Video of National Constitution Center Panel on "The War Over the Constitution's Meaning"

The participants were Amanda Shanor (Univ. of Pennsylvania), Alan Trammell (Washington and Lee), Wilfred Codrington, III (Cardozo), and myself.

NCC

I took part in a recent National Constitution Center panel on "The War Over Constitutional Meaning." The other participants were Prof.  Amanda Shanor (Univ. of Pennsylvania), Prof. Alan Trammell (Washington and Lee), and Prof. Wilfred Codrington, III (Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, serving as moderator). Here is the video:

We covered a lot of ground, ranging from the pros and cons of originalism, to whether the Reconstruction amendments are "underrated" to whether we need fundamental constitutional reform. On the latter issue, I made the case that many of our current problems stem not from inherent flaws in the Constitution but from failure to enforce it more fully.

The panel was part of a larger conference on "Constitutional Meaning in the Shadow of the Articles of Confederation." Video of the full conference and the full list of participants (including many prominent legal scholars and Rep. Jamin Raskin, himself a former legal scholar) are available here.

Comments

[Supremacy Claus]

National Constitution Center is a Philadelphia based Democrat propaganda outlet. All the speakers are crazed, America hating, new Marxists. Calling Democrat attack dog Rep. Jamie Raskin a legal scholar is nuts. He was on the disgraced Jan 6 Committee. Raskin managed the second impeachment of Trump. He is foam at the mouth rabid. This hate speech garbage conference is dismissed.

[not guilty]

Au contraire. Before his election to Congress, Rep. Raskin was a constitutional law professor at American University Washington College of Law, where he co-founded and directed the LL.M. program on law and government and co-founded the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

FYI, you're responding to a new name which is already grey-boxed for me.

[Supremacy Claus]

Raskin should be arrested for honest services fraud. He used $millions in tax fund to engage in lawfare against Trump to influence the 2024 election. Raskin is a corrupt official, and should be investigated by the Corrupt Official Office of the FBI. Any legislative immunity is cancelled by his fraud. Fraud means lying. He prosecuted Trump on bogus charges, but the real purpose was to win an election.

[Jack Jordan]

Supremacy Claus, yours seems to be a strange argument under such a handle. How can "Any legislative immunity" be "cancelled" by a mere allegation of "fraud"?

Our Constitution is first and foremost in "the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges" everywhere are "bound thereby" despite "any Thing" anywhere "to the Contrary." Even an actual adjudication of fraud cannot "cancel" our Constitution.

Members of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

You complain that Congressman Raskin "prosecuted Trump on [purportedly] bogus charges," but Raskin was doing what our Constitution empowered and required him to do, and for that he really does have immunity.

"The President" actually "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of" any "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." "The House of Representatives" has "the sole Power of Impeachment."

If you would like an idea of what conduct constituted a high misdemeanor, see Section 1 of the Sedition Act of 1798.

[Supremacy Claus]

Hi, Jack. If a member used government funds or even a government phone for personal purposes, the FBI investigates and the DOJ prosecutes. Raskin needs 10 years in fed stir. Put him in general pop. He used gov funds to further his hatred of Trump and to promote the election of his party nominee. If Trump were really a strong leader he would arrest the Jan 6 Committee members for their federal crimes. They converted $millions in tax funds for partisan political attack. To deter. Trump was totally played by the Deep State lawyers the first term. He should have fired the FBI, DOJ, and State Department on Inauguration Day I. He should have arrested the Dem govs that shut the roads during COVID. It has been known since the 14th Century. Quarantine the sick, not the well population. Trump still has not fully shed the Deep State. He is still a weak leader being played.

Using government funds or equipment for personal use can violate several federal laws, depending on the circumstances. The most commonly implicated laws include:

1. 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public Money, Property or Records
This law makes it a federal crime to embezzle, steal, purloin, or knowingly convert to one's own use, or the use of another, any money or thing of value of the United States.

Penalty: Fines and up to 10 years in prison if the value exceeds $1,000 (or up to 1 year if less).

Example Violation: Using government credit cards or vehicles for personal errands. Imagine using $millions.

