The Constitution Line By Line w/ Sen. Mike Lee: Article I, Section 9: The Powers Denied to Congress
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июн 2022
- In this episode of the Constitution Line By Line, Senator Mike Lee covers Article I, Section 9: The Powers Denied to Congress. Senator Lee discusses all eight clauses of Section 9 which limit Congress's powers including: the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, direct taxes, and titles of nobility and emoluments.
The Article I Initiative remains dedicated to discussion and debate to better appreciate the role of Congress and its rightful place in the Constitutional order. To learn more about the Article I Initiative, visit fedsoc.org/articlei.
Thanks to Free the People for partnering with us on this series. To learn more about Free the People, visit freethepeople.org.
Subscribe to the Article I playlist:
ruclips.net/user/playlist?list...
#Constitution #USConstitution #Congress #Senate #law
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
* * * * *
Related Links:
Article I of the US Constitution:
constitution.congress.gov/bro...
You should do the 10th amendment. The powers not delegated to the federal government goes to the states. I think it is very topical for current issues.
I support Mike Lee!
I wish he would have gone into greater detail on the prohibition of ex post facto laws. It’s one of the most important checks on government power there is. It’s vitally important to liberty otherwise Congress could pass laws that retroactively punish people exercising their liberty. If ex post facto laws were not forbidden by the constitution Congress could target and punish people who are not of the same political ideology as the majority. The prohibition of ex post facto laws is one of the best protections of our democracy in our constitution most people in our country don’t know they have.
Like slavery reparations? Wouldn’t that be an ex-post facto law?
@@majorburke9735 I don’t think so. Who would be being punished?
@@Son_of_Virginia : The taxpayers who are forced to pay. People who were never slave owners paying to those who have never been slaves and may not even have ancestors that were slaves.
I am not to be held accountable for the sins of my father. That’s constitutional and biblical.
And it would be a double injustice to make me pay reparations to a black man whose ancestors were slave owners.
Slavery wasn’t illegal: so you cannot make reparation ex post facto laws. That’s my whole point.
I’m poor. My doctor is a wealthy black man. Do you seriously want to force me to pay him reparations?
Besides, slaves were paid by the blood of republicans. Democrats should be the only ones punished. And if you think about it carefully-black slaves should have reimbursed the union for their freedom. Most of them were slaves before they came to America.
Interesting how nobody ever mentions the active Islamic slave trade of today. Nobody seems to care.
And how far are you willing to go? Would you have every race paying slave reparations to every other race?
Bottom line to your question is money is not free. It hurts the people who pay who do not owe for crimes they did not commit. And it hurts people to receive money they did not earn or deserve. And it hurts race relations to extort money from Americans to pay Americans.
America did not invent slavery. But we were one of the first to end it.
Lincoln should have never let the war prisoners free. If he kept them in jail, we might have a different genetic pool, and not be in the trouble we’re in today.
Didn't mike lee support the coup? As a Constitutional scholar, and a federalist, you think he'd be more vocal about a limited federal executive agency trying to overrule states' plenary authority over voting, electors,... good to hear he's got his voice back.
@6:30 - The 16th does not permit Congress to tax incomes because it already had that power. What it did was prohibit the income tax from being a direct tax. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916), the court stated ‘‘[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.’’
I still don’t understand. It sounds like you’re making a distinction without a difference.
@@majorburke9735 Well, it is not without a difference and not without a distinction. It is more a quagmire between tangible and intangible things. It is also that there must be a distinction between a taxation that is direct or a taxation that is excise.
An amendment to the constitution can move a never-before-thought-of reasonable aspect of colorable jurisdiction into the arena of constitutionality.
The 16th doesn't change the excise nature of the taxing power; It relieves the quasi-tangible aspect of things, incorporating quasi-tangible things fully within the intangible aspect of activity.
@@Reaction1s :Pfft! Now again, in English.
@@majorburke9735 American english or English english?
I am not sure if he knows he just skated around truth intentionally or if he was just reading a script and he is ignorant to the truth?
? What truth are you referring?