Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   People who hate the federal government preempting state laws have no problem with state governments preempting local laws when it comes to guns   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, state governments, federal government, state law, Missouri General Assembly, Sedgwick County, residential community, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ohio Governor  
•       •       •

1481 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2014 at 11:33 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



267 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-03-06 11:10:17 AM  
More like "people like laws they like, and dislike laws they dislike, and attempt to rationalize any incongruity between the two."
 
2014-03-06 11:11:14 AM  
It's an entirely different kind of preempting, altogether.
 
2014-03-06 11:21:20 AM  

Pocket Ninja: It's an entirely different kind of preempting, altogether.


It's an entirely different kind of preempting.
 
2014-03-06 11:36:05 AM  
It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.
 
2014-03-06 11:41:26 AM  

max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.


Unless it is weed.
 
2014-03-06 11:41:49 AM  
soldiersystems.net
 
2014-03-06 11:42:00 AM  
You're asking today's nutball right wing to be consistent in their beliefs.

This does not happen.  Logic no go there.
 
2014-03-06 11:42:54 AM  

max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.


...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.
 
2014-03-06 11:43:30 AM  
About 7 years ago, I remember the mayor of my town pulling his gun on an old - I'm talking like 70+ year old - secretary because she told him to stop throwing his peanut shells on the floor of City Hall every day like it was a sh*tty Lonestar Steakhouse. Because of this, I'd love to see the local gun laws my hometown would enact.
 
2014-03-06 11:44:38 AM  
Pick your poison.

I know people that have no problem attempting to preempt federal and state laws when it comes to environmental protections.
 
2014-03-06 11:51:38 AM  
Most people who hate any form government have no issue with their own form of government.

Fixed that for you, subby
 
2014-03-06 11:52:20 AM  

max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.


Funny about that.

About the only way this doesn't happen is if the State Constitution explicitly allows it, or State law carves out municipal independence in a limited area.
 
2014-03-06 11:52:59 AM  

monoski: Most people who hate any form government have no issue with their own form of government.

Fixed that for you, subby


Not very well, though. Would you like to buy an "of"?
 
2014-03-06 11:53:30 AM  

meat0918: I know people that have no problem attempting to preempt federal and state laws when it comes to environmental protections.


For example...
 
2014-03-06 11:54:23 AM  

Bareefer Obonghit: About 7 years ago, I remember the mayor of my town pulling his gun on an old - I'm talking like 70+ year old - secretary because she told him to stop throwing his peanut shells on the floor of City Hall every day like it was a sh*tty Lonestar Steakhouse. Because of this, I'd love to see the local gun laws my hometown would enact.


Well given that he was apparently guilty of brandishing/aggravated assault, no need to worry about exemption there. Now if you want to talk whether or not he should have been allowed to have a gun in city hall, well chances are he was either exempted from the rule altogether or he had it there illegally. Most states do not allow people to carry guns in places like town halls (public meetings being different than secure areas) but often police and elected representatives are exceptions to that rule.
 
2014-03-06 11:55:12 AM  

d23: You're asking today's nutball right wing to be consistent in their beliefs.

This does not happen.  Logic no go there.


To be fair, most people don't.  High right-wing-authoritarians tend to crop up a bit in the democratic party sometimes too, and they do the exact same thing.
 
2014-03-06 11:59:55 AM  

manbart: [soldiersystems.net image 500x370]


Ok, the look in her eyes is pure Trolltastic.
 
2014-03-06 12:01:31 PM  

redmid17: Bareefer Obonghit: About 7 years ago, I remember the mayor of my town pulling his gun on an old - I'm talking like 70+ year old - secretary because she told him to stop throwing his peanut shells on the floor of City Hall every day like it was a sh*tty Lonestar Steakhouse. Because of this, I'd love to see the local gun laws my hometown would enact.

Well given that he was apparently guilty of brandishing/aggravated assault, no need to worry about exemption there. Now if you want to talk whether or not he should have been allowed to have a gun in city hall, well chances are he was either exempted from the rule altogether or he had it there illegally. Most states do not allow people to carry guns in places like town halls (public meetings being different than secure areas) but often police and elected representatives are exceptions to that rule.


Afterwards the town tried to enact a 'no guns in city govt buildings unless you are a cop' rule and the NRA got involved and they dropped it. He acted surprised that they tried to make this rule and said, "I think they did this because of me." HAHAHAHAHA noooo, of course not. He had to leave office about a year later because he was 80ish and had some dementia. Shocking.
 
2014-03-06 12:02:42 PM  
Also I'd be more on Tom Dart's side if ISP had access to the same databases he was digging through. They don't. That's why they approved the applications. Also there is a huge wave of applications coming in right now because Illinois, unconstitutionally apparently, had decided that there was no right to concealed carry and now 1,000 applications a day are coming in. Once that initial wave has subsided, the 30 day window is pretty in line with other states who have similar provisions. Wisconsin's law specifies 21 days, for example.
 
2014-03-06 12:02:45 PM  

Katolu: manbart: [soldiersystems.net image 500x370]

Ok, the look in her eyes is pure Trolltastic.


Yeah, you gotta wonder about that image. It's almost too ironic and I see what you mean about her expression. It's as if she's laughing with her eyes.
 
2014-03-06 12:04:28 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: redmid17: Bareefer Obonghit: About 7 years ago, I remember the mayor of my town pulling his gun on an old - I'm talking like 70+ year old - secretary because she told him to stop throwing his peanut shells on the floor of City Hall every day like it was a sh*tty Lonestar Steakhouse. Because of this, I'd love to see the local gun laws my hometown would enact.

Well given that he was apparently guilty of brandishing/aggravated assault, no need to worry about exemption there. Now if you want to talk whether or not he should have been allowed to have a gun in city hall, well chances are he was either exempted from the rule altogether or he had it there illegally. Most states do not allow people to carry guns in places like town halls (public meetings being different than secure areas) but often police and elected representatives are exceptions to that rule.

Afterwards the town tried to enact a 'no guns in city govt buildings unless you are a cop' rule and the NRA got involved and they dropped it. He acted surprised that they tried to make this rule and said, "I think they did this because of me." HAHAHAHAHA noooo, of course not. He had to leave office about a year later because he was 80ish and had some dementia. Shocking.


What state is that?
 
2014-03-06 12:05:33 PM  
It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.
 
2014-03-06 12:07:15 PM  
And the same people who are complaining about states preempting cities, cry fawl when a state tries to preempt federal laws..... you just cannot explain that.
 
2014-03-06 12:07:35 PM  
And the same people who demand that states not interfere with "religious beliefs" of corporations will also gladly pass laws forcing women to have their vaginas invaded with probes in order to slut shame them.

Internal consistency isn't exactly part of the equation.
 
2014-03-06 12:07:55 PM  
This is my Rifle
This is my Gun.............



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U    (SFW)
 
2014-03-06 12:10:57 PM  

sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.


Yeah, that's the de jure understanding.  But the principle is what's in question here.

Republicans: "Smaller governments always represent people better!  Let us discriminate against gays in our states"
"Okay, let's not have so many guns in our town, we don't really want them"
"No, you'll obey our rules!"
 
2014-03-06 12:11:15 PM  
in all seriousness, the Owners (the wealthiest 2% of America that owns everyone and everything) would like to see the Sheeple lose their guns.....

that way, there would be one less thing to worry about for the Owners when they eventually control this fading Democratic Republic with an Iron Fist.


now you know!

ain't Freedom great!  (for those who have it)
 
2014-03-06 12:12:04 PM  
the IRS placed an erroneous lien on a home I no longer owned.
The lien was stamped in New Castle County, Delaware. The county executive at that time was Chris Coons, the man who wound up defeating me in the election for the U.S. Senate seat


She thinks a county executive can file a lien on behalf of the federal government?
 
2014-03-06 12:14:15 PM  

Linux_Yes: in all seriousness, the Owners (the wealthiest 2% of America that owns everyone and everything) would like to see the Sheeple lose their guns.....

that way, there would be one less thing to worry about for the Owners when they eventually control this fading Democratic Republic with an Iron Fist.


now you know!

ain't Freedom great!  (for those who have it)


pbs.twimg.com
Yes?
 
2014-03-06 12:15:27 PM  
Difference being that municipalities are creations of the states, who have sovereignty.

States are not the creation of the federal government.
 
2014-03-06 12:15:31 PM  

jaytkay: the IRS...


Wrong thread, sorry
 
2014-03-06 12:17:08 PM  
As I understand the article: Sheriff Tom Dart, of Cook County, is upset that he cannot arbitrarily deny Chicago residents concealed weapons permits due to his moral opposition to civilians being armed, and this situation should be amended to allow local sheriffs discretion in arbitrarily denying permits to people who do not provide them with sufficient campaign contributions.
 
2014-03-06 12:17:24 PM  

sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.


Yes, I'm well aware that state governments have unitary power over their jurisdiction, but that still doesn't explain how a more local government can be better than a more distant government unless that local government is too local. Should we hire some smart guys to figure out just how local a government should be to its denizens to optimize its goodness?

/subby
 
2014-03-06 12:18:06 PM  

manbart: Linux_Yes: in all seriousness, the Owners (the wealthiest 2% of America that owns everyone and everything) would like to see the Sheeple lose their guns.....

that way, there would be one less thing to worry about for the Owners when they eventually control this fading Democratic Republic with an Iron Fist.


now you know!

ain't Freedom great!  (for those who have it)

[pbs.twimg.com image 407x240]
Yes?


Scrolling down nicely and BAM that image almost made me spit my drink out.
 
2014-03-06 12:18:54 PM  
It's 'State's rights', not 'Municipalities' rights'.
 
2014-03-06 12:19:11 PM  

Katolu: manbart: Linux_Yes: in all seriousness, the Owners (the wealthiest 2% of America that owns everyone and everything) would like to see the Sheeple lose their guns.....

that way, there would be one less thing to worry about for the Owners when they eventually control this fading Democratic Republic with an Iron Fist.


now you know!

ain't Freedom great!  (for those who have it)

[pbs.twimg.com image 407x240]
Yes?

Scrolling down nicely and BAM that image almost made me spit my drink out out my drink.


FTFM
 
2014-03-06 12:22:12 PM  

Slackfumasta: It's 'State's rights', not 'Municipalities' rights'.


"Rights" are inherently a property of individuals. As collectives, neither "states" nor "municipalities" have rights, as the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.

A governing body, such as a state or a municipality, may have powers assigned to it, but it cannot have rights.
 
2014-03-06 12:22:25 PM  

Saiga410: And the same people who are complaining about states preempting cities, cry fawl when a state tries to preempt federal laws..... you just cannot explain that.


Well, *I* can explain that, but you aren't smart enough to understand the explanation. It involves nuance and requires more brain cells than it takes you to threadshiat.

What is it that drives losers like you to spend your time trolling, anyways? It seems a fairly unhealthy hobby.
 
2014-03-06 12:24:51 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.

Yes, I'm well aware that state governments have unitary power over their jurisdiction, but that still doesn't explain how a more local government can be better than a more distant government unless that local government is too local. Should we hire some smart guys to figure out just how local a government should be to its denizens to optimize its goodness?

/subby


On the whole, local governments need to be reigned in.  Too many goody two shoes serve in local government and treat them like their little fiefdoms and attempt to regulate everything to insane levels.
 
2014-03-06 12:25:15 PM  
Uh, TFA appears to be about state laws pre-empting local laws, not really federal laws preempting state laws, though that's mentioned in passing.

Also:

"It used to be that local governments all across the country could regulate what was best for their community when it came to firearms," Cutilletta explained.

... and you used it to blatantly violate enumerated constitutional rights in a way a five-year-old could understand.  I'm sorry, brother, but people like you are pretty much the  reason that cities aren't allowed to do this anymore.  And presenting the exact same rationale ("local people should decide what's best for local conditions") that was used to justify not letting black people into most businesses, and is currently being used to try to make refusing to serve gay people legal... well, that's not helping your case, douche.

This whole situation is a whole lot of "you're the reason the rest of us can't be trusted with discretion", there.  It's not like it doesn't go the other way, rural gun laws would probably let you just lean your rifle in the corner of the bar while grabbing a beer if not for urban influence on the situation.  The law is  supposed to be generally applicable, for equal protection reasons if nothing else.  Stop whinging, you had your chance to tweak it on a smaller scale and you blew it.  Not a sinister NRA conspiracy,  you.
 
2014-03-06 12:26:30 PM  

Dimensio: Slackfumasta: It's 'State's rights', not 'Municipalities' rights'.

"Rights" are inherently a property of individuals. As collectives, neither "states" nor "municipalities" have rights, as the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.

A governing body, such as a state or a municipality, may have powers assigned to it, but it cannot have rights.


States have right because they are sovereign and do not have powers assigned to them, rather their constitutions function to limit the general rights of the States.
 
2014-03-06 12:29:49 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.

Yes, I'm well aware that state governments have unitary power over their jurisdiction, but that still doesn't explain how a more local government can be better than a more distant government unless that local government is too local. Should we hire some smart guys to figure out just how local a government should be to its denizens to optimize its goodness?

/subby

On the whole, local governments need to be reigned in.  Too many goody two shoes serve in local government and treat them like their little fiefdoms and attempt to regulate everything to insane levels.


So why doesn't that logic apply to state governments? I can easily argue that there are a lot of goody two shoes serving in my state government who do very similar things to make the state into what they think of as a utopia. Why don't they need to be reigned in by the federal government?
 
2014-03-06 12:30:39 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: monoski: Most people who hate any form government have no issue with their own form of government.

Fixed that for you, subby

Not very well, though. Would you like to buy an "of"?


Yes, sir. Please have Vanna White put that on the post for me. Thanks
 
2014-03-06 12:31:19 PM  

redmid17: Bareefer Obonghit: redmid17: Bareefer Obonghit: About 7 years ago, I remember the mayor of my town pulling his gun on an old - I'm talking like 70+ year old - secretary because she told him to stop throwing his peanut shells on the floor of City Hall every day like it was a sh*tty Lonestar Steakhouse. Because of this, I'd love to see the local gun laws my hometown would enact.

Well given that he was apparently guilty of brandishing/aggravated assault, no need to worry about exemption there. Now if you want to talk whether or not he should have been allowed to have a gun in city hall, well chances are he was either exempted from the rule altogether or he had it there illegally. Most states do not allow people to carry guns in places like town halls (public meetings being different than secure areas) but often police and elected representatives are exceptions to that rule.

Afterwards the town tried to enact a 'no guns in city govt buildings unless you are a cop' rule and the NRA got involved and they dropped it. He acted surprised that they tried to make this rule and said, "I think they did this because of me." HAHAHAHAHA noooo, of course not. He had to leave office about a year later because he was 80ish and had some dementia. Shocking.

What state is that?


It was in Pennsyltucky
 
2014-03-06 12:31:41 PM  

sprgrss: Dimensio: Slackfumasta: It's 'State's rights', not 'Municipalities' rights'.

"Rights" are inherently a property of individuals. As collectives, neither "states" nor "municipalities" have rights, as the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.

A governing body, such as a state or a municipality, may have powers assigned to it, but it cannot have rights.

States have right because they are sovereign and do not have powers assigned to them, rather their constitutions function to limit the general rights of the States.


I disagree.

A Constitution assigns (and may limit) the powers of the governing body. The Constitution of the United States of America establishes the powers of the federal government and (primarily through recognition and protection of individual rights) establishes some limitations of that power. A state constitution serves the same purpose at the state level.
 
2014-03-06 12:32:39 PM  

Dimensio: "Rights" are inherently a property of individuals. As collectives, neither "states" nor "municipalities" have rights, as the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.

A governing body, such as a state or a municipality, may have powers assigned to it, but it cannot have rights.


Historically, this isn't true.  The first entities to be given legal rights were the nobility/oligarchs of the old republics and feudal states, meaning that for 1500 years or so before Locke was around they were a property of an office, not an individual (you lost your patent of nobility or your citizenship, you lost those "rights").  Currently, governing entities are still considered to have rights, though it's usually expressed in terms of jurisdiction or perogative for extra specificity.

So... no.  You're free to use a different definition of the word than the rest of the world, but we're the majority by several hundred million so we get to set the "standard" meaning, and you don't get to chew us out about it, heh.
 
2014-03-06 12:35:19 PM  
"The right to life is inherent to me as an individual and has nothing to do with society"
*Gets shot*
"Hey you can't do that!"
 
2014-03-06 12:36:20 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.

Yes, I'm well aware that state governments have unitary power over their jurisdiction, but that still doesn't explain how a more local government can be better than a more distant government unless that local government is too local. Should we hire some smart guys to figure out just how local a government should be to its denizens to optimize its goodness?

/subby

On the whole, local governments need to be reigned in.  Too many goody two shoes serve in local government and treat them like their little fiefdoms and attempt to regulate everything to insane levels.

So why doesn't that logic apply to state governments? I can easily argue that there are a lot of goody two shoes serving in my state government who do very similar things to make the state into what they think of as a utopia. Why don't they need to be reigned in by the federal government?


Because the States are sovereign.
 
2014-03-06 12:37:56 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.

Yes, I'm well aware that state governments have unitary power over their jurisdiction, but that still doesn't explain how a more local government can be better than a more distant government unless that local government is too local. Should we hire some smart guys to figure out just how local a government should be to its denizens to optimize its goodness?

/subby

On the whole, local governments need to be reigned in.  Too many goody two shoes serve in local government and treat them like their little fiefdoms and attempt to regulate everything to insane levels.

So why doesn't that logic apply to state governments? I can easily argue that there are a lot of goody two shoes serving in my state government who do very similar things to make the state into what they think of as a utopia. Why don't they need to be reigned in by the federal government?

Because the States are sovereign.


"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.
 