2. 5 C.F.R. § 2635 – Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch
These are not criminal statutes, but regulations that prohibit federal employees from using government property for anything other than authorized purposes.

Subpart G – Misuse of Position:

§ 2635.703: Prohibits use of public office for private gain.

§ 2635.704: Prohibits the use of government property (e.g., vehicles, computers, funds) for unauthorized personal use.

Enforcement: Violations can lead to administrative discipline, including suspension or termination.

3. 31 U.S. Code § 1301(a) – Purpose Statute
Federal funds must be used only for the purposes for which they were appropriated. Misapplying funds—even without criminal intent—may constitute a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act or result in administrative or civil penalties.

[Jack Jordan]

Hi Supremacy Claus. I still don't see why you think Raskin "used gov funds" in connection with Trump's impeachment and trial in a way that was criminal or why Trump should "arrest the Jan 6 Committee members for [purported] federal crimes."

Trump's conduct and inaction on and around Jan. 6 (including his communications) seems to me to fall squarely within the scope of conduct that Congress and President John Adams made criminal as a "high misdemeanor" in 1798:

"if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not."

I served as a soldier (including as an Airborne Ranger) for years. Some of my young brothers-in-arms sacrificed their lives to fulfill their oaths to support and defend our Constitution. We all endured much to fulfill our oaths. I watched what happened on Jan. 6 as it was happening. Then, I watched a lot of videos and read a lot about it afterward. I don't fault anyone for "hatred of Trump" or "promot[ing] the election of" a different "nominee." As a veteran, I can say with full confidence that Trump is not fit to be the Commander in Chief of our military. His recent speech at West Point shows he isn't even fit to speak to our military.

[David Nieporent]

Strictly speaking, it's not a new name. Behar has used 'Supremacy Claus' on the Internet for decades.

[Supremacy Claus]

Preciate you, David. You are the only one stupid enough to read my stuff.

[Speaking for normal people]

Jamie Raskin will be remembered for his abuse of power, hypocrisy, consistent dishonesty, and unwavering loyalty to Joe Biden

nous sommes connus par la compagnie que nous fréquentons

[Supremacy Claus]

"Faculty at American University" makes my point.

[Riva]

Au contraire. He is a partisan political hack who has a record of outrageous comments. Cloak the hack in whatever veneer of authority you like. He’s still a hack.

[Speaking for normal people]

and that means, what ? He once smelled good so that odor must be in your nose 🙂
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRnUgSjy9ej1rEJWri_HCz6dFPQrSmynaLuA&s

[thesafesurfer]

Hear! Hear! Only someone gripped by massive ideological bias would refer to Raskin as such.

[Speaking for normal people]

One my many Internet stopping places BUT everybody that doesn't dare to appear to not give a nod to the Constitution is an Originalist.
In my teaching experience at a Catholic seminary, someone tried to stop me teaching Inerrancy of Scripture. They said 'Partial Inerrancy" then I said but you need an inerrant guide to know which is which -- and they shut up.

The Constitution is normative OR it isn't. A or not-A
All 3 of the UR-principles are logically first principles
All men are created equal
are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights
Government exists to protect those rights.

Even more the late Donald S Lutz showed the Federal Constitution's Bill of Rights to be totally derivative of State Constitutions that together show the adamantine First Principle nature.

I hope the video makes clear that the discussion only happens nowadays because Woodrow Wilson just plain sidelined the Founders. I rate in our top 5 bad Presidents.

Go to Libertarianism.org and see
Everything Wrong with the Wilson Administration

Feb 20th, 2024
Woodrow Wilson was a terrible president who took his failure global.

[thesafesurfer]

Thank you for the comment and the article

[Jack Jordan]

Speaking for normal people, you raised interesting points.

It's easy to read too much into some of the words you highlighted from the Declaration of Independence. The reason the Declaration of 1776 speaks of "men" and "their Creator" ("God") speaks to the essence of the 1776 Declaration. Its essence was intimately related to the essence of the 1775 Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms. In July 1776, 55 men gambled their "Lives," their "Fortunes" and their "sacred Honor" on the success of a war that no army or navy existed to fight. The 1776 Declaration plainly summoned "all men" to fight and (as was common) it declared God was on their side. The Declaration should be seen as a combination of hasty constitution and recruiting poster, crafted for war and to recruit the men needed to fight.

