not abandon it. Madison, speaking for Congress continued to represent its interests in the discussion that followed

                            Two parties soon developed, one in opposition (Antifederalists), and one in support (Federalists), of the Constitution, and the Constitution was debated, criticized, and expounded clause by clause.

                            Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, under the name of "Publius," wrote a series of commentaries, now known as the Federalist Papers, in support of the new instrument of government.
                            ...
                            The process of organizing the government began soon after ratification by Virginia and New York. On September 13, 1788, Congress fixed the city of New York as the seat of the new government. (The capital was moved to Philadelphia in 1790 and to Washington D.C., in 1800.)

                            Though New Hampshire was the ninth state it was recognized that the maritime colonies of New England and the Carolinas needed States like Virginia to make an effective union.

                            It set Wednesday, January 7, 1789 as the day for choosing presidential electors, the Wednesday, February 4 for the meeting of the electors to select a president, and Wednesday, March 4 for the opening session of the new Congress. Thus, March 4, 1789 became inauguration day.

                            To no one's surprise, George Washington was unanimously elected the first president, and John Adams of Massachusetts, the vice president. Adams arrived in New York on April 21, and Washington on April 23. They were sworn into office on April 30, 1789. The business of setting up the new government was completed.

                            The United States Constitution was ratified by Rhode Island in September 1789 and is the successor to the Articles of Confederation, passed in 1778.

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 03:22:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  English is an SVO language (0+ / 0-)

                            Third, as to modifiers.  "all other power" is modified by "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper..."  It is not a separate grant of power.

                            In English Article 1 section 8 cannot have the dangling or ambiguous modifier you propose because the language is in the form of clauses rather than phrases.

                            1. we expect the construction subject verb object
                            1. a dependant clause or phrase cannot cannot be a sentence.
                            1. If its ambiguous its a dependant phrase.
                            1. An independant clause cannot have a modifier.
                            1. In English a modifier phrase is either an adjective phrase or an adverb phrase.
                            1. A dangling modifier is a dependant adverbial phrase that ought to modify one element of a sentence, but due to placement in the sentence, seems to modify another.
                            1. A phrase is a group of words acting as a single part of speech and not containing both a subject and a verb
                            1. A clause is a word or group of words ordinarily consisting of a subject and a predicate

                            The Congress shall have power...
                            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.

                            Subject: The Congress
                            future perfect verb: shall have
                            object: power

                            Ok, we have a sentence.

                            Then we have a series of infinitive enumerative phrases: To...

                            Next we have another sentence used in summary.

                            Its a(future perfect participle)infinitive verbal clause used as the subject of a sentence: To make all laws which shall be necessary

                            This is followed by a connective conjunction: and

                            Next up, an object of preposition gerund clause introducing a definitive participle as definite object:  proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers

                            Finally a gerund (as object of preposition) adverbial clause as indefinite object: vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

                            Second, you are arguing that ALL powers were delegated to Congress.  Thus, under your logic, there is nothing left to the states.

                            No. Article I, section 8, in summary tells us Congress shall have power to...

                            Power is possessed by Congress (representing we the people)which may then choose to delegate some of it, with its advise and consent to the states and the people.

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 06:05:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                            Congress did not create the Constitution.  It was drafted by a Constitutional Convention.

                            Do cite to me a single authority that suggests that Congress possesses judicial power or executive power.  i have cited numerous cases to you,  You have cited nothing except a bizarre and gramatically incorrect interpretation of Art. I, Sec. 8.  Please cite some authorities to support your outlandish claims.

                          •  The Congress existed before the United States (0+ / 0-)

                            in order to form the United States Congress began with the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation.

                            During the revolution many members of the Congress were still part of organizations like the Sons of Liberty.

                            From the British perspective these were terrorist groups that had yet to form States. They undoubtedly still thought of themselves as part of colonies or provinces of Great Britain.

                            After The Articles of Confederation were agreed to they then evolved into the Constitution at the Philidelphia convention which were established by the members of Congress in their dominions and provinces when after Shay's Rebellion it was recognized that Congress needed more power.

