Free Markets, Free People

Quote of the day– Lisa Murkowski unconstitutional edition

I’m sure we’ll be told that this was just “badly phrased”:

"That somehow or other these are unconstitutional because they’re not enumerated within the powers of the constitution, that somehow or other we should just be eliminating these, I think that is out of the mainstream," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said on MSNBC.

Got that folks?  It is out of the mainstream to think that something not enumerated within the powers granted by the Constitution is … unconstitutional.

Lord save us all from our “leaders”.



22 Responses to Quote of the day– Lisa Murkowski unconstitutional edition

  • Talk show host Mike Church was scoffing this morning at the recent talk about the Constitution and the pledges by some candidates (notably Michelle Bachmann and Christine O’Donnell) to study and adhere to its requirements: [paraphrasing] “If you asked any member of Congress about any law he voted for, he would claim that it was constitutional.”

    At least they are talking about the Constitution, however.  That’s a start.  Murkowski, I fear, represents the views of most present members of Congress: ANYTHING they want is Constitutional.  We haven’t quite got the rule of the mob that the Founding Fathers feared like the pit of hell, but I think we’ve got the next worst thing: rule of an unconstrained elite.

    • Makes you wonder how successful al Qaeda would be if they announced that they were going to “do DC”
      Damn,  they might just get help from …

      • This is why I am extremely worried about the Left and the MSM. I do not think they understand how angry the people are getting with the teabagger, racist, ha ha we control the message business. We do not want a situation where normal people start considering violence or revolution in order to get their voice heard fairly. So far, we are doing okay – if some elections are “stolen” via “hey, I found some ballots in my trunk” or other nonsense, we could be in for trouble.

        • I agree.  Consider the newest from AZ: our pals on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have been at it again:

          Arizona’s election law requiring residents to show proof of citizenship conflicts with the National Voter Registration Act, a federal appeals court ruled in overturning portions of the measure.
          The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco yesterday invalidated [right before the election so there’s no time to appeal – dj505] parts of Arizona’s Proposition 200, a 2004 voter- approved initiative on registration for state and federal elections. The court didn’t disturb a requirement that voters show identification at the polls…

          Couple this with stories coming out about (ahem) strange things going on with voting machines here and there, military absentee ballots “unfortunately” not being mailed out in time, and of course the usual registration antics of ACORN and similar groups, and you’ve got quite a prima facie case that the libs are trying their level best to rig this election.

          If we can’t choose our country’s leaders by peaceful, democratic, lawful means, what else is left?

  • Wait, if you keep telling the truth talking bad about Republicans being idiots, you’re going to confuse the hell of the progressives who think this IS a Republican blogsite.

    • Not to worry, they’ll just skim right over it like the local usual suspects always do.

  • If she wins that race, I’d prefer to caucus with the Dems.  A Senate seat just isn’t worth having to put up with her anymore.

    • I don’t care if she is polling 20% or 30%,  I can’t see her getting more that 10% using “write ins’.

  • But ask a Know-Nothing where in the Constitution a power to regulate immigration is enumerated, and you’ll be instantly buried in an avalanche of penumbras and emanations.

    • Section 8 – Powers of Congress

      . . .

      To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . .

      • Immigration /= naturalization.
        This is not an obscure matter. The Federalist framers were up-front in their intent to leave immigration policy to the states, and the anti-Federalists bitched about it. From ratification of the Constitution until the Supreme Court miracled a federal power of immigration regulation out of its ass in 1875, Congress passed naturalization regulations, but not immigration regulations. The first federal immigration regulation was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

        • Yep, Tomas…it’s one of those “Have fun at parties” questions.  Like Topsy, it just growed that way…
          We have to very concertedly rectify the constitutional drift that has been happening for about 1.5 centuries, with a lurch about 80 years ago in the direction of the Collective.

        • Well, then there is this:
          Section 9 – Limits on Congress
          The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

          So after 1808, Congress can prohibit migration and importation of people. And congress did act on this, banning the import of slaves Jan. 1 1808.

          The elephant in the room at the time was slavery, and the Constitution was written so that the import of slaves would not be stopped until a future date. But the same power to prevent the import of slaves was also the power to regulate immigration.

  • Senator Murkowski is a perfect example of the numerous problems with inherited power.

  • It will take a few days past Halloween to drive a stake through the heart of Lisa Murkowski’s political career.

  • Thus, an ever-expanding government.

  • I haven’s seen any poll numbers on this, but I suspect Murkowski is right. I’d guess an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that Social Security and other “safety net” programs are constitutional. This makes perfect sense given that these programs have been around “forever” and the Supreme Court (the folks who get to decide) says they are constitutional. So on this point, someone who believes differently probably is out of the mainstream.

    I’d also guess that an overwhelming majority of Americans (including those calling for smaller government) don’t want to see Social Security eliminated. If this is so, it’s reasonable to characterize those who do as being out of the mainstream.

    I believe the Supreme Court blew it when they “discovered” broad federal powers in the “general welfare” clause. I think FDR’s “constitutional revolution” has corrupted the Constitution and taken us far afield of what the Founders intended. But I also sadly recognize that Murkowski is right, these are no longer mainstream beliefs. I have become an extremist in adhering to the principles enshrined in our Founding Document. And that sucks.

    • A lot of truth in what you say.
      Count me…as of about four decades ago…out of the mainstream.
      That’s me, drying out on the bank.

    • No doubt she’s right on the “mainstream” point, but her constitutional understanding is flawed (or she’s lying).

      I am not aware of decisions based upon the general welfare clause. I’ve encountered general welfare arguments, all bad arguments, but they were not actual court decisions.

      I’m pretty sure our problems stem from the commerce clause.

      • Well, the Court did find SS to be constitutional, so Murkowski is on firm ground on the constitutionality (even if the finding was in error, as I agree it was). As to the relevance of the general welfare clause, I’m not an expert, so I’ll point you this nice summary and leave it at that.
        The bottom line is that we’re so far adrift that embracing original constitutional principals is now considered extreme. Ragspierre pointed out the need to get back to those founding principles, and I agree, but I don’t see a way to get there given where we are.
        Ideas anyone?

        • That was a nice summary. It is also the first time I’ve seen a Supreme Court decision that hinged on that particular clause. Granted my knowledge of such decisions has been of selected cases, starting with key gun cases (and fanning out from there), so my knowledge is spotty (although somewhat deep for a non-lawyer in some areas).