Oops Republican Asks Scalia About Constitutionality Of Earmarks

[kpete]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Oops! Republican Asks Scalia About Constitutionality Of Earmarks
Brian Beutler | January 25, 2011, 8:59AM


On Monday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) hosted a seminar for (mostly Republican) House members on the Constitution. Her special guest was Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who presided over what was reportedly a fairly dry, straightforward discussion of his legal doctrine, and answered a handful of other Constitutional questions.

...............

"The question of earmarks came up, whether or not the constitutionality of earmarks would be considered constitutional sic," Bachmann told reporters after the seminar.

A growing faction within the Republican party has grown to disdain earmarks. But the question of whether Congress -- the appropriating branch of government -- has the right to direct spending has never been at issue. And Scalia's explanation of that right may have left some of these freshmen Republicans wondering why the party has gone so far off the deep end.

"It's up to Congress how you want to appropriate, basically," Scalia told the members, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). "He pointed out historically, like when Jefferson was president, Congress said here's a big pot of money, you decide where it goes, and Jefferson ended up paying up a big hunk of it to the Barbary Pirates."

.............


Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/oops-republican-asks-scalia-about-constitutionality-of-earmarks.php?ref=fpblg

[karynnj]

1. Interesting that Scalia likely gave them reason to think that earmarks

are better as it gives them the control, not Obama.
Someone in the comments also pointed out that Scalia's history was wrong;

"Oh, and cooooool revisionist history, Scalia...Jefferson didn't pay the Barbary Pirates. He fought them.
When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean. As he declared in his first annual message to Congress: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean."

[FBaggins]

2. That's incorrect. Jefferson did pay the pirates...

...though certainly not as much as the running rate had been.

He cut a deal with them after the conflict (1805) for an exchange of prisoners and one final payment of $60,000.

And, of course, while he opposed the payments from the start (and told Adams and Monroe as much), he was Secretary of State and VP for much of the time that the bounty was being paid.

[karynnj]

4. Thanks - my HS in Indiana during the cold war made a big issue of the US refusing to

so I didn't bother to check that - ass I should have!

[wilt the stilt]

6. Scalia is never wrong

just ask him. Gee, if he is wrong on this maybe he may be wrong on the "original intent"

[Moonwalk]

9. Things were a bit different in Jefferson's day...

As said, Jefferson did eventually pay, but there wasn't much choice in those days. The U.S. didn't have much of a navy and Jefferson didn't help by undoing much of the Navy Adams had built up--he didn't just oppose the navy, he refused to fund it, gutting it. And later admitted to Adams that this was a mistake. It was common practice for pirates and certain countries to capture merchant ships and demand ransom, and/or just demand protection money if ships wanted to sail by untouched. And the U.S. was not the powerhouse that it is today. No country or pirates were scared of it. So the U.S. found itself in this situation more than once.

Essentially, the U.S. was picked on for its lunch money, and, back in those days, it hadn't a choice but to pay.

I'm not sure why Scalia brought it up at all, as I really don't think one can base modern decisions using that 18th century model. And Scalia was wrong--the pot of money wasn't that big, what what Jefferson really used it for was the Louisiana purchase.

[somone]

3. Scalia, of counsel to teabaggers

[blackspade]

5. This is an effort to provide political cover

for the rethugs to backout of their promises to their teabagger constituents.

[yellowcanine]

7. The good part about this is it has to give Scalia some pause about throwing in with teabaggers.

This is a question that one would not expect out of a high school student, let alone a member of congress. There may not be such a thing as a "dumb question" but some questions do demonstrate the ignorance of the person asking.

[jtrockville]

8. "... the Republican party has grown to disdain earmarks"

This is totally untrue. They only disdain certain earmarks. In fact, they want to rename the earmarks they like so they can keep saying they disdain earmarks.