2014-03-06 12:39:23 PM  

Dimensio: sprgrss: Dimensio: Slackfumasta: It's 'State's rights', not 'Municipalities' rights'.

"Rights" are inherently a property of individuals. As collectives, neither "states" nor "municipalities" have rights, as the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.

A governing body, such as a state or a municipality, may have powers assigned to it, but it cannot have rights.

States have right because they are sovereign and do not have powers assigned to them, rather their constitutions function to limit the general rights of the States.

I disagree.

A Constitution assigns (and may limit) the powers of the governing body. The Constitution of the United States of America establishes the powers of the federal government and (primarily through recognition and protection of individual rights) establishes some limitations of that power. A state constitution serves the same purpose at the state level.


The Federal Constitution and the State constitutions function as completely different animals.  The Federal Constitution is a limited grant of power, the federal government can only operate where it is expressly granted authority, whilst the State Constitutions function as a limitation on power, which is why State governments have general police powers and the federal constitution doesn't.
 
2014-03-06 12:41:32 PM  
ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.


Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.
 
2014-03-06 12:43:43 PM  

jaytkay: meat0918: I know people that have no problem attempting to preempt federal and state laws when it comes to environmental protections.

For example...


There are groups attempting to in Eugene, Oregon.

We have a group that has been pushing for the city to enact stricter pollution and other guidelines than state or federal agencies.  The city just banned itself from using neonictonoids in it parks management program.  The group behind that (and I'm ok with them not spraying neonics) failed to get the city to adopt a complete no-spray policy.  The person in charge of that push actually told the city, "Just hire more people to pull weeds you used to spray".

We also are preempting state law regarding civil unions.  The city recognizes them, the state prohibits civil unions.
 
2014-03-06 12:45:10 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.


Christ.  If I decided to critically analyze any other part of the constitution, we'd arrive at numerous good reasons for it being so, like say, why we have a bicameral legislature, or why the supreme court is nominated by the president and approved by the senate.  Or why they serve for life.  Falling back on "that's just how it is" means you're wrong.  How something is, and how it should be are two distinct concepts, and it takes a child's understanding of rules to assume any different.
 
2014-03-06 12:46:05 PM  

meat0918: jaytkay: meat0918: I know people that have no problem attempting to preempt federal and state laws when it comes to environmental protections.

For example...

There are groups attempting to in Eugene, Oregon.

We have a group that has been pushing for the city to enact stricter pollution and other guidelines than state or federal agencies.  The city just banned itself from using neonictonoids in it parks management program.  The group behind that (and I'm ok with them not spraying neonics) failed to get the city to adopt a complete no-spray policy.  The person in charge of that push actually told the city, "Just hire more people to pull weeds you used to spray".

We also are preempting state law regarding civil unions.  The city recognizes them, the state prohibits civil unions.


Oh, several cities have attempted to preempt the feds by banning the transport of coal through their cities as well, even though they have no jurisdiction.
 
2014-03-06 12:49:18 PM  
The purpose of State preemption of local firearms laws is to insure that the law is uniform over the entire state.   Otherwise it would be impossible to go from Point-A to Point-B without having to know the laws (sometimes conflicting) of every single jurisdiction along your path.
 
2014-03-06 12:50:25 PM  
ikanreed:
Christ.  If I decided to critically analyze any other part of the constitution, we'd arrive at numerous good reasons for it being so, like say, why we have a bicameral legislature, or why the supreme court is nominated by the president and approved by the senate.  Or why they serve for life.  Falling back on "that's just how it is" means you're wrong.  How something is, and how it should be are two distinct concepts, and it takes a child's understanding of rules to assume any different.

No, it's an explanation for why people have certain view points that they have and it isn't "wrong," no matter how much you want to wail and gnash you teeth.  The fact of the matter is, the States do not derive their authority from the federal government, whilst local governments do derive their authority from the States.  Your failure to recognize that is why you cannot understand why some people have a problem with a big federal government but don't have those similar concerns when it comes to State government.
 
2014-03-06 12:54:01 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed:
Christ.  If I decided to critically analyze any other part of the constitution, we'd arrive at numerous good reasons for it being so, like say, why we have a bicameral legislature, or why the supreme court is nominated by the president and approved by the senate.  Or why they serve for life.  Falling back on "that's just how it is" means you're wrong.  How something is, and how it should be are two distinct concepts, and it takes a child's understanding of rules to assume any different.

No, it's an explanation for why people have certain view points that they have and it isn't "wrong," no matter how much you want to wail and gnash you teeth.  The fact of the matter is, the States do not derive their authority from the federal government, whilst local governments do derive their authority from the States.  Your failure to recognize that is why you cannot understand why some people have a problem with a big federal government but don't have those similar concerns when it comes to State government.


Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.
 
2014-03-06 12:55:27 PM  
Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.
 
2014-03-06 12:59:13 PM  
ikanreed:
Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.

What point are you trying to make?  Because I cannot follow the thought process of the syphilitic.
 
2014-03-06 12:59:58 PM  

TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.



They aren't superseding federal drug laws.  The Fed could still prosecute violations of federal law in colorado and washington as it relates to marijuana.
 
2014-03-06 01:00:26 PM  

TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.


Technically they are not "superseding federal drug laws", they simply got rid of their own redundant drug laws. Neither Colorado nor Washington passed laws indicated that federal laws do not apply within their boarders. Marijuana cultivation, distribution and possession is a crime in those states.
 
2014-03-06 01:01:26 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed:
Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.

What point are you trying to make?  Because I cannot follow the thought process of the syphilitic.


The point is that there's no reason for you to behind this, other than "I like states".  Threre's no value to your position, unless you're obsessed with tradition, especially when it can lead to injustice.
 
2014-03-06 01:03:35 PM  
When the top most law declares that individuals have a right to something, you'd think any arguments about which lower tier laws can infringe on that right would be short lived.

/...but enough about the fourth amendment.
 
2014-03-06 01:04:10 PM  

Saiga410: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

Unless it is weed.


Nope. State law has not "trumped" federal law in Colorado. Weed is still illegal there. The federal government has only voluntarily exercised its prerogative to restrict federal marijuana enforcement in the state. It is a legally, morally, and politically important distinction.
 
2014-03-06 01:05:14 PM  

ikanreed: sprgrss: ikanreed:
Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.

What point are you trying to make?  Because I cannot follow the thought process of the syphilitic.

The point is that there's no reason for you to behind this, other than "I like states".  Threre's no value to your position, unless you're obsessed with tradition, especially when it can lead to injustice.


The value to my position comes from the realization that federalism allows for democratic experimentation.  It's from the realization that States do not derive their authority from the federal government.  it's a realization that one could want a limited federal government while still wanting an entity, in this case, having general police powers.

There is no value in your position because your position is nothing short of not understanding why some people would have a problem with the federal government having general police powers.
 
2014-03-06 01:05:51 PM  

TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.


Only because the Feds have decided not to be total asshammers about drug law. They could, even today (assuming Holder's promises aren't legally binding), decide not to abide by their unilateral decisions and start rounding up Coloradans and Washingtonians who violate Federal Law, seize money and assets, etc.

// they're still asshammers, but to less than 100% density
 
2014-03-06 01:06:50 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed: sprgrss: ikanreed:
Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.

What point are you trying to make?  Because I cannot follow the thought process of the syphilitic.

The point is that there's no reason for you to behind this, other than "I like states".  Threre's no value to your position, unless you're obsessed with tradition, especially when it can lead to injustice.

The value to my position comes from the realization that federalism allows for democratic experimentation. It's from the realization that States do not derive their authority from the federal government.  it's a realization that one could want a limited federal government while still wanting an entity, in this case, having general police powers.

There is no value in your position because your position is nothing short of not understanding why some people would have a problem with the federal government having general police powers.


So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?
 
2014-03-06 01:08:56 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: ikanreed: sprgrss: ikanreed:
Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.

What point are you trying to make?  Because I cannot follow the thought process of the syphilitic.

The point is that there's no reason for you to behind this, other than "I like states".  Threre's no value to your position, unless you're obsessed with tradition, especially when it can lead to injustice.

The value to my position comes from the realization that federalism allows for democratic experimentation.  It's from the realization that States do not derive their authority from the federal government.  it's a realization that one could want a limited federal government while still wanting an entity, in this case, having general police powers.

There is no value in your position because your position is nothing short of not understanding why some people would have a problem with the federal government having general police powers.

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?


Yeah, this, dummy.  If the principal applies, why doesn't it apply at lower levels too?
 
2014-03-06 01:14:03 PM  
Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.
 
2014-03-06 01:16:41 PM  

sprgrss: TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.


They aren't superseding federal drug laws.  The Fed could still prosecute violations of federal law in colorado and washington as it relates to marijuana.


Hmph.

I think I had ignoring laws == superseding
 
2014-03-06 01:19:09 PM  

nmrsnr: More like "people like laws they like, and dislike laws they dislike, and attempt to rationalize any incongruity between the two."


This.  But I generally favor laws passed by smaller legislative bodies, so I'm gonna have to side with the cities and counties on this one.  I just wouldn't live in one of those cities.

/From my cold dead hands.
 
2014-03-06 01:19:45 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.


So the final conclusion is: "because you can't know the law that way", as if we have some magic way to know the laws in states, municipalities, or even federal government with the status quo.

"Oops, you crossed a state line, you don't know it, but you're not now not married."
"Oops, you crossed a state line, suddenly your car doesn't meet safety requirements, not that you'd know"


This argument is equally valid as an accusation against state based federalism.  It doesn't change anything, except that it allows specific petty tyrannies republicans like.  The idea got demolished by the supreme court regarding the 14th amendment a long time ago, because it's dumb.
 
2014-03-06 01:24:30 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.


Suppose a city or county decided that it didn't want to be under the thumb of their current state government, like the counties in eastern Colorado are thinking about. If they were to successfully secede from their previous state and start their own state, what impact would that have on your thinking?
 
2014-03-06 01:26:57 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.

Suppose a city or county decided that it didn't want to be under the thumb of their current state government, like the counties in eastern Colorado are thinking about. If they were to successfully secede from their previous state and start their own state, what impact would that have on your thinking?


That would take an act of Congress to authorize those counties to form their own state and if the legislature of colorado so desired, prior to breaking them off could dissolve those local governments and join them with other local governments.
 
2014-03-06 01:27:04 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.

Suppose a city or county decided that it didn't want to be under the thumb of their current state government, like the counties in eastern Colorado are thinking about. If they were to successfully secede from their previous state and start their own state, what impact would that have on your thinking?


It means those counties had enough sway to convince Congress to create a 58th state.
 
2014-03-06 01:27:05 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.


Hitchhiker: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.
Ted: That - good point.
Hitchhiker: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
 
2014-03-06 01:27:08 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.


citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-06 01:33:28 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.

Suppose a city or county decided that it didn't want to be under the thumb of their current state government, like the counties in eastern Colorado are thinking about. If they were to successfully secede from their previous state and start their own state, what impact would that have on your thinking?

That would take an act of Congress to authorize those counties to form their own state and if the legislature of colorado so desired, prior to breaking them off could dissolve those local governments and join them with other local governments.


Your response doesn't answer my counterfactual question. All you're doing is saying what would have to happen for a city or county to secede and what different groups could do to stop it from happening. Forget all that. I'm telling you in this counterfactual world, it has already happened. Weld County has successfully removed itself from Colorado and created the state of Weld in a manner recognized by the federal government. Is the Weld state government now causing problems since the general police powers are even more local than they were when Weld was merely a county in Colorado? Have they destroyed the uniformity necessary for democratic experimentation? Are they making it more difficult for people to know what is legal in one area and not in another?
 
2014-03-06 01:36:55 PM  
Serious Black:

Your response doesn't answer my counterfactual question. All you're doing is saying what would have to happen for a city or county to secede and what different groups could do to stop it from happening. Forget all that. I'm telling you in this counterfactual world, it has already happened. Weld County has successfully removed itself from Colorado and created the state of Weld in a manner recognized by the federal government. Is the Weld state government now causing prob ...

In this instance, Weld County would be its own state and as such would have general police powers and the ability to create and uncreate local governments and afford those local governments powers.  Colorado would not longer have authority over Weld County as Weld County would not longer be part of Colorado.
 
2014-03-06 01:40:36 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.

[citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com image 850x226]


Art. I § 8 of the constitution is where the Congress is authorized to act and can only act in those areas.

Then, look at the 10th Amendment, all powers not assigned to the federal government and not denied to the States are the States.  The States have general police powers and are only limited in those police powers by their own constitutions or where the federal constitution limits that authority.
 
2014-03-06 01:41:13 PM  

TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.


Sort of related; was funny how the citizens of CO blew a gasket when their own state officials passed some gun control after the movie theater shooting. When it comes to guns in CO there be no reasonable response.
 
2014-03-06 01:51:06 PM  

max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.


Sorta like my bed time rule at home overrides the rules of the Snakes and Ladders game my kids are playing when I tell them to go to bed.  Except my kids are more mature than most Red State Governments.
 
2014-03-06 01:53:56 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Difference being that municipalities are creations of the states, who have sovereignty.

States are not the creation of the federal government.


Some states aren't. Most states are.

The original 13 plus Vermont, Texas, California, and Hawaii were independent before becoming a territory/state. The rest were carved out by the federal government as territories and then granted statehood later.
 
2014-03-06 01:57:24 PM  

mrshowrules: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

Sorta like my bed time rule at home overrides the rules of the Snakes and Ladders game my kids are playing when I tell them to go to bed.  Except my kids are more mature than most Red State Governments.


Yeah but you're not a 'Murican so you and your evil , godless Snakes and Ladders is germane to the discussion. Down here in Real 'Murica we have wholesome and godly Shoots and Ladders.
 
2014-03-06 02:01:08 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.

[citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com image 850x226]

Art. I § 8 of the constitution is where the Congress is authorized to act and can only act in those areas.

Then, look at the 10th Amendment, all powers not assigned to the federal government and not denied to the States are the States.  The States have general police powers and are only limited in those police powers by their own constitutions or where the federal constitution limits that authority.


True but nowhere does it explicitly say that the states are the final authority on anything. And no I'm not just arguing semantics. So you can think that state authority supersedes federal authority all you want but the supremacy clause unambiguously sets federal authority above that of an individual state. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the news lately but a whole of homophobic teabagger types have been learning that lesson the hard way.
 
2014-03-06 02:06:00 PM  

Saiga410: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

Unless it is weed.

brandonzin.files.wordpress.com

Farking wah! The Feds are free to enforce the stupidest of their laws if they want, but they will be paying the full cost of it. States like mine, Colorado, will no longer be assisting them, is all.
 
2014-03-06 02:07:32 PM  
ScaryBottles:

True but nowhere does it explicitly say that the states are the final authority on anything. And no I'm not just arguing semantics. So you can think that state authority supersedes federal authority all you want but the supremacy clause unambiguously sets federal authority above that of an individual state. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the news lately but a whole of homophobic teabagger types have been learning that lesson the hard way.

Where did you come up with the idea that I support nullification?  I don't.  I understand that where the Congress has the authority to act it's word is final.  I also recognize that the States, because of the 14th Amendment cannot deny people certain rights and protections.
 
2014-03-06 02:08:19 PM  

jigger: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Difference being that municipalities are creations of the states, who have sovereignty.

States are not the creation of the federal government.

Some states aren't. Most states are.

The original 13 plus Vermont, Texas, California, and Hawaii were independent before becoming a territory/state. The rest were carved out by the federal government as territories and then granted statehood later.


But all states are equal in their sovereignty.
 
2014-03-06 02:11:44 PM  
These types of headlines are the worst. The submitter attempts point out a perceived hypocrisy of whatever group he wants to discredit. In doing so, he'll throw out any sort of nuance that might explain why there may be a reasonable difference in the two cases. The "example" of hypocrisy then becomes so general that it doesn't mean anything, and ironically lets open the door for this type of argument to be used against their side (or anyone, really)
 
2014-03-06 02:12:26 PM  
FTFA: "There are lots of areas where home rule certainly applies," Stoneking said. "But this is not one of them. Not when it comes to an unalienable, natural, God-given right for people to protect themselves."

18 And lo, upon the eighth day, God did look upon his creations and see that Man had no protection against other men God had created who would do harm 19 And God said, Let there be firearms 20 And God looked upon the firearms and saw that they were good. 21And God blessed the firearms, for they were his greatest work.

22 And the serpent was beneath all the other beasts of the field, and crawled upon his belly, cunning and devious was the serpent. 23 And the serpent spake unto Adam, and said 24 But if you have access to firearms, access must be given even unto those who would do harm unto you 25 And Adam spake, saying, 26 Thou evil and devious serpent, What God hath made, and hath blessed, let no man put asunder, even for the sake of living together in peace! 27 And thus the serpent did slink away, chastised.

28 And God did look upon his creation, and the destruction wrought with the firearms He had made for them, and blessed, and was well pleased.
 
2014-03-06 02:13:40 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

True but nowhere does it explicitly say that the states are the final authority on anything. And no I'm not just arguing semantics. So you can think that state authority supersedes federal authority all you want but the supremacy clause unambiguously sets federal authority above that of an individual state. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the news lately but a whole of homophobic teabagger types have been learning that lesson the hard way.

Where did you come up with the idea that I support nullification?  I don't.  I understand that where the Congress has the authority to act it's word is final.  I also recognize that the States, because of the 14th Amendment cannot deny people certain rights and protections.


Please do not put words in my mouth. The only thing I said was that the states are not the final authority on anything period. I could spend the rest of the day listing all the various situations where state authority is not absolute. Next time respond to what I actually said not what you wish I had said.
 
