Constitution In Exile
So, anyone following the Supreme Court stuff recently? Have you heard about this concept of "The Constitution in Exile"? It's a term that refers to limitations of federal power that have been dormant since the New Deal. I'll try to dig up an article on it. Justice Clarence Thomas and a few others are thought to be an ally of this judicial (conservative) movement. I'm not sure what to think about it, but I was wondering if anyone else had an opinion or ... if anyone had heard where Roberts falls on this ideology. It could make more of a difference on law than anything else a Supreme Court nominee may take a stand on.
Here's a couple of articles on it:
Duke Law
American Constitution Society Blog
posted by chewie at 4:33 PM
3 Comments:
From the little I've read, this term "Constitution In Exile" is just another way to describe the shift of power from local and states to the Federal government.
Federalism is a cornerstone of our constitution... which seeks to delicately balance powers between the various hirearchal units of government (federal, state, local) as well as preserving individual rights. Federalism requires a strong constitution ... and in fact, the 10th Amendment seeks to further "shore up" our constitution to protect this delicate balance.
The lawmakers in DC have no discretion when it comes to making laws falling well beyond their sphere of power. Listen to any of their campaign speeches, they all plan to right all the wrongs. Our knee-jerk culture continues to promote the passing of these laws. There are endless examples of laws that our federal government has passed under the notion that they "are for the common good" or are "widely popular" that go well beyond the intended span of influence that the federal government was meant to have. The Supreme Court is the last bastion against this continually expanding realm of power.
It is very interesting to see the slandering in the media and by certain special interest of the rulings that the Supreme Court makes against "good for the people" laws. Sure, everyone understands that the law's intent is good, but the laws continue pushing us down this slippery slope concentrating power to a few people where lobbies have great influence. /jon
11:34 PM
I read it as just the opposite - power from Feds to states...
This would allow those states who choose to institutionalize bigotry, despoiling of the environment, etc. to continue to do so because of a belief that the Federal government has no jurisdiction.
rs
11:58 AM
I think you're both right: "Constitution in Exile" _movement_ is shifting power from the Feds to the states. But perhaps jon is right that CIE refers to the power going to the Feds.
This is why I'm not sure what I think of this... I think the precedent since the new deal has been that the fed govt. DOES have the right to pass these laws. ie: they ARE constitutional. From what I've read, Conservatives seem to want to turn that around as a short-term fix to get around federal laws they find inconvenient: ie: clean air act, etc.
But at the same time, Jon is right that it can be a slippery slope if Congress is acting outside of their scope of power. Perhaps that raises the question that if the CIE movement is correct, do we need a new amendment? Our nation certainly has become more "federal" over the last 200 years!
3:26 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home