With the benefit of security and greater reflection, our Constitution emphatically restrained the dangerous tendencies of people influenced too much by religion. It prohibited imposing any "religious test" on any public servant. It prohibited discriminating for or against any religion or sect in the choice of representatives chosen to administer our Constitution.

Our Constitution also promptly expressly secured (against our public servants) sovereign citizens' right to teach or believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. At least as important, however, it secures all of us (and our nation) from the extreme dangers that follow some people seeking to impose their scripture on others. No matter how true or good any scripture is, it is even more true and more good to secure ourselves and our nation against the devil who cites scripture for his own purposes.

[Speaking for normal people]

Jack, yes, with one caveat. We are in Western Civilization a people of the LOGOS . So even a murderer says someone did wrong to murder his family. Even a thief says "Hey, you can't steal that from me'

As Justice said
"Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?"

[Jack Jordan]

Speaking for normal people, I don't disagree with what (I think) your points were, but I didn't follow how your reply refuted my comments. I think your reply supported my comments: many people justify their abuses of other people with all kinds of rationalizations, including by saying scripture and even God supports them. That was one of the primary concerns of the best and brightest founders of our nation and framers of our Constitution. They saw how religious wars and persecutions wracked and wrecked Europe for hundreds of years.

As Madison put it in his Memorial and Remonstrance,

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance.

Madison's writing then applies as clearly and strongly to the efforts to counter so-called "antisemitism" by Trump this year and federal judges last year. They aren't trying to prevent discrimination based on religion, they're inflicting it and promoting it. And there's no reason to believe they'll stop with targeting anything that We the People vested power in national government to do.

[Jack Jordan]

Speaking for normal people, Wilson had problems. But he certainly got one thing right that a whole lot of people in power and people with power were determined to fight. The people who have struggled and sacrificed to ensure our military might have earned every right they struggled and sacrificed to help secure.

Wilson actually followed in the footsteps of the first founders. The first founders declared "all men are created equal" because they needed all men to actually fight for the right to be equal. If men didn't fight, nothing anyone wrote about rights would matter. The fighting is what make the writing matter.

Wilson, in a 1918 speech before the Congress, acknowledged women’s rights should be equal to men's rights because they all were crucial to the fight for all our rights. Wilson did so because women helped fight in World War I. Wilson asked Congress, “We have made partners of the women in this war… Shall we admit them only to a partnership of suffering and sacrifice and toil and not to a partnership of privilege and right?”

In light of the plain text of the Preamble, the Ninth Amendment and Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (and a lot of argument before 1776 about the absurdity of "virtual representation"), the 19th Amendment should not even have been necessary. But the 19th Amendment was necessary, and Wilson was instrumental in securing its passage.

[Krayt]

Stop letting the power mongers expand their power at their clever, gift-of-gab whim. That's the rule, in perfect alignment with core design principles of the Constitution.

I'm fine with society deciding on new, unenumeratwd rights. That has nothing to do with the Constitution permitting this or that particular right.

I am not fine with power mongers weasling a new interpretation to give them new powers sans amendment.

The above positions are not inconsistent. They are beautifully consistent with purposes of the Constitution, protecting rights, and not letting the powerful expand their power at their whim.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

with purposes of the Constitution, protecting rights, and not letting the powerful expand their power at their whim.

The Constitution was ratified in large part to expand the power of the federal government, as the Articles of Confederation were deemed to be too weak in that respect.

The Reconstruction Amendments also expanded congressional power, including each amendment specifically giving Congress the power to enforce them.

Constitutional interpretation, overall, be it powers or rights, should not be done on a "whim." The Constitution is validly interpreted to apply the powers found therein using current knowledge and realities. Thus, for instance, Congress will regulate more commerce today than it did in 1789 without making stuff up in the process.

