I agree with most of the cautions people are offering on this. However - my understanding is that the inclusion of an enforcement clause does not mean that the constitutional provision *can only* be upheld by statutes thereby enacted. Rather, it has been established to mean that Congress can enact laws addressing conduct which would not …
I agree with most of the cautions people are offering on this. However - my understanding is that the inclusion of an enforcement clause does not mean that the constitutional provision *can only* be upheld by statutes thereby enacted. Rather, it has been established to mean that Congress can enact laws addressing conduct which would not itself be unconstitutional, *in the service of* pursuing the constitutional objective. In short, an enforcement clause expands the realm of methods the government may use, not restricts it - "a positive grant of legislative power," in the words of Justice Brennan.
With or without an enforcement-by-statute clause, and with or without actual statutes, the constitutional language itself is still the highest law of the land, theoretically applicable to all public officials at all levels.
I agree with most of the cautions people are offering on this. However - my understanding is that the inclusion of an enforcement clause does not mean that the constitutional provision *can only* be upheld by statutes thereby enacted. Rather, it has been established to mean that Congress can enact laws addressing conduct which would not itself be unconstitutional, *in the service of* pursuing the constitutional objective. In short, an enforcement clause expands the realm of methods the government may use, not restricts it - "a positive grant of legislative power," in the words of Justice Brennan.
With or without an enforcement-by-statute clause, and with or without actual statutes, the constitutional language itself is still the highest law of the land, theoretically applicable to all public officials at all levels.