[gutzmank]

The existence of the alphabet soup agencies would facially be understood to violate the delegation doctrine (that is, Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution), but the courts have generally allowed Congress to create them anyway. You might research the Revolution of 1937, to which I devote attention in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

http://kevingutzman.com/books/PoliticallyIncorrectConstitution.html

For more depth, see White’s The Constitution and the New Deal.

[gutzmank]

Checks and balances are violations of the principle of separation of powers.

[gutzmank]

There’s no difference in effect.

[gutzmank]

It means a particular law is enforceable on states instead of on individuals.

[gutzmank]

I don’t know the particulars of Sessions’ situation, so I can’t evaluate them.

[gutzmank]

In general, authorities have based their claim that the Federal Government has primary authority in this area on the idea that it has a general sovereignty. My own view is that the Federal Government’s power to make a uniform rule of naturalization arguably entails a power to control the borders, though it’s not an exclusive power.

[gutzmank]

I believe you are.

Chapter 1 of my latest book is about Jefferson’s view on federalism. He said repeatedly that states had a right to secede, that forcing them to stay despite their wishes would violate “our principles,” etc.

http://kevingutzman.com/books/books.html

[gutzmank]

Madison’s position tracked Jefferson’s complaint about ratification of the Virginia Constitution of 1776, which had been adopted by the Revolutionary Convention without referral to the counties–as Jefferson advocated. Some have also seen Madison’s position as dictated in part by popular politics, as it was pretty clear that Patrick Henry, who dominated the General Assembly, could thwart Madison’s efforts if the state legislature were charged with deciding on ratification of a new federal constitution.

I’m glad you have profited from JMMA!

[gutzmank]

There isn’t anything in the ratification materials indicating that Congress could not exclude slavery from territories under the Territories Clause if it wanted to. However, during the Missouri Crisis, former president Jefferson argued that the principle of new-state equality established by the Northwest Ordinance meant that new states must be left power to decide this question for themselves, as the old states had done.

Federalists at the Virginia Ratification Convention expressly told the Convention that in case Virginia ratified the Constitution, it would have a right to secede. Besides the appropriate lectures of relevant Liberty Classroom courses, you can find information on these questions in chapter 1 of my latest book, Thomas Jefferson: Revolutionary–A Radical’s Struggle to Remake America. http://kevingutzman.com/books/books.html

[gutzmank]

There have been three American groups called “federalists”:
1) members of the Federalist Movement of the 1770s/’80s, who advocated strengthening the federal government;
2) members of the Federalist Party of 1792 and after, which was organized by Alexander Hamilton to advocate administration policy once he realized the Republican Party was doing the opposite; and
3) federalists who advocate the federal principle.
Generally, the upper-case “f” is used in connection with the first two of those groups and not with the other.

[gutzmank]

The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 is the oldest written constitution in the world. All older ones are defunct.

[gutzmank]

The Declaration was issued in the name of the United States of America. Those states were united in the sense that they were fighting the British and undertaking related steps (e.g., entering into foreign alliances, taking foreign loans, etc.) jointly. This is as if you and I appointed someone with power of attorney to take out a loan for us. It is not a mystical relationship enforceable by a union executive with no restriction on means employed as Lincoln seems to have had in mind in his First Inaugural Address.

My understanding is that the Articles of Confederation created a federal government from which any party was free to withdraw. The original understanding of the US Constitution was similar, at least in some of the states. Per: Vattel, even calling it a federal union entailed that members could withdraw. In short, I don’t think the people ever agreed to a union in the sense Lincoln meant.

[gutzmank]

Barnett’s argument and the West Coast Straussians’ do indeed overlap, but they are not the same. Since we produced the constitutional history course, Barnett has published a new book, which I reviewed with particular attention to precisely the questions in which you are interested here:

Not Your Founders’ Constitution

[gutzmank]

Madison said in the House that he could not point to any provision of the Constitution that empowered Congress to give people charity. I’m not aware that Hamilton ever in any way disagreed with this.

[gutzmank]

Q: Why isn’t Sir Thomas Dale America’s oldest deputy-governor?
A: He’s dead.

[Author]

Posts