For RP supporters

[STAGE 2]

For the FBI to be Constitutional an authorization for it would have to appear in the Constitution. Since most who know the Constitution well know that there is no federal police power of any kind authorized in the Constitution, that's all that need be written here. There are no implied powers in the Constitution, John Marshal's creation of them out of whole cloth notwithstanding.

Then by your argument, there can be no executive departments because there are none specifically named. No department of defense, no CIA, no NSA. There also can be no judicial review, thus the supreme court can't rule on the constitutionality of laws.

Of course this begs the question of who is supposed to enforce federal laws if there can be no federal enforcement agency. Those darned framers included that darned necessary and proper clause as well, which your position ignores as well. Being able to enforce a law is certianly necessary in order to carry it out.

If the FBI doesn't spy, then how did they get all those reports that they subsequently ignored about Arab men learning to take off, but not land 767's? That my friend is intelligence gathering. A euphamism for gathering intelligence is....

Give me a break. If you don't know the difference between an investigation and "spying" then I can't help you. There are hundreds of valid ways to figure out arabs are taking flying lessons.

The seven articles of the Constitution give precise details of what the Federal Government CAN do. The 10th Amendment gives all other powers not in the Constitution to the States or People respectively. Therefore- The FBI, not having any constitutional basis to exist, is by its very existence and activities, unconstitutional.

You won't find anything in article 1 about the executive department. The FBI is an executive agency. The CIA isn't specifically mentioned either. I guess thats unconstitutional as well. Why don't you poke your nose in article 2 and see what it says about executive departments.

 

[miboso]

Which federal laws? As far as I can tell, most federal laws are constitutionally invalid. Give me an example of which federal laws need to be enforced.

 

[kjm]

Stage, read the post. Read the detail. I never mentioned Article I. I mentioned the entire document's seven articles. I also mentioned the 10th amendment prohibiting the Federal Government from infringing on the States' or peoples' rights.

You are half correct in the rest of your post except the Constitution does authorize the Federal Government to maintain certain things like the military (Executive Branch as CNC, and Congress to fund), and Arsenals, docks, buildings as ceeded by the State's and necessary to the military (Total paraphrase).

The rest of the agencies you mentioned- well... uh... now you understand why we are so concerned that RP's ideas get out. Yes- we have drifted a long, long, way away from the US Constitution and we would like to begin the drift back.

Judicial review? Well- that was a power granted the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court in Marbury Vs Madison. You can probably use Wikipedia to verify most of this. The rest requires a sound education and an ability to read and look up things in the dictionary that aren't in common use anymore such as Letters of Marquis and Bill of Attainder.

What surprises me is that there is an assumption that the federal government must be constitutional, hence, no need to read the document. There is also an assumption that the men we elect are honorable men who wouldn't dare violate its restrictions. Even our good presidents have totally ignored the constraints placed on them by the USC.

If they all cared or knew the Constitution, we wouldn't have a Legal and Political section of TFL because we'd have no question about the RKBA's. It would have been settled back in 1789. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance...

 

[Molson]

would someone also please point out how many crimes, besides treason, are listed in the constitution?

 

[kjm]

WOW!
Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting the currency, Bribery, and this following passage which gives it authority to pass necessary laws to enforce those things enumerated in Art. I, Section 8

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

 

[STAGE 2]

You are half correct in the rest of your post except the Constitution does authorize the Federal Government to maintain certain things like the military (Executive Branch as CNC, and Congress to fund), and Arsenals, docks, buildings as ceeded by the State's and necessary to the military (Total paraphrase).

The constitution authorizes the government to raise and maintain an army. It says nothing about a department of defense, or a CIA. Are you going to tell me that these two are unconstitutional?

 

[kjm]

The DOD would likely fall under general military organization, but if somebody suggested we get rid of that and maintain only an Army for defense, and a very specifically mentioned Navy, I'd be OK with getting rid of the Pentagon and DOD.

Still- the Secretary of Defense has to organize his department in the way he thinks most efficient to govern it with the consent of congress. The Chain of Command below CNC is set by Congress who has that authority. I think keeping the DOD under the SecDef would likely be considered constitutional. His cabinet level position is authorized by congress and can be found loosely in the Constitution as part of Congressional duties.

If you read the federalist papers and other writings that inspired the authors of the Constitution like "Common Sense", you will find the justification for a large, standing navy. Less strong is a standing army quartered among the people.

Seriously Stage- your questions tend to either be designed to be absurd just to show some point, or made from a total lack of knowlege of the Constitution. You seem frustrated by this. Simply read the document. Several times I've had to point to the referenced area, and it seems that you're only reading for a refutation rather than affirmation or to learn. In one case you argued with me over where a particular quote came from, only to find that I was off by 2 paragraphs. That illustrates that you're only looking to prove somebody technically wrong, not factually or essentially wrong (i.e.: it was in the document close by, but not exactly Art. II, but Art. I, Sect. 9).

If you don't learn the constitution, then perhaps you will never understand why exactly you have a right to self-defense and defense of state. A true shame for somebody who seems to enjoy exercising that right.

 

[STAGE 2]

The DOD would likely fall under general military organization, but if somebody suggested we get rid of that and maintain only an Army for defense, and a very specifically mentioned Navy, I'd be OK with getting rid of the Pentagon and DOD.

Likely doens't cut it. If you guys are going to insist on following the letter of the constitution, then it either is or it ain't. You don't get to be wishy washy with things you like and hard and fast with things you don't.

Seriously Stage- your questions tend to either be designed to be absurd just to show some point, or made from a total lack of knowlege of the Constitution. You seem frustrated by this. Simply read the document. Several times I've had to point to the referenced area, and it seems that you're only reading for a refutation rather than affirmation or to learn. In one case you argued with me over where a particular quote came from, only to find that I was off by 2 paragraphs. That illustrates that you're only looking to prove somebody technically wrong, not factually or essentially wrong (i.e.: it was in the document close by, but not exactly Art. II, but Art. I, Sect. 9).

If you don't learn the constitution, then perhaps you will never understand why exactly you have a right to self-defense and defense of state. A true shame for somebody who seems to enjoy exercising that right.

I can guarantee you that I've read the constitution far more times than most here. I understand that you, like others here are filling up constitutional gaps with fluff.

For example. The powers delegated to congress are listed in art 1 sec 8. If it aint there, then congress can't do it. There is nothing in art 1 sec 8 about establishing executive departments. As such, congress has no authority to establish an executive department.

We know that the framers fully intended executive departments because they specifically reference them in art 2. Other than stating that they will exist, there are NO restrictions or provisions about their creation.

Therefore I ask you, where are you finding this constitutional authority that says executive departments are subject to the restrictions on congress. Show me where the constitution says that the executive has no authority to create a department of jujubees.