Constitutional Questions

I read an article recently that inspired me to fire off a few questions to the author in hopes of him shedding some light on them. I'll call him Dr. Doe because I did not ask him if I could publish his reponses. My questions are in lower case and his reponses are in Caps.

----------------------------------

Dear Dr. Doe,

Your article on Lew Rockwell's site today caught my attention. As a simple exercise I have been reading through the constitution recently asking myself at each point "Does American government today reflect in anyway what the constitution describes". I haven't finished this process, but so far have come up with a few questions that have been really nagging at me and I have no idea where to begin in wrestling through to some answers.

I hesitate to presume upon your time, but I am hoping you might be able to help me with some of these questions. If any of these are answered in your book feel free to say so and I'd be more than happy to pick up a copy. Any help you can provide would be much appreciated.

Question 1: If some of the key benefits of membership as a state in this union were to provide for the common defense and to ensure domestic tranquility, aren't our interventions in foreign countries, whether financial or military, unconstitutional simply because it extends the benefits of state membership to governments that are not members of the union? Doesn't extending these privileges to non member states defeat the whole point of state membership? It appears to provide the benefits of state membership to these governments without allowing for their lawful consent or requiring the duties of states. Am I wrong? Do I need to be more "nuanced"?

I THINK IT OBVIOUS FROM THE TENTH AMENDMENT THAT PROVIDING SCHOOLS TO IRAQIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DELEGATED THIS FUNCTION (OR THE FUNCTION OF RUNNING IRAQI ELECTIONS, CLEANING UP IRAQI DRINKING WATER, ETC.). I'M ONLY BEING SLIGHTLY FACETIOUS TO MAKE THE GENERAL POINT.

Question 2: Where are the militias of the states? This fundamental institution provided for in the constitution just seems to have disappeared.

THE MILITARY WAS REORGANIZED IN THE WW I ERA. AT THAT POINT, THE MILITIA WAS SUBORDINATED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. THIS WAS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Question 3: Where'd the National Guard come from? Where's the constitutional warrant for this entity?

IT IS THE NAME FOR THE NOW FEDERALLY-DOMINATED FORMER MILITIA.

Question 4: Where are things like National Parks etc. provided for in the constitution? Section 8 only allows for the acquisition of property by the federal government for the purposes of, Forts, Magazines etc. Given the context of this section and the specific examples provided it seems clear to me that even if one were to allow some leeway regarding what is purchased the purpose would have to be military and defense in orientation.

NOWHERE. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT NO ONE ASKS THESE QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS? THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN MORE OR LESS OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF PREVENTING CONGRESS FROM LEGISLATING IN AREAS RESERVED TO THE STATES SINCE C. 1937.

Question 5: Wars of intervention. It appears from section 10 that the only reasons provided for by the constitution for a State engaging in war are when "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." How are conflicts such as the current one in which we are engaged justified constitutionally, or condoned by the Supreme Court? How has the word ?imminent? been defined historically in the law?

CONGRESS HAS A GENERAL POWER TO MAKE WAR UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 8. THAT SOMETHING IS UNWISE DOESN'T MEAN IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Question 6: Is an "Authorization to use force" the same in law as a "declaration of war"? Where is the definition of a declaration of war laid out?

NO, IT IS A WAY OF DELEGATING RESPONSIBILITY TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. PLAINLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Question 7: Where'd the Marines and Air force come from? Shouldn't the constitution be amended to provide for these branches considering that the constitution was so explicit in naming the branches of the Army and the Navy?

THE AIR FROCE WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE ARMY. THE MARINES ARE STILL PART OF THE DEPT. OF THE NAVY. THERE NEEDS TO BE AN AIR FORCE AMENDMENT, YES.

Question 8: Where'd the "Postal Service" come from? Is there a difference between the Postal Service and the Post Office?

IT EXISTED DURING COLONIAL DAYS. FRANKLIN REMAINED POSTMASTER AFTER 1776. NO DIFFERENCE.

Question 9: What about the common law? If the Seventh Amendment is still law today then why do we not see the common law being enforced, leveraged in judicial decisions, and argued from in questions of precedence?

STATES DECIDED TO WHAT EXTENT THEY WANTED TO RETAIN THE COMMON LAW. ALL RETAINED SOME, SOME RETAINED ALMOST ALL, UNTIL THEIR LEGISLATURES MODIFIED IT.

Question 10: Did juries historically try both fact AND Law? If so then why don't juries continue to do so today? This would seem to me to be a huge departure from precedent and the common law that provides the basis for our legal system and yet it is no longer practiced.

YES, THEY DID. THERE'S A GOOD RECENT BOOK ABOUT THE PROCESS OF GETTING RID OF THIS JURY POWER IN EARLY-19TH-CENTURY NEW HAMPSHIRE; JUST GO TO YAHOO AND SEARCH FOR (it)

Question 11: Why did the states create new constitutions after the civil war? If the civil war was fought to protect the union it does not seem logical that any new constitutions would need to be written. Because constitutions are the legal documents use to create new governments it would appear that the civil war did not preserve the union but actually created an entirely new one. Is my reasoning in error here?

NOT ALL DID. SOUTHERN STATES WERE MADE TO.

Question 12: What happened to the previous governments under the original constitutions?

NEW CONSTITUTIONS PREEMPTED OLDER.