columnist: Hodja

Topic: Government Regulation
Congress, Baseball and the Constitution

---

Congress has no legitimate authority to question Roger Clemens ...and our toleration for such interrogations comes at the expense of our own liberties!

---

by Hodja
(Libertarian)
Saturday, February 16, 2008

Dear Friends and Readers,

If you're actually wondering whether Roger Clemens DID or DID NOT take steroids, HGH or other "performance enhancing medications" ...your absolutely missing the real point in all of this: PLEASE WAKE UP!!!

The question is NOT (and SHOULD NOT BE) whether Roger Clemens did or did not take these drugs.

THE REAL QUESTION IS THIS: EXACTLY WHERE DO OUR SUPPOSED REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS THINK THEY HAVE ANY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY TO STICK THEIR RESPECTIVE NOSES INTO SUCH QUESTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

The Constitution of the United States defines the powers of Congress in the Eighth Section of the First Article (provided at the bottom of this article). That article is composed of eighteen clauses. Not one of them gives Congress any legitimate authority over Major League Baseball.

To be sure, those eighteen clauses (and particularly the last one) DO give Congress a considerable amount of authority over a range of very important subjects. In fact, if they were really paying attention to those subjects - and the rest of the Constitution - our Senators and representatives should realize that they lack the not only the authority but even the TIME to be bothered with Major League Baseball.

If all of this seems trivial to you ...let me ask: is your LIBERTY trivial to you? I ask you this because, in truth, your liberty is EXACTLY what is at stake here.

Many people believe that the primary source of our liberties is the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is certainlya nice supplement to the primary source ofour constitutional rights ...but nothing more. In fact, the MISCONCEPTION that the Bill of Rights is the greatest source of our liberties is almost certainly the GREATESTTHREAT to our liberties.

The greatest source ofour libertiesis NOT the limited number of rights explicitly affirmed in the Bill of Rights but the limited scope of powers enumerated to Congress and the Federal Government in the Constitution.

If that seems odd ...remember: when a policeman arrests you, the POLICEMAN and the government are supposed to cite the law you are (at least supposedly) violating. The burden of proof is not supposed to be on YOU to show that you have a RIGHT to do whatever you are doing - but (MUCH to the contrary) the burden of proof is supposed to be on the GOVERNMENT to show where it has any authority to interfere in your pursuit of happiness.

In other words: the fact that the Bill of Rights does not explicitly acknowledge your right to do something does NOT mean you do not have any such right. If it DID mean that - we would most assuredly live under tyranny (or more tyranny than we DO live under in any case).

Does the Bill of Rights give you permission to eat? Does the Bill of Rights give you permission to work? Does the Bill of Rights give you permission to urinate or defecate?
Would you WANT to live in a state where you had no 'right' to do any of these things (and an innumerable list of other things)UNLESSsuch aright was EXPLICITYacknowledged ina"Bill of Rights" ??? I don't think so.

If such a strict "constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution seems "too conservative" for you, please consider these words of Alexander Hamilton - a person generally regarded as having been the "big government" liberal among that host of characters we regard as our"founding fathers." Having participated in the drafting of the Constitution, Hamilton sought to secure the ratification of the Constitution WITHOUT a Bill of Rights by pointing out the DANGERS of the Bill of Rights in this letter (Federalist Paper #84) adressed to the people of New York:

"It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. ...It is evident, therefore, that, ...they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."

"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns."

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." (END most relevant portion of Hamilton's writing in Federalist #84: full text available at ..)

To be sure: Insisting that Congress NOT excede the authority given to it by the Constitution would certainly mean that many of us (if not ALL of us, in one regard or another) would have to give upone thingor anotherwe presently regard as a "benefit"afforded to us bythe Federal Government.

In truth, such "sacrifices" (if they were really sacrifices at all) would not only be offset by a restoration of liberty in other respects: it would also mean that - inasmuch as Congress and the Federal Government would be relieved of the "responsibilities" of doing things the Constitution does not authorize them to do - WE should also expect to be relieved of the extensive TAXATION such "obligations" are presently affording Congress a pretext to demand from us.

Our Congressmen, Congresswomen and Senators have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. Hold them to that oath. When their activities exceed the authority granted to them in the Constitution - DON'T VOTE FOR THEM again!

If you think I'm suggesting that its O.K. for Roger Clemens or baseball players, generally, to take steroids or other performance enhancing drugs ...well, I must confess: personally, I don't really care. We may disagree about that. But whether we do or do not agree that such behavior should be regulated at all, my point here is simply that CONGRESS does not have any legitimate authority to do so and that Congress should be attending to ending this war, fixing the economy and (dare I add) actually working to SECURE OUR LIBERTIES!

I'm not trying to defend Roger Clemens; I don't think I need to do that.But I do want all of US to defend our liberties against Congress and the Federal Government by insisting that they pay attention to the business the Constitution actually gives them any authority to attend to ...and nothing more!

Thank You!,

James Hines

P.S. HERE (below) are the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution. Please familiarize yourself with them. Print them out. When you hear a discussion of whatever new piece of legislation or other business is being discussed before Congress, ask yourself "Does the Constitution REALLY give Congress any legitimate authority to regulate this?"
Thanks Again!,
James

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have the power

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes:

4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States:

5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:

7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:

8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:

10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:

11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:

12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:

13. To provide and maintain a navy:

14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

18. 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 or officer thereof.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
6 thumbs so far

2008 Hodja, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, February 16, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, February 16, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Hodja only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Hodja is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Hodja of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.