« Central Florida's not a good spot for robbers | Main | More on border wars »
Sen. Ensign gets support for DC gun ban repeal
From some TSA screeners.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
IIRC one of the 'exclusive' laws Congress passed was to allow D.C. limited home rule.
It's probably in the same Constitutional category as gun control, but until overturned, it's the law of the land -- or in this case, D.C.
The point is that the word EXCLUSIVE would negate any transfer of power. That's one of those DUH! statements. By any definition, exclusive means NO ONE ELSE. Congress is not superior to the Constitution and cannot decide what the words or the powers mean.
And Congress cannot without a breach of trust transfer ANY POWER to anyone else. Liken it to this. You hire me to baby sit for you thus giving me authority to care for the welfare of your child. You have placed your trust in me to do the job you delegated to me. Now, unbeknownst to you, I opt out and find someone else that you did not choose, and I delegate the delegated authority to them to watch your child. Whether or not your child is harmed, I have breached your trust without authority to do so. Please point out which of the enumerated powers authorized the Congress to re-delegate power originally delegated to Congress.
Back to EXCLUSIVE, in order for the power to be CONSTITUTIONALLY exercised, it MUST be exercised solely (exclusively) by Congress. Congress cannot let the DC Council exercise the power and also exercise the power in an "exclusive" manner. That is impossible by any definition of "exclusive".
And it is NOT the law of the Land. Please go reread the last sections of the Constitution. In order to be the Law of the Land the law must be passed under the authority of the United States. The sum total of that authority is enumerated in the Constitution. If the power is not listed, it does NOT exist in the hands of government except in the minds that think there are implied powers. However, ANYONE who has read the enumerated powers should be able to easily see that the implied powers doctrine of Hamilton is just another batch of lies. I would be glad to explain it with two simple examples but I'll save that for later.
Toichfaidh ar la!
Would someone please splain to me how the DC Council can pass any laws under Article I, Secion 8, Paragraph 17?
Now I've studied dozens of Constitutional law authors and everyone states that the word "EXCLUSIVE" means exclusive of ALL other governmental entities. So if Congress has "exclusive" legislative powers over DC, how is it that this is not violated when the DC council passes laws? And IF Congress were to delegate the authority (eventhough delegating that which has been delegated is a breach of trust), how does the exercise by the DC council still not violated the requirement that Congress exercise "exclusive" legislation over DC?
Of, course all this is rhetorical. The answer is that the DC Council cannot constitutionally pass any laws, i.e. every law they passed is void because the law is in violation of the supreme law of the land. The fact that the SC didn't hit Heller with this one is simply more evidence of the ignorance of those entrusted with our judicial system.
And "exclusive" is not absolute nor is the power "exclusive" of the Constitution. Without the Constitution, the power does not exist so the power is subordinate to the Constitution, as is Congress, the SC, and the executive branch.
Tiochfaidh ar la!