How much power should government have?

[Master PO]

Phrase things any way you want. You said:

So what is is that "never happens"?

Obviously, the Constitution is generally meant to restrict the actions of governments and public actors. But I'd say there are at least two situations in which a private citizen can violate constitutional law.

Conduct that is ostensibly private can be fairly attributed to the state only if there is "such a 'close nexus between the State and the challenged action' that seemingly private behavior 'may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.'" — Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association​

There is also the issue of a private citizen violating an individual's constitutional rights.

With the notable exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery, the individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect against actions by government officials but not against actions by private persons or entities. Because of this, civil-rights lawsuits seeking to vindicate federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is "state action," the term used to describe the action of government officials exercising their governmental power.

Nonetheless, in many instances people are the victims of civil-rights violations that occur in circumstances involving both government officials and private actors. In the 1960s the United States Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of state action, opening the door to wide-ranging civil-rights litigation against private actors. Since then, however, the Court has substantially narrowed the situations in which actions by nongovernmental actors can be deemed to be state action. Two recent cases -- one from the Eighth Circuit and one from the Southern District of New York -- involving private actors, police officers, and the First Amendment demonstrate, however, an important approach to extending constitutional obligations to private actors. — "[url=http://www.nyclu.org/oped/column-applying-constitution-private-actors-new-york-law-journal]Applying the Constitution to Private Actors[/url]," New York Law Journal, Apr 28, 2009​

guy you lost in what is going on, you stated"wrong"to you own statement , which i was asking you to rephrase.

a right in the constitution is a natural right, a privilege in the constitution is a civil right/legal right


Citizens cannot violate constitutional law is where we began......which you asked

So the president, by definition a citizen, is not constrained in any way by the Constitution, only by federal law?

a Citizen is not subject to constitutional law, but by federal law which is written off of constitutional law.......this is what is known as an "implied power"

article 1 section 8 clause 18 grants congress the power to write all federal laws, FOR the general powers of article 1 section 8 .

congress is granted the power to create the navy, however it cannot create a navy without creating federal law.

the 13th and 14th amendments to the constitution are granting congress new powers to write FEDERAL legislation [law] to prohibit slavery, and discrimination by governments.

 

[Master PO]

Depends.

A konservative (or so-called "libertarian right" person) says that government must have the power to spy on all citizens, ban individuals from buying specific items (Canadian drugs, Tesla cars), censor what we can read/hear, regulate all marriages, jail individuals for enjoying marijuana, force taxpayers to pay for religious schooling, oil co. spill cleanup costs,. . .

while a Libertarian says that government should go f--- itself.

i hope you don't mean me.

if i say the government must have the power, ..then i am referring to, they must have the power per the constitution meaning it must be a delegated power.

government has no authority to take actions, when no power exist for them to do.

 

[matchlight]

in order to prosecute someone/person in a court of law, slavery is going to have to be defined down into certain terms, the 13th amendment does not do that its a blanket statment, federal law defines what slavery is and that is used on Citizens.

Right. That's one of the things the Court said in the Civil Rights Cases. When it comes to discrimination by private persons, in public accommodations, for example, there is not much in the Constitution that gives Congress power to prohibit it. The Fourteenth Amendment authorizes can only work where something involves the state enough in the private discrimination to convert it into state action. There are six or eight Supreme Court decisions that sketch out the boundaries of how much state involvement it takes to do this.

The Court mentioned in the Civil Rights Cases that the Commerce Clause might be another source of power for Congress to make laws against private discrimination. And eighty years later, in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that is just the part of the Constitution Congress relied on to prohibit discrimination by private persons (i.e. corporations and private individuals) in public accommodations.

 

[Master PO]

Right. That's one of the things the Court said in the Civil Rights Cases. When it comes to discrimination by private persons, in public accommodations, for example, there is not much in the Constitution that gives Congress power to prohibit it. The Fourteenth Amendment authorizes can only work where something involves the state enough in the private discrimination to convert it into state action. There are six or eight Supreme Court decisions that sketch out the boundaries of how much state involvement it takes to do this.

The Court mentioned in the Civil Rights Cases that the Commerce Clause might be another source of power for Congress to make laws against private discrimination. And eighty years later, in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that is just the part of the Constitution Congress relied on to prohibit discrimination by private persons (i.e. corporations and private individuals) in public accommodations.

its amazing how the commerce clause is transformed to mean anything the government desires,

commerce is buying and selling of goods.........it is not even the manufacture of goods, according to hamilton.

question..... did you know the federal government did not regulate commerce inside of states until 1942.

 

[matchlight]

do i take this correctly the USSC is equating discrimination to some sort of slavery?

The Court discussed in the Civil Rights Cases in 1883 how Congress' power to enforce the first section of the Thirteen Amendment extended to acts of oppression that imposed what it called "badges or incidents" of slavery or servitude. In that case, it held that the state laws at issue did not impose any such badge.

But in a 1968 case, Jones v. Alfred Mayer, the Court considered a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that granted "all citizens of the United States . . . the same right as is enjoyed by white citizens . . . to purchase . . . real property." Congress had enacted this law using the authority section two of the Thirteenth Amendment had just granted it. The Court upheld the section, finding that Congress could rationally conclude that discrimination in the housing market was "a badge of slavery."

