The Constitution: enumerated powers
(Third in a series)
A major intellectual breakthrough at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was the realization that sovereign authority could be divided between levels of government – it didn’t have to be focused all in one place, as people previously had believed. The Convention produced a Constitution that left the states with sovereign authority over most governmental concerns, but delegated to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government certain specified responsibilities. These are called the federal government’s “enumerated powers.”
The Constitution’s longest list of enumerated powers is found in Article I, Section 8, which lists eighteen of Congress’s powers. The Constitution grants Congress additional responsibilities in other parts of the document, and several amendments do also. Most of the President’s enumerated powers are listed in Article II, Sections 2 and 3; the judiciary’s authority is in Article III.
In the 1930s and 1940s, the Supreme Court reinterpreted several of Congress’s enumerated powers so as to enable Congress to regulate far more of American life than previously.
Would you please stop lecturing? Bring a touch of humility to the table and you might have a few more converts.
Professor, for one, I appreciate the lecture. Thank you, and I hope you will continue.
Mark, what sort of conversion do you expect from this prominent constitutional scholar?
He comes here all known’ everything and never listening to anyone, never being wrong about anything. Reminds me of something I’ve said before – there are two types of conservatives – those who know everything, and those who know nothing, and it is very hard to tell them apart.
What’s the matter mark, are you suffering from digestive worms? Why so cranky?
Cajone’s disease – Cajone was a major asshole of lived in the 1940’s. Being a know-it-all is one thing, but lecturing on the internet like you come here with a podium takes a whole lot of Cajone’s.
Actual scholarship? Look I don’t mind the lecture. I just think we need the textbook to follow it.
What? What powers were ‘reinterpreted’? A quote? A link? Wikipedia even?
Speaking personally, I would like Dr. Rob to actually tell us something of value, something pragmatic. What do these changes in the ’30s and ’40s mean to me? Are the proposals in the Montana state legislature even constitutional? How’s about the national congress or the bail-out bill?
Explaining that a bunch of long-dead dudes had a breakthrough come-to-Jesus moment by realizing that authority could be distributed is okay, I guess. Seems to me many ancient cultures happened upon that tidbit. Showing how those long-dead dudes distributed power is probably of quality to a high-school civics class. But claiming, “oh this shit has changed …” That’s not scholarship. It’s not even good blogging. It’s a history lesson with no history, and no authority whatsoever.
It’s not so much the lectures I mind, as this attitude that he’s got nothing to learn and everything to teach. He’s got a very narrow outlook, he’s rigid and dogmatic and condescending towards anyone who disagrees with him. And he thinks he’s right about everything, the beauty of which is that nothing he advocates is carried out in practice, so that he’s insulated from reality as well. His theories will never be tested. He’ll go to his grave being right. Just a touch of humility, like saying once in a while “Gee, that could be right, I might learn a thing or two if I look at things a little differently …”, or “let’s have a discussion – I get tired of telling everyone what I think without listening to what they have to say…” – you know, if he could be a little less like he is he’d be a little more digestible.
Rob Kailey, your rant creates the image of a baby in a highchair squalling to be spoon fed. Why not just access some of the books at your disposal, and at arm’s reach, to learn about the Supreme Court of the 30’s and 40’s and FDR’s desire to reformat their collective view?
Gregg and I thought these tidbits on the Constitution might interest people. They are designed to be short, so a lot of citation is out of the question.
If they offend or bore you, just disregard them.
Wulfgar- Something went wrong with your post. All the links to prove your adversarial position to Mr. Natelson did not show up. I’m sure this was an oversight and you will re-post soon with the links properly embedded. I look forward to you showing us the truth about the Supreme court of the 30’s and 40’s. I agree with Mark t. that Mr. Natelson lecturing us like he is some kind of legal authority is insulting. Collectively we have at least a hundred amateur years observing constitutional law from the outside to every one of his years working in the field. What’s more significant one hundred years or one? No contest, right? Mark and Wulfgar?
Uhh, puppy, I don’t remember taking an adversarial position. He’s the scholar, right? I was simply requesting instruction.
It’s about the presumption that he should take a discussion forum and turn it into his classroom. He needs to human up a little. You know what would be interesting? Natelson and someone else who has studied the constitution who disagrees with him. Then we’d have a forum and it would be interesting. But Natelson lecturing us on what Natelson thinks – too much Natelson, not enough thinking.
Rob, I’m going to admit something I really shouldn’t. When I was accepted to the U of M law school, I was cautioned that I would have to take your courses, and I just shouldn’t do that. The contrary part of me wanted to take them just to find out why I would be dissuaded from taking them. I look forward to the opportunity to do so now. They don’t offend or bore me. I want meat for thought, and you need to go a little further to provide it. I will accept your scholarship. willingly, if you are willing to exhibit said.
Mark and Wulfgar, out of respect for Gregg’s wishes I won’t debase this site with what I really think. I’ll just refer you to this.
I did not attend the U of M Law School. I do not know Prof. Natelson. Other than what I have picked up from Gregg’s previous posts, I don’t know a lot of Prof. Natelson’s political history nor academic scholarship. So I guess you could say I am lacking some of the “context” with which to interpret his comments.
With that said, it is more than surprising the vitriol that Prof. Natelson’s comments inspire from some of the regulars on this blog. What gives? I hear far more controversial comments (on a daily basis) in the blogosphere, talk radio, network news programming, and heck even in my local paper.
