Sacred Founding Father Sharron Angle scorns Her Holy Constitution

If you've a taste for vacuous and unchallenged answers to facile questions, by all means watch Sharron Angle's interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board. It's like cheerleaders interviewing the star quarterback for a small town high school newspaper. OK, that's unfair. Your Gleaner apologizes to small-town high school newspapers.

The interview reveals little that everyone didn't already know about Angle (and, for that matter, the R-J) and the RJ's account in the paper is serviceable, given what there was to work with.

But one exchange that didn't make that story caught your Gleaner's eye, because I'm such a full-on dork, probably, and, well, here I go...

Angle, who constantly confuses her fetish for the Constitution with knowledge of it, was nattering on about the unconstitutionality of "Obamacare," at which point some disembodied R-J voice dismissively mentioned the Constitution's "necessary and proper" clause.

"Ha, ha, ha," Angle responded, contemptuously. "You know, this is one thing that I've found being a legislator -- for every law there's a loophole. And they've been trying to find loopholes in the Constitution for years." Angle then reverted to her sound bites without explaining what, if anything, the necessary and proper clause means to her.

Well. Damn those founders! By concluding Article 1, Section 8 with the assertion that Congress has the authority "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof," they saddled Real Americans with a loophole big enough to drive a truck full o' social and economic justice through -- if politicians and American are ever of mind to do so.

Angle is right (!?!) to suggest that people have been exploiting that "loophole" for years -- about 220 years, actually. The founders started disagreeing over the "necessary and proper" clause almost as soon as the Constitution was ratified (while the founders themselves argued over the meaning of the Constitution, fortunately, for America, Angle has determined conclusively exactly what they meant, so that's a relief, no?).

One of the first battles broke out (apologies if you've heard this story before) when Hamilton convinced Congress to establish a national bank. Madison and Jefferson beseeched Pres. Washington to veto the bill on the grounds that there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says Congress can create a bank. Sharron Angle would approve:)

But Hamilton told Washington that the government has implied powers "to impose all the MEANS requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ENDS" that are outlined in the Constitution. Hamilton rested his case specifically on the "necessary and proper" clause. Sharron Angle would not approve:(

Washington agreed with Hamilton.

Damn that socialist George Washington! He used an un-American loophole in the Constitution to foist his Big Government agenda on We the People! Did anybody even bother to check Washington's birth certificate?

Now, this is not to argue that the necessary and proper clause, along with the commerce clause, renders the health care law constitutional (though something along those lines seems to be the consensus among legal eggheads). 

But it is as amusing as it is predictable to see self-described constitutional "soldier" Sharron Angle, who stands for nothing if not rigid adherence to the Constitution, laughingly scoff at a portion of the original document which she finds inconvenient and arrogantly dismiss the ultimate paragraph of Article 1 Section 8 as a mere "loophole."

The Constitution and original intent(s) are more complex -- and vastly more interesting --  than one would ever know from Angle and Co. and their routine but shallow appropriation of the subject matter as theirs and theirs alone. The founders were human beings, flawed and fallible. But they deserve better than vapid worship from ignorant demagogues.

Oh, by the way .... in a separate appearance, Angle last week promised that if elected, she would introduce a bill to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices. Limiting the terms of judges may be a perfectly good idea. But it can't be done with a bill. Article 3 of the Constitution states that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior," i.e., for life, so limiting their terms would require a constitutional amendment.

A simple slip of the tongue, perhaps -- though an embarrassing one for a person whose entire political persona is structured around her smug presumption that she understands the Constitution and you don't.

(Readers with additional questions about right-wing constitutional theory are reminded to consult "Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution To Be," which remains the standard work in the field.)

Comments

[dave404]

LOL!!!

Amazingly, though slightly doubtful, Reid could still lose to an empty paper bag, left ablaze on the front porch and filled with bullshit.

Nevada has the most uneducated electorate in all the country and yet we wonder why we have the most corrupt and intellectually disinterested body of elected and high appointed officials. garbage in-garbage out.

[Happygirl]

Whatever you do, don't confront Angle: She run away like a frightened mouse.
Dave has a point about Reid and this state's messed-up voting populace.
However, the idea of him being replaced by Angle is a disgrace and insult to this state.

