Con-stitution

by: Adam L

Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 01:00:00 PM EST

Scott Garrett has always been on the leading edge of crazy, but his crusade as a "tenther" and his consistent voting against funding most federal agencies and programs is one that he is pushing to a growing audience who is receptive to taking a selectively literal interpretation of the Constitution.

As Herb Jackson noted today, Garrett has big plans with his newfound power and initiative, although the ironic thing here is that in pushing his new Constitution "rules", he neglects the very document he is clinging to.

For starters, Garrett and his fellow "tenthers" like to say that anything not specifically outlined in the Constitution as provided to the federal government is therefore not something that the federal government can impose, since it is then left to the states. However, Garrett and his ilk conveniently and selectively leave out the very important remainder of the amendment: "or the people":

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Garrett is using a selective reading of the tenth amendment to speak out and to vote against such horrors as federal funding for education, clean drinking water and other threats to our country. Not to mention the fact that the Preamble's "promote the general welfare" clause as well as the commerce clause under Article I have both been used successfully (and beaten back challenges) to do exactly what Garrett is falsely claiming as "unconstitutional".

more irony, below the fold

Adam L :: Con-stitution

Even more ironically, Garrett, as part of the Legislative Branch, is charged under the very Constitution he doesn't understand with making, not interpreting laws, which is obviously left to the Judicial Branch. So in arguing his positions, he is actually violating the very document he claims to be upholding.

It isn't shocking to see Garrett do something that is mind boggling or head scratching. And in this instance, by leaving out "or to the people" in his selective "literal reading", Garrett once again fails those "people" who he is supposed to represent.

Tags: 10th amendment, tenther, Constitution, Scott Garrett, nj-5, NJ5, featured, Herb Jackson, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Con-stitution | 2 comments

Garrett's head (0.00 / 0)

Garrett's tune hasn't changed, ever, on this one. Actually, this was a comment from the Congressional Record on 9/27/07:

You know, the U.S. Constitution, article I, section 1, the very beginning of the Constitution sets forth the parameters, if you will, of the role and responsibilities of the Federal Government. They are then, that point is reinforced in a couple of different ways, actually, when you think about it, both there and at the end. There it's reinforced in the section in as much as article I, section 8 sets out specifically what are the appropriate roles, and it delineates what the appropriate roles are for the Federal Government.
And an interesting thing there, and I don't want to go into too much detail on the verbiage of the Constitution here tonight as it's getting late, but many people often look to critics on the other side on this point, and on article I, section 8 say, well, in there is what is called the general welfare clause, and for that reason, Congress has the right and ability to move on and act on any sort of issue that they want to.
But a closer study of the Constitution points out that the article I section 8 general welfare clause comes before the delineation of the specific points and authority granted to the Federal Government. That is at the beginning of the Constitution. At the very end of the Constitution, at least back in 1787 and a couple years after that with the adoption of the first ten amendments, which eventually we call the Bill of Rights, the 10th amendment, of course, is the one germane to this discussion and all of our discussions on the floor with regard to the Constitution and the role of Congress, and that is that it says all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are retained by the States and the people respectively, which those two points tied together reinforces the gentlewoman's comment that we have to be careful as far as the role of the Federal Government in these areas.
So it is appropriate that when we look to the bill that comes from the other side of the aisle on this issue of voting, which is so expansive in scope as far as its authority that it is trying to impose and so restrictive at the same time as far as what they are allowing the States to do, it is appropriate for us to come and discuss that issue and debate that issue to find out if there is not a better way. And that's why I very much appreciate the gentleman from Iowa's being with us tonight.

by: rmfretz @ Mon Jan 03, 2011 at 21:56:46 PM UTC

Star-Ledger editorial on Garrett (0.00 / 0)

Worth reading: Scott Garrett's misreading of the U.S. Constitution, by Star-Ledger Editorial Board.

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.

by: Rosi Efthim @ Tue Jan 04, 2011 at 20:02:44 PM UTC