What war?
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 18:06
VIEWED: 5092
PAGE 4 of 5
"There's no point getting into things like garbage collection. If the fed gov tries to get into that business, someone should chop it off at the knees."
The problem with that is when folk start letting courts re-interpret and distort the meanings with the help of lawyers who make arguments like this...
The FedGov has the power to "Regulate Commerce".
Waste disposal is technically "Commerce".
Therefore the FedGov can interfere to it's hearts content.
Stuff like that was intended to be clearly forbidden but that was almost immediately trashed by Jay, Hamilton and other proto-fascist Federalists who immediately pounced on the loopholes they spent so much time expounding on how no one would ever dare misuse.
The someone who should chop it off at the knees was the supreme court, but instead they have become a de-facto forum by which to warp and bend the meanings of the document into whatever their political friends currently desire it to mean.
I will note that the phrases "implied powers" and "elastic clause" do not whatever appear in the Constitution, and the wording of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is expressly against even the concept of such things, obviously intended to forbid such misuses.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"There's no point getting into things like garbage collection. If the fed gov tries to get into that business, someone should chop it off at the knees."
The problem with that is when folk start letting courts re-interpret and distort the meanings with the help of lawyers who make arguments like this...
The FedGov has the power to "Regulate Commerce".
Waste disposal is technically "Commerce".
Therefore the FedGov can interfere to it's hearts content.
Actually they can't interfere to their heart's content. In one example the Federal Govt. was forced to get involved because of garbage from one state being dumped in another. Another good example came from contaminated water from garbage dumps leaching into the water table of a neighboring state. Those make garbage collection Federal issues...not what time or what company picks up your trash.
Quote:
Stuff like that was intended to be clearly forbidden but that was almost immediately trashed by Jay, Hamilton and other proto-fascist Federalists who immediately pounced on the loopholes they spent so much time expounding on how no one would ever dare misuse.
I note for the record that facism was a 20th Century invention. Hamilton favored a strong executive...perhaps even a monarch, but not a dictator, that was feared by all of them.
I noted that you lumped Adams into that lot in an earlier post. Now there was a great man. He invented one of the most important parts of our Constitutional process...the peaceful transition of power after losing an election.
Quote:
The someone who should chop it off at the knees was the supreme court, but instead they have become a de-facto forum by which to warp and bend the meanings of the document into whatever their political friends currently desire it to mean.
Yet you refuse to even try to comprehend the legal reasoning that goes into such decisions. You just blanket denounce them without saying what specifically they have said you disagree with or on what legal reasoning you rely. At least they take the time to explain their rulings. You would just seek to rule.
Quote:
I will note that the phrases "implied powers" and "elastic clause" do not whatever appear in the Constitution, and the wording of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is expressly against even the concept of such things, obviously intended to forbid such misuses.
Both come from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 which says:
"The Congress shall have power …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."
You may prefer the term 'Necessary and Proper' clause. This means that if the govt can 'coin money' then its implied in this clause they can build a mint. If they can regulate interstate commerce then they can create an FCC to regulate airwaves because airwaves cross state lines.
Essentially the framers wanted to limit government as much as possible by being as specific as possible...BUT they understood that they could not enumerate every conceivable power that Congress would need. So they built some elasticity into the document to allow it to stretch and accomodate particular unforseen needs that could arise...hence the term "Elastic clause".
Might want to read McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
"In McCulloch v. Maryland, 5 Marshall rejected the proffer of a Tenth Amendment objection and offered instead an expansive interpretation of the necessary and proper clause 6 to counter the argument. The counsel for the State of Maryland cited fears of opponents of ratification of the Constitution about the possible swallowing up of states' rights and referred to the Tenth Amendment to allay these apprehensions, all in support of his claim that the power to create corporations was reserved by that Amendment to the States. 7 Stressing the fact
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've chopped out a few items to keep the list manageable. First you say 'change it you don't like it'... Ok, I'd like to amend the constitution such the powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved for the states... how do we need to phrase that?
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
All: so, who wants to take lead on getting the FDA declared unconsitutional...
Ignoring the implied powers and meanings of the Constitution leaves so much uncovered. ...
Who will ... make sure your drugs work?
...
Who will regulate air travel...
There is so much thats done by the Federal govt and it all comes from fair readings of the Constitution and its intent. If you don't care for it change it.
...
Your out there on the fringe...with the lunatics. I'm not saying your a lunatic, cause there's some true blue patriots out there with you...misguided, but patriots none the less.
...
Who will make sure your drugs work? I'm prepared to let that be the state. I will also say that if the Federal Government wanted to act as a clearing house, and the states agreed to share information, that might be acceptable, I'd have to ponder that a bit. That might be a reasonable approach given that drugs will often be part of interstate commerce.
Air travel? With the state, the state. Again, for interstate travel (interstate commerce),and it might be reasonable to reserve the higher altitude for interstate flights; and again the states would likely want to conform to the national standards for savings, but it would be at their discretion on how to handle in-state flights.
Wow, for a minute there, I thought we might have a civil discussion; but ok, say I'm out on 'fringe ... with the luntics' if it makes you happy. But I'll caution you, most folks think I'm pretty much a middle of the road, conventional kind of guy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not a war. I call it their plans for profit
iran's next
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I second that.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But what about North Korea,... hey wait.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I've chopped out a few items to keep the list manageable. First you say 'change it you don't like it'... Ok, I'd like to amend the constitution such the powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved for the states... how do we need to phrase that?
First you'll need to get rid of the Elastic Clause, then the Due Process Clause, then you might want a specific prohibition about Supreme Court taking state cases...thats a start.
Now see how many States you can get to sign on to that one.
Actually the States would love it. Imagine, one state putting tolls on interstate commerce, seizing property of out of state corporations, eliminating the whole trial by jury thing, eliminating the right of certain folk to vote in state elections (like women or blacks...). The people might have a problem with that sort of thing...but their right to appeal to the Fed Govt is gone in your world. They can just move to Delaware...unless their state makes it a crime to move.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, not interested in -eliminating- the Elastic clause, thus I'd be aiming to put some boundaries on it... that might be painful without then enumerating a number of items. However, I do see how it applies.
Due process? I know I'll regret asking this, but how does that hook in?
State cases... would you be willing to give an example of a state case taken by the supreme court? I thought they only took cases relating to federal or constitutional issues.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually Hero, wouldn't the Feds just declare that such a state no longer pursued a republican form of government? In that case they have the right to invade to change it dont they?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I thought they only took cases relating to federal or constitutional issues.
They also take cases arising out of conflicts between states. A good example is Gideon v. Wainright, the right to counsel case. Another less obvious example is PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS ET AL v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. (2007) a case talking about school assignments (not homework...assignments meaning you go here and they go there).
In the grand old days before the Incorporation Doctrine of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause you had a 6th Amendment right to a lawyer in FEDERAL CASES. In state cases it depended on what your state law was. Then the 14th Amendment said that everyone was a citizen of the US and the State they live in so they get equal protection and if that's true then they get Due Process and if that's true Due Process must include...and then there a case that incorporates each of the Bill of Rights rights under the 14th Amendment meaning you get them regardless of what state you live in.
Thus, without Due Process and Equal Protection, your free speech can be removed by your local state law.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME