For the U.S. Constitution


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : For the U.S. Constitution

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · Next
Author Message
Message 1405714 - Posted: 20 Aug 2013, 23:20:21 UTC - in response to Message 1405688.
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 21:07:07 UTC

--

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8745
Credit: 25,597,483
RAC: 10,414
United Kingdom
Message 1405730 - Posted: 20 Aug 2013, 23:57:32 UTC - in response to Message 1405658.

And the original intent of the commerce clause was to regulate between STATES, not INDIVIDUALS, as we have progressed to define it today.

States never had commerce between them. Individuals in one state had commerce between individuals in another state. At least I never heard the Great State of Georgia running a cotton plantation and selling cotton to Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Heck, didn't even have a US Greenback then! Was that a pop a heard, like a bubble bursting?


Commerce CROSSING state lines... jeez...

So this a first then?

U.S. News - 19 arrested in NYC gun trafficking ring

New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said illegal firearms were being bought in North and South Carolina and funneled to New York City where they fetch double or triple the price when sold on the street.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12988
Credit: 7,663,443
RAC: 7,601
United States
Message 1405757 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 1:30:36 UTC - in response to Message 1405714.

And the original intent of the commerce clause was to regulate between STATES, not INDIVIDUALS, as we have progressed to define it today.

States never had commerce between them. Individuals in one state had commerce between individuals in another state. At least I never heard the Great State of Georgia running a cotton plantation and selling cotton to Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Heck, didn't even have a US Greenback then! Was that a pop a heard, like a bubble bursting?


Commerce CROSSING state lines... jeez...

So one once in Georgia should not equal one ounce in New York, unless it is going to cross state lines. Just love that kind of thinking ...


Weights and measures is an enumerated power delegated to the federal government.

So you are paying attention ...

I get the feeling you're not reading my full posts.

The idea is that each state regulates everything within their own borders. The role of the federal government is to deal with the issues not appropriate at the state level. Standardizing weights and measures helps to make trading across state lines fair.

I think you don't realize how much what you just said covers.

So why don't we try some powers not enumerated. An airport lies entirely inside a state. So New Jersey airports can mandate a left hand traffic pattern and Ohio airports a right hand traffic pattern. Colorado airports cam have the traffic pattern altitude 500 feet and Nevada airports 1500 feet. Iowa can require red light on the left wing and Michigan can require a green light. California can impose smog regulations on the engines. Georgia can impose noise standards. Arizona imposes speed limits. Each of them can license pilots with different training and medical testing and list of banned drugs or levels of booze in the blood.

Have fun with that on licensing. Whatever you come up with has to speak to why the states do this for drivers licenses but don't do it for pilot's licenses. Don't forget drivers licenses are one of those full faith and credit items that other states are required to accept and cars drive across state borders. And don't forget the car insurance policy, it is good in all 50.

Now how about the FDA. I'm sure you rail at them setting standards for the purity and efficacy of drugs. After all each State should be free to decide if it thinks marijuana should be something that the doctors of that state can prescribe. Now as to say meat grading, I suppose that is one of those things that is a weights and measures. How about the label "organic" How is this a weight or a measure? Shouldn't each state be free to define what "organic" means when it is slapped on a food item? Why is there a standard food label on the box?

How about this one, the stock market. Don't you just hate the SEC? Corporations are issued by states. How do the feds get involved? So you want to sell shares but are careful to only sell them to people in your own state. Why do you have to file papers with the SEC? Why can't you set up a stock market in your state capital and trade stocks that only stay inside your state's border?

I'm sure you hate the EPA with this clean air and clean water stuff. Really shouldn't a state be able to pollute itself to death? Drill baby Drill, feds should have no say in ANWR, heck that was an illegal land grab just like Yellowstone and Yosemite!

There there is the OCC. I mean really, shouldn't each state be able to set its own maximum usury interest rate for credit cards? Why shouldn't someone in California with a 10% usury rate be able to get a California credit card, why are they forced to get a card with no cap on the interest rate?

Continuing with banks, why is there a FDIC? Shouldn't each state set up or not its own bank insurance act?

Another is the PBGC? Why does it exist?


____________

Message 1405758 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 1:45:44 UTC

May The Best State Win.

Frakk The Feds.

This Cracker is Nummulosphere Bound.
____________


Message 1405764 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 2:21:01 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 21:06:19 UTC

--

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8745
Credit: 25,597,483
RAC: 10,414
United Kingdom
Message 1405768 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 2:30:26 UTC - in response to Message 1405764.

