undefined | Better HN

0 pointsadventured13y ago0 comments

Indeed, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to act as a straight-jacket on the government.

The commerce clause, and numerous laws leading up to it, were the major opening. It made the lobbying boom possible by giving the government direct control over the economy (and therefore lobbyists acquired reason to lobby, and reason to buy politicians).

All powers not expressly granted to the government were to be outside their province. They switched that, such that any powers not expressly denied the government were to be assumed to be in their province.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

rayiner13y ago· 1 in thread

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were meant to define the boundary of power between the state and federal governments. All powers not expressly granted to the federal government remained with the states, who had nearly unlimited police powers constrained only by their own constitutions.

What has happened in the meantime is that the civil war and the reconstruction amendments redefined the power boundary between the state and federal governments, but the federal government has not usurped any powers that were originally outside the province of "government" (because there was scarcely such a thing!)

Gormo13y ago

The federal constitution isn't merely there to define the boundaries between state and federal jurisdiction; it's there to define the structure and powers of the federal government itself.

You're trying to argue that the federal government merely usurped powers that the state governments already had, and this is scarcely true. No state ever had unlimited regulatory authority, and no state ever had anything approaching "nearly unlimited police powers"; state constitutions are typically more explicit in restraining the exercise of power than even the federal constitution.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse