News Article: Tea party favorite finishes 5th

[Tidewater]

Then, sir, the freedom of the press is said to be insecure. God forbid that I should give my voice against the freedom of the press. But I ask, (and with confidence that it cannot be answered,) Where is the page where it is restrained? If there had been any regulation about it, leaving it insecure, then there might have been reason for clamors. But this is not the case. If it be, I again ask for the particular clause which gives liberty to destroy the freedom of the press.

The Virginia Convention proposed an amendment (the verbiage of which was originally drafted by Virginia's George Mason), which expressed the sentiments of the Virginia Convention in these terms: "That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments that freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated. (The North Carolina Convention also passed the same proposed constitutional amendment.)

The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.

The Anti-Federalists were very concerned that the Federal government would be able to use the necessary and proper clause to extend its powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution (to include the power to restrict "that palladium of our liberties: freedom of speech"). Virginia Federalists, such as Madison and Edmund Randolph called such speculation ludicrous.

I say that this new system shows, in stronger terms than words could declare, that the liberties of the people are secure. It goes on the principle that all power is in the people, and that rulers have no powers but what are enumerated in that paper. When a question arises with respect to the legality of any power, exercised or assumed by Congress, it is plain on the side of the governed: Is it enumerated in the Constitution? If it be, it is legal and just. It is otherwise arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The sweeping clause, as it is called (i.e. Patrick Henry had called the "necessary and proper" clause "the sweeping clause"), is much dreaded. I find that I differ from several gentlemen on this point. This formidable clause does not in the least increase the powers of Congress. It is only inserted for greater cautions and to prevent the possibility of encroaching upon the powers of Congress. No sophistry will be permitted to be used to explain away any of those powers; nor can they possibly assume any other power, but what is contained in the Constitution, without absolute usurpation. Another security is that, if they attempt such a usurpation, the influence of the state governments will nip it in the bud of hope. I know this government will be cautiously watched. The smallest assumption of power will be sounded in alarm to the people, and followed by bold and active opposition. I hope that my countrymen will keep guard against every arrogation of power. I shall take notice of what the honorable gentleman said with respect to the power to provide for the general welfare. The meaning of this clause has been perverted, to alarm our apprehensions. The whole clause has not been read together. It enables Congress "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States." The plain and obvious meaning of this is, that no more duties, taxes, imposts, and excises, shall be laid, than are sufficient to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare, of the United States.

They may have erred in not delegating to the general government the power to regulate speech by foreign corporations, but the record is crystal clear that, even before the ratification of the Bill of Rights, they did not intend such a power to be delegated to Congress.

 

[Nate Harris]

They may have erred in not delegating to the general government the power to regulate speech by foreign corporations, but the record is crystal clear that, even before the ratification of the Bill of Rights, they did not intend such a power to be delegated to Congress.

The problem with your statement is that the Constitution does not delegate First Amendment enforcement power to any branch. The latest decision of the Supreme Court on the matter may have indeed been a true representation of the Founders' intentions but the Founders did not delegate to SCOTUS the authority which it exercised in its ruling. Your statement recognizes a true fact of the constitutional text but at the same time your statement is of no consequence. It's very true to say that Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to regulate corporate speech. It is also very true to say that no government entity of any kind is delegated the power to enforce the provisions of the First Amendment. Do you see where I'm headed here?

Congress has just as much authority to define the scope of the First Amendment as any other branch does. They often do exactly that with the full acceptance of the other branches. The one and only reason why Congress is respecting this decision of the Supreme Court is because SCOTUS adhered to our longstanding tradition of extra-constitutional judicial review.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that Congress is prohibited from regulating or limiting the First Amendment. That's simply not true.

 

[Tidewater]

James Wilson of Pennsylvania, member of both the Federal Convention of 1787 and the State Convention that ratified the Constitution

When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve; and therefore upon every question respecting the jurisdiction of the House of Assembly, if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced, and the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything which is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything which is not given is reserved.