[Judy]

Niggling little details......... sheesh...............

By concluding Article 1, Section 8 with the assertion that Congress has the authority "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof," they saddled Real Americans with a loophole big enough to drive a truck full o' social and economic justice through -- if politicians and American are ever of mind to do so.

[Happygirl]

Judy: You are right, but until all eligible Americans vote, we can expect more of the same.

[CaveAdsum]

The Necessary and proper Clause of the Constitution applies only to the powers reserved to the central government in Article I, section 8 [e. g. the authority to coin money, raise and maintain a military and establish an uniform rule of naturalization] as also does the Supreme law of the Land Clause. The recently passed healthcare law may or may not be constitutional, but these two Clauses will not carry the weight of allowing our central government to take any action it so desires. Find something elese in the Constitution upon which to hang your hat.

[Douglas Democrat]

"The Necessary and proper Clause of the Constitution applies only to the powers reserved to the central government in Article I, section 8"

Someone didn't read the WHOLE paragraph. You know the part about the FOREGOING powers (as in, all the powers listed in Article I, Section 8) as well as ALL OTHER POWERS vested by the Constitution in the Federal Government (such as the power to enlarge or restrain the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts under Article III, Section 2).

“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.” - Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in McCullouch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

[robwhitetrash]

How would Frau Angle use the US Constitution to justify the more egregious actions of the BUSH-CHENEY regime?

As a side note, here in Reno, I've only seen two "Angle for Senate" yard signs (one homemade)in my/her Assembly district. I've not seen ANY "Angle for Senate" bumper stickers in my travels here in western Nevada. Hopefully, voters are coming to their senses.

[Onetime Las Vegan, Back in New York]

"The Necessary and proper Clause of the Constitution applies only to the powers reserved to the central government in Article I, section 8..."

So read Section 8. It begins:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States..."

The General Welfare Clause was another point of contention between Madison and Hamilton. Madison insisted that "general welfare" merely referenced the subsequent enumerated powers; Hamilton maintained that it was a separate and distinct power.

In 1936, reviewing a New Deal program, the Supreme Court of the United States explicitly adopted Hamilton's view (U.S. v. Butler). The following year, the Court expanded on that when it upheld the Social Security Act of 1935. Two companies brought cases arguing that Social Security taxes did not qualify as "providing for the general welfare"; the Supreme Court expressly said that they did (Helvering v. Davis, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis).

Frankly, I don't see how Social Security is permissible under the General Welfare Clause but the new healthcare law isn't. But it would explain Sharron Angle's hostility to Social Security: she thinks it's unconstitutional! Oh, and Medicare, too.

Finally, this from Federalist No. 34:

"...we must bear in mind that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities."

Of course, that Federalist Paper was written by Alexander Hamilton. That damned socialist!

[Goldy]

All this talk about the Constitution is making me feel so sexy! How does anyone keep their cloths on with people trying to discern what Hamilton's true intentions were or what Jefferson and his pals meant with the Necessary and Proper Clause? That one is my second favorite. Santa is my first.

Who's up for some Monroe Doctrine over the phone?

[Vegas Tea Room]

Goldy, Hamilton was hung like a bull but Jefferson knew how to put the motion in the ocean with his dingy. You learn these in graduate history courses.

[scorpiogal]

@VTR,
Wow. I wanna take THAT class. It's bound to beat my Biostats class any day.;)

BTW-Robwhitetrash's comment reminds me of that homemade plywood-tea-baggin' piece of crap rigged to some wheels in Henderson on Stephanie just north of the 215. It proclaims Reid is a national embarrassment to Nevadans. Like that broken down POS sign isn't an embarassment? Talk about tea-baggin'irony. Cheezus.

[scorpiogal]

Frau Angle??! More like Frau Farbissina sans the intellect.

[Tradewind]

I won't say that I'm all for government instituted health care, however Sharron Angle has made herself into something of a moron in this instance. Further, with her poor interpretation of the Constitution, I would never vote her into any political office ever. The necessary and proper clause is part of what makes our Constitution the best in the world. It's changeable as necessity requires. I don't think we use it enough to our advantage.