From: tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY)
Subject: Re: Presidential Line-Item Veto Power
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:58:52 GMT

In article <veal.153@utkvm1.utk.edu> veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>In article <Bs4LJB.8q4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:
>
>>veal@utkvm1.utk.edu (David L. Veal) writes:
>
>     What is the case for all practical purposes and what *should* be the
>case are two different things.  Everything the government can do legally
>*is* spelled out in the Constitution.

Yes, and the amended constitution.  I think it important to note that when
comparing the two, there is a distinct difference.  The amended constitution
conveys much more power than the original.

>     What you fail to realize is that most of the things people say have 
>"come up" and the Constitution needs to deal with were never intended to
>be a function of the Federal Government.  Those things that have come up
>that do need to be done nationally (like, say, the environment) need to
>be amended.
>     There is no point in writing your government down if you don't follow
>what's on the paper.

Bravo!  Someone who understands the basic concept in the framers minds!

>>>>But it does describe a limited government, and you need to understand what
>>>>the Founders meant by their words (as described by themselves in documents
>>>>such as the Federalist Papers) to fully appreciate it.

Specifically, Federalist 9 and 10.

>>>>If you examine the
>>>>first 10 ammendments you will notice that they are mostly negations of
>>>>Federal power.  This is what the States feared, a strong central government
>>>>which would dominate them (Hmm, seems like it happened in spite of the
>>>>Founders - score one for the Statist Liberals).

Where the government really started going astray was with the 14th, 16th,
and 17th ammendments to the constitution.  It broadened the powers of the
federal government, and lessened the the influence of the states to an
incredible degree, and has gotten worse since then.

>     Whatever *is* in the Constitution is law.  The Supreme Court, using
>their own set of implied powers that are not listed in the Constitution,
>interpret that law.

I would differ only slightly here.  It's really not the court's job to
"interpret" the law.  To do so gives the court an unreasonable control 
over the lawmaking abilities of the bicameral congress.  It is the
courts job to "apply" constitutional law and determine whether or not
a law meets the constitutional test, i.e. whether or not it is 
constitutional.

>     The "necessary and proper" clause give the Congress the power to make 
>all laws "which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the
>foregoing powers."  Which means that the Congress may make laws relating to
>those powers, and only those powers, which are specifically granted it
>in Article I, Section 8.

Yes, but unfortunately things like the 14th ammendment section 5 stating
"The congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,
the provisions of this article."  That is a very broad statement.  In 
short it says congress shall decide whatever laws, if any, are needed to
enforce the article.  And those laws can be very tenuously connected to
the articles at all.  Many ammendments since then provide the same
verbage, further increasing the power of congress.

>     It does not grant any unlimited ability to make laws they deem 
>appropriate.

See Above.

My .02 worth.

Tim


Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.folklore.urban