@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:The constitution does not prohibit the condemnation of land under eminent domain.
That's true so far; the state can take property for public use. But notice that the specific jokers in
this article don't just want to condemn any old plot of land. They specifically want to condemn
federal lands -- which,
ipso facto, are in public use already.
Setanta wrote:The constitution is mute on the subject of health care, and advocates of Federal jurisdiction in such a matter can only point to the feeble "promote the general welfare" clause from the preamble.
Not true. The power of Congress to "to provide for the general welfare of the United States" is not just in the preamble. It's one of the explicitly enumerated powers under article 1, section 8 of the constitution. Does that clause cover Obama's healthcare reform? It certainly does if it covers Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. On Social Security, ever since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the General Welfare clause gave Congress the right to enact it. (See
Helvering v. Davis and the cases cited in it.) As to Medicare and Medicaid -- although teabaggers make a lot of noise about them being unconstitutional, no legal challenge ever even reached the Supreme Court. (Says Google Scholar -- I"m willing to be corrected.) Hence, the constitutionality of Obama's healthcare reform is so well-established that no Supreme Court judge, not even Clarence Thomas, will touch it.
Setanta wrote:The issue of National Guardsmen is difficult, since Congress is granted the power to call out the militia--but it is only given that power in order to repel invasions, enforce the law and suppress insurrections.
The constitution doesn't say "enforce the law". It says "execute the laws of the Union". The
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 is a "law of the Union", which Congress "executed" by mobilizing the militia. Again, that's an explicitly delegated power of Congress.
Your attempts to play
advocatus diaboli only reinforces a dictum of America's great philosopher Robert Zimmerman:"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". You don't need a constitutional lawyer to know that the politicians in this article are as kooky as flat-Earthers. All you need is a copy of the constitution and general reading comprehension. The New York Times' headline might as well have been: "Shape of the Earth: Views differ".