[Jack Jordan]

Joe, it's true that "The Constitution was ratified in large part to expand the power of the federal government, as the Articles of Confederation were deemed to be too weak in that respect." But
as Madison emphasized in Federalist No. 39, the structure of government in our Constitution is part federal and part national.

Strengthening the former federal government was a small part of the purpose of our Constitution. The far greater purpose for our Constitution was to constitute a true nation of one people with citizens (as a body) constituting the true sovereign. Our Constitution requires national and state governments (public servants) to "promote the general Welfare" by requiring all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers" of "the United States and of [all] States" to "support this Constitution."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Strengthening the former federal government was a small part of the purpose of our Constitution.

No. It was a basic part.

The Articles of Confederation were deemed too weak. The Constitution expanded federal power. Opponents of the new constitution worried about the federal power expanding too much.

Madison's comment was a reminder that there were limits, and it was framed a certain way. The document was still largely aimed at expanding federal power.

The far greater purpose for our Constitution was to constitute a true nation of one people with citizens (as a body) constituting the true sovereign.

I'm not sure how true this is as a value judgment or whatever, but the document itself is largely concerned with federal power. It sets forth the powers of the three branches, for instance, using a lot more words than those that concern "true nationhood" or whatnot.

The Constitution does address such things.

[Jack Jordan]

Joe, I respectfully submit you have it backwards. Our Constitution did not merely strengthen "federal" powers, it created completely new "national" powers. It created a new nation.

The most fundamental point of the Articles of Confederation was the creation of a mere "league of friendship" in which "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Our Constitution created a single nation in which the states lost their sovereignty and We the People of the United States confirmed our sovereignty. We the People established that federal jurisdiction and power was not limited to whatever the states merely "expressly delegated to the United States." Federal jurisdiction and power extended to anything that was "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" for the purposes stated by We the People in the Preamble.

In 1792, after the Bill of Rights had been ratified, James Madison reminded Americans of the real revolution wrought by (even) the original Constitution. ("https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-0172")

"In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example" of "charters of power granted by liberty." Madison followed that statement by properly characterizing our national Constitution as a "revolution in the practice of the world."

[Jack Jordan]

Krayt, you have it exactly right that the "core design principles of the Constitution" included not "letting the power mongers expand their power."

As James Wilson emphasized, "A bill of rights annexed to a constitution is an enumeration of the powers reserved" to the people. As James Madison emphasized when he introduced the proposed amendments in 1789, the entire bill of rights was simply the people "enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power" (limited powers granted) to our public servants to administer our Constitution.

The Preamble and the Tenth Amendment emphasized the same principle. "We the People . . . delegated to the United States by the Constitution" certain "powers;" we "prohibited by it to the States" certain "powers;" we "reserved to the States respectively" some "powers" and all other powers we "reserved" to "the people."

The entire bill of rights should be understood to state rules of construction governing how to construe the original Constitution. The Ninth Amendment actually did explicitly state a rule of construction: our Constitution "shall not be construed to deny or disparage" any rights "retained by the people" by using any argument about the mere "enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights."

The Bill of Rights was written largely to help judges judge when exercises of power violated our Constitution. As Madison emphasized, the enumeration of rights will have "a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If [the rights Madison proposed] are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive" (and judicial) branches.

[Jack Jordan]

Krayt, your thinking about unenumerated rights seems consistent with the thinking of the best and brightest of the founding generations regarding our rights. They did not intend for their enumeration to restrain our imagination regarding our rights.

The "pursuit of happiness" implies a moving target and changing expectations.

In 1775, Alexander Hamilton emphasized that our liberty is found in the profound self-evident truths of human nature:

The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

So in Federalist No. 84, Hamilton insisted that "bills of rights" such as people "contended for" were "unnecessary in the proposed Constitution." "The truth is [ ] that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS." It serves to "declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government," i.e., it makes citizens sovereign and makes all public officials public servants.

Under our Constitution, the burden of proof always should be on public officials to prove that their impositions on our sovereignty over ourselves is "necessary and proper." Citizens should not be required to prove that we have rights merely because they were not included in the enumerations of 1787-1791. Imposing such a burden of proof directly violates the plain meaning of the plain text of the Ninth Amendment.

