Forget The President, What About The Marijuana?

[4588686]

It's good, I think. As someone who rejects that a group of powder-wigged fairies can magically bind people to their will, the Constitution is useful to the degree that I can use it to restrain the Federal government. Other than that, it's a rag.

 

So the Civil Rights laws were a bad thing?  What happens when the state restricts the basic freedoms of people more than the federal government.  

[Winchester]

So the Civil Rights laws were a bad thing?  What happens when the state restricts the basic freedoms of people more than the federal government.  

 

The Civil Rights laws were in some instances an overstepping of Federal Authority. Yes, I reject incorporation. Yes, I know what that means for local gun control laws.

 

Then we have to deal with it on a local level. I don't believe the answer is to give power to the Federal government. Those are the guys who set up the fugitive slave laws, remember? What do we do when the bigger bully abuses us?

 

Local government isn't less likely to be a lot of bastards, but they tend to be less numerous, and less powerful. Unfortunately, the Fed is smart enough to give grants to local armed bands.

[4588686]

The Civil Rights laws were in some instances an overstepping of Federal Authority. Yes, I reject incorporation. Yes, I know what that means for local gun control laws.

 

Then we have to deal with it on a local level. I don't believe the answer is to give power to the Federal government. Those are the guys who set up the fugitive slave laws, remember? What do we do when the bigger bully abuses us?

 

Local government isn't less likely to be a lot of bastards, but they tend to be less numerous, and less powerful. Unfortunately, the Fed is smart enough to give grants to local armed bands.

 

 

What constitutional grounds do you have to reject incorporation when the 14th Amendment gives the federal government to right to extend federal protections to the state level?  

 

I'm not of the opinion that the Federal government is always and everywhere a force of good.  The rise of the National security State would be a good example of that.  But if you just reject the flexing of federal power on the grounds that federal exertions of power are wrong as such then I fail to see how you are an individualist rather than just a proponent of confederacy (and I say that without any attempt at a pejorative).  The Civil Rights laws broke up a racist system that kept a great many black Americans in an extremely oppressive system.  If human freedom is your highest goal then that should be good regardless of which level of government did it.  

[Winchester]

What constitutional grounds do you have to reject incorporation when the 14th Amendment gives the federal government to right to extend federal protections to the state level?  

 

I'm not of the opinion that the Federal government is always and everywhere a force of good.  The rise of the National security State would be a good example of that.  But if you just reject the flexing of federal power on the grounds that federal exertions of power are wrong as such then I fail to see how you are an individualist rather than just a proponent of confederacy (and I say that without any attempt at a pejorative).  The Civil Rights laws broke up a racist system that kept a great many black Americans in an extremely oppressive system.  If human freedom is your highest goal then that should be good regardless of which level of government did it.  

 

The coercion involved in adopting the 14th amendment.

[4588686]

The coercion involved in adopting the 14th amendment.

 

Which was itself a response to the attempts of confederate paramilitary groups from oppressing the newly freed black populations.  I mean, that's fair enough.  But I really don't understand the rational for the other issues other than a preference for local governments for the sake of local governments.  I don't see any reason that smaller polity's must be less powerful or less oppressive.  Serbia was an authoritarian state under Milosevic and it was pretty authoritarian by the end.  In the south you had plenty of small towns that were out rightly savage to their black populations despite receiving little to know help in their savagery from the federal or even state governments.  

[Winchester]

Which was itself a response to the attempts of confederate paramilitary groups from oppressing the newly freed black populations.  I mean, that's fair enough.  But I really don't understand the rational for the other issues other than a preference for local governments for the sake of local governments.  I don't see any reason that smaller polity's must be less powerful or less oppressive.  Serbia was an authoritarian state under Milosevic and it was pretty authoritarian by the end.  In the south you had plenty of small towns that were out rightly savage to their black populations despite receiving little to know help in their savagery from the federal or even state governments.  

 

I said they wouldn't necessarily be less oppressive. Less powerful is extremely likely. To the extent that they lack control of the money supply, they are far less powerful.

 

The power differential was rather massive. Whites had weapons that blacks did not (and were sometimes barred from owning by law).

 

The result of my approach to the Constitution's limits would also exonerate regimes like that in Chicago, where the right to own weapons is seriously abrogated from Federal interference.

[Aloysius]

The 9th and 10th Amendments really don't clear anything up unless you assume what you are trying to prove.  

 

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

 

Those really don't provide any sort of clarity as to exactly what the interstate or necessary and proper clauses mean.  It just says that the powers not delegated to the US, nor probibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states or the people.  But that's exactly the question at issue.  They're really nothing more than codifying tautologies.  

