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 267
    More: Obvious, state governments, federal government, state law, Missouri General Assembly, Sedgwick County, residential community, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ohio Governor  
•       •       •

1474 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2014 at 11:33 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 267 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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