First failed state?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

It's a perfect strawman argument because I never claimed any of those things...

 

It sure sounds like you're trying to justify your earlier positions by evoking the class... Especially as it was, quote, a "response to Enoch's link." People do not normally bring up things like that unless they're trying to prove their side is correct - and the context of your post makes it clear that this was your intent.

 

...I'm basing it on what I was taught in history class, not on right wing radio shows.

 

Edited November 19, 2009 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Enoch]

But looking at the actions of Congress and the Executive beginning with Johnson and going forward to today (the the Reagan years providing some much needed respite) I can cite at least fifteen examples of flagrant and extra contitutional power grabs by the federal government.

Yeah, but, like, 14 of those were Dick Nixon...

[Wrath of Dagon]

Seriously, some Americans act like the Constitiution is their ****ing Quran or something.

That has nothing to do with fanaticism, the Constitution is what protects our rights as citizens, and when it's violated we lose some of those rights.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's a perfect strawman argument because I never claimed any of those things...

 

It sure sounds like you're trying to justify your earlier positions by evoking the class... Especially as it was, quote, a "response to Enoch's link." People do not normally bring up things like that unless they're trying to prove their side is correct - and the context of your post makes it clear that this was your intent.

 

...I'm basing it on what I was taught in history class, not on right wing radio shows.

 

I said that because the whole point of Enoch's link which apparently you haven't read before jumping to conclusions was that this guy was fervent in his defense of what he thinks is the Constitution even though what he thinks is completely wrong and just ranting he picked up from right wing talk shows. Hence I pointed out that I did not learn about the Constitution from right wing talk shows. You then went on to build a whole elaborate rant in your own mind which had nothing to do with what I actually said.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...which had nothing to do with what I actually said.

 

No, it really did. You're seemingly attributing the same level of importance to your one history class as the fictional person was to his right-wing radio. If you want to disprove this go ahead and do so, but it seems that you've got nothing else to add other than "it's a strawman oh noes." I pointed out why your history class might not be a good source, and I am not saying that your class was not good just that it could not have been that great, and you've sat there and done nothing. Also, didn't you notice that the fist and last parts were more tongue-and-cheek than anything else.

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, I really have no idea when you're being tongue in cheek and when you're serious, sorry.

[Rostere]

Seriously, some Americans act like the Constitiution is their ****ing Quran or something.

That has nothing to do with fanaticism, the Constitution is what protects our rights as citizens, and when it's violated we lose some of those rights.

 

I don't think it's funny or comical in any way that the US has had basically the same constitution for over a hundred years or that you still keep it, it's just the way some people talk about it. Really, it's just some papers someone wrote some time ago about what they thought would be proper foundations for a union of states. The power of those laws is not withheld because they are in the Holy Book of the Constitution, but because the member states have agreed upon a unifying set of laws and generally also abide by those laws.

 

It's just the way some people talk about it. Why is it so special? (I'm not trying to argue that a union of states should not have some sort of common judicial foundation here) In this context, Americans often use the word "freedom". But seriously, who in **** in the world doesn't have freedom? (Okay, so apparently gay couples in Texas and in Iran does not have all the freedoms of other human beings, but you get the idea...) In addition to that, no other constitution has been tried, so how could anyone know the current one is the best one? Sweden also has a constitution, but nobody here who doesn't study Law knows anything about it, and I've basically never seen it mentioned in the media.

[Rostere]

That's funny, in Sweden Uni doesn't cost money, you get paid to go there. And if that shouldn't be enough you get student loans with a state-level group discount.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I thought I explained why it's important, in fact you quoted it. If it's not the best one, it can be amended. But it's said we're a nation of laws, not men. That is what protects us from tyranny. Who in the world doesn't have freedom? I'd say about 4/5 of the world, that's who.

[alanschu]

@Rostere

That's not surprising, given that Sweden is a fairly socialist state. That benefit comes with the other costs of living in Sweden.

Edited November 19, 2009 by alanschu

[J.E. Sawyer]

No, there's the explicit text saying "all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government shall remain with the states or the people", I'm paraphrasing from memory. The Commerce Clause has been used by the Supreme Court to mean that anything that has to do with interstate commerce whatsoever is subject to the Federal powers, which renders what I quoted meaningless.