2014-03-06 02:15:11 PM  
...and when it comes to collective bargaining, wages, infrastructure, public transit, protection from discrimination, education...  The concept is the same, isolated areas affected by outside majorities. The farthest reaches of white flight dictating what cities can do is kinda of like southern states dictating how roads are salted and plowed in the winter.. in the latter case, all they see is a dollar amount for road repair, and then gripe and gripe about it, claiming costs could be reduced by how the roads are maintained in the winter, and ban any change to how the roads are actually constructed and paved. (Because their in-laws own the companies that "won" the [no-bid] contracts to lay all the asphalt every year, and sure as hell aren't going to allow any gubberment to tell them to do a better job of it, let alone have someone else do the work.
 
2014-03-06 02:17:10 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

True but nowhere does it explicitly say that the states are the final authority on anything. And no I'm not just arguing semantics. So you can think that state authority supersedes federal authority all you want but the supremacy clause unambiguously sets federal authority above that of an individual state. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the news lately but a whole of homophobic teabagger types have been learning that lesson the hard way.

Where did you come up with the idea that I support nullification?  I don't.  I understand that where the Congress has the authority to act it's word is final.  I also recognize that the States, because of the 14th Amendment cannot deny people certain rights and protections.

Please do not put words in my mouth. The only thing I said was that the states are not the final authority on anything period. I could spend the rest of the day listing all the various situations where state authority is not absolute. Next time respond to what I actually said not what you wish I had said.


Same holds true for you.  You know, don't strip the context from what I type.
 
2014-03-06 02:17:30 PM  

Frank N Stein: These types of headlines are the worst. The submitter attempts point out a perceived hypocrisy of whatever group he wants to discredit. In doing so, he'll throw out any sort of nuance that might explain why there may be a reasonable difference in the two cases. The "example" of hypocrisy then becomes so general that it doesn't mean anything, and ironically lets open the door for this type of argument to be used against their side (or anyone, really)


this.
on the other hand, it does give all some of the politics warriors a chance to practice their inane shouting, so that's kind of nice
 
2014-03-06 02:21:25 PM  

sprgrss: jigger: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Difference being that municipalities are creations of the states, who have sovereignty.

States are not the creation of the federal government.

Some states aren't. Most states are.

The original 13 plus Vermont, Texas, California, and Hawaii were independent before becoming a territory/state. The rest were carved out by the federal government as territories and then granted statehood later.

But all states are equal in their sovereignty.


Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.
 
2014-03-06 02:25:38 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

True but nowhere does it explicitly say that the states are the final authority on anything. And no I'm not just arguing semantics. So you can think that state authority supersedes federal authority all you want but the supremacy clause unambiguously sets federal authority above that of an individual state. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the news lately but a whole of homophobic teabagger types have been learning that lesson the hard way.

Where did you come up with the idea that I support nullification?  I don't.  I understand that where the Congress has the authority to act it's word is final.  I also recognize that the States, because of the 14th Amendment cannot deny people certain rights and protections.

Please do not put words in my mouth. The only thing I said was that the states are not the final authority on anything period. I could spend the rest of the day listing all the various situations where state authority is not absolute. Next time respond to what I actually said not what you wish I had said.

Same holds true for you.  You know, don't strip the context from what I type.

because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.


Its not my fault you said something thats demonstrably inaccurate regardless of its context.

31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-03-06 02:26:32 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.
 
2014-03-06 02:27:06 PM  

max_pooper: mrshowrules: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

Sorta like my bed time rule at home overrides the rules of the Snakes and Ladders game my kids are playing when I tell them to go to bed.  Except my kids are more mature than most Red State Governments.

Yeah but you're not a 'Murican so you and your evil , godless Snakes and Ladders is germane to the discussion. Down here in Real 'Murica we have wholesome and godly Shoots and Ladders.


"shoots" can also have a connotation of gun violence and would therefore be to damaging to our sensitive and emotional sensibilities.
 
2014-03-06 02:28:20 PM  
ScaryBottles:

Its not my fault you said something thats demonstrably inaccurate regardless of its context.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 500x238]


Have you bothered to read the rest of the thread?  Because you are making a fool of yourself to anyone who knows what they are talking about.
 
2014-03-06 02:33:23 PM  

sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.   Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.


Do you not see how you're talking out both sides of your face here. You're literally completely contradicting yourself in less than one sentence.

Cognitive dissonance is a harsh mistress I guess.....
 
2014-03-06 02:34:52 PM  

sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.


I'm gonna go ahead and believe the USSC over you. Thanks for your, uh, opinion, though.
 
2014-03-06 02:36:18 PM  

sprgrss: only in specific limited areas


Like anything at all that affects interstate commerce in any way whatsoever.   For example, the federal government can make a law that makes it illegal for you to go wheat on your own land for your own personal consumption, because that affects interstate commerce, in that you will no longer be purchasing wheat on the open market which affects the interstate commerce of wheat.

Basically everything you do everyday affects interstate commerce in some fashion and thus is subject to the interstate commerce clause.

/So says current case law anyway.
 
2014-03-06 02:39:33 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Its not my fault you said something thats demonstrably inaccurate regardless of its context.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 500x238]

Have you bothered to read the rest of the thread?  Because you are making a fool of yourself to anyone who knows what they are talking about.


Didn't read the thread or article but sorry guy as I said your statement is demonstrably wrong and nothing in thread or article will change what you said. I guess we're at stage two, first denial then projection and next comes irrational anger.
 
2014-03-06 02:41:23 PM  

TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.


1. It's not as simple as "federal law always wins".  Federal law wins when it's an issue that affects the nation on a scale exceeding the intra-state, they actually have a distinct jurisdiction from the state governments and while there are points of overlap there are plenty of places where the feds  don't have jurisdiction or that jurisdiction is in dispute.  There's a legal rationale/loophole they've been using to do whatever they want in the interstate commerce clause but actually the courts have been slowly killing off that interpretation and there are limiting (and outright contradictory) precedents.

2. Related to the above, there are a lot of things that the feds can  assist with but are actually legally and practically under the purview of the states.  For instance, the feds actually  cannot build or maintain highways, despite it being the "federal highway system".  They can supply monetary assistance, and they can tie that assistance to a contract, but they can't outright dictate what the states do with their roads.  And as of the early 2000s, how much pressure they can apply with those contracts/financial contributions on state policy is legally restricted.

3. Similarly, for things that are purely federal, the feds can legally demand  cooperation, but they cannot force state agencies to dedicate manpower or resources to federal programs.  States usually  do since everyone working together is helpful, but if a state decides that its state police officers aren't going to waste state money enforcing federal drug crimes and will only provide information to the DEA when a warrant's produced, that's... completely, entirely, 100% legal.  They aren't allowed to actively help the drug-dealers, but they're under no obligation to do the feds' job.

// Albeit, this is all an aside from TFA, since the point is that municipal and state jurisdictions  aren't distinct jurisdictions, municipalities are a subsetof the state (their charters are state-issued, among other things) so states  do always win, barring judicial rulings against them.
 
2014-03-06 02:46:49 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Its not my fault you said something thats demonstrably inaccurate regardless of its context.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 500x238]

Have you bothered to read the rest of the thread?  Because you are making a fool of yourself to anyone who knows what they are talking about.


Also not for nothin' you're the one being called out by half a dozen people so tell me who is really making a fool of themselves here? Just because you feel like you're winning doesn't mean you are.
 
2014-03-06 02:47:02 PM  

d23: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.



It amazes me how people of average intelligence completely lose their minds after drinking the Republitard Kool-Aid. Just this morning, I informed a right wing Facebook friend that Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. His response was "Did you know him? Wow!" I informed him about the invention of the printing press and that we can do fancy book learnin' now.
 
2014-03-06 02:48:45 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.

[citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com image 850x226]


Citation needed?

OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous.  You can look it up.
 
2014-03-06 02:53:02 PM  

Phinn: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.

[citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com image 850x226]

Citation needed?

OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous.  You can look it up.


Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....
 
2014-03-06 02:54:59 PM  

Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.


You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?
 
2014-03-06 02:56:33 PM  

monoski: TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.

Sort of related; was funny how the citizens of CO blew a gasket when their own state officials passed some gun control after the movie theater shooting. When it comes to guns in CO there be no reasonable response.


None of the laws the Dems passed would prevent another James Holmes from buying a weapon. Combine that with how they handled the public comment portion of the 'debate' and you get recalls and election problems for the Dems. It ain't hard to understand.
 
2014-03-06 02:57:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.

I'm gonna go ahead and believe the USSC over you. Thanks for your, uh, opinion, though.


Everything I've said is in direct line with the Supreme Court of the United States and every other court in this country and anyone who has actually studied the law.
 
2014-03-06 02:58:47 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.

You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?


And those two amendments do nothing to counter what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers.
 
2014-03-06 02:59:58 PM  
ScaryBottles:

Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....


Honest question, have you ever bothered to read a single supreme court case that deals with federalism?  Or have you ever bothered to read the federalist papers?  Because do you want to know who relies upon the federalist papers?  The courts.
 
2014-03-06 03:01:02 PM  

bgilmore5: d23: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.


It amazes me how people of average intelligence completely lose their minds after drinking the Republitard Kool-Aid. Just this morning, I informed a right wing Facebook friend that Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. His response was "Did you know him? Wow!" I informed him about the invention of the printing press and that we can do fancy book learnin' now.


Grant wasn't that big of a drunk.  He played up that angle, but in reality he wasn't.
 
2014-03-06 03:02:44 PM  

sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.

I'm gonna go ahead and believe the USSC over you. Thanks for your, uh, opinion, though.

Everything I've said is in direct line with the Supreme Court of the United States and every other court in this country and anyone who has actually studied the law.


Ok show us where the USSC explicitly says state authority supersedes that of itself.
 
2014-03-06 03:04:02 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.

I'm gonna go ahead and believe the USSC over you. Thanks for your, uh, opinion, though.

Everything I've said is in direct line with the Supreme Court of the United States and every other court in this country and anyone who has actually studied the law.

Ok show us where the USSC explicitly says state authority supersedes that of itself.


weren't you the one who was just crying about:  " said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said. "
 
2014-03-06 03:06:03 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....

Honest question, have you ever bothered to read a single supreme court case that deals with federalism?  Or have you ever bothered to read the federalist papers?  Because do you want to know who relies upon the federalist papers?  The courts.


Okay for the third time now:

THE ONLY THING I AM ADDRESSING IS YOUR STATEMENT THAT STATES ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING.

Anything else is you putting words in my mouth and I thought I asked you not to do that.
 
2014-03-06 03:07:15 PM  

ScaryBottles: Phinn: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.

[citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com image 850x226]

Citation needed?

OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous.  You can look it up.

Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....


I've never reported anyone to anything in my life.  If you got banned, it's because the modmins caught your act and did it on their own.

Where is it codified law?  It was codified in the 9th and 10th Amendments.  And in a few dozen Supreme Court opinions over the centuries.


Dr Dreidel: You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?


Those Amendments confirmed what Madison (and Hamiliton, and the others) were describing in the Federalist Papers.  Madison believed the Amendments were unnecessary, that the structure of the Constitution and its delegation of enumerated powers was enough, but the Bill of Rights came later, since people began to realize that Congress could violate the rights of the people, even when arguably acting within the scope of an enumerated power.
 
2014-03-06 03:07:35 PM  
ScaryBottles:

Okay for the third time now:

THE ONLY THING I AM ADDRESSING IS YOUR STATEMENT THAT STATES ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING.

Anything else is you putting words in my mouth and I thought I asked you not to do that.


You can keep screaming out that straw man, but it doesn't make anything other than a straw man.
 
2014-03-06 03:09:17 PM  

sprgrss: Dr Dreidel: Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.

You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?

And those two amendments do nothing to counter what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers.


Yes, except that the 10th specifically was/is/has become the vehicle for expanding Federal power.

The number of powers the Feds have is a defined number, and smaller than the number of powers a State has. The scope and reach of those limited powers is MUCH stronger at the Federal level. So we're left with "Would you rather have a more work to do, or a longer list of chores?"

While Madison may still technically be correct, the scope of Federal power is larger than the scope of State power.

// I was incorrect to bring up the 9th
 
2014-03-06 03:11:44 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984: sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.

I'm gonna go ahead and believe the USSC over you. Thanks for your, uh, opinion, though.

Everything I've said is in direct line with the Supreme Court of the United States and every other court in this country and anyone who has actually studied the law.

Ok show us where the USSC explicitly says state authority supersedes that of itself.

weren't you the one who was just crying about:  " said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said. "


Well you said your opinion is based on the USSC precedents did you not? I may not know the finer points of constitutional law but I'm pretty sure I would have heard of them acknowledging that states have power that supersedes their own. Nice try chief but you have fallen for the most insidious of LIEbral strategies, quoting you verbatim.
 
2014-03-06 03:18:03 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Okay for the third time now:

THE ONLY THING I AM ADDRESSING IS YOUR STATEMENT THAT STATES ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING.

Anything else is you putting words in my mouth and I thought I asked you not to do that.

You can keep screaming out that straw man, but it doesn't make anything other than a straw man.


So you didn't say that? You've skipped right past anger to revisionism. That should save us some time.
 
2014-03-06 03:18:13 PM  
ScaryBottles:

Well you said your opinion is based on the USSC precedents did you not? I may not know the finer points of constitutional law but I'm pretty sure I would have heard of them acknowledging that states have power that supersedes their own. Nice try chief but you have fallen for the most insidious of LIEbral strategies, quoting you verbatim.

I don't even know what you are trying to say.

But if you are asking what I think you are asking, then, outside of Constitutional law and federal law, the Supreme Court of the United Stats has no authority in interpreting laws.
 
2014-03-06 03:19:17 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Okay for the third time now:

THE ONLY THING I AM ADDRESSING IS YOUR STATEMENT THAT STATES ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING.

Anything else is you putting words in my mouth and I thought I asked you not to do that.

You can keep screaming out that straw man, but it doesn't make anything other than a straw man.

So you didn't say that? You've skipped right past anger to revisionism. That should save us some time.


Strawman is still strawman.
 
2014-03-06 03:21:23 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Okay for the third time now:

THE ONLY THING I AM ADDRESSING IS YOUR STATEMENT THAT STATES ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY ON ANYTHING.

Anything else is you putting words in my mouth and I thought I asked you not to do that.

You can keep screaming out that straw man, but it doesn't make anything other than a straw man.

So you didn't say that? You've skipped right past anger to revisionism. That should save us some time.

Strawman is still strawman.


i.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-06 03:23:20 PM  

Serious Black: So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?


Ask the European Union that question.
 
2014-03-06 03:26:10 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black:

Your response doesn't answer my counterfactual question. All you're doing is saying what would have to happen for a city or county to secede and what different groups could do to stop it from happening. Forget all that. I'm telling you in this counterfactual world, it has already happened. Weld County has successfully removed itself from Colorado and created the state of Weld in a manner recognized by the federal government. Is the Weld state government now causing prob ...

In this instance, Weld County would be its own state and as such would have general police powers and the ability to create and uncreate local governments and afford those local governments powers.  Colorado would not longer have authority over Weld County as Weld County would not longer be part of Colorado.


That's great! But it does sort of belie your point from earlier in the thread that letting smaller jurisdictions have general police powers would strip the country of uniformity in laws and make it impossible for people to know that activity X is legal in one area but illegal in another area.

Hell, we don't even need to do a hypothetical. Look at Rhode Island. It's about 2,700 square kilometers in land. Now look at Anchorage, Alaska. It's about 4,400 square kilometers. It's apparently okay for a smaller jurisdiction to have general police powers than a larger jurisdiction even though the smaller one arguably will cause more problems for people with variability in laws and an inability to figure out the legality of activity X.
 
2014-03-06 03:26:51 PM  

Dr Dreidel: sprgrss: Dr Dreidel: Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.

You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?

And those two amendments do nothing to counter what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers.

Yes, except that the 10th specifically was/is/has become the vehicle for expanding Federal power.

The number of powers the Feds have is a defined number, and smaller than the number of powers a State has. The scope and reach of those limited powers is MUCH stronger at the Federal level. So we're left with "Would you rather have a more work to do, or a longer list of chores?"

While Madison may still technically be correct, the scope of Federal power is larger than the scope of State power.

// I was incorrect to bring up the 9th


No, it hasn't.  The 10th Amendment grants no powers.

The expansion of federal power has come about primarily by way of a delusional reading of the Commerce Clause.  FDR's hand-picked judicial whores re-wrote it in 1937.  When it was first written, the CC authorized regulation of interstate commerce (and thus prohibited restrictions on interstate commerce by the states individually).  You know, controlling the way that goods cross state lines.  Since 1937, it supposedly means the power to control anything having to do with commerce anywhere.  That self-appointed arrogation of power has been the means by which almost all federal legislation has been rubber-stamped as though it were within the federal govt's enumerated powers.  (That's what happens when the federal government is the arbiter of its own power.)

The scope of federal power is not larger than the states.  It's supreme as to some critically important functions -- military/war declarations, international relations, and so forth.

But the range of functions available to the States is unlimited. They have the power to do whatever they deem fit for public welfare, subject only to the delegations of certain powers to the feds (e.g., Texas can't make a treaty with France, or charge a tariff on imports from Louisiana), and of course the inability to violate certain key individual rights of a free people in the process.

The fact that so many of you FarkProgs don't understand this basic Constitutional structure is beginning to help explain a few things, such as why you blithely assume the federal government can do anything it wants, and why you get so upset whenever someone dares to suggest that there are limits on government power (even apart from the limits presented by certain guarantees of individual rights).
 
2014-03-06 03:29:57 PM  

Dr Dreidel: sprgrss: Dr Dreidel: Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.

You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?

And those two amendments do nothing to counter what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers.

Yes, except that the 10th specifically was/is/has become the vehicle for expanding Federal power.

