|
In the year 2006, the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in the United States, and said, "Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see the end of all flesh before me. Build another Ark and save 2 of every living thing along with a few Good humans."
He gave Noah the blueprints, saying, "You have 6 months to build the Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights."
Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his yard, but no Ark.
"Noah!" He roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark ?"
"Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah, "but t hings have changed. I needed a building permit. I've been arguing with the inspector about the need for a sprinkler system. My neighbors claim that I've violated the Neighborhood zoning laws by building the Ark in my yard and exceeding the height limitations. We had to go to the Development Appeal Board for a decision. Then the Department of Transportation demanded a bond be posted for the future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions, to clear the passage for the Ark's move to the sea. I told them that the sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it. Getting the wood was another problem. There's a ban on cutting local trees in order to save the spotted owl. I tried to convince the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but no go!
When I started gathering the animals, an animal rights group sued me. They insisted that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the accommodation was going to be too restrictive, and it was Cruel and inhumane to put so many animals in a confined space. Then the EPA ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an environmental impact study on your proposed flood. I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Human Rights Commission on how many minorities I'm supposed to hire for my building crew. Immigration and Naturalization is checking the green-card status of most of the people who want to work. The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire only Union workers with Ark-building experience. To make matters worse, the IRS seized all my assets, claiming I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species. So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to finish this Ark. "
Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, & a rainbow stretched across the sky. Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to destroy the world?"
"No," said the Lord. "The government beat me to it."
This was on a goat ring that we are a part of. I thought it was really true and goes with the ConLaw class I am taking. Speaking of which, I had to write a midterm essay for my class, so would you all like to read it??
Ok... here it is... All facts are hypothetical in the question we are discussing. They never happened. Dr. Farris came up with them himself. I do believe though they are based on another law that was similar and had the same attributes as the following. Please understand... this law was never made!! It is fictional.
We were asked to discuss the constitutionality of the Act and the President’s executive order using cases and things we have previously learned in the class.
We have been called to determine whether the “Truth in Campaigning Law” and President Clinton’s executive order on that Act were constitutional or not.
We have gone over former cases that apply to this situation and have found out the truth in the matter.
Here is the matter on which we will be giving a decision about:
“On April 14, 1997, Congress passed the "Truth in Campaigning" Act. Surprisingly, it allows voters to sue political candidates in federal courts if they have "reason to believe” that a candidate is lying about a campaign promise.
Unsurprisingly, Congress made the bill apply only to candidates for state and local offices and exempted all those running for federal office. Congress made specific findings that candidates for state offices made laws which “directly and materially” affect interstate commerce.
President Clinton held a press conference in which he issued a Presidential executive order which imposed identical requirements on candidates for Congress and the Senate--but, of course, not the president.”
Below we will discuss the matters previously stated and determine whether they are constitutional or not.
On the matter of Congress issuing the “Truth in Campaigning Law”:
Congress justified this Act on the foundation that there were “specific findings that candidates for state offices made laws which “directly and materially” affect interstate commerce.”
As we went over cases and such on the Commerce Clause, we found the following statement in “Joseph Story’s Exposition of the Commerce Clause”. It states as follows: “But when a State proceeds to regulate commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, it is exercising the very power, which is granted to Congress...”
We have found this to mean that the States themselves are not allowed by the Constitution to have power to regulate interstate commerce.
But by the “specific findings” of Congress, we thereby assume that Congress found evidence that state offices that were unconstitutionally making laws that were involved with interstate commerce.
Though this does not in essence have interference with this case, we must state that the states making laws that affect interstate commerce is therefore illegal by the interpretation of the Constitution. Being that only Congress may make laws that regulate interstate commerce.
As the Court decided in “United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)”, that the “Guns in School Act” was unconstitutional because Congress did not have sufficient evidence that guns in school substantially affected interstate commerce.
We also do not have substantial evidence that the candidates for state and local offices make laws that “directly and materially” affect interstate commerce.
We have come to question of why Congress did not apply this Act to federal offices. The conclusion is that if Congress had found evidence of state offices making laws that affect interstate commerce, they would not have only applied this Act to state offices.
Being as Congress is the body which is allowed the authority to make laws that regulate interstate commerce, they should have applied the “Truth in Campaigning Act” to federal offices also. And by proxy to the President.
Therefore we are in the opinion that the “Truth in Campaigning Act” was indeed unconstitutional.
On the matter of President Clinton issuing an executive order:
We have found that as stated in “Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)”, “the court found that the President’s order amounts to lawmaking, a legislative function which the Constitution has expressly confided to the Congress and not the President.”
The President is only allowed to make laws pertaining to the army, navy, and militia or the national security of the United States, stated as follows in Article II-Section II-Clause 1 of the Constitution: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”
Or as found in “U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, 299 U.S. 304 (1936)”, that the President may issue an order if he has approval by Congress.
In that such case, President Roosevelt, did have Congress’ authority to authorize the ban and then lift the ban. Not only did he have their approval, but it directly applied to the national security of the United States.
There are no facts stating whether Congress approved this executive order for President Clinton. Neither can we find any reasoning for this order.
As the Court also found in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, Section II, that “The President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Though this order did stem from an act of Congress, the President went against it, and remade this specific law, thereby going against Congress in lawmaking.
The Court also came to the conclusion in their final statements in Youngstown, that “The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times.”
Therefore it is found that President Clinton’s executive order which imposed the “Truth in Campaigning Law” on Congress and the Senate is unconstitutional.
We, the Court, have found that both issues which we have discussed are unconstitutional according to the interpretation of the Constitution.
Love
Thanks for stopping by "Daily" at the "Planet"
©AmandaDixon2007
|
Please Come Over!
Leave Your Feedback
Commented by Anonymous 
Commented by 
Commented by 
Commented by 
Commented by 