I wasn't commenting on gun laws at all, I was just pointing out that there was a trade, even though it is illegal trade, from the Carolinas' to NY.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12988
Credit: 7,663,443
RAC: 7,601
United States
Message 1405775 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 2:58:58 UTC

Guy, The devil is in the details. Just because there are a few places you don't agree with, you want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Oh as to airports, you don't get a license from the FAA to have an airport, you get the license from your state government. Bet you didn't know that!
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents/regulations/Regs_pub.pdf

3530. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
(a) No person may hold an airport open for use, unless otherwise exempted, without first applying for and obtaining an appropriate permit or authorization as required by the Department.

(b) No aircraft takeoff or landing may be made at a site that is not permitted, exempted, or authorized in accordance with these regulations.


Your statement about airplanes being different that cars, how so? What factor gives the Federal government control? Why is this factor not present elsewhere? Cars travel on Federal roads. Cars are standardized at the federal level on safety equipment, and even the color and placement of the brake lights.

The devil is in the details. Until you will talk about why one area is ripe for federal control and another isn't then how can there be a debate over the issue?


____________

Message 1405939 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 13:10:22 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 21:06:10 UTC

--

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 11782
Credit: 1,786,296
RAC: 1,819
Syria
Message 1405948 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 13:29:37 UTC - in response to Message 1405939.


Centralizing power is no way to live. History has shown time and time again what follows.


+1

It's been happening here for the past decade at least.
____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12988
Credit: 7,663,443
RAC: 7,601
United States
Message 1406022 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 16:30:20 UTC - in response to Message 1405939.

Gary, I'm agreeing with many things you are saying, but you still want to argue?

How about I list some examples?

http://www.hendersondispatch.com/news/state/x2042199538/Court-rules-North-Carolina-law-unconstitutional
Should our judical system prevent states from banning registered sex affenders from joining social networks in the name of the 1st Amendment?

Behind a paywall.
In general if you want to give them life sentences, do so and tax your state the $50,000.00 a year to house them in a prison. If you let them go, then you need to allow them to function in society and today that means social media sites. Heck doesn't your company, through state employment law, demand the password to your social media sites to check up on you ... and make sure you have enough contacts to benefit them from a sales perspective ... if they don't have a job 100% they will re-offend.

http://theadvocate.com/news/6833365-123/aclu-slidell-law-banning-begging
And another one concerning free speech, is banning beggin unconstitutional?

I remember this from a long long time ago. Hare Krishna begging at LAX. Let's see that was in the 1970's ...

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/16/oklahoma-ban-on-sharia-law-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules/
Or how about the feds stepping in and forcing a state to consider sharia law when deliberating cases?

Did this law also ban following Christian law? If, not then the issue is a slam dunk of establishing a state religion.

And what about that case mentioned in the "DEAD. Murder? usa internet LAW REFORM REQUIRED!" where I assert the feds are getting ready to finally get over that social security law stating that your SSAN can't be used to identify you, but soon we'll all have an identification number that has 128 bits in it?

128 bits isn't long enough. Of course they have to have one to make sure they can keep the borders secure.

And these are just a couple of very recent news items if you google "unconstitutional law". Off the top of my head:

How about Arizona trying to protect its borders and the feds stepping in and saying you can't do that?

International borders are subject to treaties between countries. So how can Arizona ever think it has a power there?

If I think about it, I can come up with several more big ones in the recent past that many have forgotten about already.

And what about some questionable executive orders from the POTUS?

# 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation

establish post Roads

# 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media

Radio/TV is subject of treaties
Then there is the rationing aspect, ink and paper are vital war materials, think WWII

# 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision

conscription

# 11001 allows the government to take over all health education and welfare functions

since you have said the DEA has a legitimate roll ...

# 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons

Since you advocate immigration control ... might be the wrong department, but I'm not going to tell POTUS to whom he can delegate his powers

# 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations

Never liked that ruling on eminent domain ...

# 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders

Imagine that. Have police do a job.

Just to name a couple. It is more than clear that Obama is planning for the total control and takeover of America via Martial Law. Food, energy, transportation, work, banking, and health...he has it covered.

What has you mad isn't the commerce clause. What has you mad is that Congress refuses to write the implementing regulations to the laws they pass and delegated this authority to the executive branch.

Please think about that for a while. Target the right enemy.

Try an amendment that prohibits implementing regulations or executive orders from being valid until they pass congress.

Try another amendment that prohibits the majority of both houses of congress from being from the same political party and POTUS has to be from a different party yet. Get us a three party system going. That might force the government to the center, and the center is the stuff 95% of us agree upon.


Centralizing power is no way to live. History has shown time and time again what follows.

