Saturday, February 6, 2010

The guiding principles of Jane Norton's political philosophy, or How to Talk to Strict Constructionsists

Pols points us to an interview with Colorado Republican candidate for United States Senate Jane Norton by conservative blogger Ross Kaminsky. There is a fascinating passage from the Kaminsky piece that I believe deserves greater attention and follow-up from Ms. Norton. Here's the passage in question,

[S]he noted that the word "education" is nowhere in the Constitution and that she has proposed eliminating the federal Department of Education. I wholly support that proposal, not just because the Dept. of Education is unconstitutional, but also because it is arguably one of the least effective parts of government on a per-dollar basis.

This is wonderful. I really appreciate Ross bringing us this interview as it sheds a lot of light on the logic upon which we may now assume will guide Ms. Norton should she be elected.

Here are some issues that I would appreciate Ms. Norton to expound upon, given her now stated belief that when an issue or subject is not explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution that the Federal government has no legitimate jurisdiction.

Does Ms. Norton oppose a Federally recognized right to privacy for American citizens?

The word "God" appears nowhere in the Constitution. May we presume that Ms. Norton opposes any role for God, Christianity, or The Ten Commandments in the Federal Government? Specifically, does she support removing "In God We Trust" from our currency? Does Ms. Norton oppose the tradition of Congressional Invocations?

As Justice Scalia the majority opinion noted in Bush v. Gore, there is no explicit right to vote in the Constitution. What is Ms. Norton's position on the right of citizens to vote for candidates for Federal office?

Immigration is not mentioned in the Constitution. Does Ms. Norton believe that the Federal government has no proper role in immigration policy?

The concept of judicial review is not found within the Constitution. Does Ms. Norton oppose the concept of Judicial Review? If she does, what does she believe is the correct role for Federal Courts, including The Supreme Court? What specific rulings by The Supreme Court should be discarded?

Marriage is not discussed in the Constitution, should the Defense of Marriage Act be repealed and The Supreme Court be barred from ruling on issues of marriage?

Paper money is not referenced in the Constitution, only coins. Should the Treasury be prohibited from issuing paper money?

Transportation and travel are not discussed. Should we eliminate the Department of Transportation? Federal highway funds? May states bar their citizens from interstate travel? May Congress?

Does Ms. Norton oppose the existence of the United States Air Force? How about the United States Marine Corps? Neither are mentioned in the Constitution.

Ms. Norton is running for the United States Senate from the great state of Colorado. The territory that we now refer to as Colorado was largely acquired from the French via the Louisiana Purchase by President Jefferson in 1803. The Constitution does not grant the President the right to purchase lands or otherwise expand the territories of the United States. Does Ms. Norton believe that the Louisiana Purchase was un-Constitutional? Should the territory now consisting of everything east of the continental divide be returned to France? Will Ms. Norton accept the votes of those Coloradans who live east of the Colorado divide or does she hold the text of the Constitution supreme?

I anxiously await Ms. Norton's responses to these pressing issues. If she truly believes that the powers of The Federal government are bound by the explicit terms and conditions of the United States Constitution then the answers to these questions should come rather easily to her.

2 comments:

Jen said...

Lemme know what she says, k? I'm pretty interested too!

Excellent little piece :)

Andrew Oh-Willeke said...

"What is Ms. Norton's position on the right of citizens to vote for candidates for Federal office?"

The lack of a constitutional right to vote is status quo con law and has important implications, for example, providing the legal basis for felony disenfranchisement and voter registration laws.

"Immigration is not mentioned in the Constitution. Does Ms. Norton believe that the Federal government has no proper role in immigration policy?"

Au contraire. Article I, Section 9, Clause (1) (concerning "the migration . . .of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit"), although the discussion is not comprehensive.

"Marriage is not discussed in the Constitution, should the Defense of Marriage Act be repealed and The Supreme Court be barred from ruling on issues of marriage?"

DOMA's constitutional basis is Article IV, Section 1, which gives Congress express regulatory power over its subject matter and has been used since the First Congress to regulate interstate recognition of marriage. Lack of express authority is not a flaw of DOMA. Rather the constitutional issues with DOMA come under the 14th Amendment.

"Paper money is not referenced in the Constitution, only coins. Should the Treasury be prohibited from issuing paper money?"

Article I, Section 8, Clause 6. Paper money is a type of "security."

"Transportation and travel are not discussed. Should we eliminate the Department of Transportation? Federal highway funds? May states bar their citizens from interstate travel? May Congress?"

Congress has an express power to build roads. Article I, Section 8, Clause (7), as well as an express power to regulate interstate commerce, Clause (3), and to regulate conduct on the high seas, Clause (10). The Congressional power of taxation and regulation of commerce from ports is expressly limited. Article I, Section 9, Clause (5), and state regulation is even further limited, Article I, Section 10. Transportation is also directly discussed (the 23rd Amendment).

"Does Ms. Norton oppose the existence of the United States Air Force? How about the United States Marine Corps? Neither are mentioned in the Constitution."

In theory, the Air Force could be an issue (the constitution could arguably require it to be demoted to its old status as the Army Air Corps). The Marine Corps is a subcomponent of the Navy, which is expressly authorized.

"Ms. Norton is running for the United States Senate from the great state of Colorado. The territory that we now refer to as Colorado was largely acquired from the French via the Louisiana Purchase by President Jefferson in 1803. The Constitution does not grant the President the right to purchase lands or otherwise expand the territories of the United States. Does Ms. Norton believe that the Louisiana Purchase was un-Constitutional? Should the territory now consisting of everything east of the continental divide be returned to France? Will Ms. Norton accept the votes of those Coloradans who live east of the Colorado divide or does she hold the text of the Constitution supreme?"

Article II, Section 2, Clause (2). The Louisiana Territory was acquired by treaty, as were most U.S. territorial acquisitions secured via purchase. Article IV, Section 3 gives Congress the power to regulate territory so acquired.

One could pose similar questions that would be more solid. (The right to travel itself, e.g., is a recently enumerated non-express constitutional right.) Another very local unenumerated constitutional matter is sovereign immunity for states which the 11th Amendment does not by its text create. And, the application of the Second Amendment to the states is a currently pending issue that has previously been held not to exist by two U.S. Supreme Court casees. (Let alone a back door to federal gun control via Article i, Section 8, Clause (16) despite the Second Amendment). Constitutional basis for the filibuster is likewise thin.