                            The Thirteen Colonies were British colonies in North America founded between 1607 (Virginia), and 1732 (Georgia). Although Great Britain held several other colonies in North America and the West Indies, the colonies referred to as the "thirteen" are those that rebelled against British rule in 1775 and proclaimed their independence as the United States of America on July 4, 1776.

                            Not until 1786 did the Congress begin to revise the Articles of Confederation into a Constitution, possibly because of what happened with Shay's rebellion

                            The Annapolis Conference In September 1786 Virginia called together the states into a convention in Annapolis, Maryland to discuss the state of commerce in the country...only five states, out of thirteen, showed up. They did, however, suggest another conference in Philadelphia to discuss the problems in the current government.

                            Alexander Hamilton submitted a report, on September 14, 1786, to Congress saying it was needed to "take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."

                            Congress approved the plan to hold another convention on February 21, 1787. This next Convention will later be known as the Philadelphia Convention.

                            The Philadelphia Convention(now also known as the Constitutional Convention, the Federal Convention, or the "Grand Convention at Philadelphia") took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787, to address problems in The United States of America following independence from Great Britain.

                            Although it was purportedly intended only to revise the Articles of Confederation, the intention of many of the Convention's proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was from the outset to create a new government rather than "fix" the existing one.

                            It was not since The Annapolis Conference that the states had seriously considered the situation of the Articles of Confederation. The delegates elected George Washington to preside over the convention.

                            The result of the Convention was the United States Constitution.

                            The original role of the President was to preside over the convention of the Congress. It was Congress that created both the Executive Branch and the judicial branch as none existed under the Articles of Confederation.

                            This is a partial list of notable United States federal legislation, in chronological order. At the federal level in the United States, legislation (a.k.a. "statutes" or "statutory law") consists exclusively of Acts passed by the Congress of the United States (and its predecessor, the Continental Congress), that were either signed into law by the President or subsequently passed by Congress after a presidential veto.

                            Legislation is not the only source of regulations with force of law. However, most executive branch regulations must originate in a congressional grant of power.

                            Executive orders of the President; regulations of Executive branch departments and administrative agencies; and the procedural rules of the federal courts must originate in a congressional grant of power.

                            A regulationis a legal restriction promulgated by government administrative agencies through rulemaking supported by a threat of sanction or a fine.

                            This administrative law or regulatory law is in contrast to statutory or case law.

                            Regulation mandated by the government or state attempts to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, produce or prevent outcomes in different places to what might otherwise occur, or produce or prevent outcomes in different timescales than would otherwise occur.

                            Common examples of regulation include attempts to control market entries, prices, wages, pollution effects, employment for certain people in certain industries, standards of production for certain goods and services.

                            The economics of imposing or removing regulations relating to markets is analysed in regulatory economics.

                            Regulation as a legal term
                            A regulation as a legal term is a rule created by an administration or administrative agency or body that interprets the statutes setting out the agency's purpose and powers, or the circumstances of applying the statute.

                            A regulation is a form of secondary legislation which is used to implement a primary piece of legislation appropriately, or to take account of particular circumstances or factors emerging during the gradual implementation of, or during the period of, a primary piece of legislation.

                            Other forms of secondary legislation are statutory instruments, statutory orders, by-laws and rules. Some of these (but not all of them) need to be referred back before being implemented, to the primary legislative process.

                            Types of regulation
                            Regulations, like any other coercive action, have costs for some and benefits for others. Efficient regulations may only be said to exist where the total benefits to some people exceed the total costs to others.

                            Regulation are justified using various reasons and therefore can be classified in several broad categories:

                            The Judiciary Act of 1793 is a United States federal statute, enacted on March 2 1793.

                            This act of the First Congress established the structure of the federal judiciary, the basic structure of which has remained intact.

                            The Constitution stipulated only that the federal court system should consist of (1) a Supreme Court having original jurisdiction in certain cases and (2) "such inferior Courts as the Congress may ... establish."

                            Congress could have declined to create lower courts, making state courts rule first on almost all federal issues.

