Con law - 5 thoughts Forum

[MrKappus]

I guess the concept of enumerated powers, when taken in the abstract, could be considered a limit. I.E. Congress is limited to only its grants, but that is a *really* round-about way of thinking about it.

Under this logic, my legs don't grant me the ability to walk, but rather limit my ability to run 50 mph. I liked your other posts more.

[starchinkilt]

Congress still has its powers limited by what it is granted by the Constitution. Meaning, Congress doesn't have unlimited power (even though CC + N&P makes it seem that way sometimes) subject only to limits outside Article I. We're saying the same thing in different words.

The wording in your first sentence is conflating (1) Congress' inability to do something not expressly/implicitly granted to them in the Constitution with (2) The inability to use that power in the way that Congress chose to use it. As stated by other posters, the test in this area requires requires two different analyses.

First, you must determine if Congress has the implicit/explicit power to do something. (Usually McCulloch NP analysis)

Second, you must determine if the means chosen are Constitutional and not limited by some other section. So, as in New York v. US, if Congress wanted to preempt state law and create its own national radioactive waste regulations, it could. However, the manner Congress chose to do this was considered commandeering and unconstitutional. This analysis has nothing to do with whether or not Congress had powers granted.

Edit: typo

[Army2Law]

Under this logic, my legs don't grant me the ability to walk, but rather limit my ability to run 50 mph.

You are limited to the power your legs grant to your body. That is a limit. Having to tie any Congressional action to an existing power, even if it is implied from another one (like dormant commerce) is a limit.
"[Certain] comments of Hamilton and others about federal power reflected the well-known truth that the new Government would have only the limited and enumerated powers found in the Constitution. . . . Even before the passage of the Tenth Amendment, it was apparent that Congress would possess only those powers 'herein granted' by the rest of the Constitution." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 592 (1995).

U mad that SCOTUS agrees with me?

[MrKappus]

Under this logic, my legs don't grant me the ability to walk, but rather limit my ability to run 50 mph.

You are limited to the power your legs grant to your body. That is a limit. Having to tie any Congressional action to an existing power, even if it is implied from another one (like dormant commerce) is a limit.
"[Certain] comments of Hamilton and others about federal power reflected the well-known truth that the new Government would have only the limited and enumerated powers found in the Constitution. . . . Even before the passage of the Tenth Amendment, it was apparent that Congress would possess only those powers 'herein granted' by the rest of the Constitution." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 592 (1995).

U mad that SCOTUS agrees with me?

The powers are limited because they are enumerated (i.e., the enumerated list is not infinite). But the enumeration itself is not what one refers to as a "constitutional limit." I'm not mad at you, SCOTUS, or anyone else, but I am blown away by your breathtaking and willful ignorance.

[ResolutePear]

Are we seriously debating this?

Lets go back to debating between pancakes and french toast.

[Army2Law]

Nah, u mad.

[MrKappus]

French toast.

[Army2Law]

Freedom toast.

Fixed.

[ResolutePear]

French toast.

Pancakes.

Scalia eats pancakes. Therefore, cake pans.

[MrKappus]

Freedom toast.

Fixed.

Someone needs to read up on his Revolutionary War history. Without the French, we wouldn't have won at Yorktown.

[starchinkilt]

Tonga Toast ftw

[Army2Law]

Freedom toast.

Fixed.

Someone needs to read up on his Revolutionary War history. Without the French, we wouldn't have won at Yorktown.

Someone needs a sense of humor.

[ResolutePear]

Freedom toast.

Fixed.

Someone needs to read up on his Revolutionary War history. Without the French, we wouldn't have won at Yorktown.

That is true, but we saved their ass during WWII. Without us, they'd be NAZI now. (sorta-not-really-sorta)

And what did we get for it? THEY CALLED THEIR DEBT IN FROM US..!

(Alright, it didn't exactly happen like that... but smelly and ungrateful nontheless!)

[MrKappus]

Sorry, but it's exams time. Senses of humor are in short supply.

Edit: that said, I just lol'd at "smelly and ungrateful."

[ResolutePear]

Sorry, but it's exams time. Senses of humor are in short supply.

As Hobbes would say: your senses, they are decaying. T'is is okay.

[Army2Law]

Sorry, but it's exams time. Senses of humor are in short supply.

Edit: that said, I just lol'd at "smelly and ungrateful."

Trolling people on TLS is always a good way to blow off steam, haha.

[de5igual]

My thoughts on conlaw now that its over.

1. The constitution is treated like a piece of toilet paper the justices use to wipe their asses with as they interpret it to meet their poltical views.

2. To me it's nothing more than supposedly high-minded psudo-philosophy

3. I don't like con law.

That's basically my con-law outline in a nutshell. Every lecture was basically my prof going off on a rant on how illegitimate SCOTUS is and how every decision is basically the court's way of imposing their views on an unwilling public.

[BruceWayne]

My thoughts on conlaw now that its over.

1. The constitution is treated like a piece of toilet paper the justices use to wipe their asses with as they interpret it to meet their poltical views.

2. To me it's nothing more than supposedly high-minded psudo-philosophy

3. I don't like con law.

That's basically my con-law outline in a nutshell. Every lecture was basically my prof going off on a rant on how illegitimate SCOTUS is and how every decision is basically the court's way of imposing their views on an unwilling public.

Except for Civil Procedure and Criminal procedure and a few other courses this seems to be true of law school in general.