Constitutional Law Not One of Sen. Hatch’s Better Subjects
PJ Media has exclusively obtained a startling memo to a U.S. senator. We have reason to believe other similar missives directed at other lawmakers may be coming in the weeks and months ahead. We reprint this one for our readers. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FROM: Professor Learned Finger, Untouchable Chair in Constitutional Law TO: Senator Orrin Hatch, Class of 1962 SUBJECT: Revised Grade in “Constitutional Law I” To my former student: It has come to my attention that not only are you the chief sponsor of S. 160, a bill that would provide the District of Columbia with a voting member of the House of Representatives, but that you have published a scholarly essay in the Harvard Journal on Legislation explaining why this legislative obscenity is supposedly constitutional. (See 45 Harv. J. on Legis. 287.) In your essay, you make claims that in court would subject you to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for making a plainly frivolous argument — namely that Congress can ignore the requirement of Art. I, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, which plainly states the composition of the House of Representative shall be “Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” (emphasis added). In fine lawyerly fashion, you conclude that the word “state” does not mean a state and, therefore, that a constitutional amendment is not needed. Congress has the power legislatively to provide the District of Columbia with a vote in the House. But you “come to a different conclusion, however, with regard to granting the District representation in the Senate.” The fact that the Constitution also provides in Art. I, Sec. 3 that the Senate will be composed of “two Senators from each State” must be interpreted differently, according to your legal (?) reasoning. So far as I can tell, the only difference between the two is that the addition of two D.C. senators would tilt the Senate’s balance of power decidedly toward your Democratic opponents. As you are aware, I originally gave you a B+ in my class on basic constitutional law when you first took it in 1961, despite your constant habit of singing to yourself in class, disturbing your fellow classmates. However, if you had submitted this essay that was published at that little red school house in Cambridge in my class, I would have given you an “F” for “failed legal reasoning.” It is clear from this article and your sponsorship of S. 160 that you don’t have the foggiest notion of constitutional law and probably wouldn’t be able to recognize a copy of the Federalist Papers if it was put in front of you as a menu at the Capital Grille, that mega-expensive congressional watering hole on Pennsylvania Avenue. Your arguments are so ridiculous even a 1L could poke holes in them. Indeed, several did in class just the other day. I have been forced, therefore, under the academic policy of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law to revise your grade. I am notifying the dean of academic affairs that your grade should be changed from a B+ to an F (short for Norton “F”lunkie). That should not be a major setback for you in your present career given the fact that you are apparently surrounded by other senators/lawyers who have the same clouded view of the Constitution. May James Madison climb out of his grave and haunt you in your senate office in the Russell Senate Office Building.
This is almost as much fun as that scribble that emanated several years ago from some conventicle at Wingnut City declarin’ all sorts of abominations in the eyes of the neocomrades UNCONSTITUTIONAL on the grounds the the state of Ohio has never yet been properly admitted to the Fedguv — thus taintin’ all sorts of things, don’t you know?
Happy days.
Looks like we got us another Rino. Pay attention Utah – get a conservative after him in the 2012 primary.
This is different from that scribble in that this scribble cuts straight to the chase and exposes the execrable senior .. um .. that is the older of the two senators from Utah, the abjectly Cli’ton-Crime-Family/FBI-files compromised and therefore effectively “Democratic” potty’s, the RINO, Orrin Grant Hatch, as a cynical anti-Constitutional creep.
And as a Norton (F)lunky.
Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles CalifUBAMBIcated 90028
And the Far Abroad
To the author(s):
Thank you for bringing a smile to my morning cup of coffee…
…and my morning cup of coffee to my laptop screen…!
Would be funny if it wasn’t coming to pass.
I see no reason why members of Congress should burden themselves with knowledge of a Constitution they have no intention of obeying anyway. Remember, it’s a living document that doesn’t mean what it says, right?