The number of powers the Feds have is a defined number, and smaller than the number of powers a State has. The scope and reach of those limited powers is MUCH stronger at the Federal level. So we're left with "Would you rather have a more work to do, or a longer list of chores?"

While Madison may still technically be correct, the scope of Federal power is larger than the scope of State power.

// I was incorrect to bring up the 9th


When has the 10th Amendment ever been used to expand federal power?
 
2014-03-06 03:30:06 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: monoski: TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.

Sort of related; was funny how the citizens of CO blew a gasket when their own state officials passed some gun control after the movie theater shooting. When it comes to guns in CO there be no reasonable response.

None of the laws the Dems passed would prevent another James Holmes from buying a weapon. Combine that with how they handled the public comment portion of the 'debate' and you get recalls and election problems for the Dems. It ain't hard to understand.


Yep, my comment was not intended to be on either side of the gun debate. More of it does not matter the source of the laws, don't touch guns in CO.
 
2014-03-06 03:33:28 PM  

ScaryBottles: Please do not put words in my mouth. The only thing I said was that the states are not the final authority on anything period. I could spend the rest of the day listing all the various situations where state authority is not absolute. Next time respond to what I actually said not what you wish I had said.


Don't take me to be disagreeing with you. I'm not. I'm just expanding on what you said.

The only phrase you need to explain why states are no longer "sovereign" in any domain, if they ever were in fact sovereign in any domain, is "the 14th Amendment." The 14th Amendment makes all states answerable to federal judicial oversight on equal protection and due process issues. Privileges and immunities issues too, but that's almost a footnote.

Some people are going to say I'm wrong on this because equal protection and due process don't cover all state actions. And they're right that In practical terms, there are many state actions that will never receive equal protection and due process scrutiny before a court because the outcomes of the analyses in those cases is practically certain.

But in principle, the law still applies, even to the obvious cases. Just because you choose to drive 60 mph on the interstate doesn't mean you're not subject to the speed limit. It just means the highway patrol won't be very likely to bother you. Neither will any person bother to bring an equal protection suit, for example, even though the statute discriminates in treatment of murderers vs. non-murderers.1

That's not because equal protection doesn't apply to state discrimination between murderers and non-murderers. It does. It's just that state discrimination between murderers and non-murderers so obviously relates rationally to a legitimate state purpose that the outcome of any such case is foreordained.

I explain this because too often I see righties making bogus statements like "states are sovereign within their spheres." But "sovereign" means "supreme."2 And no state is supreme on the equal protection and due process issues which govern every action they take.3


1All statutes of any kind discriminate in the literal sense of the word. That's the nature of language: it creates classifications. In law, those classifications exist for treating one class one way, and another class another way.

2"But X founding father said "states are sovereign within their spheres! So you're wrong!" Maybe they were sovereign in some domains prior to the Civil War. They have not been sovereign since.

3"But X Supreme Court Justice recently wrote that states are sovereign within X sphere!" He's wrong.4

4"That's so arrogant, thinking you're know more about the Constitution than a Supreme Court Justice!" Even Zombie Thomas knows more about the Constitution than me. But that has no bearing on the question of whether or not states wield supreme authority in any domain.
 
2014-03-06 03:34:09 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black:

Your response doesn't answer my counterfactual question. All you're doing is saying what would have to happen for a city or county to secede and what different groups could do to stop it from happening. Forget all that. I'm telling you in this counterfactual world, it has already happened. Weld County has successfully removed itself from Colorado and created the state of Weld in a manner recognized by the federal government. Is the Weld state government now causing prob ...

In this instance, Weld County would be its own state and as such would have general police powers and the ability to create and uncreate local governments and afford those local governments powers.  Colorado would not longer have authority over Weld County as Weld County would not longer be part of Colorado.

That's great! But it does sort of belie your point from earlier in the thread that letting smaller jurisdictions have general police powers would strip the country of uniformity in laws and make it impossible for people to know that activity X is legal in one area but illegal in another area.

Hell, we don't even need to do a hypothetical. Look at Rhode Island. It's about 2,700 square kilometers in land. Now look at Anchorage, Alaska. It's about 4,400 square kilometers. It's apparently okay for a smaller jurisdiction to have general police powers than a larger jurisdiction even though the smaller one arguably will cause more problems for people with variability in laws and an inability to figure out the legality of activity X.


Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is.  Why is that the case?  Because the several states came together and granted limited authority to a federal government and reserved the remainder of the authority to themselves.  Cities, counties, etc. being that they have always been creations of the states are limited in their authority based upon what authority the states grant.

You have to have workability and what you propose, by creating levels upon levels of federalism is unworkable.
 
2014-03-06 03:34:19 PM  
We got ourselves a good ol'fashion Fark Constitutional brawl.  It's been awhile.
 
2014-03-06 03:38:52 PM  

d23: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.


There are those among our citizens who believe the states should have all the power and the federal government should provide only an Army, a Navy and a postmaster general, and nothing more. Those people are apparently unfamiliar with our history under a set of rules very similar to this arrangement.

You see, we tried being a loose collective of independent states under the Articles of Confederation, wherein the various jurisdictions (the states) maintained their individual sovereignty, made their own rules and laws, and only collaborated and cooperated with one another as a means of providing for common defense and pretty much nothing else. When that proved to be unwieldy and unworkable, we decided to form a constitutional republic of united states with a strong federal government. We agreed that this was a good form of government and drafted a Constitution, which was duly ratified. The Constitution includes a passage known as the Supremacy Clause which specifies that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And that's the way things have been for the last 220+ years.

If anyone wants a different arrangement, they have some options available to them:
1. Try to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Supremacy Clause.
2. Leave for some other country that has established and operates under a "better" system of government.
3. STFU & GBTW.

Since I haven't noticed a massive migration of Americans to other nations, nor have I been made aware of any recent amendments to the Constitution, I'm gonna have to tell those who think state law can nullify federal law to exercise Option 3.
 
2014-03-06 03:39:31 PM  

Baz744: ScaryBottles: Please do not put words in my mouth. The only thing I said was that the states are not the final authority on anything period. I could spend the rest of the day listing all the various situations where state authority is not absolute. Next time respond to what I actually said not what you wish I had said.

Don't take me to be disagreeing with you. I'm not. I'm just expanding on what you said.

The only phrase you need to explain why states are no longer "sovereign" in any domain, if they ever were in fact sovereign in any domain, is "the 14th Amendment." The 14th Amendment makes all states answerable to federal judicial oversight on equal protection and due process issues. Privileges and immunities issues too, but that's almost a footnote.

Some people are going to say I'm wrong on this because equal protection and due process don't cover all state actions. And they're right that In practical terms, there are many state actions that will never receive equal protection and due process scrutiny before a court because the outcomes of the analyses in those cases is practically certain.

But in principle, the law still applies, even to the obvious cases. Just because you choose to drive 60 mph on the interstate doesn't mean you're not subject to the speed limit. It just means the highway patrol won't be very likely to bother you. Neither will any person bother to bring an equal protection suit, for example, even though the statute discriminates in treatment of murderers vs. non-murderers.1

That's not because equal protection doesn't apply to state discrimination between murderers and non-murderers. It does. It's just that state discrimination between murderers and non-murderers so obviously relates rationally to a legitimate state purpose that the outcome of any such case is foreordained.

I explain this because too often I see righties making bogus statements like "states are sovereign within their spheres." But "sovereign" means "supreme."2 And no state ...


Like I said to the other my strong suit is demography so I don't know. What I do know is this guy's position is largely predicated on an assertion I know is completely false. When in doubt remember you aren't playing your cards you're playing the guy across from you. Garbage in garbage out derps....

That last bit wasn't directed at you.
 
2014-03-06 03:39:38 PM  

sprgrss: Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is.


After all your grand claims of having an argument other than "just because" you fall back on this?
 
2014-03-06 03:42:16 PM  

MustangFive: d23: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.

There are those among our citizens who believe the states should have all the power and the federal government should provide only an Army, a Navy and a postmaster general, and nothing more. Those people are apparently unfamiliar with our history under a set of rules very similar to this arrangement.

You see, we tried being a loose collective of independent states under the Articles of Confederation, wherein the various jurisdictions (the states) maintained their individual sovereignty, made their own rules and laws, and only collaborated and cooperated with one another as a means of providing for common defense and pretty much nothing else. When that proved to be unwieldy and unworkable, we decided to form a constitutional republic of united states with a strong federal government. We agreed that this was a good form of government and drafted a Constitution, which was duly ratified. The Constitution includes a passage known as the Supremacy Clause which specifies that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And that's the way things have been for the last 220+ years.

If anyone wants a different arrangement, they have some options available to them:
1. Try to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Supremacy Clause.
2. Leave for some other country that has established and operates under a "better" system of government.
3. STFU & GBTW.

Since I haven't noticed a massive migration of Americans to other nations, nor have I been made aware of any recent amendments to the Constitution, I'm gonna have to tell those who think state law can nullify federal law to exercise Option 3.


While nullification is complete bullshiat and bunk, the idea that the federal government has an expansive set of authority is patently not true.  The Federal government is limited in its areas of authority.  So while it is more powerful then the system under the Articles of Confederation, it still lacks general police powers.
 
2014-03-06 03:43:12 PM  

Smackledorfer: sprgrss: Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is.

After all your grand claims of having an argument other than "just because" you fall back on this?


Did you bother to read beyond those few sentences?
 
2014-03-06 03:44:30 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black:

Your response doesn't answer my counterfactual question. All you're doing is saying what would have to happen for a city or county to secede and what different groups could do to stop it from happening. Forget all that. I'm telling you in this counterfactual world, it has already happened. Weld County has successfully removed itself from Colorado and created the state of Weld in a manner recognized by the federal government. Is the Weld state government now causing prob ...

In this instance, Weld County would be its own state and as such would have general police powers and the ability to create and uncreate local governments and afford those local governments powers.  Colorado would not longer have authority over Weld County as Weld County would not longer be part of Colorado.

That's great! But it does sort of belie your point from earlier in the thread that letting smaller jurisdictions have general police powers would strip the country of uniformity in laws and make it impossible for people to know that activity X is legal in one area but illegal in another area.

Hell, we don't even need to do a hypothetical. Look at Rhode Island. It's about 2,700 square kilometers in land. Now look at Anchorage, Alaska. It's about 4,400 square kilometers. It's apparently okay for a smaller jurisdiction to have general police powers than a larger jurisdiction even though the smaller one arguably will cause more problems for people with variability in laws and an inability to figure out the legality of activity X.

Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is.  Why is that the case?  Because the several states came together and granted limited authority to a federal government and reserved the remainder of the authority to themselves.  Cities, counties, etc. being that they have always been creations of the states are limited in their authority based upon wha ...


Okay last time I ask nicely. Where does it say anywhere, ever that the states are your proverbial "period"
 
2014-03-06 03:46:33 PM  

ScaryBottles: Okay last time I ask nicely. Where does it say anywhere, ever that the states are your proverbial "period"


To quote you:  "address what I said not what you wish I said. "
 
2014-03-06 03:46:45 PM  

manbart: [soldiersystems.net image 500x370]


I'm just going to assume this is deliberate parody for the sake of my sanity.
 
2014-03-06 03:49:39 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....

Honest question, have you ever bothered to read a single supreme court case that deals with federalism?  Or have you ever bothered to read the federalist papers?  Because do you want to know who relies upon the federalist papers?  The courts.


You're arguing legal principles with a guy who post Real World memes.  Pick your battles.
 
2014-03-06 03:51:03 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: Okay last time I ask nicely. Where does it say anywhere, ever that the states are your proverbial "period"

To quote you:  "address what I said not what you wish I said. "


"Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is."

Once again a direct quote. You aren't very good at this are you. So tell us when and by whom this was "determined"
 
2014-03-06 03:52:14 PM  

MustangFive: d23: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.

There are those among our citizens who believe the states should have all the power and the federal government should provide only an Army, a Navy and a postmaster general, and nothing more. Those people are apparently unfamiliar with our history under a set of rules very similar to this arrangement.

You see, we tried being a loose collective of independent states under the Articles of Confederation, wherein the various jurisdictions (the states) maintained their individual sovereignty, made their own rules and laws, and only collaborated and cooperated with one another as a means of providing for common defense and pretty much nothing else. When that proved to be unwieldy and unworkable, we decided to form a constitutional republic of united states with a strong federal government. We agreed that this was a good form of government and drafted a Constitution, which was duly ratified. The Constitution includes a passage known as the Supremacy Clause which specifies that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And that's the way things have been for the last 220+ years.

If anyone wants a different arrangement, they have some options available to them:
1. Try to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Supremacy Clause.
2. Leave for some other country that has established and operates under a "better" system of government.
3. STFU & GBTW.

Since I haven't noticed a massive migration of Americans to other nations, nor have I been made aware of any recent amendments to the Constitution, I'm gonna have to tell those who think state law can nullify federal law to exercise Option 3.


The Supremacy Clause does not grant the federal government any powers.

It also does nothing to alter the fact that the powers granted to the federal government are enumerated. As in "finite." As in "That which is not expressly delegated is invalid." As in "ultra vires." As in "Not Authorized."

Since you profess to rely on the Constitution as a source of authority, you support this basic arrangement. Right?

There isn't an "I Get To Pick And Choose Clause" is there?
 
2014-03-06 03:52:39 PM  

FLMountainMan: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

Where is that codified law? Like I said to the other guy address what I said not what you wish I said.

Oh wait a minute aren't the derp who got me a ban because I didn't buy your supposed legal credentials?

*ignore*

Don't bother replying, sorry I don't play with poor sports.....

Honest question, have you ever bothered to read a single supreme court case that deals with federalism?  Or have you ever bothered to read the federalist papers?  Because do you want to know who relies upon the federalist papers?  The courts.

You're arguing legal principles with a guy who post Real World memes.  Pick your battles.


Awww.... Thats sweet.
 
2014-03-06 03:53:02 PM  
Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.
 
2014-03-06 03:54:32 PM  

Phinn: Dr Dreidel: sprgrss: Dr Dreidel: Phinn: OK -- James Madison (aka, "the Father of the Constitution"), in Federalist No. 45.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

It's sort of famous. You can look it up.

You understand he wrote that before the 9th and 10th Amendments were proposed (legislatively speaking) or ratified, yes?

And those two amendments do nothing to counter what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers.

Yes, except that the 10th specifically was/is/has become the vehicle for expanding Federal power.

The number of powers the Feds have is a defined number, and smaller than the number of powers a State has. The scope and reach of those limited powers is MUCH stronger at the Federal level. So we're left with "Would you rather have a more work to do, or a longer list of chores?"

While Madison may still technically be correct, the scope of Federal power is larger than the scope of State power.

// I was incorrect to bring up the 9th

No, it hasn't.  The 10th Amendment grants no powers.

The expansion of federal power has come about primarily by way of a delusional reading of the Commerce Clause.  FDR's hand-picked judicial whores re-wrote it in 1937.  When it was first written, the CC authorized regulation of interstate commerce (and thus prohibited restrictions on interstate commerce by the states individually).  You know, controlling the way that goods cross state lines.  Since 1937, it supposedly means the power to control anything having to do with commerce anywhere.  That self-appointed arrogation of power has been the means by which almost all federal legislation has been rubber-stamped as though it were within the federal govt's enumerated powers.  (That's what happens when the federal government is the arbiter of its own power.)

The scope of federal power is not larger than the states.  It's supreme as to some ...


When has the 10th ever done anything?
 
2014-03-06 03:55:42 PM  

ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.


And thats all I'm sayin'
 
2014-03-06 03:56:58 PM  

ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.


The Constitution is a gift from God.  The fact that there is so much debate about it, just goes to show you how much on troll God is.
 
2014-03-06 03:59:04 PM  

sprgrss: When has the 10th Amendment ever been used to expand federal power?


Depends on whom you ask (which is why I included all 3 tenses). Most people recognize that when the Court makes a ruling that doesn't invalidate the whole thing, they're not making new law, but providing a definition of an existing law (i.e. the 1st Amendment NEVER allowed one-religion-only displays, but it was only after a series of rulings on the topic that everyone else was made to agree).

According to Phinn and ideological comrades-in-arms, everything with the 10th was great until that commie FDR went all court-packy (even though SCOTUS still only has 9 seats) and then they threw Wickard v Fillburn to make FDR feel better. (FWIW, I also disagree with that ruling, though I'd be hard pressed to come up with a "natural" limit for the 10th, especially considering how expansive the Framers, and Federalists, wanted the power of taxation and regulation to be.)
 
2014-03-06 03:59:26 PM  

ScaryBottles: ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.

And thats all I'm sayin'


ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles: Okay last time I ask nicely. Where does it say anywhere, ever that the states are your proverbial "period"

To quote you:  "address what I said not what you wish I said. "

"Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is."

Once again a direct quote. You aren't very good at this are you. So tell us when and by whom this was "determined"


And do you understand that that quote is in relationship to federalism and the notions of police powers.
 
2014-03-06 04:00:50 PM  

Dr Dreidel: sprgrss: When has the 10th Amendment ever been used to expand federal power?

Depends on whom you ask (which is why I included all 3 tenses). Most people recognize that when the Court makes a ruling that doesn't invalidate the whole thing, they're not making new law, but providing a definition of an existing law (i.e. the 1st Amendment NEVER allowed one-religion-only displays, but it was only after a series of rulings on the topic that everyone else was made to agree).

According to Phinn and ideological comrades-in-arms, everything with the 10th was great until that commie FDR went all court-packy (even though SCOTUS still only has 9 seats) and then they threw Wickard v Fillburn to make FDR feel better. (FWIW, I also disagree with that ruling, though I'd be hard pressed to come up with a "natural" limit for the 10th, especially considering how expansive the Framers, and Federalists, wanted the power of taxation and regulation to be.)


That's not 10th Amendment jurisprudence.  Wickard was commerce clause which is Art. I § 8 of the Constitution.
 
