{"id":2474,"date":"2009-12-04T13:29:37","date_gmt":"2009-12-04T18:29:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/?p=2474"},"modified":"2009-12-04T14:33:26","modified_gmt":"2009-12-04T19:33:26","slug":"a-solicitor-general-and-the-constitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/2474\/a-solicitor-general-and-the-constitution\/","title":{"rendered":"A Solicitor General and the Constitution"},"content":{"rendered":"

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan seeks to destroy the fundamental principle that “[the] Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers”,<\/a> judging by her brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Comstock<\/span>.\u00a0 The government\u2019s brief<\/span><\/a> demonstrates just how expansive she views federal power under the Constitution.<\/p>\n

The Cato Institute<\/span><\/a>, a libertarian think-tank in Washington, D.C., is challenging a federal criminal statute on the grounds that Congress acted without constitutional authority when it passed the law.<\/p>\n

Cato and other challengers in Comstock<\/span> argue that the federal government cannot use the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article 1 \u00a78<\/span><\/a> of the Constitution to justify any and all federal action. \u00a0 The government, on the other hand, argues that the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause in \u00a78 allow the government to enact a range of federal criminal statutes, even if such laws are typically the province of state power.<\/p>\n

Of course, by the government\u2019s logic, if the Commerce Clause works to authorize a broad array of criminal laws, then what can\u2019t the government do?\u00a0 Since the government deems almost any human action to “substantially affect interstate commerce,\u201d then there is nothing that evades federal power.\u00a0 For example, in this argument audio clip<\/span><\/a>, the government claims federal power is virtually limitless.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court has (unfortunately) already held that growing excess wheat<\/span><\/a> for private consumption falls within the Commerce Clause, and that growing marijuana<\/span><\/a> for private consumption falls within the federal purview as well. (Justices Scalia and Kennedy sided with the government in the latter case.)<\/p>\n

As the Cato Institute argued in its brief<\/span><\/a>, \u201cNeither the Necessary and Proper Clause nor the Commerce Clause is a permissible footing for the Act and, therefore, the Act is unconstitutional.\u00a0 As this Court recognized almost 150 years ago, \u2018[no] graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole,\u2019 than the Government\u2019s unconstitutional assertion of power against its own citizens.\u201d<\/p>\n

Elena Kagan, in the government\u2019s reply brief, countered, \u201cA commitment under Section 4248 [the act in question] is justified by the Necessary and Proper Clause in combination with whatever enumerated power or powers supported the federal prosecution and custody of the individual in the first instance.\u201d<\/p>\n

By June of next year, we\u2019ll learn if the Court would prefer returning to \u201cfirst principles.\u201d\u00a0 It could actually limit Congress\u2019 expansive use of Article I \u00a7 8, or the justices could continue to allow unbridled federal action whenever the government deems it politically expedient.<\/p>\n

Click here<\/span><\/a> for the Cato brief.\u00a0 For the government\u2019s brief, click here<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 For CFIF on the Constitution, click here<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan seeks to destroy the fundamental principle that “[the] Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers”, judging by her brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Comstock.\u00a0 The government\u2019s brief demonstrates just how expansive she views federal power under the Constitution. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[593,144,591,592,92],"class_list":["post-2474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-posts","tag-commerce-clause","tag-constitution","tag-elena-kagan","tag-necessary-and-proper-clause","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2474"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2474\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2491,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2474\/revisions\/2491"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cfif.org\/v\/freedom_line_blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}