9/11 and state's rights issues. New York should have dealt with the emergency not the fed.

reply to post by filosophia

That just means those laws are unconstitutional.

No, it doesn't.

Article 3, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States; between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Read the whole thing, but pay specific attention to the underlined part. What do you think the framers meant by saying that the judicial power shall extend to all cases? Why do you think they made a specific point to separate the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and treaties?

I'll tell you why. They are all separate, yet equally important. The Constitution is the guideline to the laws of the land, or the barometer by which every law must be set. You are correct in saying that all laws stop at the Constitution, but only in the sense that it cannot violate the constitution. A law does not have to be in the Constitution to be a part of the law of the land, and that is why they specifically mention "the Laws of the United States". If you are arguing for state rights, which is a legitimate argument that I side with more often than not, then why do you insist that in order for every law to be legitimate, they must be in the Constitution? Are you not aware that the Constitution is a federal document?

The birth of America is not just the constitution but the Declaration of Independence which defined all men as having a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that by itself takes care of the law of murder.

The Declaration of Independence is a statement of grievances against the British Empire, and it lays out an argument as to why the Colonies are seeking independence. So no, the Declaration of Independence does not take care of "the law of murder" (whatever that is) because there are no laws in it.

And why can't the states enact animal cruelty laws? Why must it be the federal government? Why have states at all if only the feds can deal with animal cruelty.

The states can and do enact animal cruelty laws. The federal government sets animal cruelty laws in order to deal with animal cruelty that occurs across state boarders, and/or includes national organizations that commit animal cruelty on a broad basis. That's why the federal government doesn't deal with a single guy beating his dog; that's left up to local municipalities (and in some cases, state courts). However, the federal government may involve itself if it includes a national or multi-state dog-fighting chain. There are multiple examples.

They might as replace local cops with federal cops because only federal cops can regulate everything needed, no point at all of having states and cities (of course this is the dream of the one world orderers).

No, they might as well not. The point you are trying to make is a weak one. And why even throw in that statement about "one world orderers"? Is that a personal attack? Because if so, then you are barking up the wrong tree; I am a strict-constitutional-libertarian-minarchist, so nothing could be further from the truth.

And of course why should the government be concerned with marriage? It makes no sense.

I agree with this statement completely (a marriage should be a contractual/religious agreement, one dealt with at a very local level, if any level at all). Just because you make one statement I can agree with, however, doesn't make you any less wrong about your overall argument.

What about divorce law? Divorce laws are in place so that one spouse can't lay claim on the custody of their children, or their property or finances. Isn't that constitutional?

I'm still waiting for you to cite just one passage from the constitution proving me wrong on anything I've said.

If you are still having trouble, please re-read Article 3, Section 2, above. After you have familiarized yourself with it, read this:

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;… To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"...and provide for the common Defense of the general Welfare of the United States..."

This is referring to the Congress, a federal entity. You don't have to agree with it, but this justifies a lot of things, including military, anti-terror, and intelligence legislation, which include the laws that made the Bush administration's actions after 9/11 completely legal.

"...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

This should be self-explanatory, but in case it isn't, this gives the Congress (again, a federal entity) that right to legislate laws and actions regarding defense... Again, the very laws and actions that gave the Bush Administration (and every administration before that) the legal obligation to respond to an attack that occurs within a state (or in the case of 9/11, multiple states).

So to answer your question, Artilce I Section 8 and Article III Section 2 completely disproves everything you have said.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by filosophia

 

That sentence does not limit the US government to investigating only treason. The Constitution doesn't need to define crimes. Congress may do so by legislation.

But congress is limited in their powers Article 1 Section 8 defines the powers of congress, no where on that list does it say they can have a "war on terrorism" and since this "war" is violating people's fourth amendment rights (through the TSA and Patriot Act), it is unconstitutional, and the congress can not make a law that is unconstitutional, so they have no federal power to have a war on terrorism.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Well it seems that you posted this thread with pre-conceived answers,

No, I kindly asked for constitutional arguments in favor of allowing for the investigation of 9/11 by the feds.