2014-03-06 04:02:05 PM  

ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.


Nope. What a so-called 'constitutional lawyer' might look like...
www.rawstory.com
 
2014-03-06 04:03:57 PM  

ScaryBottles: ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.

And thats all I'm sayin'


No, you said that it was "demonstrably inaccurate regardless of its context" that "the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not."

Not only is it not "demonstrably inaccurate," it's one of the fundamental characteristics of the Constitutional system, as explained by the men who wrote it.

You are in the wrong. As wrong as wrong gets.

This error and ignorance of yours has apparently infected every other aspect of your thoughts on government generally. You don't seem to understand federalism at all.

It would be nice if you just admitted that you're wrong. But I don't expect you to, if your history is any kind of guide.
 
2014-03-06 04:04:23 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.

And thats all I'm sayin'

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles: Okay last time I ask nicely. Where does it say anywhere, ever that the states are your proverbial "period"

To quote you:  "address what I said not what you wish I said. "

"Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period.  IT has been determined that the State is where that period is."

Once again a direct quote. You aren't very good at this are you. So tell us when and by whom this was "determined"

And do you understand that that quote is in relationship to federalism and the notions of police powers.


No, but I do know you've dodged the issue every time I asked you to cite the legal precedents that support your claims. Thats tells me all I need to know.
 
2014-03-06 04:06:58 PM  
ScaryBottles:

No, but I do know you've dodged the issue every time I asked you to cite the legal precedents that support your claims. Thats tells me all I need to know.

Because your retorts are nothing but straw man arguments.

Do you agree that states have general police powers?  Do you also agree that the federal government does not have general police powers?
 
2014-03-06 04:07:00 PM  
So have y'all solved the delineation of governmental powers.  It goes federal, city, county then state right?
 
2014-03-06 04:08:44 PM  

ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.


All lawyers are "constitutional lawyers," especially those lawyers who practice criminal law.
 
2014-03-06 04:10:12 PM  

sprgrss: That's not 10th Amendment jurisprudence. Wickard was commerce clause which is Art. I § 8 of the Constitution.


I have confused the two, to my shame.

// I could blame the 4 other docs I'm working on
// truth is, I think I just forgot to think things through?
 
2014-03-06 04:11:03 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

No, but I do know you've dodged the issue every time I asked you to cite the legal precedents that support your claims. Thats tells me all I need to know.

Because your retorts are nothing but straw man arguments.

Do you agree that states have general police powers?  Do you also agree that the federal government does not have general police powers?


So no citation?
 
2014-03-06 04:12:48 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

No, but I do know you've dodged the issue every time I asked you to cite the legal precedents that support your claims. Thats tells me all I need to know.

Because your retorts are nothing but straw man arguments.

Do you agree that states have general police powers?  Do you also agree that the federal government does not have general police powers?

So no citation?


Simple yes/no questions

Do the states have general police powers?

Does the federal government have general police powers?
 
2014-03-06 04:14:27 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.

All lawyers are "constitutional lawyers," especially those lawyers who practice criminal law.


Derpy derp.  Hey, guys, did you know all programmers are assembly programmers, since all their work interacts with it?
 
2014-03-06 04:15:42 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

No, but I do know you've dodged the issue every time I asked you to cite the legal precedents that support your claims. Thats tells me all I need to know.

Because your retorts are nothing but straw man arguments.

Do you agree that states have general police powers?  Do you also agree that the federal government does not have general police powers?

So no citation?

Simple yes/no questions

Do the states have general police powers?

Does the federal government have general police powers?


So thats a no?
 
2014-03-06 04:16:03 PM  
Stinking Jeffersonian Republicans always want it both ways, don't they?
 
2014-03-06 04:16:04 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.

Nope. What a so-called 'constitutional lawyer' might look like...
[www.rawstory.com image 615x345]


and a Constitutional lawyer to boot
 
2014-03-06 04:16:34 PM  

Phinn: MustangFive: d23: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.

There are those among our citizens who believe the states should have all the power and the federal government should provide only an Army, a Navy and a postmaster general, and nothing more. Those people are apparently unfamiliar with our history under a set of rules very similar to this arrangement.

You see, we tried being a loose collective of independent states under the Articles of Confederation, wherein the various jurisdictions (the states) maintained their individual sovereignty, made their own rules and laws, and only collaborated and cooperated with one another as a means of providing for common defense and pretty much nothing else. When that proved to be unwieldy and unworkable, we decided to form a constitutional republic of united states with a strong federal government. We agreed that this was a good form of government and drafted a Constitution, which was duly ratified. The Constitution includes a passage known as the Supremacy Clause which specifies that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And that's the way things have been for the last 220+ years.

If anyone wants a different arrangement, they have some options available to them:
1. Try to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Supremacy Clause.
2. Leave for some other country that has established and operates under a "better" system of government.
3. STFU & GBTW.

Since I haven't noticed a massive migration of Americans to other nations, nor have I been made aware of any recent amendments to the Constitution, I'm gonna have to tell those who think state law can nullify federal law to exercise Option 3.

The Supremacy Clause does not grant the federal government any powers.

It also does nothing to alter the fact that the powers granted to the federal government are enumerated. As in "finite." As in "That which is not expressly delegated is invalid." As in "ultra vires." As in "Not Authorized."

Since you profess to rely on the Constitution as a source of authority, you support this basic arrangement. Right?

There isn't an "I Get To Pick And Choose Clause" is there?


You're right: The Supremacy Clause does not grant any powers to the federal government. Nor did I say it does.

Nice job trying to change the subject to the 10th Amendment, or of completely missing the point, whichever the case may be.

The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution, federal laws and federal judiciary are supreme over the constitutions, laws and judiciaries of the states.

So, taken in conjunction with the powers enumerated in the Constitution, including, for example (but not solely), those delegated to the federal government in the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause,, the federal government's authority is pretty open-ended. Not infinite, but not "Army, Navy and postmaster general ONLY (along with a census taker or two and a federal court system)." And the federal government's authority is damned sure not subordinate to the states'.

But don't let that get in the way of your disingenuous deflection. Please, by all means, continue.
 
2014-03-06 04:16:48 PM  

ikanreed: sprgrss: ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.

All lawyers are "constitutional lawyers," especially those lawyers who practice criminal law.

Derpy derp.  Hey, guys, did you know all programmers are assembly programmers, since all their work interacts with it?


Because there is no such thing as a "constitutional lawyer.'
 
2014-03-06 04:17:06 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Dimensio: "Rights" are inherently a property of individuals. As collectives, neither "states" nor "municipalities" have rights, as the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.

A governing body, such as a state or a municipality, may have powers assigned to it, but it cannot have rights.

Historically, this isn't true.  The first entities to be given legal rights were the nobility/oligarchs of the old republics and feudal states, meaning that for 1500 years or so before Locke was around they were a property of an office, not an individual (you lost your patent of nobility or your citizenship, you lost those "rights").  Currently, governing entities are still considered to have rights, though it's usually expressed in terms of jurisdiction or perogative for extra specificity.

So... no.  You're free to use a different definition of the word than the rest of the world, but we're the majority by several hundred million so we get to set the "standard" meaning, and you don't get to chew us out about it, heh.


lifeexaminations.files.wordpress.com

Do tell me what I can't do!

/Besides, your definition is about as relevant as the divine right of kings.
//I think the Founders would disagree with you.
///And they ARE gods. :-)
 
2014-03-06 04:18:55 PM  

MustangFive: The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution, federal laws and federal judiciary are supreme over the constitutions, laws and judiciaries of the states.


Federal courts do not have the authority to interpret state constitutions or laws.  They are stuck with the interpretation the courts of the states have made.
 
2014-03-06 04:19:31 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

No, but I do know you've dodged the issue every time I asked you to cite the legal precedents that support your claims. Thats tells me all I need to know.

Because your retorts are nothing but straw man arguments.

Do you agree that states have general police powers?  Do you also agree that the federal government does not have general police powers?

So no citation?

Simple yes/no questions

Do the states have general police powers?

Does the federal government have general police powers?

So thats a no?


answer the questions.
 
2014-03-06 04:20:40 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed: sprgrss: ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.

All lawyers are "constitutional lawyers," especially those lawyers who practice criminal law.

Derpy derp.  Hey, guys, did you know all programmers are assembly programmers, since all their work interacts with it?

Because there is no such thing as a "constitutional lawyer.'


sergentzimm.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-06 04:22:26 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

No, but I do know you've dodged the issue every time I asked you to cite the legal precedents that support your claims. Thats tells me all I need to know.

Because your retorts are nothing but straw man arguments.

Do you agree that states have general police powers?  Do you also agree that the federal government does not have general police powers?

So no citation?

Simple yes/no questions

Do the states have general police powers?

Does the federal government have general police powers?

So thats a no?

answer the questions.


Nope I asked you first.
 
2014-03-06 04:25:14 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

No, but I do know you've dodged the issue every time I asked you to cite the legal precedents that support your claims. Thats tells me all I need to know.

Because your retorts are nothing but straw man arguments.

Do you agree that states have general police powers?  Do you also agree that the federal government does not have general police powers?

So no citation?

Simple yes/no questions

Do the states have general police powers?

Does the federal government have general police powers?


Does having general police powers make or break the effectiveness of a national system of government?

If so, then the United States of America is an abject failure as a nation and should immediately dissolve.

If not, then you're ranting about a trivial point that invalidates your argument.

Please choose one.
 
2014-03-06 04:25:18 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

No, but I do know you've dodged the issue every time I asked you to cite the legal precedents that support your claims. Thats tells me all I need to know.

Because your retorts are nothing but straw man arguments.

Do you agree that states have general police powers?  Do you also agree that the federal government does not have general police powers?

So no citation?

Simple yes/no questions

Do the states have general police powers?

Does the federal government have general police powers?

So thats a no?

answer the questions.

Nope I asked you first.


Before I can answer your question, I have the plumb the depths of your knowledge in the area to see if you understand basic precepts.

Let me ask you this, why does the Federal Government have to use the commerce clause as its jurisdictional hook when prosecuting Hobbs Act robbery?
 
2014-03-06 04:26:29 PM  
MustangFive:

Does having general police powers make or break the effectiveness of a national system of government?

If so, then the United States of America is an abject failure as a nation and should immediately dissolve.

If not, then you're ranting about a trivial point that invalidates your argument.

Please choose one.


It's far from trivial and it proves the point on the Federal Government being a government of limited authority, whilst the States are not.
 
2014-03-06 04:26:34 PM  
It is interesting how the libertarianesque types always point to the traditional interpretation of the constitution as their moral justification for an arbitrary point of distinction, ignoring that the constitution was intended to be amended as necessary to meet the shifting needs of a modern society by a rational citizenry capable of looking at the basis for such distinctions.
 
2014-03-06 04:26:51 PM  

sprgrss: Because at a certain point in time, you have to have a period. IT has been determined that the State is where that period is. Why is that the case? Because the several states came together and granted limited authority to a federal government and reserved the remainder of the authority to themselves. Cities, counties, etc. being that they have always been creations of the states are limited in their authority based upon what authority the states grant.

You have to have workability and what you propose, by creating levels upon levels of federalism is unworkable.


And how were the boundaries for the several states drawn? Some of the borders are clearly natural and in the form of rivers and what-not. Others are nothing more than arbitrary and the result of political compromises. The people living in what would become America back in the 1700s could have settled on a larger number of physically smaller jurisdictions being the proper venues for debating and ratifying the Constitution. California could have been admitted into the union as a group of states rather than as one single state. They formed the country and were admitted to the country because of political concessions rather than grand principles about states being the proper venue for experimenting with democracy.
 
2014-03-06 04:27:39 PM  

Saiga410: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

Unless it is weed.


The feds can still pop you for weed in CO and WA. Federal law has not been trumped.
 
2014-03-06 04:28:42 PM  
Serious Black:

And how were the boundaries for the several states drawn? Some of the borders are clearly natural and in the form of rivers and what-not. Others are nothing more than arbitrary and the result of political compromises. The people living in what would become America back in the 1700s could have settled on a larger number of physically smaller jurisdictions being the proper venues for debating and ratifying the Constitution. California could have been admitted into the union as a group of states rather than as one single state. They formed the country and were admitted to the country because of political concessions rather than grand principles about states being the proper venue for experimenting with democracy.

What is the point of your sophistry?
 
2014-03-06 04:28:56 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

No, but I do know you've dodged the issue every time I asked you to cite the legal precedents that support your claims. Thats tells me all I need to know.

Because your retorts are nothing but straw man arguments.

Do you agree that states have general police powers?  Do you also agree that the federal government does not have general police powers?

So no citation?

Simple yes/no questions

Do the states have general police powers?

Does the federal government have general police powers?

So thats a no?

answer the questions.

Nope I asked you first.

Before I can answer your question, I have the plumb the depths of your knowledge in the area to see if you understand basic precepts.

Let me ask you this, why does the Federal Government have to use the commerce clause as its jurisdictional hook when prosecuting Hobbs Act robbery?


So no citation?

I'm starting to get bored here.....
 
2014-03-06 04:30:05 PM  

sprgrss: Before I can answer your question, I have the plumb the depths of your knowledge in the area to see if you understand basic precepts.

Let me ask you this, why does the Federal Government have to use the commerce clause as its jurisdictional hook when prosecuting Hobbs Act robbery?


If I may interject I would like to answer the question myself but before I do, I need to evaluate the depth of your cognitive skills to see if you are worthy of an exchange with me?

Since Americans throw rice at weddings, do Asians throw hamburgers?
 
2014-03-06 04:32:32 PM  

sprgrss: MustangFive: The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution, federal laws and federal judiciary are supreme over the constitutions, laws and judiciaries of the states.

Federal courts do not have the authority to interpret state constitutions or laws.  They are stuck with the interpretation the courts of the states have made.

Sweatt v. Painter

disagrees with you. So do these folks:

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-06 04:32:38 PM  

mrshowrules: sprgrss: Before I can answer your question, I have the plumb the depths of your knowledge in the area to see if you understand basic precepts.

Let me ask you this, why does the Federal Government have to use the commerce clause as its jurisdictional hook when prosecuting Hobbs Act robbery?

If I may interject I would like to answer the question myself but before I do, I need to evaluate the depth of your cognitive skills to see if you are worthy of an exchange with me?

Since Americans throw rice at weddings, do Asians throw hamburgers?


If I had to guess I'd say kernels of corn. Its the only one of the big three "cereal" grains thats indigenous to the western hemisphere.
 
2014-03-06 04:33:54 PM  
ScaryBottles:
I'm starting to get bored here.....

So you reject the Federalist papers, you reject Art. I § 6 of the Constitution, you reject the 10th Amendment.  What citation could I provide to you, someone who clearly doesn't understand police powers and what they mean.  Because if you did, you'd answer the question.
 
2014-03-06 04:34:36 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed: sprgrss: ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.

All lawyers are "constitutional lawyers," especially those lawyers who practice criminal law.

Derpy derp.  Hey, guys, did you know all programmers are assembly programmers, since all their work interacts with it?

Because there is no such thing as a "constitutional lawyer.'

[sergentzimm.files.wordpress.com image 493x333]


Too bad this image never works.  Because seriously... http://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/practice/Constitutional-Law
 
2014-03-06 04:34:37 PM  

MustangFive: sprgrss: MustangFive: The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution, federal laws and federal judiciary are supreme over the constitutions, laws and judiciaries of the states.

Federal courts do not have the authority to interpret state constitutions or laws.  They are stuck with the interpretation the courts of the states have made.

Sweatt v. Painter disagrees with you. So do these folks:

[img.fark.net image 648x434]


That was US Constitution, not state constitution.
 
2014-03-06 04:35:59 PM  

mrshowrules: sprgrss: Before I can answer your question, I have the plumb the depths of your knowledge in the area to see if you understand basic precepts.

Let me ask you this, why does the Federal Government have to use the commerce clause as its jurisdictional hook when prosecuting Hobbs Act robbery?

If I may interject I would like to answer the question myself but before I do, I need to evaluate the depth of your cognitive skills to see if you are worthy of an exchange with me?

Since Americans throw rice at weddings, do Asians throw hamburgers?


depends on the region. in india hamburgers are unholy, but they make a similar product out of ground lamb. china's government has restricted any change in tradition, and they still use rice (though the falun gong movement popularized various kinds of rice based baked good). in japan, ever since the great white fleet they've been more and more partial to mayo (though this was suspended during the late showa period till post WWII). thailand does use hamburgers. most traditional is singapore, which has the bride throw ping pong balls to the delight of the wedding train
 
2014-03-06 04:37:37 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black:

And how were the boundaries for the several states drawn? Some of the borders are clearly natural and in the form of rivers and what-not. Others are nothing more than arbitrary and the result of political compromises. The people living in what would become America back in the 1700s could have settled on a larger number of physically smaller jurisdictions being the proper venues for debating and ratifying the Constitution. California could have been admitted into the union as a group of states rather than as one single state. They formed the country and were admitted to the country because of political concessions rather than grand principles about states being the proper venue for experimenting with democracy.

What is the point of your sophistry?


I don't think I'm trying to deceive anyone. I'm simply pointing out that a decision that was made partly because of random factors can easily be changed if we decide we don't agree with those random factors. And there's plenty of precedent for those decisions changing. Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Vermont were all at least a part of another state before they decided to secede and form their own state. If the 50 states really wanted to split up and become 500 states, nothing is stopping them except for themselves. There's no grand principle that lays out the proper size for states to encourage uniformity in laws.
 
2014-03-06 04:38:44 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:
I'm starting to get bored here.....

So you reject the Federalist papers, you reject Art. I § 6 of the Constitution, you reject the 10th Amendment.  What citation could I provide to you, someone who clearly doesn't understand police powers and what they mean.  Because if you did, you'd answer the question.


