I am a firm constitutionalist for a good reason. I have read every word of the constitutional conventions several times as well as the Federalists, Anti-Federalists, James Madison's papers, and Thomas Jefferson's papers. I understand fully well what the Constitution was meant to be. I also have read a vast number of Supreme Court descisions through the years and know what the Constitution has turned into, sometimes through threats.
When I listen to or read what other candidates in my race have said I constantly see holes in their arguments because they either don't know what they are talking about or don't care. Debra Irvine has even gone so far as to say all that really qualifies her for office is her tough skin. Try telling that to our Founding Fathers on the day they debated what the oath of office was going to include. They wanted every elected official to know what they were swearing an oath to.
I want to address a few of the holes I see the most of. The one most dear to me is going to the national government for funds for something just because we don't control it now at the state level. This one is shot to hell in my books. Use whatever justification you want, but the ORIGINAL meaning of the Constitution is very clear about what can be controlled or owned by the national government. Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution lists that the national government has exclusive right to control commerce between foreign nations, indian nations, and among the states. It also spells out in detail what lands the government can own and excercise its jurisdiction over. We have generally lost sight of this as a nation.
A reading of the Federalist number 42 will show that James Madison intended the commerce clause to be a remedy to the Articles of Confederation. The U.S. only had control of commerce among foreign nations and indian nations but not among the states. This limited the control of the rest because they didn't have any control over the states. He went on to say that the new Constitution gave zero control within a state for this same reason. James Madison, who wrote the document, was strict in the interpretation of only given powers and not implied powers.
We can see that the courts started to erode that as the progressive movement took over early in the last century. The last stand against federal encroachment came in U.S. v Butler challenging the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933. The decision stated that the national government could not expand the power of the commerce clause to include central planning of agriculture or other business. This changed in 1937 when Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to pack the court and Wickard v. Fillburn decided that the national government even had the power to compel a farmer not to grow his own food.
The problem we have with candidates today is that they understand the Constitution as it exists according to recent court decisions. They actually believe that the national government always had the power but restrained from using it despite a history of the highest court throwing out many laws. Kathleen Curry talks about going to the U.S. legislature for funds to manage our forest despite the obvious failure and death of many trees along with recent drastic wild fires. She never once considders that forests aren't in the enumerated properties the U.S. government can own (Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-Yards, and other needfull buildings, which we can see from the previous sentence must be purchased with the consent of the state).
Debra Irvine isn't much better. She pretends to know a lot but simply goes to court decisions for how things should be treated. She doesn't seem to realize that the legislature is not bound to the court. She also misses the point that the only time a court decision that doesn't decide constitutionality is valid is for the time the same legislation is valid.
Either way you look at it the candidates are missing some very important points that would prevent them from performing well in the state legislature. You can talk all you want about the things they agree or disagree with and how right they are. Without having more knowledge of the Constitution they claim to support that is meaningless. After all the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Robert Petrowsky
Candidate HD 61
No comments:
Post a Comment