Which laws violate the Constitution?

[AncapFTW]

My family was watching an episode of the tv show "The Waltons", and in one of the episodes a 50 year old man that had had a heart attack already is drafted for WWII.  He knew it was a mistake, and was in the process of filling out the papers to report the mistake, so he didn't show up when they said to.  The sent an agent to his store and hauled him to the draft office so that they could deal with it.  This got me thinking that the draft wasn't the only law which clearly violated the Constitution but is still in effect.  (in this case, the Thirteenth, which bans slavery and indentured servitude, except as punishment for a crime.  As they were selected at random, and not because they committed a crime, and kidnapped because of it, they were Warrior Slaves, not soldiers.

 

Many laws violate the first amendment (everything from laws mandating that you serve everyone to laws banning you from protesting without a permit), all gun regulations violate the second, the Constitution specifically bans Federally mandated school standards (which they get around by taking money from the states, then giving it back if they meet certain standards), and there are many more.

 

I was thinking that if we could get together a list, we could use it to show people how the government doesn't even follow its own laws.  Which others can you add to the list?

[Will Torbald]

Those who care already know this, and those who don't care won't change when you show them because they don't care.

[Mister Mister]

The big ones that I can think of are that, though the President is the Commander and Chief of the military, Congress is supposed to declare war, which they haven't done since Korea - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have all been undeclared wars, not to mention all the lesser meddling they have done in countries like Cambodia, Somalia, Yemen, Nicaragua, Grenada, and so on, often in secret.  It's not really clear, however, what the President is authorized to do without a formal declaration of war, so this, like many issues, is in kind of a gray area.

Also, there is no authorization for a central bank like the Federal Reserve, and the Constitution says pretty explicitly that only gold and silver can be used to pay taxes and debts.

 

Furthermore, there is no authorization for the Federal government to have any authority over things like education, healthcare, transportation, drugs, energy, race relations, labor laws, and so on.  When these things go to the courts, they'll often cite things like the "promote the general welfare" clause, or the power to "regulate interstate trade" as basically an excuse to do whatever they want.  The 10th amendment makes it pretty clear that these are all issues that should be left to the states.  This was specifically put in because there was a debate in the early years of the country, between strict constructionists, who argued the government should have only powers specifically granted to it, and federalists who argued the government should have all power except what was specifically prohibited.

 

This question illustrates the problem with something as a Constitution, and Statist Law in general - they can interpret it however they want, to do what they want, and us commoners have little to no power to enforce a stricter view of the document upon them.  The Constitution is a cute idea, in fact, it is quite brilliant given how revolutionary and concise and liberal (in the classical sense) it was at the time.  Nowadays, it is only useful, as you said, to show how government does not obey its laws, and how attempts to use the State to limit it's own power will fail.

[Tyler H]

The big ones that I can think of are that, though the President is the Commander and Chief of the military, Congress is supposed to declare war, which they haven't done since Korea - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have all been undeclared wars, not to mention all the lesser meddling they have done in countries like Cambodia, Somalia, Yemen, Nicaragua, Grenada, and so on, often in secret.  It's not really clear, however, what the President is authorized to do without a formal declaration of war, so this, like many issues, is in kind of a gray area.

 

Also, there is no authorization for a central bank like the Federal Reserve, and the Constitution says pretty explicitly that only gold and silver can be used to pay taxes and debts.

 

Furthermore, there is no authorization for the Federal government to have any authority over things like education, healthcare, transportation, drugs, energy, race relations, labor laws, and so on.  When these things go to the courts, they'll often cite things like the "promote the general welfare" clause, or the power to "regulate interstate trade" as basically an excuse to do whatever they want.  The 10th amendment makes it pretty clear that these are all issues that should be left to the states.  This was specifically put in because there was a debate in the early years of the country, between strict constructionists, who argued the government should have only powers specifically granted to it, and federalists who argued the government should have all power except what was specifically prohibited.

 

This question illustrates the problem with something as a Constitution, and Statist Law in general - they can interpret it however they want, to do what they want, and us commoners have little to no power to enforce a stricter view of the document upon them.  The Constitution is a cute idea, in fact, it is quite brilliant given how revolutionary and concise and liberal (in the classical sense) it was at the time.  Nowadays, it is only useful, as you said, to show how government does not obey its laws, and how attempts to use the State to limit it's own power will fail.

Yeah they use that commerce clause to justify pretty much whatever they want.

[AncapFTW]

Yeah they use that commerce clause to justify pretty much whatever they want.

Including mandating Obamacare.  I remember people saying that because they can regulate interstate commerce, that means they can regulate healthcare.  And somehow that means they can force it on you.  I don't remember the exact argument.

[Mister Mister]

Including mandating Obamacare.  I remember people saying that because they can regulate interstate commerce, that means they can regulate healthcare.  And somehow that means they can force it on you.  I don't remember the exact argument.

Right, but at the same time, they won't allow insurance companies to compete across state lines...

[Tyler H]

Right, but at the same time, they won't allow insurance companies to compete across state lines...

Psh, it's as if they have like, no standards. (valley girl accent) lol

[Brazilda]

Those who care already know this, and those who don't care won't change when you show them because they don't care.

Op seems to care and not know. 

[Worlok]

Read the Constitution.

 

The Constitution was written with the intent (you can read the discussions held at the constitutional convention) that it is easy to understand and should be read exactly as it is written. There was to be no maybes or ifs. It was for the common man to comprehend clearly.

 

The Constitution lists specifically what the federal government has the power to do and only as it is listed. Anything else is unconsitutional. 

 

Rights are inherent and existed before any government. Rights cannot be regulated by either the Federal or State governments. The Bill of Rights lists some of our rights. Other rights are explained in 9. 9 states that just because something isn't listed in the Constitution as a right does not mean that it isn't a right. I have a right to have sex with another dude in my own home. Nobody can regulate that. Things that are obviously rights are obviously rights. I don't have a right to not be offended because that makes no damn sense. It's all pretty damn obvious and rights can really be broken down into property rights, including self property.

 

Just for perspective, I'll bring up gay marriage. Marriage in the US is not something that is listed as being under the authority of the federal government. Thus, marriage licenses are not constitutional and the government cannot pass laws on marriage. Scotus ruled that gay marriage is constitutional and banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. What they actually ruled is that gays have a right to get a government marriage license. Ruling that gays have a right to a government license is unconstitutional and obviously not right. Gays could always go to a church and get married. Nobody argued that. They do have a right to have a peaceful ceremony and call themselves married.