CARROLL: Biden's hubris
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published October 7, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Joe Biden
Sarah Palin justly took her lumps from critics when she couldn't identify any Supreme Court cases other than Roe v. Wade that she thought had been wrongly decided. But few noticed that Joe Biden's answer to nearly the same question, in a separate interview with CBS's Katie Couric, was no less disturbing.
Palin's offense was ignorance (or temporary amnesia). She failed even to deflect Couric's question skillfully, stumbling instead through her answer with a deer-in-the- headlights look.
Biden's offense was arrogance. His answer revealed a belief shared by many of his colleagues that there are few if any limits to congressional authority.
As his example of a Supreme Court mistake, Biden cited its ruling overturning a portion of the Violence Against Women Act, which he said he had written.
No one ever faulted the goals of the Violence Against Women Act, of course. The issue was whether Congress had intruded into the states' jurisdiction by allowing crime victims targeted for their gender to sue in federal court. As Robert Levy and William Mellor explain in their recent book The Dirty Dozen, the court concluded, in United States v. Morrison (2000), that Congress had indeed overstepped its bounds and that "the Interstate Commerce Clause did not permit federal regulation of noneconomic activity having only a tenuous and remote relationship to interstate commerce."
Believe it or not, the Constitution doesn't give Congress a blank check to stick its nose everywhere. If we tend to think it does, it's only because of how the meaning of the Commerce Clause has been stretched over time. Indeed, that clause "became, and remains, the primary source of federal power," according to Levy and Mellor - attorneys, respectively, with the Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice in Washington.
Biden told Couric that he'd "held about 1,000 hours of hearings proving that there's an effect in interstate commerce [from violence against women]. Women who are abused and beaten and beaten are women who are not able to be in the work force."
Five justices didn't buy it. They reasoned that if such a vague connection to interstate commerce is all you needed, then Congress could regulate just about anything.
True, Biden did have reason to be surprised by the justices' decision given how the court had mostly rubber-stamped expansions of congressional power for decades. The fun began in 1942, when the high court ruled against an Ohio farmer who had been fined for growing more wheat than the U.S. Department of Agriculture said he could. The farmer, Roscoe Filburn, protested that most of his crop was consumed on his own farm and none was sold across state lines. But the court said his wheat affected interstate commerce indirectly, and Washington could intervene.
Sadly, the court issued a similar opinion just three years ago in a case involving two women who grew pot for their own use under California's medical marijuana law. Once again a majority of justices maintained that federal authority to regulate interstate commerce includes the right to tell people they can't grow a crop for their own consumption at home.
As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent, "If the majority is to be taken seriously, the federal government may now regulate spelling bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."
Nothing in Biden's career - or in his remarks with Couric - suggests he would deplore that prospect.
By the way, if Palin is looking to bone up on her knowledge of atrocious court decisions, she should pick up a copy of The Dirty Dozen - the "dozen" referring to 12 Supreme Court decisions that have done the most to erode individual liberty. It's a fascinating read - even if you never expect to offer your opinion of the court to a network anchor.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
October 7, 2008
5:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
socrates writes:
Is it hubris to disagree with the ruling of a court? He doesn't suggest that the third branch of government should be done away with (as some in the republican party seem to think). He was asked if there's a decision he disagreed with - no doubt one overturning a law he passed would be a logical answer to that question, not hubris at all.
I, for one, am glad that Biden has enough intelligence to know about the supreme court and the important role it plays in our government. Palin doesn't have a clue.
October 7, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
Nice try Vince... Through greed - Wall Street and our worship of the capitalist casino called the stock market; through ignorance - Sarah Palin being included on the Republican Party ticket; and through blind power - The ongoing attempted Fascist takeover of our Federal Government over the last eight years, America has been intentionally hollowed out by our corporate and political elites. And the American People are finally waking up.
You and Rosen need to take off the blinders and begin talking about what's really going on in this country.
October 7, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
I wonder if Vince Carroll also thinks that the Supreme Court "overstepped its bounds" in the Heart of Atlanta and Katzenbach decisions in 1964, where the Court used the Commerce Clause power to uphold the newly-passed Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark Act that outlawed discrimination on the basis of race by private establishments? If it weren't for the Court's expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which Carroll criticizes, we would still have "whites only" restaurants and hotels in the South.
October 7, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
Let me get this straight, Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act and defended, unsuccessfully to some unspecified degree, its constitutionality.
And Vince read a book.
Yet Biden is the arrogant one?
I agree that the Commerce Clause has been too widely interpreted, starting with some of the earliest rulings that it applies if there just might somehow possibly might be some remote impact on interstate commerce. It would have been nice, however, if Vince had explained just how Biden tried to reach further than others have - such as Scalia did in concurring with the judgment in Gonzales V. Raich 2005:
"I agree with the Court’s holding that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) may validly be applied to respondents’ cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana for personal, medicinal use. I write separately because my understanding of the doctrinal foundation on which that holding rests is, if not inconsistent with that of the Court, at least more nuanced."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html...
So does Vince think Scalia was arrogant as well?
October 7, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romulus writes:
At least Biden gave a coherent response that one could agree with or dispute. Compare that to Palin's deer-in-the-headlights performances.
October 7, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Carrol; You make a big stretch to suggest that because of the courts ruling in these maters that Biden would go along with the hypotheticals Clarence Thomas suggests. You say nothing in his career would suggest otherwise, but you fail to provide concrete examples. Typical of the way conservatives opperate. For every one you can show that supports your argument, I can show you one that does not. Your argument is week. Very week!!
October 7, 2008
12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
radagan writes:
Here are the Dems again wanting the Supreme Court to rule on cases according to what they want, not what the law is.
This country is better off leaving many of the issues to the States to control. That is how the Constitution was written. The Federal Gov't has gotten to big with to much overall power and we can see how poorly they manage it.
October 7, 2008
3 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
>>Here are the Dems again wanting the Supreme Court to rule on cases according to what they want, not what the law is.<<
So radagan, what do you think of Scalia's opinion on the Controlled Substances Act ruling I posted earlier?
October 7, 2008
3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
Do you think Palin even knows what federalism is?
October 7, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
How does the following segment of the vice presidential debate sit with you Vincent?
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.
IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?
BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
I don't know about you, but I think Biden has a bit better understanding of the Constitution than Palin, and that might be the understatement of the year.
October 7, 2008
7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
Vince is on to something here. If I want to keep a slave to help me around the house what business is it of the Federal government? That doesn't affect interstate commerce.
But I am confused, because last month I thought Vince was opposed to marijuana.
October 7, 2008
11:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Sweetpickle, Marshdale, and CL: You're confused. Vincent is not. It's hubris when you disagree with him.
Also, Vincent is for pot, except when he's against it.
October 7, 2008
11:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
AmericanPatriot writes:
As far as Vice Presidents go; I’d much rather deal with one who exhibits a bit of hubris for issues that he's passionate about, than one who simply ignorant. I can’t believe that Palin couldn’t cite Baker vs. Exxon, which robbed many fellow Alaskans of millions of dollars in reparations from the wreck of the Exxon Valdez.
October 8, 2008
12:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
Sweetpickle:
The thirteenth amendment to the Constitution does not depend on Congress' power to regulate "interstate commerce." Not that that means that Palin isn't a joke -- clearly she is. This whole election is like choosing between arsenic and cyanide . . .
October 8, 2008
6:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
peterpi - Try reading my post again. I actually agreed that the Commerce Clause has been over interpreted to expand Federal regulation.
Where I questioned Vince was his calling Biden arrogant without providing any specifics (other than he read a book) as to just why Biden was overreaching when even such strict constructionists such as Scalia's opinion in Gonzales V. Raich ruling in favor of a very similar use of the Commerce Clause to justify Federal regulation.
So how about clearing up my supposed confusion and answer the question I posed to Vince - was Scalia arrogant as well and why?
October 8, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
CL, I was being sarcastic. I agree with your earlier post.
Maybe it goes with the job of being a top official of a newspaper, but humility is not one of Vincent's strong points.
October 8, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Oh -- Scalia and arrogance go together.
October 11, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
daRock writes:
Joggle, so glad you brought that up.
When you interview for a job, here is a hint: make sure you know what the job is. Joe Biden failed that test last Thursday. He couldn’t
even get right what a vice president does, but the media didn’t notice.
Take Biden’s statement from the debate on the role of the vice president:
"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority
relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of
a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous."
One should be careful when throwing around terms such as "most dangerous" and "bizarre”" But Biden is confusing which part of the
Constitution covers the Executive Branch (it is Article II, not Article I). More importantly, the notion that the vice president can
preside over the Senate only when there is a tie vote is simply wrong. Nor is it true that the only legislative involvement the vice
president has is to break tie votes. The vice president is the president of the Senate, where he interprets the rules and can only be
overridden by a vote of 60 senators.
Early vice presidents spent a lot of time in the Senate. Thomas Jefferson even spent his time writing "A Manual of Parliamentary
Practice: for the Use of the Senate of the United States." Modern vice presidents may show up only when they think tie votes will occur, but that is their choice.
This isn’t rocket science. The Constitution on this point is very straightforward: "The Vice President of the United States shall be
President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
October 11, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
daRock writes:
Instead, it was Palin who got it right. Besides correctly stating that the vice president holds positions in both the executive and
legislative branches, she also noted that:
"Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and [I] will take that position very
seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so
chooses to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too
that our president understands what our strengths are."
But just as the vice president’s job includes more than simply being ready to assume the presidency if the president dies, the
Constitution merely states what the vice president’s minimum responsibilities are.
October 11, 2008
2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
RodE writes:
Palin and her husband have consistently denied wrongdoing, describing Wooten as a "rogue trooper" who had threatened their family -- allegations Branchflower discounted.
"I conclude that such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family reasons," Branchflower wrote.
Or in Palin plain speak, she lied.
October 11, 2008
2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
RodE writes:
The interpretation of the VP's duties are correct, but that doesn't make the VP a member of the legislative branch under the Constitution. Biden is exactly correct, the VP is a member of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. Cheney was raising the VP is a member of the legislative branch to protect himself from action by the Senate and hide his corruption. That's is the sole purpose. It is a farce.