Articles of Confederation worked so well they had to replace them with a constitution that centralized power. The problem isn't centralized power, the problem is that power exists to be abused. Get rid of powers!


____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1406025 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 16:42:47 UTC - in response to Message 1405263.

Your long haul trucker example is a perfect example of why the supremacy clause (and the commerce clause) was put in the constitution. If that little 3 mile section is being used to extort money from people passing through, then I would fully support the federal government stepping in and telling the state to stop doing it because it's violating the commerce clause. I don't see how the tea party can support this literal highway robbery from a state.

States build roads too and can rob, er... tax for them too. And how can the feds do this proposal of yours without another power grab from the states sovereign ability to levy taxes? You want to have your cake and eat it too.


I don't think any Interstate should be hijacked by a state and used as a tollway. If a state wants a toll way build it yourself and disassociate your road from the federally funded interstate road system.

If the Feds paid 100%, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956, then you might have a point, but the states do pay part of their construction. I have yet to see a Federal Government road crew repairing and interstate highway. I see the local state crews doing that.

However this is getting off the point. The point being that states already have huge powers to do underhanded government money grabs. Tea kool aid wants to give them even more.


granted the states do pony up a bit of money for interstate highways. The problem is that the fed puts up most of the money. I get a little miffed when states run a highway robbery scheme on the feds dime.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12988
Credit: 7,663,443
RAC: 7,601
United States
Message 1406027 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 16:55:37 UTC - in response to Message 1406025.

granted the states do pony up a bit of money for interstate highways. The problem is that the fed puts up most of the money. I get a little miffed when states run a highway robbery scheme on the feds dime.

Yes, and there are some who want to hand the states even more power to run more of these schemes.

____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1406032 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 17:03:55 UTC - in response to Message 1405714.

Centralize all power at the federal level and the competition goes away. Remove the competition and there's no motivation to do what's in the best interest of the residents of each state.

Um the exact opposite is also true. One shouldn't forget we've had 2 attempts at states having major powers over the fed. The first was the articles of confederation which was a complete disaster.

The second was the civil war. Again, a complete disaster for those choose to secede.

In the first instance we have a fed with almost no power which couldn't even get a common currency let alone muster a militia.

The other demonstrated the feds supreme power over the states. Texas secessionists aside, a state in the union is bound forever in the Union.

While I agree that states have their own set of rights, I do think the Fed has the power to impose a nation minimum standard on education, health, commerce etc. Why? imagine a state with no minimum educational standards. That state produces poorly educated students. These students graduate and go to an in state college again with a low standard and then graduate from these houses of lower learning. These students are ill equipped to land a job anywhere even in their own state. So there has to be some national standards across the board.
otherwise you'll have states like mississippi and texas that produce wholey unqualified graduates and grossly inadequate health care systems.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Message 1406066 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 17:57:47 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 21:04:05 UTC

--

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12988
Credit: 7,663,443
RAC: 7,601
United States
Message 1406090 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 19:04:26 UTC - in response to Message 1406066.

OMG Gary, you're continuing to dodge my main assertion with this thread. Let me try to explaine with this current example.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/08/12/judge-says-new-yorks-stop-and-frisk-law-unconstitutional/

When Dinkins was mayor of NYC, there were more than 2,000 murders in the city per year.

When Juliani took over, he initated this "stop and frisk" law. Last year, there were only 414 murders in NYC.

So if we follow the LETTER OF THE LAW as written in the 4th Amendment, yes, since there's no (specifically enumerated legal terms created through precedence, such as the Miranda case) "reasonable articulation of suspicion", and no "probable cause," yes, this NYC law is FEDERALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

But the original intent of the 4th amendment was to prevent some judge from writing up some general search warrant which allowed police to bust down any door at any hour of the day to find something. And if we follow the INTENT of the U.S. constitution, the idea was to give the federal government just enough power to handle the things at a federal level that the state(s) could not handle well in any reasonable fashion.

In this case, Juliani passed a law in his municipality to handle a problem IN HIS MUNICIPALITY. (Why wasn't it challenged legally then?) The neat thing about allowing states and municipalities to write their own laws is that those who like it can stay there and those who don't like it ARE FREE TO LEAVE.

In this case, if we follow the LETTER of the federal law, we are killing 1,600 NYC residents per year. Does that make any sense at all? But if we follow th e INTENT of the federal law, we are SAVING the lives of 1,600 NYC residents every year.

I see you support the massive increase in police powers, essentially creating a police state. That is a nearly 100% statist position. Tea flavor Kool Aid.

