publius
Member
OK, let's discuss the origins of the ATF. Do it without reference to the NFA, though, since that would be off topic.
Constitutionality of federal law enforcement?
- Thread starter natedog
- Start date
- Status
OK, let's discuss the origins of the ATF. Do it without reference to the NFA, though, since that would be off topic.
publius, are you really this obtuse?
Your sloppy attempts at baiting me are ridiculous. Read the Constitution.
Laws are passed via Article I, and scrutinized by the Courts via Article III. The NFA, the GCA, the FOPA, etc have all been scrutinized by the courts. So YOU, or I, may not think some, or all, of the those statutes are good, appropriate, Constitutional, etc, but our opinions don't factor into it directly. We live in a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. We vote the people into office who appoint judges, and create laws. They have the direct say. If you don't like that system I refer you to Article V of the Constituion, to change it.
So since you agreed with me earlier in this thread, that the feds can enforce federal law:
Don't like the laws? Elect people to REPRESENT you that will change the laws. Don't like the judges? Elect people to REPRESENT you that will appoint judges more to your liking. Don't like the concept of a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, well then either quit saying you love the Constitution, or work to change it via Article V.
Your sloppy attempts at baiting me are ridiculous. Read the Constitution.
Laws are passed via Article I, and scrutinized by the Courts via Article III. The NFA, the GCA, the FOPA, etc have all been scrutinized by the courts. So YOU, or I, may not think some, or all, of the those statutes are good, appropriate, Constitutional, etc, but our opinions don't factor into it directly. We live in a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. We vote the people into office who appoint judges, and create laws. They have the direct say. If you don't like that system I refer you to Article V of the Constituion, to change it.
So since you agreed with me earlier in this thread, that the feds can enforce federal law:
What is your point about ATF? The laws were passed properly in accordance with the Constitution, and have been challenged in the Courts, also in accordance with the Constitution. Therefore the government can enforce those portions of the statutes that have been passed, and withstood the scrutiny of the courts. So you may not like ATF, but the have been specific statutory authority to enforce certain federal laws.
Don't like the laws? Elect people to REPRESENT you that will change the laws. Don't like the judges? Elect people to REPRESENT you that will appoint judges more to your liking. Don't like the concept of a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, well then either quit saying you love the Constitution, or work to change it via Article V.
publius
Member
So you're saying that you believe that the NFA was a necessary and proper use of the power to tax? Not that the courts have found that, but that you, personally, believe they are right about that?
publius
Member
Hey! I found a couple of people willing to answer my questions over at the Free Republic!
publius
Member
Today's bit of evidence that the Founders never intended the power to tax or the power to regulate interstate commerce to be used to give Congress the power to govern the firearms or drug choices of citizens comes from Federalist 42, which begins:
If the power to regulate always implied the power to prohibit, why go out of his way to mention that it includes one such power? Just being wordy?
Again, the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers were just part of the debate over the Constitution, they are NOT part of the Constitution. Only what was properly ratified as part of the Constitution, or added through amendment is the Constitution. The Federalist papers help to understand what SOME, not all, of the framers thought. They are not the Constitution itself, but rather one side of the debate. Lots of things that were discussed in the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, etc. never made it into the Constitution.
DMF, you seem to fail to understand something. The Constitution sets up a system by which the national gov't is authorized to act in specific areas, and to undertake all necessary and proper actions within the constraints of the Constitution in those specific areas. Outside of those areas or the constraints of the Constitution, the national gov't has no authority. You argue that Congress can pass laws, and ignore the fact that Congress can only pass those laws to carry out specific functions. The police power was NOT granted to the national gov't except in specific and limited circumstances, and thus the necessary and proper clause has no application. A federal law on an area which the Constitution has not granted authority over to the national gov't cannot, be definition, be necessary and proper.
As for the Federalist papers, they are part of the legislative history regarding the Consitutiton, and are often treated by the courts as such.
As for the Federalist papers, they are part of the legislative history regarding the Consitutiton, and are often treated by the courts as such.
DMF, how is it that you're so concerned about procedural requirements in the Constitution, but you're not concerned at all with laws passed by the government so long as procedure is followed? The constitution places clear restrictions on both.