What’s going on here is obvious. The Democrats have been pushing this idea of DC statehood for years, decades now. They’re so obsessed with it because the state would elect two Democrat Senators, who would tip the balance in their favor rather reliably because DC is inhabited by 1) Black people and 2) bureaucrats. The first group is 95% Democrats, and the second group is even more likely to vote D, if that’s possible. Whether the Constitution allows this or not is irrelevant. All they need is for the Supreme court to simply misread, or reinterpret, the language so that it means what they want it to. Hatch is obviously trying to protect the Republican party by suggesting a compromise, which violates the Constitution only once, not twice. The problem is that it also shreds logic, by only misinterpreting the Constitution once, and then in the next part properly interpreting it.
Y’all think you have it bad. I LIVE in Utah. Sheesh… first my supposed republican governor gets all wishy-washy (the man was booed during our tea party), now my stinkin’ senator as well. Can’t wait till the next election cycle.
Hatch is a threat to the US Constitution because he does not understand it, or obey it. Utah, please PLEASE vote him out of office.
Alice Through the Looking Glass (revisited with apologies to Lewis Carroll):
‘When I use a word,’ Orin Hatch said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things – especially the same word in two parts of the same document.’
‘The question is,’ said Senator Hatch, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’
Obviously the learned professor has alzhiemer disease. It happens as people age. Let see if he were 40 in 1961, that would make him 87 today. A pitty, he once had such a sharp mind
Duh, Hatch and the GOP are selfdestructively dumb; the Dems know that if “state” is defined this way for a voting house district, they will get 2 senators inevitably when they sue. The GOP leadership are beltway fraternity idiots. Worse, that fool Hatch thinks he gets an extra vote for Utah, a vote which would not survive the 2020 census. Idiot.
The bad news is Hatch is a constitutional dummy in the mold of John McCain. The good news is the Republican base is sick of the likes of him and John McCain. I say blessed be 2010, Let the blood flow.
#13 Patrick: “the republican base is sick of the likes of him and John McCain.” Hopefully, you’re not referring to the base that wants to change the USA into a theocracy (base also known as the religious right).
The idea of a living breathing documents sounds good. After all, there were no internet in 1776. However, a little flexibility in interpretation begins the slippery slope towards whatever convoluted conclusion you want to make.
Normally, the court tosses out laws that go against the constitution, but that has not been the case lately. Once the supreme court (a conservative supreme court I might add) is infected with this disease (and it has), we are lost. How can you steer back to sanity when the when the steering wheel breaks off in your hands?
Assuming all is not lost already, I propose this amendment to the constitution:
The following two clauses are hereby redacted:
“congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce”
“may pass any necessary and proper law”
If these two clauses go, so does the right of half of the federal government to exist. Interpretation of these clauses has allowed massive growth and oversight of activities which are supposed to be regulated at the state level.
Let’s say you own a farm in Kansas, and you grow wheat, but only feed your family and livestock with it. Despite the fact that none of the wheat crosses state lines, it still counts as a federal level activity.
Why? The supreme court has interpreted that since you didn’t buy the wheat from the national market, you affected wheat sales “beyond state borders”, and therefore your local growing has national impact. So, that being the case, you fall under federal jurisdiction.
Why do this? Because it allows and end run on the constitutional amendment about “all other powers are vested with the states”.
As more and more activities fall under federal authority, the balance of power shifts away from states, and we essentially have one big federal state with 50 state-sized counties.
If we removed the authority of congress over interstate commerce, many of these agencies would lose their authority and power over our everyday lives would shift back to the state level – where it belongs.
David said:
The idea of a living breathing documents sounds good. After all, there were no internet in 1776.
Remember the first sentence? “We, the people of the United States.. do order and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. And the means that what the people established should only be amended by he people and it is not a a dime a dozen judge to remake it. It is called democracy aka government of the people and it also about rule of law ie judges must rule according to the law not according to their arbitrary sympathies.