The attack involved airplanes - airplanes are a part of interstate commerce - interstate commerce is the original jurisdiction of the Federal government. End of story.

I suggest you read up on the interstate commerce clause:

federalistblog.us...

Even if they have jurisdiction over the skies (which in part they do through the FAA and NORAD) then it falls specifically on these two organizations which failed in their mission to protect America, funny how no one was fired over this mishap, but that's assuming they have complete authority over the air space which is not how the constitution defines it.

The power to prescribe the rules that define which articles of importation shall be restricted or prohibited through the laying of a tax for purpose of encouraging or promoting manufactures was the only power approved and adopted.

federalistblog.us...

“If the constitution is to be only what the administration of the day may wish it to be, and is to assume any and all shapes which may suit the opinions and theories of public men, as they successively direct the public councils, it will be difficult, indeed, to ascertain what its real value is. It cannot possess either certainty, or uniformity, or safety. It will be one thing today, and another thing tomorrow, and again another thing on each succeeding day. The past will furnish no guide, and the future no security.

“It will be the reverse of a law, and entail upon the country the curse of that miserable servitude so much abhorred and denounced, where all is vague and uncertain in the fundamentals of government.”

If you are arguing for state rights, which is a legitimate argument that I side with more often than not, then why do you insist that in order for every law to be legitimate, they must be in the Constitution? Are you not aware that the Constitution is a federal document?

I didn't say every law, I said every FEDERAL law. No where in the constitution does it say the congress can have a war on terrorism, if anything the congress must declare the war and the president act upon it, which was not even done since the congress just listens to the president, that right there is a violation of the three branches of government, but they also have no authority to take over a state investigation just because they have a federal building on the land. As far as I'm concerned the congress has power only within the district of columbia, everything else is a state issue, because after all, why didn't the "federal fire fighters" put out the fire on the WTC 7 federal building? Because there's no such thing as federal fire fighters, that's a state issue. But why not? Because it doesn't make sense. Which is why the federal government is not always the best at handling so called "sudden" attacks like 9/11.

I mention the declaration of independence because it is the "key" in deciphering the constitution and how America SHOULD (emphasis: should) be organized. Just because some politician points to the "welfare clause" does not give the congress UNLIMITED power to do ANYTHING they want in the name of WELFARE, that goes against the constitution. All such passages in the constitution should be taken the same way. You can't say that the congress can have a war on terrorism because that may help the general welfare which it doesn't since this war is violating people's basic human rights so no it is still unconstitutional.

It is very clear what is going on, people just refuse to accept it. 9/11 happened in New York, can we at least agree on that? Even if you say the federal government had some kind of jurisdiction because a federal building was attacked, you still have to say the building was located in New York, not the 'land of the federal government' not Washington, D.C, not Guam, but New York. That right there gives New York at least an argument that it is within their jurisdiction (the fact they didn't argue this is another issue altogether), and now let's look at the constitution, so the president obviously wanted to have a war on terrorism, and because of that, all of his supporters are going to race to the constitution to make his decision constitutional after the fact, when it should be the other way around. The president should look to the constitution and then decide what should be done. The general welfare clause is a misnomer and I'll explain why, the federal government can not do anything it wants just because it is given the power to provide for the general welfare, in the same way that I can not do anything I want just because congress can not prohibit my free exercise of religion. So if I didn't like murder laws and said my religion forces me to murder, and thus the congress can not prohibit this, it would be as ridiculous as saying the congress can have secret prisons without fourth amendment rights because it says "general welfare" in the constitution. After all, we are protecting the "general welfare" by torturing terrorists, right? Just like how I can walk on water because that's what my religion says and the congress can't prohibit that, right? Wrong, obviously, but the point needed to be made. So if the general welfare clause is completely perverted in its original purpose, then we have to admit that there is no provision in the constitution for terrorism, so, wouldn't it make more sense for the state to take care of it rather than the federal organizations? After all they can't create a law so quickly to deal with the situation (although they could have since it was an inside job) so this should be a state's issue.