How about this example ...
Texas state police regularly perform full body cavity searches of women during routine highway traffic stops for minor infractions, like tossing a cigarette out the window, or speeding. The searches are performed in full view of other drivers on the highway, include penetration of the vagina and anus, and the officer performing the search does not always change gloves when searching more than one woman, according to a lawsuit.

Police car dash cam videos posted to YouTube show both black and white women being assaulted by the female officers, who are not always the officer initially involved in the traffic stop — forcing the accused to wait until a woman officer arrives.


In the NY case the judge, not at the appellate level, will undoubtedly be overturned at the appellate level. It is a long standing rule of SCOTUS that outside your castle the police can search you and all your papers and electronic devices as often as they want. It you go back through the case history you will see where the reason given is there are "highway men" out there waiting to rob you and because of this you have no reasonable expectation of privacy outside your castle. Obviously this is a never changing ruling of a never changing constitution that must be interpreted exactly as was the day the ink dried.

You should continue reading the post ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/20/ray-kelly-says-stop-frisk-saves-lives-theres-no-good-evidence-for-that/


____________

Message 1406118 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 20:38:16 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 21:03:54 UTC

--

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12988
Credit: 7,663,443
RAC: 7,601
United States
Message 1406185 - Posted: 21 Aug 2013, 22:38:53 UTC - in response to Message 1406118.

As for the link stating there's no good evidence that it saves lives... both studies seem to be minimizing the effect (AKA BIAS) of the SQF (stop, question, and frisk) by making statements like:

I was looking for a link to a more interesting study, which compared the drop in the crime rate in NYC over the stop and frisk time period with the national - no stop and frisk - drop in crime rate. IIRC, that indicated the national drop was essentially the same as the NYC drop. (I can't find the link right now, might be in my others computers history.) That study also noted the same trend internationally. They speculated it was related to the end of the world wide crack and other drug use epidemics.

Rather obviously if the trend where there is no stop and frisk is identical to a stop and frisk area, then stop and frisk plays zero role in that trend.

Perhaps one of the other readers here has the link handy.



____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12988
Credit: 7,663,443
RAC: 7,601
United States
Message 1406725 - Posted: 23 Aug 2013, 3:22:08 UTC

I think someone was posting about DENIAL ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/obama-hurricane-katrina_n_3790612.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

A Third Of Louisiana Republicans Blame Obama For Hurricane Katrina Response Under Bush
A large number of Louisiana Republicans think President Barack Obama is to blame for the federal government's poor response to Hurricane Katrina, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Wednesday -- despite the fact that the storm occurred three years before he took office.


____________

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,955,958
RAC: 1,529
United States
Message 1406843 - Posted: 23 Aug 2013, 11:07:58 UTC - in response to Message 1406185.

As for the link stating there's no good evidence that it saves lives... both studies seem to be minimizing the effect (AKA BIAS) of the SQF (stop, question, and frisk) by making statements like:

I was looking for a link to a more interesting study, which compared the drop in the crime rate in NYC over the stop and frisk time period with the national - no stop and frisk - drop in crime rate. IIRC, that indicated the national drop was essentially the same as the NYC drop. (I can't find the link right now, might be in my others computers history.) That study also noted the same trend internationally. They speculated it was related to the end of the world wide crack and other drug use epidemics.

Rather obviously if the trend where there is no stop and frisk is identical to a stop and frisk area, then stop and frisk plays zero role in that trend.

Perhaps one of the other readers here has the link handy.


The misguided emphasis on numbers explains the exponential increase in stop and frisks during Mayor Michael Bloomberg's tenure, a leap of 600 percent, from 97,296 in 2003 to 685,724 last year. Echoing the dubious claims of his police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, Bloomberg defends tactics like stop and frisk by citing crime reduction in the city. But the relevant data hardly serve his argument. The drop in murders in New York City, for example, from 2002 until now has been about 12 percent, from 587 annually to 536. During the same period, the number of murders declined by 43 percent in Washington and by 50 percent in Los Angeles, two cities that have less aggressive stop and frisk tactics.


source
Looks like a good candidate. It's referenced by this from media matters that aims to show just how "fair and balanced" Fox was in it's reporting on stop and frisk in NYC.

The primaries next month will allow NYC registered Democrats to pick a candidate for mayor committed to ending the policy. If one of them should win, and then win the election for mayor we could get some interesting before and after data to see just how much difference the policy is making.

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Message 1406860 - Posted: 23 Aug 2013, 11:44:15 UTC
Last modified: 21 Mar 2014, 21:03:01 UTC

--

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · Next

Message boards : Politics : For the U.S. Constitution

Copyright © 2014 University of California