Just for the record the Constitution is frequently ignored, when
Congress decides that there is a "good" reason to ignore it. Many of
our present laws are technically unconstitutional, but until such time
as the courts rule on them, they remain on the books. Congress could
regulate archaeolgoy under the Commerce clause, as they have found
reson to pass laws on much else that is at best periferally related to
commerce.

I would tend to agree, however, thatit is probably more likely and
better to define "archaeologist" at the state level. The problem is
finding people, other than archaeologists, who give a damn.

On Sep 8, 2004, at 5:36 PM, Vergil E. Noble wrote:

> Lyle,
>
> Your initial note that prompted my posting called upon the politically
> active in the profession to work toward a legal definition of an
> archaeologist, codified in the Federal laws. My response was intended
> to
> point out that such effort would be misplaced and futile. As I said,
> the US
> Congress has no authority to do so. The reason they don't get involved
> with
> defining qualifications for other professions is not because their
> respective national organizations have already done so, as you suggest
> in
> your rejoinder, it is because of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the
> Constitution and the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. So unless
> we
> can successfully lobby for a Consitutional amendment, there's little
> point
> in trying to make a Federal lawmaker see the light on this point. Now
> there's an idea: a Defense of Archaeology Amendment to the
> Constitution.