                            Such cases would then appear before the single federal court. Instead, the 1789 act created two lower levels of courts.

                            Federal district courts, each with a district judge, composed the lowest level. Their district boundaries generally matched state lines. Every federal district also fell within the circuit of one of the three second-level courts, the circuit courts.

                            Two Supreme Court justices and one district judge composed each circuit court bench; they traveled to each district to hear cases twice a year. When cases involved parties from differing states, they usually received their first hearing in the circuit courts. Occasionally, circuit courts also heard appeals from district courts.

                            In addition to creating courts, the 1789 act granted the Supreme Court a controversial power to order federal officials to carry out their legal responsibilities.

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:23:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, you fail to cite any authority (0+ / 0-)

                            And after the Declaration of Independence each state was sovereign.  So Congress exists only pursuant to delegation of authority by states not the other way around

                          •  The links are the cites (0+ / 0-)

                            After the Declaration of Independence each State was Sovereign until they ratified the Articles of Confederation ten years later.

                            The Stamp Act Congress dated to 1754 but not many states or people showed up.

                            in 1775 the First Congress met to pass the Declaration of Independence, as late as 1786 Virginia called a convention and only five states showed up. There was no judiciary until the Judiciary act of 1793. In 1786 The Articles of Confederation United the States as a nation

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 12:02:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Articles of Confederation (0+ / 0-)

                            did in no way diminish state sovereignty.  

                            Congress did not pass declaration of independence.  Those people were not elected by anyone.  

                            And if you notice, the First Congress is the one that met after the adoption of the Constitution.

                            Please cite authority that even remotely suggests that all power resides in Congress and that the power of other branches and entities (states) is simply at Congressional sufference. Also explain how if Congress is all powerful can its acts be stricken down as ultra vires.

                          •  The articles of confederation and permanent union (0+ / 0-)

                            created a permanent union which enhanced the power of the states by combining them into a congress so they could act together to fight indians, pirates and other invaders, and enhanced the power of the congress because among other things, only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign relations and to declare war.  

                            The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, commonly known as the Articles of Confederation, was the first governing document, or constitution, of the United States of America.

                            It was written in summer 1776 and adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, after a year of debate.

                            In practice it served as the de facto system of government used by the Congress ("the United States in Congress assembled") until it became de jure by final ratification on March 1, 1781.

                            At that point Congress became Congress of the Confederation. The Articles set the rules for operations of the United States.

                            The confederation was capable of making war, negotiating diplomatic agreements, and resolving issues regarding the western territories, and the ability to print money and borrow inside and outside the US.

                            One major weakness was it lacked taxing authority. A second weakness was one-state, one-vote. The larger states were expected to contribute more but had only one vote.

                            As Benjamin Franklin complained, "Let the smaller Colonies give equal money and men, and then have an equal vote. But if they have an equal vote without bearing equal burthens, a confederation upon such iniquitous principles will never last long."[1]

                            It was initially intended only as a weak national government designed to manage an emergency, and as such, following the conclusion of the War and the onset of new priorities, its many conspicuous inadequacies became glaringly obvious.

                            It was replaced by the much stronger United States Constitution upon the latter's ratification on June 21, 1788.

                            ...
                            Even though the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were established by many of the same people, the two documents were very different. The original five paged Articles contained thirteen articles, a conclusion, and a signatory section.

                            Establishes the name of the confederation as "The United States of America" and says it is a "perpetual Union."

                            Explains the rights possessed by any state, and the amount of power to which any state is entitled.

                            Establishes the United States as a league of states united ". . . for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them . . ."

                            Establishes freedom of movement–anyone can pass freely between states, excluding "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice."

                            All people are entitled to the rights established by the state into which he travels.

                            If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extradited to and tried in the state in which the crime was committed.

                            Allocates one vote in the Congress of the Confederation (United States in Congress Assembled) to each state, which was entitled to a delegation of between two and seven members.

                            Members of Congress were appointed by state legislatures; individuals could not serve more than three out of any six years.

                            Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign relations and to declare war.

                            No two states can form an alliance without permission of Congress.

                            No states may have navies or standing armies, or engage in war, without permission of Congress
                            (although the state militias are encouraged)

                            When an army is raised for common defense, colonels and military ranks below colonel will be named by the state legislatures.

                            Expenditures by the United States will be paid by funds raised by state legislatures, and apportioned to the states based on the real property values of each.

                            Defines the rights of the central government: to declare war, to set weights and measures (including coins)

                            Congress serves as a final court for disputes between states.

                            Defines a Committee of the States to be a government when Congress is not in session.

                            Requires nine states to approve the admission of a new state into the confederacy; pre-approves Canada, if it applies for membership.

                            Reaffirms that the Confederation accepts war debt incurred by Congress before the articles.

                            Declares that the articles are perpetual, and can only be altered by approval of Congress with ratification by all the state legislatures.

                            And if you notice, the First Congress is the one that met after the adoption of the Constitution.

                            No, thats the First Constitutional or Federal Congress, but the fourth Congress engaged in forming the United States.

                            The First Continental Congress was a body of representatives appointed by the legislatures of twelve North American colonies of Great Britain in 1774. It met briefly then set up its successor, the Second Continental Congress, which organized the Americans into war against Britain.

                            The Congress met from September 5, 1774, to October 26, 1774. From September 5 through October 21, Peyton Randolph presided over the proceedings; Henry Middleton took over as President of the Congress for the last few days, from October 22 to October 26.

                            The Congress had two primary accomplishments. First, the Congress drafted the Articles of Association on October 20, 1774. The Articles formed a compact among the colonies to boycott British goods, and to cease exports to Britain as well if the "Intolerable Acts" were not repealed. The boycott was successfully implemented, but its potential at altering British colonial policy was cut off by the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in 1775.

                            Its second accomplishment was to provide for a Second Continental Congress to meet on May 10, 1775. In addition to the colonies which had sent delegates to the First Continental Congress, letters of invitation were sent to Quebec, Saint John's Island, Nova Scotia, Georgia, East Florida, and West Florida, but they did not send delegates.

                            Please cite authority that even remotely suggests that all power resides in Congress and that the power of other branches and entities (states) is simply at Congressional sufference. Also explain how if Congress is all powerful can its acts be stricken down as ultra vires.

                            The Constitution of the United States, Article I Section 8 Congress shall have the power...

                            You should know Section 8 by heart by now.

                            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.

                            Because it has all the power, Congress can delegate power as necessary without any confusion as to where it comes from.

                            It Declares War, it funds and defunds the War, it creates an army and navy and whatever else it needs to win. It makes the rules and when all is said and done to its satisfaction it disbands the army and the navy and whatever else is no longer needed and sends the militia it called up to serve home.

                            In terms of Presidential powers its sort of like employing a contractor or project manager. Congress tells the President what to do and he is empowered to do as he's told.

                            In terms of judicial powers Congress originaly used the justices as circuit riders but now uses the Supreme Court as competent administrators to check its laws for agreement with precedent.

                            Over the last couple of hundred years people have cleverly ursurped power from Congress using various excuses, its an emergency,  its necessary to have separation of powers, we need judicial restraint, executive privledge, national security, but if you are a Federalist and believe in preserving protecting and defending the Constitution and the laws of the United States then its probably a good thing to keep around.

                            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                            by rktect on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 05:20:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cite relevant authority that suppports (0+ / 0-)

                            your outlandish interpretation of Art. I Sec. 8.  Explain how acts of Congress can be ultra vires.

                            US Congress is not a continuation of Continental Congress.  That is evident in the fact that Rhode Island for instance was not governed by the US Constitution (even though it ratified Articles of Confederation) until such time that it chose to become part of the United States by ratifying the US Constitution.  It was not bound by the fact that other states ratified the Constitution and was not part of the Union.

                            Nor did Congress write the Constitution.  It was written by a Constitutional Convention that had no relation whatever to Congress.

                            For future posts, do not requoute Art. I, since we disagree as to its meaning.  Cite authority that supports your interpretation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site