Who Can Make Law?

[John Liberty]

A question that arises a lot in modern political discussion is: "Who can legally, under the constitution, make law?"

The question can be found directly in the constitution. Article 1, Section 1 specifically states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"

Is that specific enough? This means that NO other branch of the U.S Federal Government can make laws. Thus any executive orders issued by the President that does not directly and solitarily affect the Executive Branch and its Federal Departments, is unconstitutional.An example of a CONSTITUTIONAL executive order would be the President issuing an executive order requiring free admission at the National Parks. Why is this not an act of tyranny? Because the National Park Service is a federal department, under control of the executive branch. Now, if the President were to issue an executive order requiring a privately owned movie theater to have free admission...THAT would be an act of tyranny, and directly in violation of the constitution.

Also The Supreme Court of the United States does not have the constitutional authority to make law either. While they don't make officiallaws, their court rulings have the impact of a law. Changing the meaning of the words in the constitution is no better than physically changing the rules. Giving 9 unelected supreme court justices the power to change the meaning of the constitution, is in its most simple form...tyranny.

Now you might ask: Why Congress? Why does Congress get this legislative power? Well, you might be surprised to know(with the exception of the President) congressmen are the only federal officials we elect. Allowing unelected government officials to legislate can, will and HAS ended up bringing tyranny to the United States. When elected officials ignore their constituents and create unreasonable and tyrannical laws, they can be held accountable(they will not be re-elected, and/or will be impeached from their position).

Now any domestic matter not specifically listed in to constitution as being legal for the Congress to vote on, is delegated to the states. The state governments were supposed to rule their people. Our Founding Father's reasoning was that the states were closer to the people. The laws they made affected them as well. The states were also supposed to be sovereign, all traces of THAT thinking vanished during The Civil War. A common misconception is that The Civil War was fought over slavery. That may have been ONE of the issues, but more specifically it was a battle for states' rights.

Thoughts?

[Gipper]

Sept 17, 2013 0:20:26 GMT John Liberty said:

A question that arises a lot in modern political discussion is: "Who can legally, under the constitution, make law?"

The question can be found directly in the constitution. Article 1, Section 1 specifically states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"

Is that specific enough? This means that NO other branch of the U.S Federal Government can make laws. Thus any executive orders issued by the President that does not directly and solitarily affect the Executive Branch and its Federal Departments, is unconstitutional.An example of a CONSTITUTIONAL executive order would be the President issuing an executive order requiring free admission at the National Parks. Why is this not an act of tyranny? Because the National Park Service is a federal department, under control of the executive branch. Now, if the President were to issue an executive order requiring a privately owned movie theater to have free admission...THAT would be an act of tyranny, and directly in violation of the constitution.

Also The Supreme Court of the United States does not have the constitutional authority to make law either. While they don't make officiallaws, their court rulings have the impact of a law. Changing the meaning of the words in the constitution is no better than physically changing the rules. Giving 9 unelected supreme court justices the power to change the meaning of the constitution, is in its most simple form...tyranny.

Now you might ask: Why Congress? Why does Congress get this legislative power? Well, you might be surprised to know(with the exception of the President) congressmen are the only federal officials we elect. Allowing unelected government officials to legislate can, will and HAS ended up bringing tyranny to the United States. When elected officials ignore their constituents and create unreasonable and tyrannical laws, they can be held accountable(they will not be re-elected, and/or will be impeached from their position).

Now any domestic matter not specifically listed in to constitution as being legal for the Congress to vote on, is delegated to the states. The state governments were supposed to rule their people. Our Founding Father's reasoning was that the states were closer to the people. The laws they made affected them as well. The states were also supposed to be sovereign, all traces of THAT thinking vanished during The Civil War. A common misconception is that The Civil War was fought over slavery. That may have been ONE of the issues, but more specifically it was a battle for states' rights.

Thoughts?

I absolutely agree. But the question arises out of this: What CAN the Supreme Court do? What sort of ruling would be considered constitutional? Interesting to think about...

[ProfessorKat]

Sept 17, 2013 2:40:52 GMT Gipper said:

Sept 17, 2013 0:20:26 GMT John Liberty said:

A question that arises a lot in modern political discussion is: "Who can legally, under the constitution, make law?"