[Speaking for normal people]

Thomas G West likes to refer to an early discussant of the Bill of Rights. "Shall we put in your right to eat whatever you want for breakfast?"
There are at least 3 answers to questions about rights
1) Even the Bill of Rights is totally derivative of what was said in the pre-existing 20 State Constitutions Prof Donald S Lutz has verified this

2) Most of the rights that impinge on day-to-day life are under STATE control says the constitution

3) Your freedom is so much different from what Libertarians think

HIghly regarded study
The Pursuit of Happiness in the Founding Era: An Intellectual History (Studies in Constitutional Democracy) 2019
by Carli N. Conklin
5.0 out of 5 stars (7)

"the pursuit of happiness was the individual right to pursue a life lived in harmony with the law of nature and a public duty to govern in accordance with that law. "

[Jack Jordan]

Speaking for normal people, I'm sorry but I cannot identify any statement in my comments to which you responded here (except your quote re: pursuit of happiness, which, even if true at any point in history, does not contradict anything I addressed).

You might like to know that Madison, himself, emphasized much the same as Professor Lutz. Madison even emphasized that actually was one of his primary objectives in enumerating rights: "if we confine ourselves to an enumeration of simple acknowledged principles, the ratification will meet with but little difficulty. Amendments of a doubtful nature will have a tendency to prejudice the whole system." Speech to Congress Aug. 15, 1789 (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-1202-0224). The First Congress was in a huge hurry to get on with enacting legislation necessary to run a nation. Virtually nobody in Congress other than Madison wanted to bother with writing a list of rights right then.

[Jack Jordan]

Speaking for normal people, I'm going to speak for normal people right now. Regarding the "pursuit of happiness," I am very certain that what any scholar or peace-time pundit wrote about the "definition" at any given time is (and should be) virtually irrelevant. I am equally certain that what is and should be controlling (regarding our nation and even regarding our Constitution) is what normal people thought it meant (at the very least in 1776-1783 during the Revolutionary War).

Have you read "American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence" by Pauline Maier? I recommend it highly. The statements in that book that I viewed as most insightful included the following on pp. 131-132, 160.

"The Declaration was" designed "to be disseminated by print" and "the printer John Dunlap produced a broadside version the day after it was adopted." It also was "designed" to be "read aloud at public gatherings."

The "Declaration" was written "for the ear as well as the eye," and "above all" that was true of the "eloquent preamble." The first two paragraphs of the Declaration are "the most sacred of all American political scriptures." And "when the Declaration was read listeners heard mainly what was already in their heads."

The meanings of "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" that matter most are the meanings given those expressions by the people who voluntarily sacrificed their own lives, limbs, liberty and happiness for those concepts. Economists say that a thing is worth what people will pay for it. So if you want to know what "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" mean, ask a soldier, not a scholar.

[Jack Jordan]

The most insightful opinions of SCOTUS justices regarding the overarching meaning of our Constitution might well have been written by SCOTUS justices who personally and profoundly helped lead the process of getting our Constitution written and ratified.

Chief Justice Marshall, for example, emphasized (in McCulloch v. Maryland) that our Constitution must be understood as "a constitution" of a nation (the creation of a nation by means of a written Constitution, not by brute conquest). “The government of the Union [is] emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and [exclusively] for their benefit.”

James Wilson was perhaps most responsible for the overall design and artistry (the prose as well as the poetry) of our Constitution. As one of the first SCOTUS justices, Wilson explained that the writers and ratifiers (merely) implied a crucial concept in our Constitution--a concept that was the most profound and fundamental (and should have been most influential). From the first three words ("We the People") to the last three words of the Bill of Rights ("to the people") the Preamble and every article and amendment emphasized and established the political sovereignty of the people over our public servants and the personal sovereignty of people over their "property" (as Locke and Madison meant that term).

In Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), Justice Wilson (one of the most enlightened and influential of the Framers of our Constitution) expressly revealed that the most important concept in our Constitution is only implicit in its text and structure: “the term SOVEREIGN” was not used anywhere in our “Constitution.” More importantly, the Preamble is the “one place where it could have been used with propriety.” Those “who ordained and established” our “Constitution” could “have announced themselves ‘SOVEREIGN’ people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.”