This distinction being recognized, will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights a defect in the proposed constitution; for it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has brought the body into existence. For instance, the liberty of the press, which has been a copious source of declamation and opposition -- what control can proceed from the Federal government to shackle or destroy that sacred palladium of national freedom? If, indeed, a power similar to that which has been granted for the regulation of commerce had been granted to regulate literary publications, it would have been as necessary to stipulate that the liberty of the press should be preserved inviolate, as that the impost should be general in its operation. With respect likewise to the particular district of ten miles, which is to be made the seat of federal government, it will undoubtedly be proper to observe this salutary precaution, as there the legislative power will be exclusively lodged in the President, Senate, and House of Representatives of the United States. But this could not be an object with the Convention, for it must naturally depend upon a future compact to which the citizens immediately interested will, and ought to be, parties; and there is no reason to suspect that so popular a privilege will in that case be neglected. In truth, then, the proposed system possesses no influence whatever upon the press, and it would have been merely nugatory to have introduced a formal declaration upon the subject -- nay, that very declaration might have been construed to imply that some degree of power was given, since we undertook to define its extent.

The operative phrase being, "the proposed system possesses no influence whatever upon the press."

 

[Tidewater]

The problem with your statement is that the Constitution does not delegate First Amendment enforcement power to any branch. The latest decision of the Supreme Court on the matter may have indeed been a true representation of the Founders' intentions but the Founders did not delegate to SCOTUS the authority which it exercised in its ruling. Your statement recognizes a true fact of the constitutional text but at the same time your statement is of no consequence. It's very true to say that Congress is not empowered by the Constitution to regulate corporate speech. It is also very true to say that no government entity of any kind is delegated the power to enforce the provisions of the First Amendment. Do you see where I'm headed here?

Unfortunately, I don't. But I would like to read what you have to say as you further develop this idea.

Congress has just as much authority to define the scope of the First Amendment as any other branch does. They often do exactly that with the full acceptance of the other branches. The one and only reason why Congress is respecting this decision of the Supreme Court is because SCOTUS adhered to our longstanding tradition of extra-constitutional judicial review.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that Congress is prohibited from regulating or limiting the First Amendment. That's simply not true.

If you mean by another amendment, then I would agree. But then again, Congress cannot do that by itself; they need 3/4 of the state legislatures.
If Congress can "regulate or limit the First Amendment" through statute, then I am not sure why we have a written Constitution at all, unless it is some kind of elaborate deception or bauble.
I do know that those that were selling the Constitution in 1787-1790 insisted that what you are advocating (the Federal government exercising a power not expressly delegated to it) would never happen.

 

[Bamaball2001]

Hmm...A lot of interesting debate in this thread, took a while to read it but it as not a waste of time.

i'd say 15% is enough to make the major parties take notice which is all i want. that 15% can be enough to change the outcome of an election, so maybe dems and reps will start listening to their concerns and legislating accordingly.

This answers the tread's title for me. It is time that we support politicians that do not support the status quo, as viewed by the current members on both sides of the aisle. 15% is significant; I would love to see 20+%, even in a loss...that will make these political puppets sit up and take notice.

Well, the Republican-controlled Congress did balance the budget, which ain't nothing. Clinton fought them every step of the way, but they did it over his cold political carcass.
Then Bush and Karl Rove came into town...

Yes they (unfortunately) did.

Watching the tea party convention live on CNN, I'm disappointed. Looks, like the GOP has succeeded in hijacking the movement. Yay!:mad2:

I don't think so. I am hearing more and more people, of both political persuasions, voicing independent thought. Whether it is called the "tea party" (and I am one who thinks it is a silly name) or just a whole bunch of disgruntled voters, this independent thinking is gaining momentum.

 

[Bamaball2001]

My memory may be going, but I vaguely remember Clinton specifically requesting the Line Item Veto in one of his SOTUs...

And Reagan too. It was law for about a year 96-97 until SCOTUS ruled against it

Left-wing loose construction members of the SCOTUS, using typical sloppy logic, declared it unconstitutional.

Left-wing, loose constructionists like Renquist and Thomas?

Scalito, too.

This is another of my soap box issues which I have expressed many times and probably will again...

The judicial branch of the government has gained way too much power; especially in the past 40-50 years.

The checks and balance system of our government, put forth by the Founding Fathers, is being eroded by "lawmakers" who have evolved into an entity with enough power to circumvent the constitution, at will.

If they don't like (Read: agree) with congress they are able to pass a law that favors their "interpretation" of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution. And, we are all bound by law to uphold "their interpretation". All this power given to 9 people who are not elected by the people and who serve for life; I see no checks or balances there.

I am convinced that this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind, while working out the checks and balances system of our government; to guarantee that "We he people" had a strong voice with respect to the future of this nation.

 

[jthomas666]

I apologize. I mistook yours for the virtuous position.

And once again you have a logic fail. The lack of a statement supporting a balanced budget is not evidence that one does not support it.