What is it about Constitutional Scholarship that gets under the skin of a few of you? If you don’t care for a “lecture”, skip over the post. Sheesh, you guys are nearly as tiresome (but not quite as entertaining) as the Eco-Ranger. The Electric City Weblog was at first a valuable local blog. Mark T., Wulfgar, et al have turned it into nothing more than a shouting match. Who can blame Gregg for wanting to go dark?
Mark T ~
I checked. There is no law that requires you to visit or comment on this site. On behalf of those of us who respect the professor and appreciate his efforts, may I second Dave’s request. Your infantile attitude is tiresome and annoying. Go somewhere else.
I haven’t shouted at all, here. I’ve simply requested that Rob show some of the scholarship that he is so lauded for. If his intention with these posts is to instruct, then shouldn’t he actually do that thing?
I would also submit that most of the readers of this website have read the Constitution at one time or another, many of us multiple times. Regardless of Budge’s erudite admonitions, we’d be better served by instruction of something we haven’t seen than by lecture over what is obvious.
“If they offend or bore you, just disregard them.”
Hear hear.
They’re little historical snippets from a law professor who happens to teach…Constitutional History!
How does that even bug you guys? Seriously.
Rob Wulfgar Kailey, “we’d be better…” The arrogance of self-possessed importance. Don’t know of anyone here that gives you permission to speak for them.
Please try and wrap your brain around the professor’s simple request to disregard his comments if you are offended or bored by them. It’s not a hard concept.
Sorry Gregg. Didn’t see your comment before I launched mine.
Other than requesting more from Dr. Rob, Gregg, I haven’t ‘responded’ to anything, save BS claims that I should GTFO, and the question:
Apparently even answering a question without appropriate expected obedience is a sin around these parts. But then as Craig says, “This demonization should be troubling for anyone who values open debate.” It should also be troubling to those who can’t even recognize when no debate is being offered.
Professor, I also appreciate the “lectures”. Thank you.
One of the things I have always appreciated about this blog is the effort Gregg has put into getting people to actually think and question for themselves. This blog makes me think. Every single reader of this blog has the ability to research what is and isn’t true, and form their own opinion. Information on the internet is virtually limitless and it is right at your fingertips.
Intelligent people post some of that information – on this blog. I have read the Constitution. Repeatedly. I am not so arrogant as to claim that reading and interpreting it is simple, or obvious. Perhaps the Supreme Court could claim the same, since they are asked to interpret its meaning on a fairly regular basis.
“I’ve simply requested that Rob show some of the scholarship that he is so lauded for. If his intention with these posts is to instruct, then shouldn’t he actually do that thing?”
They’re snippets, Wulfgar. Think ‘constitutional minute.’ No debate. No instruction. No demonization. No obedience. No sin. Lighten up.
They are just some short thoughts that some of us find interesting.
This is starting to sound like a bunch of lawyers crying over spilled milk from their days in law school!
By the way professor,
did any of these individuals take any courses with you in school? If so did they get a low grade?
I enjoy these little snippets, although my degrees are in management and contract law I was not required to be capable of repeating the Constitution word for word from memory. Right , Wrong, or personal oppinion they are informative.
Professor – for you to presume to teach without knowing how to listen is an insult to thinking people. You deserve no special respect. I’ve been exposed to you for most of my cognizant years, and I find no scholarship can support such extreme views. Stop posturing as the teacher – you’re a polemicist. Nothing more. You’re on the same level as Coulter.
Budge – you lost your temper. I’d bet that has cost you more than once.
I took courses from Prof. Natelson. I think I got A’s or B’s, but that was a long time ago.
“the realization that sovereign authority could be divided between levels of government – it didn’t have to be focused all in one place”
Yeah, for well over a thousand years it was preached to Europeans that authority was conferred by God to a King, whose job it was to use that authority to rule over an unrighteous and untrustworthy rabble who lacked the moral authority to even make a correct decision with what to do with their own selves.
Now, I’m not at all sure we’ve hit on exactly the correct alternative, but it’s certainly better than the one laid out before the enlightened founding fathers applied the philosophy they learned with their classical educations to the creation of a nation.
And what’s boring is all this back and forth, not the “lecture.”
Wulfgar: Re your comment — “I’ve simply requested that Rob show some of the scholarship that he is so lauded for.”
If you REALLY want to see my scholarship (and are not just making a rhetorical point), you can find much of it downloadable, PDF format at http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm. See also http://www.umt.edu/law/original-understanding/. The latter site includes work by a number of scholars.
Citation to a lot of sources in these short constitutional tidbits is impractical, a fact of which you are, of course, perfectly aware.
Thank you, Rob. Those links are useful. (In truth, I’ve been to them both before. But it is helpful to all to post them now and again.)
And, as you should be perfectly aware, I wasn’t interested in links or citation half as much as your opinion. That is exactly what I asked for. That’s what blogging is, to my mind.
The obvious ulterior motive was to show that regardless how some people comment on this website it will be seen as attack. The commenter will be attacked Ad Hominem, dismissed, told to go away, or by the more intelligent and discerning fan, to F* off. If you don’t want comments to these snippets then say so, or turn them off. But the modus around here has become to demand that a commenter’s comment be what is desired before hand by others. Though I doubt many will get it, and fewer will accept it, I am not sorry for assisting in such a display in all it’s ugly glory.
[...] 2009 I’m sitting here in the Portland airport with time to kill, wondering if I have been too hard on the Perfesser – not that he cares, but civility matters. I haven’t been civil with him, but it seems that [...]