The Court noted in Jones that

"By its own unaided force and effect, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and established universal freedom. Whether or not the Amendment itself did any more than that--a question not involved in this case--it is at least clear that the Enabling Clause of that Amendment empowered Congress to do much more."

How much more is the question--and there is a limit. In Memphis v. Greene in 1981, the Court considered a challenge that the closing of a road that separated an all-white neighborhood from a mostly black one both violated the Thirteenth Amendment directly and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Court held that the disadvantage the road closing caused black residents was not enough to constitute either a "badge of slavery" protected against by the Thirteenth Amendment, or a violation of the 1866 Act.

 

[matchlight]

its amazing how the commerce clause is transformed to mean anything the government desires,

commerce is buying and selling of goods.........it is not even the manufacture of goods, according to hamilton.

question..... did you know the federal government did not regulate commerce inside of states until 1942.

I don't know off the top of my head that Wickard v. Filburn marked the first time the Court reached intrastate commerce under the Commerce Clause, but it may have been. Gonzalez v. Raich, from 2005, is just about as extreme. Justice Scalia voted with the majority to uphold an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. His arguments in his concurring opinion are complex, and his reasoning is worth considering.

 

[Master PO]

I don't know off the top of my head that Wickard v. Filburn marked the first time the Court reached intrastate commerce under the Commerce Clause, but it may have been. Gonzalez v. Raich, from 2005, is just about as extreme. Justice Scalia voted with the majority to uphold an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. His arguments in his concurring opinion are complex, and his reasoning is worth considering.

before the 1942 decision, the federal government did not regulate commerce inside of states, which the founders did not create the federal government to do at all, but for them to regulate among the states.

 

[matchlight]

before the 1942 decision, the federal government did not regulate commerce inside of states, which the founders did not create the federal government to do at all, but for them to regulate among the states.

The reason that's not quite so simple is that activity within a state may affect interstate commerce enough to undercut Congress' ability to regulate it. I tend to favor federalism and a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause, but I also realize it's not an easy, black-and-white issue. Justice Scalia argues that the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress power to regulate even non-commercial intrastate transactions, where they tend to undercut its scheme for regulating an interstate market. I'm not sure I agree with his arguments, but they have a solid foundation in Supreme Court decisions going back to the early 1800's.

 

[Master PO]

The reason that's not quite so simple is that activity within a state may affect interstate commerce enough to undercut Congress' ability to regulate it. I tend to favor federalism and a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause, but I also realize it's not an easy, black-and-white issue. Justice Scalia argues that the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress power to regulate even non-commercial intrastate transactions, where they tend to undercut its scheme for regulating an interstate market. I'm not sure I agree with his arguments, but they have a solid foundation in Supreme Court decisions going back to the early 1800's.

before the constitution was created the states under the articles of confederation were involved in trade wars /barriers against each other..they were fighting each other over commerce.

to solve that problem the states gave the power to regulate commerce to the federal government, to regulate commerce among the states meaning the federal government could put an end to commerce wars /barriers the states were fighting over, it did not grant the federal government power inside of a state to regulation, because to do that would allow the federal government into the lifes liberty and property of the people, and the federal government had no authority in those areas.,because those are state powers.

we have a system of federalism, which the SEPARATION of powers, ...if we have such a system, how can the federal government and states government ...regulate the same thing?....what is state is not federal, and what is federal is not state.

Necessary and Proper Clause, is article 1 section 8 clause 18, this granted congress the power to write federal law OFF of the general powers of article 1 section 8, ..known as implied powers...it does not grant congress the power to create any law they think is Necessary and Proper .

Federalist 45
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

 

[matchlight]

before the constitution was created the states under the articles of confederation were involved in trade wars /barriers against each other..they were fighting each other over commerce.

to solve that problem the states gave the power to regulate commerce to the federal government, to regulate commerce among the states meaning the federal government could put an end to commerce wars /barriers the states were fighting over, it did not grant the federal government power inside of a state to regulation, because to do that would allow the federal government into the lifes liberty and property of the people, and the federal government had no authority in those areas.,because those are state powers.

we have a system of federalism, which the SEPARATION of powers, ...if we have such a system, how can the federal government and states government ...regulate the same thing?....what is state is not federal, and what is federal is not state.

Necessary and Proper Clause, is article 1 section 8 clause 18, this granted congress the power to write federal law OFF of the general powers of article 1 section 8, ..known as implied powers...it does not grant congress the power to create any law they think is Necessary and Proper .

Federalist 45
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

You might want to read Justice Scalia's concurring opinion in Gonzalez v. Raich. His arguments are very interesting, whether you are convinced by them or not.

 

[Master PO]

You might want to read Justice Scalia's concurring opinion in Gonzalez v. Raich. His arguments are very interesting, whether you are convinced by them or not.

well i am going on the father of the constitution, the author of the bill of rights, James madison.

it may be of some interest to you, but if you look at the constitutional convention notes of sept 5 1787, the congress only has legislative authority ON federal property.

if congress could do anything which they deemed necessary and proper, the federal government would be unlimited, and the 10th amendment would have no meaning.