jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
So essentially you're arguing that libertarians just prefer one inevitable abuse to another.
Rand Paul
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
So essentially you're arguing that libertarians just prefer one inevitable abuse to another.
sturg33
I
But at least we have a choice with private business
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
Yes. They just think the abuse they prefer is less abusive.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I take issue with a lot of this, but I have to say this first: you've pretty much blown your credibility with your first sentence.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
The problem with the court's interpretation of the Commerce clause rests in that it basically ignores every other part of the constitution which contradicts their meaning of what the founders meant in the commerce clause.
And the problem with your interpretation is that you assume that there was some unified and monolithic "intent of the founders" with regard to anything other than creating a government that is responsive to the people.
And the problem with your interpretation is that you assume that there was some unified and monolithic "intent of the founders" with regard to anything other than creating a government that is responsive to the people.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
The admissions policy of an out-of-the-way restaurant in Alabama does not have much to do with maintaining the smooth flow of ‘interstate commerce.’
Parts of the deep south existed as a de facto apartheid state. Are you seriously going to suggest that a substantial minority of the population being unable to travel and do business freely within a large area of the country wouldn't amount to an unreasonable restraint of interstate commerce?
Parts of the deep south existed as a de facto apartheid state. Are you seriously going to suggest that a substantial minority of the population being unable to travel and do business freely within a large area of the country wouldn't amount to an unreasonable restraint of interstate commerce?
sturg33
I
sturg33
I
Well considering the entire constitution basically limits the federal government wherever it can - then I deduct that court's understanding of the commerce clause of "we can let any power slide under the commerce clause" is inconsistent with the rest of the constitution.
sturg33
I
If that were the case - do you disagree with my other ridiculous examples? The vegan menus, etc??
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
This, a thousand times. This was precisely the point I was advancing previously in this thread.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I believe he means the part where you inaccurately state that Democrats control Congress.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Democrats controlled Congress until the 2010 election . . . even then they were having to reach a 60-vote threshold in the senate to do anything. Since January of 2011, Republicans have enjoyed a majority in the house. so the idea that Obama has engaged in a power grab thanks to a friendly congress is just silly.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Since I knew you were going to say this, I've already pre-empted this claim in the very words you quoted below this. You should at least address what I said, rather than reflexively typing "not explicit!", as if that made any sense for a document with an elastic clause.
EDIT: Just to be perfectly clear: I want you explain to how your statement of "it has to be explicit" gels with the existence of the necessary and proper clause, which states that there are implied powers.
I have no idea what this means. What parts of the constitution are being contradicted? You can't just assert this; that is basically the definition of "begging the question."
As for "what the founders meant," this is a meaningless statement. The Founders didn't even agree on what these things meant! Or whether they were even good ideas! That why we have a Bill of Rights! That why we have the Federalist papers! That there was a struggle to get the states to ratify! That's why we had Federalists and anti-Federalists! That's why it only took us until president #2 to have the most bitterly divided political parties imaginable! And those guys were the founders! Do you think Alexander Hamilton would tell you the same thing about the Commerce clause as Patrick Henry? Please...
Mr. President, I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.
- Ben Franklin, to George Washington at the end of the Convention (great speech)
But, oh no, sturg from the internet knows what "the founders intended."
Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? You are describing the most extreme and limited possible interpretation of the commerce clause, and I would be quite interested if you could find something from the Marshall court era that explicitly laid out that the Commerce power was restricted to state governments making laws about other states (Hint: you probably aren't going to find it; but you might find the opposite).
I don't feel like fact checking that little partisan history lesson because it is irrelevant. I already have a functional understanding of the history and various interpretations of the Commerce clause. I'm asking you to explain your stance on what the constitution says; as a strict constructionist, this is all you should care about anyway.
As for the "halal" food stuff, that's some pretty gross equivocation. There's a world of difference between having to allow vegans into your restaurant (Civil Rights Act) and being forced to prepare vegan food (libertarian jibber jabber). There are many problems with that comparison, but the most obvious is that there is no rational basis (an important part of the constitutionality test applied in these 1960s cases) for believing the former would actually improve interstate commerce.
sturg33
I
I don't have time to fully respond for a bit - but Im confused about your post... You asked me to articulate why I think the commerce clause shouldn't give the federal government the power it has given. I did exactly that. You're free to disagree - but I believe I met my end of the bargain.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
I asked you to explain why you think the commerce clause + the elastic clause do not give Congress this power. That means, go look at the Constitution and let's talk about how it works. You did not do that at all, but instead gave me a history lesson, and some unbacked assertions. I wasn't asking about the history, I was asking about the text.
I think my criticisms were pretty direct and relevant. Is there a specific one you are confused about?
EDIT: To make them more direct:
1) Why are you ignoring the necessary and proper clause? (especially since was part of the original question)
2) What parts of the Constitution do you think are being contradicted by the Supreme Courts interpretation?
3) Do you have any evidence to support your claim about the early court determining that the Commerce clause was limited solely to State governments make laws about other states?
These are all fundamental problems I have with what you wrote. If you can't address them, then you have not met your "end of the bargain."
I think my criticisms were pretty direct and relevant. Is there a specific one you are confused about?
EDIT: To make them more direct:
1) Why are you ignoring the necessary and proper clause? (especially since was part of the original question)
2) What parts of the Constitution do you think are being contradicted by the Supreme Courts interpretation?
3) Do you have any evidence to support your claim about the early court determining that the Commerce clause was limited solely to State governments make laws about other states?
These are all fundamental problems I have with what you wrote. If you can't address them, then you have not met your "end of the bargain."
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
(1) I think the notion of basic human rights gets stretched to untenable extensions at certain points, but why should someone have to sue to have a reasonable assurance of clean air and water.
(2) Groundwater and air aren't penned up by each state, so living in a state with stricter standards doesn't ensure that the natural resources are appreciably better than in a state with lower standards.
(3) People somehow believe the courts are unbelievably liberal now and personal injury decisions give that impression, but that hasn't always been the case. Courts are, and always have been, creatures of politics.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
1) It's either that or the EPA. If you think federal law is better than you choose EPA. Some think lawsuits are a better way to deal with the problem due to EPA abuse and economic reasons as well. It's not like the problem of prevention goes away just because you make lawsuits less necessary and instead invoke federal rules. And even with federal involvement the need for lawsuits don't just go away. Of course the system of lawsuits are abused as well, so maybe this is a good question for sturg to answer since he's the most vocal board libertarian. Why support lawsuits over federal rules when the power of lawsuit is abused as well.
2) Is this really a problem though? I mean do humans need perfect air and water? So long as it doesn't cause bodily harm then I think that's a fair enough standard.
3) That's true, but it works both ways. Sometimes the court will be in my favor, but sometimes it will be in your favor. It's not a perfect system. Nobody has come up with a perfect system.
2)
