To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The commerce clause has been distorted from its original intent. The federal government was to “regulate interstate commerce” which, when it was written meant to “make regular”- to ensure regular trade between the states.

If congress can legislate whatever it wants then the 9th and 10th amendments are pointless:

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

And just to clear up this misunderstanding that Joseph Smith thought congress could legislate anything it wants:

The different states, and even Congress itself, have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States…Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No! . . . The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all power not reserved to itself. -Joseph Smith (HC 5:289-90; also in TPJS 278)

With regard to your first quote, Joseph is essentially discussing the necessary and proper clause. Congress does indeed have all power—in regards to the items for which they have been delegated authority. For all other things, Joseph notes, the powers are reserved to the people.

With regard to the second quote, nobody here is arguing that the federal government has “no power”. Joseph notes that Congress is almighty in its sphere, just as God is in his. God must obey the boundaries that govern his omnipotent power, for if he did not, as Alma 42 explains, he would cease to be God. Congress’ “sphere” is essentially its enumerated powers, just as his first quote noted.

Just because you don’t like a law, doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional.

Nobody here is talking about laws they don’t like. These things Bennett has supported are unconstitutional on their face, lacking any grant of authority whatsoever. There are plenty of laws I don’t like that are constitutional.

I do grow quite tired of absolutists who feel that their interpretation of the constitution is the correct one and that everyone else is a constitutional apostate.

If you have a differing opinion, then feel free to argue your point with some substance. Simply saying that you think another person’s interpretation is wrong does not suffice.

But look, the stimulus was absolutely necessary.

No, it wasn’t. Not in any degree. The stimulus was (yes, indeed) an unconstitutional power-grab and intergenerational theft (we’ve had plenty of those in recent decades).

Anybody that doesn’t think so really needs to take an economic history class and pay real close attention to what happened from 1928-1933.

Been there, done that. We’re repeating the same process by pushing all sorts of government spending and programs, keeping the interest rate low, encouraging more loose credit, and distorting the market through repeated interference.

Where I do think Bennett is open to some justifiable criticism is in his complicity with decades of degregulation that allowed banks to take on huge risks.

Ah, the red herring: deregulation. Regulation has not ever been, nor will it ever been, the answer to our problems. We have mounds and mounds of regulation that have failed to prevent corrupt business practices and poor decisions. What we need is government to step out of the way and let businesses fail. If banks choose to assume risk and customers choose to patronage such institutions, then the poor decisions made should not be subsidized and glossed over by taxpayers, but should develop into their natural results of bankruptcy and failed enterprise. More layers of regulation solves nothing.

You included and then ignored a crucial qualifier in you excerpts from what Joseph Smith wrote. For those who are interested, here is the source of Clif’s quote.

The qualifier that you ignored was that the federal government is as almighty in its sphere as Jehovah. The quote is from a letter where Joseph is trying to pursuade someone to drop their excuse not to act in giving redress to the saints who had been driven from Missouri. Along with the bits Clif shared Joseph points to specific ennumerated powers from Article 1 section 8 (the first, fourteenth, and seventeenth powers listed for those who are curious) to demonstrate that what he was asking was withing the ennumerated powers (or in other words, the sphere of federal government authority) granted by the Constitution.

As soon as Clif or someone else can point out where in the ennumerated powers of Congress there is authorization for things like TARP or the healhcare bill or whatever else we have argued against here then I’m sure you’ll get some willing ears. Until that happens please don’t use half a quote to prove that Senator Bennett is not ignoring the Constitution.

Again, you may not agree with the legislation personally, but there is a difference between legislation that is unconstitutional versus legislation that you just simply don’t like.

You left a name out of your list. I think you meant to say “Clif and Bennett….and Joseph Smith” – after all, the quotes were his, not mine. Personally, I’m pretty happy to be in that company. I do grow quite tired of absolutists who feel that their interpretation of the constitution is the correct one and that everyone else is a constitutional apostate.

Now, was I happy about the stimulus ? – of course I wasn’t. Nobody was. But look, the stimulus was absolutely necessary. Anybody that doesn’t think so really needs to take an economic history class and pay real close attention to what happened from 1928-1933. We’ve been down that road before. The contraction of the money supply that occured because of such policies was akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. Fortunately, we didn’t make the same mistake again. Sen. Bennett made the right vote.

Where I do think Bennett is open to some justifiable criticism is in his complicity with decades of degregulation that allowed banks to take on huge risks. What angers me is that the government regulators, along with credit ratings agencies, were basically in bed with the banks all along. However, I think that electing a Tea Partier would only serve to make that problem even worse.

If the problem came about because of lax regulation, I don’t see how electing someone with a philosophy of “lasseiz-faire or die” would do anything to help change that.

“The powers not delegated to the United States and the States belong to the people, AND THE CONGRESS SENT TO DO THE PEOPLE’S BUSINESS HAVE ALL POWER.”

This same person later said, “Raise your mind above the narrow notion that the General Government has no power, to the sublime idea that Congress, with the President as Executor, is as almighty in its sphere as Jehovah is in his.”

Anybody care to guess who said those things?

….Joseph Smith.

Just because you don’t like a law, doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. I get really tired of hearing people say that this person or that person doesn’t follow the constitution when in reality what they should say is that they don’t follow their own private personal interpretation of the constitution.

“Unprincipled pragmatism is like advising someone who is hopelessly mired in quicksand not to struggle—so that he will merely sink more slowly!” –Neal A Maxwell (The Stern but Sweet Seventh Commandment, New Era, June, 1979)

Your debating point seems to focus on which news outlet we are watching, yet we are trying to focus on the Constitution of the United States of America. I didn’t hear anybody saying we need to support Glenn Beck or CNN or Fox or any such thing.

My question for you is: if not the Constitution itself, what source do you turn to for basic guidance in choosing the best candidate?

Mr. Bennett chose his fate the day he, and fellow Republican Orrin Hatch voted for the stimulus bill under the Bush administration.

By the way, we’re a Republic…not a democracy.

Having “more of the same” who has helped to get us into this mess is not appealing to me at all. Bob Bennett has been on the banking committee as the banking meltdown took place — he with plenty of Fannie and Freddie backing. He didn’t see it coming? That’s a two-edged sword for him: if he didn’t see it, he should have. If he did, well, then why didn’t he shout it from the housetops when there was still time to change course?

No, thanks. I may not be a political wizard, but I have common sense.

If you think Bennett doesn’t have a chance in a Primary, think again. Even here in Utah there are plenty of uneducated (politically) people who will vote based on name recognition/incumbency. For example, I have a good (conservative) friend who had no idea what kinds of things Bennett has put his vote behind, and besides “she knows the family”.