>Some the examples below are flawed:
>
>--- Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>> Justin wrote:
>>
>> >No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United
>> >States: U.S. Const., Art I, Sec 9. Cl. 8
>> (--- mike larkin wrote: Royal titles are next.)
>>
>> How about
>>
>> --"...their respective Numbers, which shall be
>> determined
>> by adding to the whole number of Free
>> Persons...three fifths of
>> all other persons." : Art I, Sec 2. Cl. 3
>> (Court has defined corporations as "Persons" but has
>> not
>> permitted states to count them, neither integrally
>> nor
>> even on a three-fifths basis, for representational
>> entitlement)
>
>"Persons" for some purposes are not necessarily
>"persons" for all purposes. The 3/5th compromise was
>of course abolished sub rosa by the 13th Amendment
>("all other persons" referring to slaves).
Where does the Constitution say that its words are to be read by the methods of Humpty Dumpty? And the 13th Amendment says nothing about the Article I text applying the three-fifth rule to "Indians not taxed."
> >
>> --"The Congress shall have power...To Declare
>> War...": Art I, Sec 8, Cl. 10
>> (Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War I&II,
>> etc.)
>>
>
>Well, Congress has that power. It's just that the
>Executive has decided to go to war without declaring
>it, a barbarism that the framers failed to foresee,a
>nd Congress, which could do something about it
>(cutting off the $, e.g.) hasn't.
Well, if its a "barbarism," its obviously a violation of the text.
>
>> --"The President...shall have power, by and with the
>> consent
>> of the Senate, to make treaties...: Art II, Sec 2,
>> Cl. 2
>> (But Bush can withdraw from treaties without
>> reference
>> to the Senate or the faintest rebuke from Court)
>
>Make is one thing, withdraw is another. The ABM treaty
>contained provision sfor unilateral withdrawal.
Treaties are the "Law of the Land" (Article VI). The Constitution gives the power to make, alter, or repeal law to Congress, not the President. Treaties provide for ratification or withdrawal according to the "constitutional processes" of the contracting parties.
> >
>> --"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall
>> not be
>> suspended unless when in Cases of Rebellion or
>> Invasion
>> [the Congress determines that] the public Safety may
>> require it": Art I, Sec 9, Cl. 2
>> (Except when the *lettre de cachet* names its victim
>> as
>> an alien, "enemy combattant," terrorist suspect, or
>> anything else the AG can invent)
>
>Enemy combatant was actually a S.Ct invention from
>WWII. But this hasn't do with the habeas thing. The
>enemy combatants are almost all outside what the
>appeals court said was federal jurisdiction. Jose
>Padilla is a different story. Don't know whether
>someone jas filed for the writ in his case, or if they
>have what the court said.
"the appeals court said," indeed. Under whose "jurisdiction" is the Guantanamo concentration camp? Castro's?
> >
>> --"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
>> Legislature
>> thereof may direct, a number of Electors..." Art II,
>> Sec 1, Cl. 2
>> (Bush v. Gore)
>
>Bush v. Gore didn't screw with that, but rather with
>other clauses, see several books on this for the
>story.
By even accepting the case the SC was violating this constitutional provision.
> >
>> --"The powers not delegated to the United States by
>> the
>> Constitution...are reserved to the States
>> respectively,
>> or to the people." Amendment X
>> (All drug-prohibition laws as applied to intra-State
>> commerce,
>> and much, much else).
>
>You don't want to go there. A narrow commerce clause
>was the pre-New Deal court interpretation, leads to
>restricted govt powers to regulate health and safety
>issues. I don't think drugs laws are unconstitutional,
>just a bad idea.
You may like the Tenth Amendment as little as Thomas likes the Eighth or Bork the Ninth. But it says what it says. The Feds have no jurisdiction over purely intrastate commerce.
> >
>> --"No Bill of Attainder...shall be passed" Art I,
> > Sec 9, Cl. 3
>> (But it is now a "crime" to belong to or support any
>> organization arbitrarily "attainted" by the
>> Executive
>> as a "terrorist" group).
>>
>> etc., etc.....
>
>Not what Bill of Attainderis. That's a law naming YOU
>to be an outlaw. The problem with the provisions you
>mention is with the 1st Amendment freedom of
>association and speech rights.
A distinction without a difference. If you're declared by name a terrorist conspirator or if a group you associate with is declared by name a terrorist conspiracy you've been attainted.
> >
>> Impossible to overestimate how easily the Court
>> can "distinguish" any provision of the Constitution,
>> no matter how explicit. For instance, should
>> Congress pass a "Sullan"* law giving something
>> tantamount
>> to a Title of Nobility to "Military Heroes,"
>> Rehnquist,
>> Scalia, Thomas et. al. would have no qualms about
>> accepting it as a "National Security" measure.
>>
>> Shane Mage
>
>Maybe. I think that if they created a heritable honor
>that required that the Hero be dubbed with a sword,
>called Sir, etc. that even Scalia and Thomas might
>choke.
>
>jks
>