Well, you call it Humpty Dumpty, lawyers call it law. Sorry.
And the 13th
> Amendment says nothing about the Article I text
> applying the three-fifth rule to "Indians not
> taxed."
>
Nonetheless, it was understood that the 3/5 rule was a roundabout way of talking about slaves, and was understood that it was repealed with the enactment of the 13A. Because the text is evidence of the framers' intentions, and you can take into account knowledge of context and other evidence of their intentions. Same as even the Rehnquist Court understand "equal protection" to be consistent with different treatment, at least if there's a compelling interest.
> > >
> >> --"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.
No. There's no rule that barbarity is unconstitutional.
> 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 ABM Treaty, approved by Congress, contained provisions for withdrawal. That's probably a delegation. Anyway, the Executive has virtually plenary power over foreign policy.
The
> >enemy combatants are almost all outside what the
> >appeals court said was federal jurisdiction.>
>
> "the appeals court said," indeed. Under whose
> "jurisdiction"
> is the Guantanamo concentration camp? Castro's?
No US Court. I don't approve, to say the least. But the principle at stake is the reach of federal jurisdiction, not the suspension clause.
>
> > >
> >> --"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.
No. I agree that the case was nonjusticable, but in response to your argument, the Court could say that it concerned equal protection in the right to vote, a fundamental textual right, and a later one, so if there's a conflict, EP governs.
>
> 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.
Wrong. There's almost no such thing. Until the S.Ct overrules a whole boatload of New Deal era cases, the Commerce Clause gets a broad interpretation. You can satisfy the CC by showing any effect on interstate commerce, even for transactions that occur whole within a state and involving parties and commodities produced within a state; indeed, it doesn't even require a transaction. The 10A means what the caselaw says it means; it doesn;t have enough content to mean anything by itself.
> >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.
OK, whatever. It's the distinction drawn by the law.
But why pay atention to me. You can read and know what the Constitutional says. I'm just a lawyer. This is just what I do. Whys hould I know anything about it?
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com