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

1475 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2014 at 11:33 AM (1 year 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 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 17 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 »
Advertisement
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