Does it explicitly establish that the power of the states supersedes that of the USSC?

Squirm and writhe all you want you still have not answered my first and only question.
 
2014-03-06 04:39:21 PM  
Serious Black:
I don't think I'm trying to deceive anyone. I'm simply pointing out that a decision that was made partly because of random factors can easily be changed if we decide we don't agree with those random factors. And there's plenty of precedent for those decisions changing. Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Vermont were all at least a part of another state before they decided to secede and form their own state. If the 50 states really wanted to split up and become 500 states, nothing is stopping them except for themselves. There's no grand principle that lays out the proper size for states to encourage uniformity in laws.

And when those areas became their own states they were equal in sovereignty to every other state of the union and no other state of the union could tell them what to do as it related to internal matters.  A state is not the same thing as a city or county.  A State is sovereign, a city and a county is not.
 
2014-03-06 04:39:46 PM  

MustangFive: So, taken in conjunction with the powers enumerated in the Constitution, including, for example (but not solely), those delegated to the federal government in the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause,, the federal government's authority is pretty open-ended.


Government votes itself more power.  Fans of open-ended government power approve.  Rinse.  Repeat.
 
2014-03-06 04:40:54 PM  

ScaryBottles: mrshowrules: sprgrss: Before I can answer your question, I have the plumb the depths of your knowledge in the area to see if you understand basic precepts.

Let me ask you this, why does the Federal Government have to use the commerce clause as its jurisdictional hook when prosecuting Hobbs Act robbery?

If I may interject I would like to answer the question myself but before I do, I need to evaluate the depth of your cognitive skills to see if you are worthy of an exchange with me?

Since Americans throw rice at weddings, do Asians throw hamburgers?

If I had to guess I'd say kernels of corn. Its the only one of the big three "cereal" grains thats indigenous to the western hemisphere.


sprawl15: mrshowrules: sprgrss: Before I can answer your question, I have the plumb the depths of your knowledge in the area to see if you understand basic precepts.

Let me ask you this, why does the Federal Government have to use the commerce clause as its jurisdictional hook when prosecuting Hobbs Act robbery?

If I may interject I would like to answer the question myself but before I do, I need to evaluate the depth of your cognitive skills to see if you are worthy of an exchange with me?

Since Americans throw rice at weddings, do Asians throw hamburgers?

depends on the region. in india hamburgers are unholy, but they make a similar product out of ground lamb. china's government has restricted any change in tradition, and they still use rice (though the falun gong movement popularized various kinds of rice based baked good). in japan, ever since the great white fleet they've been more and more partial to mayo (though this was suspended during the late showa period till post WWII). thailand does use hamburgers. most traditional is singapore, which has the bride throw ping pong balls to the delight of the wedding train


You have both proved worthy to debate me but yet I weary of this thread and must depart.  Late for the gym. 26 minutes etc...
 
2014-03-06 04:41:12 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:
I'm starting to get bored here.....

So you reject the Federalist papers, you reject Art. I § 6 of the Constitution, you reject the 10th Amendment.  What citation could I provide to you, someone who clearly doesn't understand police powers and what they mean.  Because if you did, you'd answer the question.

Does it explicitly establish that the power of the states supersedes that of the USSC?

Squirm and writhe all you want you still have not answered my first and only question.


As it relates to what?  The supreme court of the united states does not have the authority to interpret state law, nor does it have the authority to interpret state constitutions.

Here is a law review article for you to read.  Not that I think you would understand it.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/laWreview/v104/n3/979/LR104n3Mazzone .p df
 
2014-03-06 04:43:57 PM  

sprawl15: It is interesting how the libertarianesque types always point to the traditional interpretation of the constitution as their moral justification for an arbitrary point of distinction, ignoring that the constitution was intended to be amended as necessary to meet the shifting needs of a modern society by a rational citizenry capable of looking at the basis for such distinctions.


It's interesting how Lefties want to amend the Constitution to expand the power of government, but don't want to bother following that pesky amendment process.
 
2014-03-06 04:44:07 PM  

ikanreed: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed: sprgrss: ikanreed: Guys, can we leave the constitutional law to the constitutional lawyers, everyone here sucks at it.

All lawyers are "constitutional lawyers," especially those lawyers who practice criminal law.

Derpy derp.  Hey, guys, did you know all programmers are assembly programmers, since all their work interacts with it?

Because there is no such thing as a "constitutional lawyer.'

[sergentzimm.files.wordpress.com image 493x333]

Too bad this image never works.  Because seriously... http://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/practice/Constitutional-Law


There is no specialization in constitutional law.  Don't believe me?  Take a look at the American Bar Associations website as it relates to specialization and follow the links to the various states.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/commit te es_commissions/specialization/resources/resources_for_lawyers/sources_ of_certification.html
 
2014-03-06 04:44:26 PM  
fyi people of fark

this thread is a lot funnier if you mentally put an 'a' in front of each person's name
 
2014-03-06 04:47:35 PM  

Phinn: It's interesting how Lefties want to amend the Constitution to expand the power of government, but don't want to bother following that pesky amendment process.


Really the only thing stopping interstate commerce from justifying pretty much anything in the modern world is empty tradition.

But since both parties get off on thinking the Constitution (or at least their interpretation of it) is sacrosanct, it's really just year of the popcorn every year.
 
2014-03-06 04:49:02 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Saiga410: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

Unless it is weed.

The feds can still pop you for weed in CO and WA. Federal law has not been trumped.


A proper interpretation of US law, according to the principles of federalism, would lead rational people to conclude that the federal government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to prohibit the possession of substances.

When the federal government tried that once before, as to a prohibition of alcohol, the American people actually went to the trouble of passing a Constitutional amendment authorizing it. And passing another amendment to repeal it.

Nowadays, thanks to the Progressive influence on society and its degradation of rational thought, most people merely assume that the federal government has the authority to ban any and all substances, no amendment necessary.
 
2014-03-06 04:50:09 PM  

sprgrss: MustangFive:

Does having general police powers make or break the effectiveness of a national system of government?

If so, then the United States of America is an abject failure as a nation and should immediately dissolve.

If not, then you're ranting about a trivial point that invalidates your argument.

Please choose one.

It's far from trivial and it proves the point on the Federal Government being a government of limited authority, whilst the States are not.


But did you answer the question? No; you did not.

You seem to be taking this gentleman's advice:

img.fark.net

Care to choose one of the options I listed? Or are you so incredibly narcissistic that you believe only your questions and statements deserve to be addressed in a direct manner?
 
2014-03-06 04:51:21 PM  

Phinn: MustangFive: So, taken in conjunction with the powers enumerated in the Constitution, including, for example (but not solely), those delegated to the federal government in the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause,, the federal government's authority is pretty open-ended.

Government votes itself more power.  Fans of open-ended government power approve.  Rinse.  Repeat.


One of the enumerated powers of the Constitution is that Congress can decide what is necessary and proper re: legislation. The government didn't give itself any more power or authority than that granted by the Constitution. Deal with it.
 
2014-03-06 04:52:34 PM  

MustangFive: sprgrss: MustangFive:

Does having general police powers make or break the effectiveness of a national system of government?

If so, then the United States of America is an abject failure as a nation and should immediately dissolve.

If not, then you're ranting about a trivial point that invalidates your argument.

Please choose one.

It's far from trivial and it proves the point on the Federal Government being a government of limited authority, whilst the States are not.

But did you answer the question? No; you did not.

You seem to be taking this gentleman's advice:

[img.fark.net image 590x350]

Care to choose one of the options I listed? Or are you so incredibly narcissistic that you believe only your questions and statements deserve to be addressed in a direct manner?


You provide false choices.  For starters you presume the federal government has general police powers in those questions.
 
2014-03-06 04:54:15 PM  

MustangFive: Phinn: MustangFive: So, taken in conjunction with the powers enumerated in the Constitution, including, for example (but not solely), those delegated to the federal government in the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause,, the federal government's authority is pretty open-ended.

Government votes itself more power.  Fans of open-ended government power approve.  Rinse.  Repeat.

One of the enumerated powers of the Constitution is that Congress can decide what is necessary and proper re: legislation. The government didn't give itself any more power or authority than that granted by the Constitution. Deal with it.


The Necessary and Proper clause is not a grant of authority to the federal government to willy nilly enact and enforce laws wherever it sees fit.   The Necessary and Proper clause basically states that the Congress has the authority to pass whatever legislation it likes if, and note, it is a huge if, the Congress is operating in one of its areas of expressly granted authority as found under Art. I § 6 of the Constitution.
 
2014-03-06 04:55:00 PM  

MustangFive: Does having general police powers make or break the effectiveness of a national system of government?

If so, then the United States of America is an abject failure as a nation and should immediately dissolve.


Your question is convoluted, but the US government does not have general police powers.  States do.  That distinction "makes" the effectiveness of the US government, being one of its central, defining, structural features.

The USA is an abject failure as a government, since about 90% of what it does now is done without authority.

As a man once said, regardless of whether the Constitution really means one thing or another, this much is certain -- it has either authorized the government we have, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.
 
2014-03-06 04:55:41 PM  
I apologize, I meant §8, not §6
 
2014-03-06 04:57:18 PM  

sprgrss: MustangFive: sprgrss: MustangFive: The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution, federal laws and federal judiciary are supreme over the constitutions, laws and judiciaries of the states.

Federal courts do not have the authority to interpret state constitutions or laws.  They are stuck with the interpretation the courts of the states have made.

Sweatt v. Painter disagrees with you. So do these folks:

[img.fark.net image 648x434]

That was US Constitution, not state constitution.


Wow. The United States Supreme Court, in Sweatt v. Painter, didn't overturn a Texas trial court or the Texas State Court of Appeals? News to everyone.

And the Loving's weren't convicted in a Virginia state court of violating a Virginia state statute, which conviction was overturned by the USSC and the Virginia statute declared unconstitutional? Again, more news.

You really should be working for AP or Reuters with all the ground-breaking work you're doing here.
 
2014-03-06 05:01:00 PM  
sprgrss:

"As it relates to what?  The supreme court of the united states does not have the authority to interpret state law, nor does it have the authority to interpret state constitutions"


I'm sure all those states who passed all those gay marriage bans and ridiculous personhood amendments will find that very comforting. Also I read your "citation" Did you? Because it is clearly author's personal interpretation of the existing legal precedents, not a legal precedent in and of itself. You know just like the author says.... After the abstract, which I'm guessing is all you read.

So basically you can't provide even one citation that proves the primary assumption that your position is predicated on. So I'm just disregarding everything else you've said as nonsense. Since you seem to love to point out other's logical fallacies so much (however erroneously and histrionically) here's another one that I guess hasn't diffused it's way into your potatohead yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
 
2014-03-06 05:04:18 PM  

sprgrss: MustangFive: sprgrss: MustangFive:

Does having general police powers make or break the effectiveness of a national system of government?

If so, then the United States of America is an abject failure as a nation and should immediately dissolve.

If not, then you're ranting about a trivial point that invalidates your argument.

Please choose one.

It's far from trivial and it proves the point on the Federal Government being a government of limited authority, whilst the States are not.

But did you answer the question? No; you did not.

You seem to be taking this gentleman's advice:

[img.fark.net image 590x350]

Care to choose one of the options I listed? Or are you so incredibly narcissistic that you believe only your questions and statements deserve to be addressed in a direct manner?

You provide false choices.  For starters you presume the federal government has general police powers in those questions.


Provide a quotation of my words where I say the federal government has general police powers.
 
2014-03-06 05:06:56 PM  

MustangFive: sprgrss: MustangFive: sprgrss: MustangFive: The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution, federal laws and federal judiciary are supreme over the constitutions, laws and judiciaries of the states.

Federal courts do not have the authority to interpret state constitutions or laws.  They are stuck with the interpretation the courts of the states have made.

Sweatt v. Painter disagrees with you. So do these folks:

[img.fark.net image 648x434]

That was US Constitution, not state constitution.

Wow. The United States Supreme Court, in Sweatt v. Painter, didn't overturn a Texas trial court or the Texas State Court of Appeals? News to everyone.

And the Loving's weren't convicted in a Virginia state court of violating a Virginia state statute, which conviction was overturned by the USSC and the Virginia statute declared unconstitutional? Again, more news.

You really should be working for AP or Reuters with all the ground-breaking work you're doing here.


Again, for the slow among us, those cases were overturned based upon the US Constitution.  Not State constitutions and not state laws.

The Federal Courts have authority to interpret the US Constitution and the Supreme Court of the United States of America is the final arbitrator of the meaning of the US Constitution.  The Supreme Court of the Untied States, is not, the final arbitrator of the meaning of State constitutions or state laws, the United States Supreme court is bound by the interpretation given to lose legal documents by the courts of that state.  The highest courts in the states are.

As an example, the United States supreme court has read a good faith exception into the warrant clause of the 4th Amendment, North Carolina's constitution, as interpreted by its Supreme Court does not have a good faith exception.  There is absolutely nothing the United States Supreme Court can do about that interpretation by the North Carolina Supreme Court.  Only the North Carolina Supreme Court, or the voters, can overrule State v. Carter as it relates to a good faith exception.

Understand the difference now?
 
2014-03-06 05:09:02 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss:

"As it relates to what?  The supreme court of the united states does not have the authority to interpret state law, nor does it have the authority to interpret state constitutions"

I'm sure all those states who passed all those gay marriage bans and ridiculous personhood amendments will find that very comforting. Also I read your "citation" Did you? Because it is clearly author's personal interpretation of the existing legal precedents, not a legal precedent in and of itself. You know just like the author says.... After the abstract, which I'm guessing is all you read.

So basically you can't provide even one citation that proves the primary assumption that your position is predicated on. So I'm just disregarding everything else you've said as nonsense. Since you seem to love to point out other's logical fallacies so much (however erroneously and histrionically) here's another one that I guess hasn't diffused it's way into your potatohead yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise


Do you not understand the difference between the federal and state constitutions?
 
2014-03-06 05:09:48 PM  

sprgrss: Again, for the slow among us, those cases were overturned based upon the US Constitution.  Not State constitutions and not state laws.


Those state laws were found to be unconstitutional,  I.E. they overturned state laws.
 
2014-03-06 05:11:18 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss:

"As it relates to what?  The supreme court of the united states does not have the authority to interpret state law, nor does it have the authority to interpret state constitutions"

I'm sure all those states who passed all those gay marriage bans and ridiculous personhood amendments will find that very comforting. Also I read your "citation" Did you? Because it is clearly author's personal interpretation of the existing legal precedents, not a legal precedent in and of itself. You know just like the author says.... After the abstract, which I'm guessing is all you read.

So basically you can't provide even one citation that proves the primary assumption that your position is predicated on. So I'm just disregarding everything else you've said as nonsense. Since you seem to love to point out other's logical fallacies so much (however erroneously and histrionically) here's another one that I guess hasn't diffused it's way into your potatohead yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

Do you not understand the difference between the federal and state constitutions?


You clearly don't.
 
2014-03-06 05:12:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sprgrss: Again, for the slow among us, those cases were overturned based upon the US Constitution.  Not State constitutions and not state laws.

Those state laws were found to be unconstitutional,  I.E. they overturned state laws.


Yes, federal courts can overturned state laws based upon the Federal Constitution.  they cannot interpret state laws.  They are bound by the meaning the courts of the state gives to its laws.

Erie Railroad Co. v. Thompkins.
 
2014-03-06 05:16:25 PM  

sprgrss: MustangFive: sprgrss: MustangFive: sprgrss: MustangFive: The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution, federal laws and federal judiciary are supreme over the constitutions, laws and judiciaries of the states.

Federal courts do not have the authority to interpret state constitutions or laws.  They are stuck with the interpretation the courts of the states have made.

Sweatt v. Painter disagrees with you. So do these folks:

[img.fark.net image 648x434]

That was US Constitution, not state constitution.

Wow. The United States Supreme Court, in Sweatt v. Painter, didn't overturn a Texas trial court or the Texas State Court of Appeals? News to everyone.

And the Loving's weren't convicted in a Virginia state court of violating a Virginia state statute, which conviction was overturned by the USSC and the Virginia statute declared unconstitutional? Again, more news.

You really should be working for AP or Reuters with all the ground-breaking work you're doing here.

Again, for the slow among us, those cases were overturned based upon the US Constitution.  Not State constitutions and not state laws.

The Federal Courts have authority to interpret the US Constitution and the Supreme Court of the United States of America is the final arbitrator of the meaning of the US Constitution.  The Supreme Court of the Untied States, is not, the final arbitrator of the meaning of State constitutions or state laws, the United States Supreme court is bound by the interpretation given to lose legal documents by the courts of that state.  The highest courts in the states are.

As an example, the United States supreme court has read a good faith exception into the warrant clause of the 4th Amendment, North Carolina's constitution, as interpreted by its Supreme Court does not have a good faith exception.  There is absolutely nothing the United States Supreme Court can do about that interpretation by the North Carolina Supreme Court.  Only the North Carolina Supreme Court, or the voters ...


Clearly, your understanding of the intricacies of constitutional law knows no bounds. If I'm ever tried for any matter I'll call you...

Right after these guys have turned down the case:

img.fark.net
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-06 05:18:41 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss:

"As it relates to what?  The supreme court of the united states does not have the authority to interpret state law, nor does it have the authority to interpret state constitutions"

I'm sure all those states who passed all those gay marriage bans and ridiculous personhood amendments will find that very comforting. Also I read your "citation" Did you? Because it is clearly author's personal interpretation of the existing legal precedents, not a legal precedent in and of itself. You know just like the author says.... After the abstract, which I'm guessing is all you read.