Yeah, it sounds like two broad statements that are in conflict with each other and need to be arbitrated. That's what SCOTUS did, just as SCOTUS ruled against the state (well, D.C.) and for individual constitutional rights when it overturned the D.C. handgun ban. If these were self-evident implications, SCOTUS wouldn't be called upon to arbitrate them. I think people lose sight of the fact that these cases are escalated up through lower courts before they reach SCOTUS. Judicial activist commandos didn't halo jump into District of Kansas courts to "make up" Brown v. Board of Education (for example).

 

Here is another nugget of news from the Peoples Socialist Republic of California

It is really bewildering that people refer to this state as "socialist" when it is one of the few states (unfortunately) with ballot initiatives. Californians are really in love with directly voting for enormously expensive projects but they really hate voting for anything to fund them. That requires a simple majority. Then the state legislature is left to pass budgets to support all of these enormously expensive projects but need a 2/3rd majority. Even in THE HEART OF COMMUNIST CALIFORNIA, that ain't happening.

 

I'm neutral on Gov. Schwarzenegger overall. He's actually consistently tried to do everything he's said he would do -- namely, cut spending, freeze automatic budget increases, find new sources of revenue without raising taxes. Pretty consistently, voters and unions have screamed at him and shot down his initiatives the entire way. People love the idea of spending being cut unless it's something they (or their friends/relatives) actually use. We have a lot of really bad, broken systems in place, and I don't think the people or legislature can realistically get rid of them unless there's a constitutional convention. The sad thing is that people still, against all reason, support the 2/3rd majority budget ratification. It's mind-boggling.

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, there's the explicit text saying "all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government shall remain with the states or the people", I'm paraphrasing from memory. The Commerce Clause has been used by the Supreme Court to mean that anything that has to do with interstate commerce whatsoever is subject to the Federal powers, which renders what I quoted meaningless.

Yeah, it sounds like two broad statements that are in conflict with each other and need to be arbitrated. That's what SCOTUS did, just as SCOTUS ruled against the state (well, D.C.) and for individual constitutional rights when it overturned the D.C. handgun ban. If these were self-evident implications, SCOTUS wouldn't be called upon to arbitrate them. I think people lose sight of the fact that these cases are escalated up through lower courts before they reach SCOTUS. Judicial activist commandos didn't halo jump into District of Kansas courts to "make up" Brown v. Board of Education (for example).

The Commerce clause is not a broad provision, nor is it contradictory in any way. It's very clearly a statement giving the Feds the power to regulate interstate commerce, and nothing else. As I said before, it is simply used by an expansionist government as a fig leaf to regulate anything and everything that touches interstate commerce, no matter how ephemerally. The court did push that back slightly in a gun case, but it wasn't the DC case, which was about the 2nd Amendment.

[J.E. Sawyer]

The Commerce clause is not a broad provision, nor is it contradictory in any way. It's very clearly a statement giving the Feds the power to regulate interstate commerce, and nothing else.

So clear that it's one of the most controversial clauses in the constitution, a clause that defines scope of power without defining the terms being used and was written a century before automobiles, a century and a half before the interstate highway system, and about two centuries before widespread use of the internet. If this clause were clear, cases involving it would not repeatedly be brought before SCOTUS. The conflict between the lack of clear definition and intent in "interstate commerce" and the general proscription of the Tenth Amendment is a pretty obvious explanation for why this happens.

 

SCOTUS let the legislature define "interstate commerce" from the New Deal until Rehnquist, and Rehnquist's SCOTUS generally shot the legislature's definitions down. Judicial fiat works both ways. But when you've got Antonin Scalia concurring with the majority ruling of Gonzales v. Raich, upholding the power of the federal government to bust Californians for possession of medical marijuana (legal in California), it's obviously not a simple matter to arbitrate with the clause's text as written.

 

Today's principal dissent objects that, by permitting Congress to regulate activities necessary to effective interstate regulation, the Court reduces Lopez and Morrison to "little more than a drafting guide." Post, at 5 (opinion of O'Connor, J.). I think that criticism unjustified. Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so "could ... undercut" its regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561; ante, at 15, 21, 22. This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between "what is truly national and what is truly local." Lopez, supra, at 567-568.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...54#concurrence1

 

It's not "expansion" of the powers that should be defined by constitutional amendment, but further definition, period. I don't debate that the government has used the Commerce Clause to exert a lot of power; what I reject is your suggestion that the Commerce Clause has clear and inherent limitations as written.