In Chisholm, Justice Wilson emphasized the structure of power in our Constitution. It is obvious and striking—but for hundreds of years it almost always has been ignored or downplayed by SCOTUS justices.

The first and foremost separation of powers in our Constitution is between the sovereign people and all public servants. Justice Wilson in Chisholm emphasized that in our Constitution “ ‘The PEOPLE of the United States’ are the first personages introduced” (by the Preamble). Much more of the structure emphasizes the significance of the sequence in which personages were introduced.

Even the structure of Articles I, II and III emphasize the sovereignty and supremacy of the people. Our Constitution introduced, first, the People, second, our directly-elected representatives (Congress), third, our indirectly-elected representative (the president), and, last, our unelected representatives (judges).

The words of every article in the Constitution further emphasized the sovereignty and supremacy of the people over our public servants. In Article I, the sovereign people emphasized that nobody in federal government could exercise any power that was not “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the “Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States” (for the purposes stated in the Preamble). In Section 1 of Articles I, II and III, the sovereign people “vested in” (delegated only) limited powers to public servants in “Congress,” in and under the office of the “President,” and on the “one supreme Court” and “inferior Courts” that “Congress” was delegated the power to “ordain and establish.”

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were instructions to judges about how to construe our Constitution to implement our sovereignty. The Ninth plainly stated a rule of construction (it did not state a reservation of rights). It implied that all “rights” (enumerated or not) were “retained by the people.”

The Tenth Amendment summarized our entire Constitution. It emphasized that state and federal governments had only powers, not rights. Only limited “powers” were “delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” some “powers” were “prohibited by [our Constitution] to the States,” and all “powers” that were not “delegated” by “the people” to public servants in federal or state government were “reserved” to “the people” (Amendment X).

If SCOTUS justices returned to reading our Constitution as the written creation of a nation instead of a mere collection of clauses, we might finally get a government that operates as designed by the People (to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity").

[Speaking for normal people]

OR

To rule on the basis of the law alone is a character flaw. Aristotle condemns the man who stands on his rights in demanding an ethically excessive sort of precision concerning justice in the distribution of goods... Similarly here. To argue on the basis of reason alone is a character flaw, a failure of ethos, and therefore a failure to persuade. Excessive precision is in both cases unethical because it takes something which should be within the range of praxis and judgment and makes it into a subject far more precise.

The only non-Christian cited in the thousands of citations in the Catholic Catechism is Cicero

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions.... It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment."

[Jack Jordan]

Speaking for normal people, I think I agree with you except for your first word (OR). I think at least the most enlightened of those who wrote or ratified our Constitution agreed with your sources.

Our Constitution was founded on principles in or underlying the Declaration of Independence. In 1787-1791, "one People" finally did "assume" the "Station to which the Laws of Nature" did "entitle them." Our Constitution was written and ratified in 1787-1791 to implement "Truths" that were "self-evident," including that "all" were "created equal" in the sense that mattered to the constitution of our nation. All "are endowed by" virtue of human nature "with certain unalienable Rights," including "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and all "Governments" in America are to be "instituted" solely "to secure these Rights" with only "just Powers" and with "Foundation on such principles" as "shall seem most likely to effect" the "Safety and Happiness" of "the People" (as a whole).

So, eventually, our Constitution was amended to start to eliminate the effects of earlier injustices based on notions of supremacy that were contrary to our nature (as people and as a nation). Our Constitution expressly acknowledged the error of earlier discrimination "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (Amendment XV), "on account of sex" (Amendment XIX), "by reason of" wealth (inability "to pay any" sort of "tax") (Amendment XXIV) or "on account of age" after 17 (Amendment XXVI).

[Speaking for normal people]

Okay, strike the 'OR" , thanks for the adult response.

[Jack Jordan]

Speaking for normal people, you might like this by James Madison in Federalist No. 37:

“When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated.” That statement was immediately preceded by the following about laws communicated and construed by mere mortals:

“All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill, and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications. Besides the obscurity arising from the complexity of objects, and the imperfection of the human faculties, the medium through which the conceptions of men are conveyed to each other adds a fresh embarrassment. The use of words is to express ideas. Perspicuity, therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly and exclusively appropriate to them. But no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as not to include many equivocally denoting different ideas. Hence it must happen that however accurately objects may be discriminated in themselves, and however accurately the discrimination may be considered, the definition of them may be rendered inaccurate by the inaccuracy of the terms in which it is delivered. And this unavoidable inaccuracy must be greater or less, according to the complexity and novelty of the objects defined.”

[Speaking for normal people]

Lincoln said as much

“no contending against the Will of God”
the Bible “gives none -- or, at most, none but such as admits of a squabble, as to it’s meaning.” This would mean then that it was up to man, more specifically the slave owner to determine what precisely was the “Will of God” regarding the plight of the slave.

Mentioning specifically Reverend Frederick Ross who the previous year had published a book entitled Slavery Ordained of God, Lincoln poses a simple question. If the slave owner is the one interpreting “God’s Will,” would Reverend Ross voluntarily choose to surrender his slave and thereby be forced to work for his own bread, or retain his slave and continue to enjoy the benefits that slave provided?

Lincoln summed up the total issue in this way: “As a good thing, slavery is strikingly peculiar, in this, that it is the only good thing which no man ever seeks the good of, for himself.”

[Jack Jordan]

Lincoln was amazing in many ways. In important respects, he was like a combination of Madison and Washington, which was all the more amazing because Lincoln enjoyed very few of the advantages in life that Washington and Madison enjoyed in abundance (including having each other and a very powerful band of brothers who were very happy to support Washington).

That said, it's important to remember that some of the things Lincoln said were meant to appeal to the people whose support he needed to get elected. Lincoln wasn't always saying what he thought. He necessarily sometimes said what others thought (so that he could be elected).

[Jack Jordan]

Speaking for normal people, in my initial reply to your comment here, I definitely did not mean to imply that Lincoln was not as opposed to slavery as your comment indicated. I'm certain Lincoln was far more opposed to slavery than some of his statements (made to win elections or otherwise win support) might have indicated. I think Lincoln exercised extremely impressive and very wise restraint, without which he would not have been elected and re-elected when he was.

And I agree that Lincoln was great at fairly gently exposing the self-serving delusions inherent in some appeals to heaven, as it were. Lincoln was perhaps the best of models for America.

[David Nieporent]

The only non-Christian cited in the thousands of citations in the Catholic Catechism is Cicero

Well, there's also Jesus.

[thesafesurfer]

Excellent argument and evidence.

[thesafesurfer]

What a narcissists convention of the legal professionals, arguing about how their judgements should rule the lives of hundreds of millions. The judiciary needs to face a serious hobbling in the United States.

[MaddogEngineer]

I can notify Somin that the war has been over for him for a long time now:

The Constitution gives Congress (not the president) plenary power over immigration (and naturalization), which it can regulate and restrict as it chooses by law, including regulating border crossings.

Somin is like that last Japanese soldier hiding out in the jungle on a Pacific island for years after WW2 ended.

[Roger S]

Yes, I will get my constitutional interpretations from Americans, not those trying to destroy USA.

[David Nieporent]

The Constitution gives Congress (not the president) plenary power over immigration

The constitution doesn't even explicitly give Congress any power over immigration, let alone plenary power. I'm not saying that Prof. Somin's view that Congress has no power to regulate immigration is correct, but at best it's inferred, and so there's no reason to think it should be plenary.

(But I certainly agree that Congress's claim to authority over it is far superior to the president's.)

[Jack Jordan]

True, Congress's power re: immigration clearly isn't plenary. Article I, Section 8 expressly vested in Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" (including the president and every other officer of the executive branch).

Incidentally, the following paragraph (in Section 9) expressly acknowledges that "[t]he Migration or Importation" of "Persons" can be "prohibited" (and otherwise regulated) "by the Congress" after "the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight." So on March 2, 1807, Congress enacted The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States, which took effect on January 1, 1808.