tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post4364972176730541690..comments2024-03-15T04:02:42.341-04:00Comments on CrimLaw: Scalia & the ConstitutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-41892050595491011472007-12-20T16:33:00.000-05:002007-12-20T16:33:00.000-05:00Yes, the federal government is limited to just the...Yes, the federal government <I>is</I> limited to just the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8. Not only did the Framers promise this before ratification (in the Federalist Papers), they went on to write the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly states that that Article I, Section 8 is the <I>complete</I> list of federal powers.<BR/><BR/>The Ninth Amendment expands on this by spelling out that the list of things the Federal government may <I>not</I> do (Article I, Section 9 plus the first eight amendments) is <I>not</I> a complete list. Thus these two together make clear beyond all doubt that anything not covered in either list is not a federal power -- it's either a state power or an individual right.jdgalthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13236899779621301830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-14877817665063186212007-12-20T15:54:00.000-05:002007-12-20T15:54:00.000-05:00Sir,Your point that what is not prohibited by the ...Sir,<BR/><BR/>Your point that what is not prohibited by the constitution is up to the legislature to decide is well said when it comes to laws enacted by the states. But remember that the federal constitution is a document that is primarily a <I> grant</I> of authority to the federal government. This means that the federal government is not empowered to exercise any power not explicitly provided for in the grant. Justice Scalia raises a good point that it took a constitutional amendment to guarantee women the right of vote. But it also took a constitutional amendment to enact prohibition, so the same line of reasoning explaining his <I>VMI</I> dissent should have caused him to dissent in <I>Raich</I>, for there is no more basis under the commerce or elastic clauses for congress to ban in state possession of medical marijuana than for congress to ban in state possession of alcohol. I think it is only proper that Justice Scalia consitently recognize both sides of this coin, and in the long run invalidating federal legislation that encroaches on the power of the people of each state, not just laws that violate quasi-arcane principles such as "anti-commendeering" of state officials, or states rights to sovereign immunity, but encroach on the power of the people of each state to determine which laws they want to be bound by on a day to day basis, would go a lot further in protecting the rule of the people then upholding death penalty laws or allowing the few remaining single-ed institutions to maintain their traditions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com