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  
•       •       •

1488 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2014 at 11:33 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 267 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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