The other 'poison pill' was the Commerce Clause. (Mis-)Interpreted as it is today, it gives Congress the power to regulate any human activity whatsoever, since it MIGHT affect interstate commerce. This 'interpretation', of course, makes a mockery of the Enumerated Powers and the 10th Amendment, so clearly it cannot be the intent of the Framers.
Regarding the 5th Amendment and the Takings Clause: the Founders did not explicitly identify within the Constitution what constituted “public use.” From early on, the S. Ct. has given it a very broad reading, holding that the concept of public use was whatever Congress said it was.
I think a proper reading would limit the meaning to the specific grants of power the Constitution gives Congress. Of course, if the Court gives a broad reading to those powers, we have not done much to reign in our Federal Government.
Perhaps this future book on the laissez-faire nature of our Constitution will contribute to our lawyers and Justices adopting a new way to interpret that Constitution.
“But that’s on us, not them,” meaning, I suppose, every single generation after the founders. But even the founders blew it: they put in a lot of mechanism to prevent factionalism and yet we had parties almost from Day One. Adams himself instituted the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Jefferson himself unilaterally executed the Louisiana Purchase, a brilliant move but of highly questionable Constitutionality.
The other 'poison pill' was the Commerce Clause. (Mis-)Interpreted as it is today, it gives Congress the power to regulate any human activity whatsoever, since it MIGHT affect interstate commerce. This 'interpretation', of course, makes a mockery of the Enumerated Powers and the 10th Amendment, so clearly it cannot be the intent of the Framers.
But No One Cares, so This Does Not End Well.
The quote from Thomas Jefferson made my day - possibly even my year.
> The constitution of liberty is defined by a wide birth of separation
Typo here: "birth" should be "berth." Thanks for the article!
Good catch! Thanks.
Excellent article.
Regarding the 5th Amendment and the Takings Clause: the Founders did not explicitly identify within the Constitution what constituted “public use.” From early on, the S. Ct. has given it a very broad reading, holding that the concept of public use was whatever Congress said it was.
I think a proper reading would limit the meaning to the specific grants of power the Constitution gives Congress. Of course, if the Court gives a broad reading to those powers, we have not done much to reign in our Federal Government.
Perhaps this future book on the laissez-faire nature of our Constitution will contribute to our lawyers and Justices adopting a new way to interpret that Constitution.
“But that’s on us, not them,” meaning, I suppose, every single generation after the founders. But even the founders blew it: they put in a lot of mechanism to prevent factionalism and yet we had parties almost from Day One. Adams himself instituted the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Jefferson himself unilaterally executed the Louisiana Purchase, a brilliant move but of highly questionable Constitutionality.
Of crooked tinder can no straight thing be made.