Congressional Authority -- what are it's bounds?

[mjr]

So I'm watching a YouTube video the other day that essentially had to do with one person's opinion of Congressional authority.

I don't remember the specific video, but the questioner was Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

He was questioning just how much authority Congress had when it came to laws. The basic premise of his questioning is that certain things are a good idea, but that doesn't give Congress the authority (or the Constitutionality) to make them law.

He used exercise and eating vegetables as examples. Both are good ideas, but he said he doesn't believe Congress has the authority to make it a law that you must exercise and must eat vegetables.

So what do you think? Where do you think the line is on Congressional authority?

[victory sabre]

The Constitution is where I'd place the line on the subject. If it's in the Constiution, then it's ok. If not, it's out of bounds.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I hate to say it, but that's basically Republican ideology masquerading as Constitutional interpretation.

Legislative authority (or indeed laws in general) are the result of the interplay between Natural law (law of the jungle - no constraints), social contract (those rights you cede by being part of a society), and the free-rider problem (if its better collectively for a society to behave one way but its more appealing for me individually to not behave that way if I'm allowed.)

So his metaphor needs some modifiers.

Yes the government absolutely CAN mandate you eat your vegetables. The reason we don't is that its a complex question. How much does it cost everyone else to pay for the health of those that don't? What are the societal costs associated with a change in policy? Does that societal good rise to a sufficient level to justify the loss of freedom?

The answer for just about everyone except for PETA is going to be no, so its not a law. Not for lack of authority, but for lack of reasonable justification.

[mjr]

While I agree with the both of you, the issue is that sometimes people can't seem to agree on "what's in the Constitution", and sometimes people can't agree on how to interpret amendments, clauses, and so forth (the 2nd Amendment, 10th Amendment, and the "enumerated powers" clause are good examples of this).

To further D Yeti's point, I do have to wonder what "reasonable justification" would be, other than "eating veggies/exercising is healthy", and therefore it's a "public health" issue.

[TheHuckster]

The answer for just about everyone except for PETA is going to be no, so its not a law. Not for lack of authority, but for lack of reasonable justification.

The hypothetical law talked about doesn't mention prohibiting meat consumption, though. Just that one should eat vegetables in their diet. We've gotten as far as instituting soda taxes, so there's already some precedent for laws that at least encourage healthier diets and restrictions.

The problem I have with the quote in the OP is that it's too vague of a statement. There are many ways government can pass laws intended to make healthier diet decisions. Some are less intrusive than others.

You can go the incentive route, and either subsidize local farms to encourage lower prices on vegetables or tax fatty and sugary foods. This already has its controversy, but if one is passionate about social engineering towards healthier eating habits, this leaves the least bad taste in one's mouth (no pun intended). Seeing that we already have taxes on cigarettes and alcohol (and now marijuana in some places), it's only a matter of time before similar taxes are commonplace for other less healthy stuff.

On the other extreme, you can go the authoritarian route, where you have mandatory fit-bits on everyone and intrusively track people's diets. Obviously such laws would (hopefully) get struck down by the Supreme Court in a slam-dunk case.

In terms of what's now possible with technology and such, I think people do have a legitimate concern for intrusive tracking of peoples' habits being more tempting to law makers. There are already at least discussions of having intrusive GPS tracking of driving habits for speed enforcement and tracking of peoples' internet activities.

So, I think introducing new laws that govern people's habits is not necessarily as much of a concern as introducing new laws that trade people's privacy for stronger enforcement of existing laws. That has been an ongoing development in laws for a while now.

[mjr]

In terms of what's now possible with technology and such, I think people do have a legitimate concern for intrusive tracking of peoples' habits being more tempting to law makers.

Not to mention health insurance companies. Even with programs in place like the ACA.

There are already at least discussions of having intrusive GPS tracking of driving habits for speed enforcement and tracking of peoples' internet activities.

Some insurance companies (Progressive, for one) actually offer a device that "tracks" your driving, and you can get a discount for using it. They're already trying to get people to voluntarily do it.

Also, I can't find the stories, but I have heard of some places using GPS and/or timing systems to ticket people. For example, if it's supposed to take you 1 minute to go a mile (i.e. you're traveling at 60 MPH), but it takes you 45 seconds, the system would determine that you've sped, at least through part of the trip, and would therefore ticket you. I've heard this happens mostly on electronic toll roads.

[Racket_Man]

Also, I can't find the stories, but I have heard of some places using GPS and/or timing systems to ticket people. For example, if it's supposed to take you 1 minute to go a mile (i.e. you're traveling at 60 MPH), but it takes you 45 seconds, the system would determine that you've sped, at least through part of the trip, and would therefore ticket you. I've heard this happens mostly on electronic toll roads.

This ^^^^^^ I heard it from someone who traveled on the New Jersey Turnpike. It used to be you got a paper time stamped ticket when you entered the Turnpike. Now all the exits are known and have a booth and distances between each entrance and exit are know. So yeah if it took you less time than the speed limit vs. distance they issued a speeding ticket.

The guys advice if you were traveling some distance was to stop for a bit at one of the rest stops to eat up time.

[s_stabeler]

there's actually two questions: what is the Federal Goverment constitutionally allowed to do, and what is "the government" allowed to do. There's a difference. State governments are allowed to do pretty much anything that doesn't violate their State Constitutions or the US Constitution. The Federal Government is allowed to do anything that involves the exercise of one of their enumerated powers as long as they don't violate the Constitution. However, the Commerce Clause is wider than you'd think. ( is interstate commerce involved at any point, or does it compete with items or services that involved interstate commerce? then it is covered.)

[TheHuckster]

The guys advice if you were traveling some distance was to stop for a bit at one of the rest stops to eat up time.

Well, if you have to pull over and pause a bit to eat up time, you might as well just... you know... not speed.

[mjr]

Ok, to provide better context, I dug up the video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2cLKClim7o

[Greenday]

The Constitution is where I'd place the line on the subject. If it's in the Constiution, then it's ok. If not, it's out of bounds.

So what does the Constitution say about driving or drugs or contracts or lighting national parks on fire?

There's a lot in life that we need laws for that isn't covered by the Constitution.

[Gravekeeper]

Trey Gowdy is a congressional rectal wart and one of the last people that should be ranting about congressional authority.

I don't have much else to add here. I just felt it was important to highlight that this man is 8 pounds of dicks in a 5 pound sack.

[TheHuckster]

So what does the Constitution say about driving or drugs or contracts or lighting national parks on fire?

There's a lot in life that we need laws for that isn't covered by the Constitution.

I'm thinking this is a poorly worded post by victory sabre, either that or he doesn't know what the Constitution is for.

The Constitution determines which laws are acceptable and which are not, not the other way around. If a law were passed which required everyone to bow in the direction of Washington D.C. every morning at 9am, that would be against the first amendment and be struck down. But, if a law were passed which required seatbelts to be worn while driving, it would not because there's nothing in the Constitution that contradicts that law.

[mjr]

But, if a law were passed which required seatbelts to be worn while driving, it would not because there's nothing in the Constitution that contradicts that law.

So in this case, then, Congress could indeed mandate (via legislation) that we eat broccoli daily, or that we exercise daily. Correct?

[TheHuckster]

So in this case, then, Congress could indeed mandate (via legislation) that we eat broccoli daily, or that we exercise daily. Correct?

Possibly, although it would most certainly be challenged. Plus certain methods to effectively enforce such laws may be unconstitutional, with the fourth amendment in place. It would make the war on drugs look like a city-wide DUI stop.