The question can be found directly in the constitution. Article 1, Section 1 specifically states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"

Is that specific enough? This means that NO other branch of the U.S Federal Government can make laws. Thus any executive orders issued by the President that does not directly and solitarily affect the Executive Branch and its Federal Departments, is unconstitutional.An example of a CONSTITUTIONAL executive order would be the President issuing an executive order requiring free admission at the National Parks. Why is this not an act of tyranny? Because the National Park Service is a federal department, under control of the executive branch. Now, if the President were to issue an executive order requiring a privately owned movie theater to have free admission...THAT would be an act of tyranny, and directly in violation of the constitution.

Also The Supreme Court of the United States does not have the constitutional authority to make law either. While they don't make officiallaws, their court rulings have the impact of a law. Changing the meaning of the words in the constitution is no better than physically changing the rules. Giving 9 unelected supreme court justices the power to change the meaning of the constitution, is in its most simple form...tyranny.

Now you might ask: Why Congress? Why does Congress get this legislative power? Well, you might be surprised to know(with the exception of the President) congressmen are the only federal officials we elect. Allowing unelected government officials to legislate can, will and HAS ended up bringing tyranny to the United States. When elected officials ignore their constituents and create unreasonable and tyrannical laws, they can be held accountable(they will not be re-elected, and/or will be impeached from their position).

Now any domestic matter not specifically listed in to constitution as being legal for the Congress to vote on, is delegated to the states. The state governments were supposed to rule their people. Our Founding Father's reasoning was that the states were closer to the people. The laws they made affected them as well. The states were also supposed to be sovereign, all traces of THAT thinking vanished during The Civil War. A common misconception is that The Civil War was fought over slavery. That may have been ONE of the issues, but more specifically it was a battle for states' rights.

Thoughts?

I absolutely agree. But the question arises out of this: What CAN the Supreme Court do? What sort of ruling would be considered constitutional? Interesting to think about...

Well citizens are supposed to sue the federal government when it passes an unconstitutional law. SCOTUS is supposed to determine whether a law is unconstitutional or not. For example: The Patriot Act. They would say it's unconstitutional and order it repealed.

[Galt'sGirl]

Sept 17, 2013 0:20:26 GMT John Liberty said:

A question that arises a lot in modern political discussion is: "Who can legally, under the constitution, make law?"

The question can be found directly in the constitution. Article 1, Section 1 specifically states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"

Is that specific enough? This means that NO other branch of the U.S Federal Government can make laws. Thus any executive orders issued by the President that does not directly and solitarily affect the Executive Branch and its Federal Departments, is unconstitutional.An example of a CONSTITUTIONAL executive order would be the President issuing an executive order requiring free admission at the National Parks. Why is this not an act of tyranny? Because the National Park Service is a federal department, under control of the executive branch. Now, if the President were to issue an executive order requiring a privately owned movie theater to have free admission...THAT would be an act of tyranny, and directly in violation of the constitution.

Also The Supreme Court of the United States does not have the constitutional authority to make law either. While they don't make officiallaws, their court rulings have the impact of a law. Changing the meaning of the words in the constitution is no better than physically changing the rules. Giving 9 unelected supreme court justices the power to change the meaning of the constitution, is in its most simple form...tyranny.

Now you might ask: Why Congress? Why does Congress get this legislative power? Well, you might be surprised to know(with the exception of the President) congressmen are the only federal officials we elect. Allowing unelected government officials to legislate can, will and HAS ended up bringing tyranny to the United States. When elected officials ignore their constituents and create unreasonable and tyrannical laws, they can be held accountable(they will not be re-elected, and/or will be impeached from their position).

Now any domestic matter not specifically listed in to constitution as being legal for the Congress to vote on, is delegated to the states. The state governments were supposed to rule their people. Our Founding Father's reasoning was that the states were closer to the people. The laws they made affected them as well. The states were also supposed to be sovereign, all traces of THAT thinking vanished during The Civil War. A common misconception is that The Civil War was fought over slavery. That may have been ONE of the issues, but more specifically it was a battle for states' rights.

Thoughts?

Citizens can make laws, ever heard of a ballot initiative? Also Referendum, Referenda is another process by which citizens can pass laws. We are not a true Democracy, but we have some laws that seem to be easily forgotten that make us a partial democracy.