 

Luckily, this case (Gonzales v. Raich) brings us back to California again. I will be interested to see if anything ever becomes of efforts to legalize and tax marijuana. There are an enormous number of dispensaries in California (especially in Los Angeles -- there are almost 1,000).

[Lare Kikkeli]

Do you have a license yet, J.E.?

[Wrath of Dagon]

The reason it's the most controversial clause is precisely because the Feds used it to illegally seize power. There's nothing unclear about "interstate commerce". There's nothing unclear about "powers not specifically delegated to Congress are reserved for the people and the states". Antonin Scalia believes in the concept called Stare Decisis, settled law should not be revisited unless extraordinary circumstances compel it. The Supreme Court is not about to throw out the entire structure of the Federal government and plunge the country into complete chaos. Thus the only arguments are around the edges of what the Supreme Court has already settled (incorrectly) the Commerce Clause to mean.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

Mate, I'm the first to admire pig-headed defences of tradition. I'm English FFS. But Your man Sawyer has a point. The fouding fathers would have had to have been ****ing precogs to design a system perfectly suited to life 200 years later. If that seems plausible I invite you to study their record in handling the Continental Army, and you will wonder if it is.

[Gorgon]

The declaration of independence and the constitution, including state constitutions, are secular documents, but in their psychological impact one might regard them as sacred text to which an authority adheres, thou shalt not change scripture, you can only interpret it. This is because, in my opinion, they have been inextricably linked with a definition of independence and self reliance that makes up the core of American subjectivity, how they define themselves. Reformers battle against a perception of committing heresy.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Mate, I'm the first to admire pig-headed defences of tradition. I'm English FFS. But Your man Sawyer has a point. The fouding fathers would have had to have been ****ing precogs to design a system perfectly suited to life 200 years later. If that seems plausible I invite you to study their record in handling the Continental Army, and you will wonder if it is.

That is why there's an amendment process, which works and has been used a number of times. And I believe your quote is from Lenin, not Stalin btw.

[Walsingham]

Mate, I'm the first to admire pig-headed defences of tradition. I'm English FFS. But Your man Sawyer has a point. The fouding fathers would have had to have been ****ing precogs to design a system perfectly suited to life 200 years later. If that seems plausible I invite you to study their record in handling the Continental Army, and you will wonder if it is.

That is why there's an amendment process, which works and has been used a number of times. And I believe your quote is from Lenin, not Stalin btw.

 

True. But I believe out fellow member was accusing those persons who treat the amendment process like a vestigial appendix.

[Guard Dog]

Here is a great article contrasting Texas (a state that is growing) to California (a state that is, as all of you know now, failing) Once again the blame is placed on the backward thinking and criminally foolish government policiy coming from Sacramento.

 

Except: Explaining four reasons why Texas is succeeding where California is failing

First, Texans on average believe in laissez-faire markets with an emphasis on individual responsibility. Since the

[Rosbjerg]

I believe it's more complex than that GD, as Europe is mainly leaning towards central planning and our countries are doing just fine.. I do however believe that this:

 

Third, California has placed

[213374U]

Because when people move to an area I believe they want to fit in to the culture there..

I don't know how much immigration you get up there in Denmark, but here in Spain we used to get a ****ing boatload (literally) of immigrants every week (now a bit less what with the government driving the country to the ground). And trust me, they aren't interested in fitting in at all. I know, I have had plenty of experience with them in the army. And those are the guys that are supposedly willing to fight for our country. I don't even want to know about the rest.

[Morgoth]

I wonder how you want to assimilate a Muslim into your society when the Islamic creed is exactly trying it the opposite way?

Edited November 28, 2009 by Morgoth

[Gorgon]

Do tell, what is the 'Islamic Creed' ?.

[Hurlshort]

I wonder how you want to assimilate a Muslim into your society when the Islamic creed is exactly trying it the opposite way?

 

I'm not quite sure where the Qu'ran or the Sunnah say that, but I think I see what you are getting at. I'm not a big fan of any ethnic group leaving their culture and heritage at the door when they enter the US. I think it can really enrich a community when they embrace new cultures as well.

 

Obviously there are some traditions that need to be left behind, such as the subjugation of women, but realistically no country, ethnic group, or culture should consider that a badge of honor.

 

So there are a lot of levels of assimilation, and I think it's a bit of a vague argument here.