So basically you can't provide even one citation that proves the primary assumption that your position is predicated on. So I'm just disregarding everything else you've said as nonsense. Since you seem to love to point out other's logical fallacies so much (however erroneously and histrionically) here's another one that I guess hasn't diffused it's way into your potatohead yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

Do you not understand the difference between the federal and state constitutions?


Do you not understand that the U.S. Constitution has established that the USSC is the very final authority on constitutional matters and their authority supersedes that of any other? Meaning by definition "absolute authority" will never rest in the hands of the state ever. Even if the court finds in favor of the state it is still the court's decision not the state's. Or do you have another "citation" that proves the definition of "absolute" has changed in the last six minutes?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-06 05:21:53 PM  

ScaryBottles: Do you not understand that the U.S. Constitution has established that the USSC is the very final authority on constitutional matters and their authority supersedes that of any other? Meaning by definition "absolute authority" will never rest in the hands of the state ever. Even if the court finds in favor of the state it is still the court's decision not the state's. Or do you have another "citation" that proves the definition of "absolute" has changed in the last six minutes?


Again, only as it relates to Federal Law.  Not as it relates to State law.  The Supreme Court of the United States does not have the authority to interpret a state statute or a state constitutional provision.  It is bound by the interpretation given by the local tribunals.

Now, that is not to say that the Supreme Court could not find a state law or state constitutional provision unconstitutional under the US Constitution.  But, where it does not find it to violate the US Constitution, it has no authority to interpret that law contrary to the local tribunals.  See Erie Railroad.
 
2014-03-06 05:22:57 PM  

MustangFive: Clearly, your understanding of the intricacies of constitutional law knows no bounds. If I'm ever tried for any matter I'll call you...

Right after these guys have turned down the case:


That's quite the substantive rebuttal you put forth.
 
2014-03-06 05:25:09 PM  
Guns?  Amateurs.

Our state disbands governments of entire cities, installs appointed officials with the power to change laws and  contracts, and has the ability to dissolve the cities if deemed necessary.  It also enshrined these powers after a referendum vote by making it impossible to repeal again.

/Pure Michigan
 
2014-03-06 05:29:45 PM  
Now, ScaryBottles, let's get back to the issue of police powers.

Does the Federal government have general police powers?

Do the States have general police powers?
 
2014-03-06 05:31:05 PM  

Phinn: MustangFive: Does having general police powers make or break the effectiveness of a national system of government?

If so, then the United States of America is an abject failure as a nation and should immediately dissolve.

Your question is convoluted, but the US government does not have general police powers.  States do.  That
distinction "makes" the effectiveness of the US government, being one of its central, defining, structural features.


What is the primary function of the Executive Branch?

The USA is an abject failure as a government, since about 90% of what it does now is done without authority.

John Marshall and his associates disagree with you (McCulloch v. Maryland).

As a man once said, regardless of whether the Constitution really means one thing or another, this much is certain -- it has either authorized the government we have, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.

If you believe that, then you need to work to change it through constitutional means (amendment process, elections, etc.), emigrate elsewhere, or take up arms against the tyrannical ooga-booga-scary federal government.
 
2014-03-06 05:36:59 PM  

MustangFive: If you believe that, then you need to work to change it through constitutional means


to be fair that is practically impossible

i mean this is a country where a person wearing a flag pin became a major issue in a presidential election and patriotism is the state branded religion

you really think that anyone can stand up and say "the constitution needs fixing"? even the most radical teabaggers just argue that everyone including scotus forgot what the constitution ACTUALLY said
 
2014-03-06 05:37:38 PM  

sprawl15: you really think that anyone can stand up and say "the constitution needs fixing"?


or, i should say, stand up and say it and not be immediately branded a traitor as everyone else smells a few free points in next week's polls
 
2014-03-06 05:39:11 PM  

MustangFive: John Marshall and his associates disagree with you (McCulloch v. Maryland).


McCulloch v. Maryland does not say the necessary and proper clause provides wholesale authority for the federal government to act in any area where it so chooses.  Only that the necessary and proper clause allows the congress has implied powers to carry out its expressed authority.

This does not mean that the Congress can pass any law in any area of its choosing.
 
2014-03-06 05:40:46 PM  

MustangFive: What is the primary function of the Executive Branch?


To implement executive operations, like employ and manage the military, postal employees, the diplomatic corps, the patent office, collection of federal taxes, etc.


MustangFive: The USA is an abject failure as a government, since about 90% of what it does now is done without authority.

John Marshall and his associates disagree with you (McCulloch v. Maryland).


The US government was very close to operating within its Constitutional authority, back then.  That was before the avalanche of unconstitutional activities for which it was given no authority, like the "internal improvements" campaign of the mid to late 19th century, the genocide against the indigenous peoples in the West, the central bank, the New Deal, the Drug War, the Great Society, and so on.


MustangFive: If you believe that, then you need to work to change it through constitutional means (amendment process, elections, etc.), emigrate elsewhere, or take up arms against the tyrannical ooga-booga-scary federal government.


Thank you for telling me what I need to do.  I'll get right on that.
 
2014-03-06 05:40:46 PM  

sprawl15: MustangFive: If you believe that, then you need to work to change it through constitutional means

to be fair that is practically impossible

i mean this is a country where a person wearing a flag pin became a major issue in a presidential election and patriotism is the state branded religion

you really think that anyone can stand up and say "the constitution needs fixing"? even the most radical teabaggers just argue that everyone including scotus forgot what the constitution ACTUALLY said


The courts have provided so much elasticity to the power of congress under the commerce clause that amending the constitution is practically irrelevant these days.  That does not mean, however, that the Federal government has general police powers.
 
2014-03-06 05:45:01 PM  

sprgrss: The courts have provided so much elasticity to the power of congress under the commerce clause that amending the constitution is practically irrelevant these days.


Or, rather, the concept of 'interstate commerce' has become much broader than ever anticipated. The founders weren't time lords, they were people making generally decent guesses who got a lot of shiat wrong.

Like the existence of the bill of rights.
 
2014-03-06 05:48:19 PM  

sprawl15: fyi people of fark

this thread is a lot funnier if you mentally put an 'a' in front of each person's name


Nice.
Well done.
 
2014-03-06 05:50:50 PM  

sprawl15: sprgrss: The courts have provided so much elasticity to the power of congress under the commerce clause that amending the constitution is practically irrelevant these days.

Or, rather, the concept of 'interstate commerce' has become much broader than ever anticipated. The founders weren't time lords, they were people making generally decent guesses who got a lot of shiat wrong.

Like the existence of the bill of rights.


The proper is that the Congress, and the courts have allowed it by accepting Congresses convoluted "findings of fact" has turned inherently not economic activities into miraculously having an effect on interstate commerce.

Prosecuting someone for robbing a 7-11 should be the state's job, not the federal government's.

Prosecuting someone for robbing a pizza delivery guy should be the state's job, not the federal government's.

Yet, because we have such an elastic meaning of interstate commerce now we get federal trials where the US Attorney trots in a guy to talk about how the pepperoni on the pizza came from Kentucky and therefore, a guy robbing a pizza delivery guy in West Virginia committed Hobbs Act Robbery because a few slices of pepperoni traveled in interstate commerce instead of letting the states fill their traditional role.
 
2014-03-06 05:58:42 PM  

sprgrss: Yet, because we have such an elastic meaning of interstate commerce


We have an elastic meaning of interstate commerce because commerce is now global. That it's normal for a person making a pizza to use ingredients sourced from all over the country is something so far beyond the ken of what was understood to be the nature of interstate commerce that it's fundamentally and irrevocably broken. Might as well ask what the Constitution says about the limitations of federal regulation of US corporations operating on the moon.
 
2014-03-06 06:01:26 PM  

sprawl15: sprgrss: Yet, because we have such an elastic meaning of interstate commerce

We have an elastic meaning of interstate commerce because commerce is now global. That it's normal for a person making a pizza to use ingredients sourced from all over the country is something so far beyond the ken of what was understood to be the nature of interstate commerce that it's fundamentally and irrevocably broken. Might as well ask what the Constitution says about the limitations of federal regulation of US corporations operating on the moon.


So you are fine with the federal government prosecuting someone for robbing a pizza man, when the states are more than capable and willing to do so, because a few pieces of pepperoni on that pizza came from out of state?

That stretches the literal (and historical) meaning so ridiculously far it has basically lost all meaning.
 
2014-03-06 06:03:17 PM  
Oh, and commerce was global back at the founding and interstate commerce was incredibly ubiquitous that one of the reasons for getting rid of the Articles of Confederation for the Constitution was to facilitate interstate commerce.
 
2014-03-06 06:05:20 PM  

sprgrss: So you are fine with the federal government prosecuting someone for robbing a pizza man, when the states are more than capable and willing to do so, because a few pieces of pepperoni on that pizza came from out of state?


We've already concluded the IC clause to be worthless, the only thing that's left is moral justification. And I'm fine with it, because I hold the idea of state sovereignty to be fundamentally immoral.

Are you expressing outrage that I might find the Constitution to be a morally flawed document?
 
2014-03-06 06:09:59 PM  

sprawl15: sprgrss: So you are fine with the federal government prosecuting someone for robbing a pizza man, when the states are more than capable and willing to do so, because a few pieces of pepperoni on that pizza came from out of state?

We've already concluded the IC clause to be worthless, the only thing that's left is moral justification. And I'm fine with it, because I hold the idea of state sovereignty to be fundamentally immoral.

Are you expressing outrage that I might find the Constitution to be a morally flawed document?


how is state sovereignty fundamentally immoral?
 
2014-03-06 06:43:04 PM  

sprgrss: sprawl15: sprgrss: So you are fine with the federal government prosecuting someone for robbing a pizza man, when the states are more than capable and willing to do so, because a few pieces of pepperoni on that pizza came from out of state?

We've already concluded the IC clause to be worthless, the only thing that's left is moral justification. And I'm fine with it, because I hold the idea of state sovereignty to be fundamentally immoral.

Are you expressing outrage that I might find the Constitution to be a morally flawed document?

how is state sovereignty fundamentally immoral?


It's not, it's simply nonexistent.
 
2014-03-06 06:44:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: sprgrss: sprawl15: sprgrss: So you are fine with the federal government prosecuting someone for robbing a pizza man, when the states are more than capable and willing to do so, because a few pieces of pepperoni on that pizza came from out of state?

We've already concluded the IC clause to be worthless, the only thing that's left is moral justification. And I'm fine with it, because I hold the idea of state sovereignty to be fundamentally immoral.

Are you expressing outrage that I might find the Constitution to be a morally flawed document?

how is state sovereignty fundamentally immoral?

It's not, it's simply nonexistent.


What?
 
2014-03-06 06:53:52 PM  

sprgrss: how is state sovereignty fundamentally immoral?


It cannot have a stable coexistence with individual sovereignty. The basic moral assertion of the Constitution - that people's rights are inherently theirs - is marginalized by an arbitrary, man-made entity with equivalent 'rights' under the 10th.

Take the whole gay marriage debacle. It's legally about the limitations of federal power vs state power and if the power to regulate marriage is on the state or federal level or bla bla bla. What's lost in all this is that marriage is held to be a fundamental right, and individuals should not be deprived of that right without a damn good reason. Just like your right to grow or use pot, or your right to grow wheat for your own farm's consumption. Granting state sovereignty turns fundamentally moral questions of right and wrong per the role of governance (at any level) into a question of which sovereign entity holds the people's reins.
 
2014-03-06 06:54:11 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss:

"As it relates to what?  The supreme court of the united states does not have the authority to interpret state law, nor does it have the authority to interpret state constitutions"

I'm sure all those states who passed all those gay marriage bans and ridiculous personhood amendments will find that very comforting. Also I read your "citation" Did you? Because it is clearly author's personal interpretation of the existing legal precedents, not a legal precedent in and of itself. You know just like the author says.... After the abstract, which I'm guessing is all you read.

So basically you can't provide even one citation that proves the primary assumption that your position is predicated on. So I'm just disregarding everything else you've said as nonsense. Since you seem to love to point out other's logical fallacies so much (however erroneously and histrionically) here's another one that I guess hasn't diffused it's way into your potatohead yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

Do you not understand the difference between the federal and state constitutions?

Do you not understand that the U.S. Constitution has established that the USSC is the very final authority on constitutional matters and their authority supersedes that of any other? Meaning by definition "absolute authority" will never rest in the hands of the state ever. Even if the court finds in favor of the state it is still the court's decision not the state's. Or do you have another "citation" that proves the definition of "absolute" has changed in the last six minutes?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 472x307]


"This Court, from the time of its foundation, has adhered to the principle that it will not review judgments of state courts that rest on adequate and independent state grounds. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 87 U. S. 636; Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 53; Enterprise Irrigation District v. Farmers' Mutual Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 243 U. S. 164; Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U. S. 207. The reason is so obvious that it has rarely upon thought to warrant statement. It is found in the partitioning of power between the state and federal judicial systems and in the limitations of our own jurisdiction. Our only power over state judgments is to correct them to the extent that they incorrectly adjudge federal rights. And our power is to correct wrong judgments, not to revise opinions. We are not permitted to render an advisory opinion, and if the same judgment would be rendered by the state court after we corrected its views of federal laws, our review could amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion."


Herb v. Pitcairn,  324 U.S. 117 (1945)
 
2014-03-06 07:08:12 PM  

sprawl15: sprgrss: how is state sovereignty fundamentally immoral?

It cannot have a stable coexistence with individual sovereignty. The basic moral assertion of the Constitution - that people's rights are inherently theirs - is marginalized by an arbitrary, man-made entity with equivalent 'rights' under the 10th.

Take the whole gay marriage debacle. It's legally about the limitations of federal power vs state power and if the power to regulate marriage is on the state or federal level or bla bla bla. What's lost in all this is that marriage is held to be a fundamental right, and individuals should not be deprived of that right without a damn good reason. Just like your right to grow or use pot, or your right to grow wheat for your own farm's consumption. Granting state sovereignty turns fundamentally moral questions of right and wrong per the role of governance (at any level) into a question of which sovereign entity holds the people's reins.


You are misapplying state sovereignty in all those instances.

Yes, the state has the authority to pass marriage laws, but that doesn't mean the state has the authority to abridge constitutionally protected rights.  That and the regulation of marriage has always been recognized as a matter of state law since the federal courts are ill-equipped to handle it.

As for growing marijuana (Raich) or wheat (Wickard)  doesn't have much to do with state sovereignty either.

But more to the point, you appear to be arguing for some sort of libertarian utopia, but as the Supreme Court has stated:  "Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."  Which is why, " But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand. "
 
2014-03-06 07:12:41 PM  

Frank N Stein: These types of headlines are the worst. The submitter attempts point out a perceived hypocrisy of whatever group he wants to discredit. In doing so, he'll throw out any sort of nuance that might explain why there may be a reasonable difference in the two cases. The "example" of hypocrisy then becomes so general that it doesn't mean anything, and ironically lets open the door for this type of argument to be used against their side (or anyone, really)


Waukeegan has banned Negroes from living there.  Not that anyone actually wants to live in Waukeegan, but there it is.
 
2014-03-06 07:15:34 PM  
Dart even found that 12 of Illinois's certified concealed-carry instructors have criminal backgrounds.

Oh fark you, Dart.  If I drive 1 mph over the speed limit and get ticketed, I have a criminal background.  The litmus test is a felony, you c*nt.
 
2014-03-06 07:28:35 PM  

sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984: sprgrss: sprawl15: sprgrss: So you are fine with the federal government prosecuting someone for robbing a pizza man, when the states are more than capable and willing to do so, because a few pieces of pepperoni on that pizza came from out of state?

We've already concluded the IC clause to be worthless, the only thing that's left is moral justification. And I'm fine with it, because I hold the idea of state sovereignty to be fundamentally immoral.

Are you expressing outrage that I might find the Constitution to be a morally flawed document?

how is state sovereignty fundamentally immoral?

It's not, it's simply nonexistent.

What?


It's no wonder this thread is so effed up, what with people engaging the trolls and autistics.
 
2014-03-06 08:28:46 PM  

sprgrss: You are misapplying state sovereignty in all those instances.


Absolutely not. The nature of all those cases is the question of it is within the Federal purview, or it falls to the states or the people per the 10th. But the relationship between the state and the citizen is not one of equivalence - it's an asymmetric relationship. So the 'or the people' bit of the 10th is irrelevant; functionally speaking the only question is who has the power to take away your rights. And at least with Federal sovereignty the government is bound by what it is enumerated, as farked up as the enumeration is.

And that's the key - you seem to have a moral issue (in addition to your technical one) with the current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause because it grants far too broad a power. But the state governments are not bound in the same way; they have the power to step on any toes except for those carved out for the Federal government. Your own rebuttal about how marriage has been handled is a perfect example - you are framing it in terms of a binary "is it the state or is it the fed". The idea that it's neither's farking business what two consenting adults do is not part of the equation.

sprgrss: But more to the point, you appear to be arguing for some sort of libertarian utopia


I didn't realize a centralized Federal government and was a core tenet of libertarian ideas.

Please, let me know more about what I think, I've never heard it before.
 
2014-03-06 08:32:35 PM  

sprawl15: I hold the idea of state sovereignty to be fundamentally immoral.


Uh .... that makes no sense.

Rights begin with the individual.  (Thomas Jefferson said something about that.)

Then, those people get together and organize themselves into a State, delegating to the government some (but not all) of the powers they had over themselves.

Those States can then get together and make a union of States, as it were.  That top layer of government is delegated some (but not all) of the powers that the member States had (which they in turn had gotten from the people).

It's even possible (gasp!) for a union of States to get together with other States (or unions of States), and form an even higher level of government, such that the union(s) of States can delegate some (but not all) of its powers to it.

And so on.

If you subscribe to the first part (people ceding some of their natural and inherent power to the first-level State), how is it that those States forming a higher-level (albeit more narrowly empowered) union-of-States "fundamentally immoral"?