Do you really believe that we mortals (in the private sector) can interpret the Constitution to require certain procedures (judicial review of laws, majority passage of laws by the legislature, etc.), but we can't interpret such things as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"
Do you really believe that we mortals (in the private sector) can interpret the Constitution to require certain procedures (judicial review of laws, majority passage of laws by the legislature, etc.), but we can't interpret such things as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"
richyoung
Member
DMF, and to whoever it may concern -
If the "law" passed by Congress is outside of the scope of the strictly deliniated and limited powers authorized by the Constitution, I don't give a darn if the President, the Supreme Court, the Pope, or the Wizard of Oz says it's OK - calling a pig a dove neither stops it from being pork nor conveys the ability to fly. The fact that most of the voters are too ignorant, too lazy, or too greedy to hold all three branches of government accountable in no way changes this - and hopefully, a sea change in that apathy is coming, betwixt the Levy case and the failure of the .gov to protect border states against invasion....
If the "law" passed by Congress is outside of the scope of the strictly deliniated and limited powers authorized by the Constitution, I don't give a darn if the President, the Supreme Court, the Pope, or the Wizard of Oz says it's OK - calling a pig a dove neither stops it from being pork nor conveys the ability to fly. The fact that most of the voters are too ignorant, too lazy, or too greedy to hold all three branches of government accountable in no way changes this - and hopefully, a sea change in that apathy is coming, betwixt the Levy case and the failure of the .gov to protect border states against invasion....
DRZinn
Member
Dmf:
So, if they somehow managed to pass a Constitutional amendment repealing the second, and got it ratified, would you accept that new state of affairs as being totally kosher?
So, if they somehow managed to pass a Constitutional amendment repealing the second, and got it ratified, would you accept that new state of affairs as being totally kosher?
As far as I'm concerned, the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed, not even in part.
The first eight enumerate rights that cannot be usurped by any legitimate government. That was the intent under which they were passed. The Bill of Rights was supposed to be a line in the sand, not a method for determining constitutionality.
If popular opinion has changed so much that a vast majority want some sort of restrictions on enumerated rights, the whole Constitution needs to be scrapped and we need to start again. The Constitution does not provide sufficient protection against a citizenry that is in large part willing to give up all rights in exchange for some false assurance of protection.
The first eight enumerate rights that cannot be usurped by any legitimate government. That was the intent under which they were passed. The Bill of Rights was supposed to be a line in the sand, not a method for determining constitutionality.
If popular opinion has changed so much that a vast majority want some sort of restrictions on enumerated rights, the whole Constitution needs to be scrapped and we need to start again. The Constitution does not provide sufficient protection against a citizenry that is in large part willing to give up all rights in exchange for some false assurance of protection.
publius
Member
I have read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, and you know what I saw? No reference to using the power to tax to control the firearms or drug choices, or any other private choices, of individual citizens. No reference to using the power to regulate interstate commerce to control the firearms or drug choices, or any other private, non-commercial choices, of individual citizens. I saw the Anti-Federalists suggesting far less ludicrous usurpations of power than a Congress which suggests that it has the power to regulate being near a school with a gun because it affects interstate commerce. I saw the Federalists making fun of them for those projections, saying such things could never happen, and that the power to regulate commerce was only about creating a free trade area among the states.
Where did you see something which indicated that the things which have happened (NFA, Harrison Act, Marihuana Tax Act, Wickard decision) were within the scope of their intent?
Last edited:
publius
Member
For those who didn't follow along at FR...
I managed to find one strict constructionist over there who supports the idea that the Founders intended for tax (and later commerce) power to be used to regulate the firearms and drug choices of individual citizens. Here's a summary of his argument so far:
Yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing you see plastered all over the Federalist Papers.
I managed to find one strict constructionist over there who supports the idea that the Founders intended for tax (and later commerce) power to be used to regulate the firearms and drug choices of individual citizens. Here's a summary of his argument so far:
Yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing you see plastered all over the Federalist Papers.
Last edited:
publius
Member
If you'd like, every time I reference the Federalist Papers, I can throw in the phrase and every other document I've ever seen which can shed light on the intent of the Founders. Or you can show me some different documents.
publius
Member
publius
Member
- Status
