Apparently, Larry believes in the "living, breathing Constitution" not The Constitution of the United States.
Look, I'm just a guy. But I believe I can think critically and come to a logical conclusion. Larry Tribe is wring here. If Congress can "compel action due to public necessity", then what are the limits on Congress? Tribes contempt for original intent is clear here. That, or he received his sheepskins from boxes of Crackerjack.
According to Thomas E. Woods in Nullification, Madison was very clear in his view of Article I, Section 8. If the general welfare clause granted the Federal government a general power to do anything that might advance the general welfare, why did the Constitution bother to list specific powers government could exercise? That is, under the general welfare clause comes 17 specific powers granted to the Federal Government. Were these suggestions by the framers? "Hey. When y'all get this thing goin', you can pretty much do whatever, but here are 17 things you might want to get right after."
Tribe also invokes the Commerce Clause. Again, according to Woods, "Commerce" only meant trade or exchange, not all gainful activity. There are no historical references from the Constitutional Convention or writings of Federalists that indicate otherwise.
Tribe is dead wrong here. If he is not, there is no need for the Constitution as there are no limits to Federal Power. If the Constitution is to be interpreted in a manner other than literally, there is no need for amendments. No, the Constitution says what it means and means what it says. Even a guy like me can figure that out.
Currently, I'm studying to be a librarian--a profession, I learned after entering, is dominated by liberals event more so than liberal arts professors.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I mention this is that the other day I was doing some assigned reading in which the authors were railing against students using things like Wikipedia for their research. Wikipedia was bad because it was unsigned (i.e., no authorial accountability), anyone could make changes to it at any time and erroneous information might take a long time to be corrected--if it ever was, etc. etc.
That's when the irony struck me that many of the very same people who lecture America about how we need to view the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" do a one-eighty when you try to apply that vision to stuff in their professions.
Question: How many public sector union bosses do you suppose believe in "living, breathing, union contracts"?