If Statism is legitimate, then by what principle of ethics is it so obviously wrong to have a State that's organized in multiple, successively-delegated tiers?
 
2014-03-06 09:12:15 PM  

Phinn: the federal government DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to prohibit the possession of substances


I don't care. All I was saying is "supremacy clause" - Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

Continue masturbating.
 
2014-03-06 09:55:16 PM  
When the Federal government passes laws that state legislatures disapprove of, they need to nullify Federal laws, otherwise they're suffering from the tyranny of the majority.  When municipal governments pass laws that state legislature disapprove of, they need to nullify municipal laws, because the tyranny of the majority is not so bad when state legislatures do it.
 
2014-03-06 10:08:15 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: I don't care.


Which is why no one cares about your opinions.
 
2014-03-06 10:22:28 PM  

sprawl15: sprgrss: You are misapplying state sovereignty in all those instances.

Absolutely not. The nature of all those cases is the question of it is within the Federal purview, or it falls to the states or the people per the 10th. But the relationship between the state and the citizen is not one of equivalence - it's an asymmetric relationship. So the 'or the people' bit of the 10th is irrelevant; functionally speaking the only question is who has the power to take away your rights. And at least with Federal sovereignty the government is bound by what it is enumerated, as farked up as the enumeration is.

And that's the key - you seem to have a moral issue (in addition to your technical one) with the current interpretation of the interstate commerce clause because it grants far too broad a power. But the state governments are not bound in the same way; they have the power to step on any toes except for those carved out for the Federal government. Your own rebuttal about how marriage has been handled is a perfect example - you are framing it in terms of a binary "is it the state or is it the fed". The idea that it's neither's farking business what two consenting adults do is not part of the equation.

sprgrss: But more to the point, you appear to be arguing for some sort of libertarian utopia

I didn't realize a centralized Federal government and was a core tenet of libertarian ideas.

Please, let me know more about what I think, I've never heard it before.


Raich and Wickard had zero to do with State Sovereignty.  Zip, nada, nothing.  So yes, you are misapplying state sovereignty.
 
2014-03-06 10:23:09 PM  

HighOnCraic: When the Federal government passes laws that state legislatures disapprove of, they need to nullify Federal laws, otherwise they're suffering from the tyranny of the majority.  When municipal governments pass laws that state legislature disapprove of, they need to nullify municipal laws, because the tyranny of the majority is not so bad when state legislatures do it.


There is no mechanism for the States to nullify a Federal law.
 
2014-03-06 10:27:21 PM  

sprgrss: HighOnCraic: When the Federal government passes laws that state legislatures disapprove of, they need to nullify Federal laws, otherwise they're suffering from the tyranny of the majority.  When municipal governments pass laws that state legislature disapprove of, they need to nullify municipal laws, because the tyranny of the majority is not so bad when state legislatures do it.

There is no mechanism for the States to nullify a Federal law.


I agree.  Lots of people disagree, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)
 
2014-03-06 11:14:33 PM  

sprgrss: HighOnCraic: When the Federal government passes laws that state legislatures disapprove of, they need to nullify Federal laws, otherwise they're suffering from the tyranny of the majority.  When municipal governments pass laws that state legislature disapprove of, they need to nullify municipal laws, because the tyranny of the majority is not so bad when state legislatures do it.

There is no mechanism for the States to nullify a Federal law.


Kentucky Resolve No. 1 --

That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party; that this [federal] government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

That was from Thomas Jefferson.

Here's James Madison on the subject --

in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to them.
 
2014-03-06 11:33:15 PM  
The Armies of Grant and Sherman settled that issue 150 years ago.

And not to mention the Supremacy Clause.
 
2014-03-06 11:48:09 PM  

sprgrss: Raich and Wickard had zero to do with State Sovereignty.


Uh, it's almost as if you totally skipped over the bit where I explained that it's fundamentally tied to how enumeration works.

I mean it was only like two lines, don't crap out yet.

Phinn: Uh .... that makes no sense.


Using your logic, counties and municipalities should also have sovereignty. Is that what you're asserting? If not, what practical purpose is served by drawing the line specifically at 'state'?
 
2014-03-06 11:51:51 PM  

sprawl15: Using your logic, counties and municipalities should also have sovereignty. Is that what you're asserting? If not, what practical purpose is served by drawing the line specifically at 'state'?


because the states existed first.
 
2014-03-06 11:53:14 PM  

sprgrss: sprawl15: Using your logic, counties and municipalities should also have sovereignty. Is that what you're asserting? If not, what practical purpose is served by drawing the line specifically at 'state'?

because the states existed first.


The states existed before cities?

Fascinating.
 
2014-03-07 12:00:48 AM  

sprawl15: sprgrss: sprawl15: Using your logic, counties and municipalities should also have sovereignty. Is that what you're asserting? If not, what practical purpose is served by drawing the line specifically at 'state'?

because the states existed first.

The states existed before cities?

Fascinating.


The colonial charters sure did and the states are the successors in interest from those colonial charters.

Or do you deny this aspect of American history.
 
2014-03-07 02:13:00 AM  

sprgrss: The colonial charters sure did and the states are the successors in interest from those colonial charters.

Or do you deny this aspect of American history.


are you trying to set a new world record for bizarre, garden path logic
 
2014-03-07 03:25:09 AM  

sprawl15: sprgrss: The colonial charters sure did and the states are the successors in interest from those colonial charters.

Or do you deny this aspect of American history.

are you trying to set a new world record for bizarre, garden path logic


I'll explain it to you.

The 13 original colonies were created by royal charter.  These royal charters existed prior to any creation of cities or counties or townships.  Being then the successors in interest to the colonial charters, the states existed before the cities.

But wait, you'll start talking about the states that joined the union after the Founding.  Well, too bad, that doesn't help you because every state that enters into the union is equal in sovereignty to the original states (citing a bunch of case law going back to the admission of Mississippi into the union).

I'm sure you'll just reject this because...
 
2014-03-07 04:19:33 AM  

sprgrss: The Armies of Grant and Sherman settled that issue 150 years ago.

And not to mention the Supremacy Clause.


The success (or failure) of a military conquest can't justify (or falsify) that very same military action. That's like saying that rape isn't a crime if you thoroughly overpower the victim. "Might makes right" hasn't been a valid legal principle since trial by combat was abolished.

The Supremacy Clause grants no powers. It means that US law supersedes state law where the two legitimately conflict. It doesn't give the US government the power to exercise new powers. It's not the All-Powerful Autocracy Clause.

Since the federal government only has discrete, enumerated powers, derived from the States by delegation, it can't legitimately be the sole arbiter of the scope of its own power. If that were true , then it would grow and grow, unabated until ... hey! Look what actually happened!
 
2014-03-07 04:32:51 AM  

sprawl15: sprgrss: Raich and Wickard had zero to do with State Sovereignty.

Uh, it's almost as if you totally skipped over the bit where I explained that it's fundamentally tied to how enumeration works.

I mean it was only like two lines, don't crap out yet.

Phinn: Uh .... that makes no sense.

Using your logic, counties and municipalities should also have sovereignty. Is that what you're asserting? If not, what practical purpose is served by drawing the line specifically at 'state'?


It's possible, but didn't happen that way here. There have been city-states, albeit in Europe and not in the USA. City-states could (theoretically) voluntarily band together, form a super-state, which could then delegate some of it's delegated powers to a union of states, and so on.

In the New World colonies, the colony was the basic chartered unit. They became the States after the Revolution. There were no city-states, organized as such.

As a result, cities and counties derive their authority from the State governments. Counties are just administrative units of States, contrary to the way American States are discrete, fully-functional governments that delegated certain, specific powers of theirs to form the USA.
 
2014-03-07 09:11:58 AM  
Streakhouse.
 
2014-03-07 10:30:29 AM  

sprgrss: I'm sure you'll just reject this because.


...because Phinn was talking general principles and even if your bizarre assertion that somehow the charters are equivalent to the birth of a sovereign entity were correct it would be irrelevant?

You seem to have an extreme case of ramblebrain. Don't you still have to let me know about all my libertarian beliefs, or did that get tossed aside in your quest for vomiting wikipedia at me?

Phinn: It's possible, but didn't happen that way here.


Yes, but we're talking about what is Correct. It's possible that the founders would have explicitly shown that women and minorities were in fact people and thus should have their rights as equally respected as any white male landowner, but they didn't. The nation decided that was not Correct and changed it.

And don't get it twisted - I'm not talking about the ability for states to act as government as counties and municipalities have that without sovereignty. I'm talking about the nature of making states explicitly sovereign in a manner that is not clearly one of service as the Federal government's enumerated powers nominally put it in subservience to its citizens.
 
2014-03-07 11:30:22 AM  

Phinn: sprgrss: The Armies of Grant and Sherman settled that issue 150 years ago.

And not to mention the Supremacy Clause.

The success (or failure) of a military conquest can't justify (or falsify) that very same military action. That's like saying that rape isn't a crime if you thoroughly overpower the victim. "Might makes right" hasn't been a valid legal principle since trial by combat was abolished.

The Supremacy Clause grants no powers. It means that US law supersedes state law where the two legitimately conflict. It doesn't give the US government the power to exercise new powers. It's not the All-Powerful Autocracy Clause.

Since the federal government only has discrete, enumerated powers, derived from the States by delegation, it can't legitimately be the sole arbiter of the scope of its own power. If that were true , then it would grow and grow, unabated until ... hey! Look what actually happened!


Supremacy clause taken with Marbury v. Madison means no.
 
2014-03-07 11:32:17 AM  
sprawl15:

You seem to have an extreme case of ramblebrain. Don't you still have to let me know about all my libertarian beliefs, or did that get tossed aside in your quest for vomiting wikipedia at me?

You have an extreme case of not knowing the slightest bit of what you are talking about.

You are ignorant of the history, you are further ignorant of the legal precepts.  But fark it, you can make snide comments about posters.

Well guess what, you are a pox on the body politic.
 
2014-03-07 11:59:06 AM  

sprgrss: But fark it, you can make snide comments about posters.


If you have anything not worthy of a snide comment, feel free to post it. So far you've abandoned ship on our discussion and decided to jump into an entirely different discussion with utter nonsense.

At least Phinn was able to understand that 'history happened to go that way' is a relatively minor point when talking about it. You're putting all your emphasis on it, which is the exact wrong way to go about discussion the principles behind the method. You are basically answering "Why should our system be maintained?" with "because it was maintained". Except you don't seem to have the self-awareness to be concise and would rather vomit things you googled last night at me.
 
2014-03-07 01:20:37 PM  

sprawl15: Phinn: It's possible, but didn't happen that way here.

Yes, but we're talking about what is Correct. It's possible that the founders would have explicitly shown that women and minorities were in fact people and thus should have their rights as equally respected as any white male landowner, but they didn't. The nation decided that was not Correct and changed it.

And don't get it twisted - I'm not talking about the ability for states to act as government as counties and municipalities have that without sovereignty. I'm talking about the nature of making states explicitly sovereign in a manner that is not clearly one of service as the Federal government's enumerated powers nominally put it in subservience to its citizens.


I'm not sure I follow you here.

The basic theory of post-Enlightenment Western government is that all rights originate with the individual.  They use their rational brains to voluntarily form governments in order to protect those rights (which hasn't worked out too well in practice, I might add).  That government, when it takes the form of a state, can be the size of Wyoming or comprise only one city, but the main point is that authority flows upward, from people to the government (which governs those people, and whoever else is in the territory they reasonably control and/or claim).

In the USA, that did not occur at the county or municipal level.  It could have, in theory, I suppose, but didn't.  Instead, States were formed (49 or 50 times, depending on how you count West Virginia), which were delegated all police powers, thereby making them sovereign, and leaving no sovereignty left over for towns and counties to have.

The States then delegated a discrete (enumerated) portion of the authority they'd been given, up the chain, to the union of States.  That parceling out of ever-smaller fractions of authority can (in theory) go on, level by level, to higher-tier super-states, though (by definition) getting smaller in scope at each step along the way.

There's no reason that a "Free City of _____" couldn't have its own first-level form of quasi-statehood, within the structure of the state territory surrounding it.  Europe had a few.  In that way, I guess, it might have been possible to have a sovereign municipality, as the first tier of governmental organization, but it didn't actually happen here.

I just don't see how this multi-tiered delegation of authority (assuming it's valid at the first level) is "inherently immoral."
 
2014-03-07 01:31:12 PM  

sprgrss: Phinn: sprgrss: The Armies of Grant and Sherman settled that issue 150 years ago.

And not to mention the Supremacy Clause.

The success (or failure) of a military conquest can't justify (or falsify) that very same military action. That's like saying that rape isn't a crime if you thoroughly overpower the victim. "Might makes right" hasn't been a valid legal principle since trial by combat was abolished.

The Supremacy Clause grants no powers. It means that US law supersedes state law where the two legitimately conflict. It doesn't give the US government the power to exercise new powers. It's not the All-Powerful Autocracy Clause.

Since the federal government only has discrete, enumerated powers, derived from the States by delegation, it can't legitimately be the sole arbiter of the scope of its own power. If that were true , then it would grow and grow, unabated until ... hey! Look what actually happened!

Supremacy clause taken with Marbury v. Madison means no.

Marbury

was about the SCOTUS nullifying the over-reaching acts of other branches.  It says nothing about States nullifying an over-reaching federal government.

Besides, if the SCOTUS itself were to issue an over-reaching ruling, that purported to deprive States of their nullification power, would be just another instance of the federal government deciding the scope of its own power.  (Which invariably is defined as "more.")
 
2014-03-07 03:03:07 PM  

Phinn: sprgrss: Phinn: sprgrss: The Armies of Grant and Sherman settled that issue 150 years ago.

And not to mention the Supremacy Clause.

The success (or failure) of a military conquest can't justify (or falsify) that very same military action. That's like saying that rape isn't a crime if you thoroughly overpower the victim. "Might makes right" hasn't been a valid legal principle since trial by combat was abolished.

The Supremacy Clause grants no powers. It means that US law supersedes state law where the two legitimately conflict. It doesn't give the US government the power to exercise new powers. It's not the All-Powerful Autocracy Clause.

Since the federal government only has discrete, enumerated powers, derived from the States by delegation, it can't legitimately be the sole arbiter of the scope of its own power. If that were true , then it would grow and grow, unabated until ... hey! Look what actually happened!

Supremacy clause taken with Marbury v. Madison means no.

Marbury was about the SCOTUS nullifying the over-reaching acts of other branches.  It says nothing about States nullifying an over-reaching federal government.

Besides, if the SCOTUS itself were to issue an over-reaching ruling, that purported to deprive States of their nullification power, would be just another instance of the federal government deciding the scope of its own power.  (Which invariably is defined as "more.")


In a unanimous decision, the Court noted that the school board had acted in good faith, that most of the problems stemmed from the official opposition of the Arkansas state government to racial integration in both word and deed. Nonetheless, it was constitutionally impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause to maintain law and order by depriving the black students of their equal rights under the law.
More importantly, the Court held that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the US Constitution the supreme law of the land and Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review,[1] the precedent set forth in Brown v. Board of Education is the supreme law of the land and is therefore binding on all the states, regardless of any state laws contradicting it. The Court therefore rejected the contention that the Arkansas legislature and Governor were not bound by the Brown decision.
The Supreme Court rejected the doctrines of nullification and interposition, which had been invoked by segregationists. Segregation supporters argued that the states have the power to nullify federal laws or court rulings that they believe to be unconstitutional and the states could use this power to nullify the Brown decision. The Arkansas laws that attempted to prevent desegregation were Arkansas' effort to nullify the Brown decision. The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." Thus, Cooper v. Aaron held that state attempts to nullify federal law are ineffective.
Moreover, since public officials are required to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution (as per Article VI, Clause 3), for these same officials to ignore the Court's precedents is equal to a violation of that oath. Even though education is the responsibility of the state government, that responsibility must be carried out in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_v._Aaron
 
2014-03-07 05:27:07 PM  

HighOnCraic: Phinn: sprgrss: Phinn: sprgrss: The Armies of Grant and Sherman settled that issue 150 years ago.

And not to mention the Supremacy Clause.

The success (or failure) of a military conquest can't justify (or falsify) that very same military action. That's like saying that rape isn't a crime if you thoroughly overpower the victim. "Might makes right" hasn't been a valid legal principle since trial by combat was abolished.

The Supremacy Clause grants no powers. It means that US law supersedes state law where the two legitimately conflict. It doesn't give the US government the power to exercise new powers. It's not the All-Powerful Autocracy Clause.

Since the federal government only has discrete, enumerated powers, derived from the States by delegation, it can't legitimately be the sole arbiter of the scope of its own power. If that were true , then it would grow and grow, unabated until ... hey! Look what actually happened!

Supremacy clause taken with Marbury v. Madison means no.

Marbury was about the SCOTUS nullifying the over-reaching acts of other branches.  It says nothing about States nullifying an over-reaching federal government.

Besides, if the SCOTUS itself were to issue an over-reaching ruling, that purported to deprive States of their nullification power, would be just another instance of the federal government deciding the scope of its own power.  (Which invariably is defined as "more.")

In a unanimous decision, the Court noted that the school board had acted in good faith, that most of the problems stemmed from the official opposition of the Arkansas state government to racial integration in both word and deed. Nonetheless, it was constitutionally impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause to maintain law and order by depriving the black students of their equal rights under the law.
More importantly, the Court held that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the US Constitution the supreme law of the land and Marbury v. Madison gave the S ...


What are you trying to say?  The ends justify the means?  The rules don't apply if you dislike the person who asserts them?  Or do you think an emotional appeal to the evils of racism is going to make me forget basic Constitutional law?
 
Displayed 267 of 267 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report