 

I can see how they're just codifying tautologies from your perspective, from a perspective of what the framers of the constitution actually intended, they make perfect sense and are the go to fill in for any instance of "ambiguity" in the Constitution.  if it's not an enumerated power, or if it would be a stretch to call it an enumerated power, or if you're jumping through hoops to pretend it means what you wish it meant so you could have more power, refer to the 9th and 10th amendments that say hold on, that thing you're talking about is up to the states to decide.  that's how it was interpreted for over a century, anyway.

 

so much about your perspective on the constitution presumes that the framers were complete idiots, that they left a bunch of loopholes and put in a bunch of useless wording that didn't actually mean anything.  case-in-point is your view that the 9th and 10th amendments were just codified tautologies; actually, to the states the 9th and 10th amendments were considered extremely important guarantees in the Bill of Rights without which they would not have been comfortable with the Constitution. 

[4588686]

I can see how they're just codifying tautologies from your perspective, from a perspective of what the framers of the constitution actually intended, they make perfect sense and are the go to fill in for any instance of "ambiguity" in the Constitution.  if it's not an enumerated power, or if it would be a stretch to call it an enumerated power, or if you're jumping through hoops to pretend it means what you wish it meant so you could have more power, refer to the 9th and 10th amendments that say hold on, that thing you're talking about is up to the states to decide.  that's how it was interpreted for over a century, anyway.

 

so much about your perspective on the constitution presumes that the framers were complete idiots, that they left a bunch of loopholes and put in a bunch of useless wording that didn't actually mean anything.  case-in-point is your view that the 9th and 10th amendments were just codified tautologies; actually, to the states the 9th and 10th amendments were considered extremely important guarantees in the Bill of Rights without which they would not have been comfortable with the Constitution. 

 

I don't think the framers were idiots.  But there was not a single, unified 'intent' behind the constitution.  Unless in your view Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, et cetera all had identical views about the scope of federal power.  They didn't.  The language is ambiguous because there differences of opinions were significant enough that they sort of punted a number of issues that they just couldn't hammer out.  You say that the 9th and 10th amendment were viewed as extremely important to the framers.  Again.  You are taking the framers whose views you ascribe to and generalizing their view and presenting it as a unified intentionality.  Some framers not only considered the 9th and 10th amendment's unimportant, they viewed the entire Bill of Rights as unimportant.  Moreover, simply because 'x' wanted 'y' does not necessarily mean that 'x' is correct that 'y' is useful.  You haven't really explained how the 9th and 10th amendments aren't basically tautological you've just asserted that they must not be because they were desired by some people.  I think that's a pretty weak argument.  

[Aloysius]

sure there wasn't a unified intent.  Hamilton basically wanted a king, so there was a divide among the founders.  but the 9th and 10th amendments were placed in there as an offer to get states to agree, and they were interpreted this way for over a hundred years, they were very clear and were not considered tautological at all.  there were certainly groups that wanted the constitution to go farther than it did in terms of Federal power, but they largely lost out at the Constitutional Convention and especially with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights--the 9th and 10th amendment were the guarantees against this kind of crap.  There is no decent argument from the constitution in favor of the drug laws, they are clearly unconstitutional... your point is well taken that often the constitutional argument is thrown out there in a rather simplistic way, but the fact is that the framers, even the most federalist among them, did not believe that the commerce clause granted such broad power and they did not think that the 9th and 10th amendments were useless tautologies.  these things were put in place and understood for what they were, and the things the Federal government does now is completely outside of the understanding the framers had of what the Constitution said.  there were certainly then, as there are now, people who wanted to give more power to the federal government than the constitution gave, but those people back then respected the constitution as a roadblock they had to get around much more, whereas today they try to argue that the constitution allows for basically anything and everything with RIDICULOUSLY broad interpretations of the general welfare clause and the commerce clause.

[4588686]

sure there wasn't a unified intent.  Hamilton basically wanted a king, so there was a divide among the founders.  but the 9th and 10th amendments were placed in there as an offer to get states to agree, and they were interpreted this way for over a hundred years,

Interpreted what way?  As a compromise measure?  That's not in dispute.  What's in dispute is what specific and clear limits they added that wern't already there and You haven't really gotten into specifics.  You've just claimed that they were very clear to some people at some point in time.  Which is also a dubious claim since following ratification the framers continued having quarles over what was and was not permitted under the constitution.  I'd say that such disputes are difficult for your interpretative model to account for since according to you, as I have understood you, the limits are pretty clear and the 10th amendment makes them even clearer.  I think that in my model those disputes are pretty easy to explain.  

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

 

What actual limits are clearly stated here?  If I say the commerce clause gives the Federal Government the power to do 'x' and you say that no it does not then fine.  That's an argument that two people can have.  But you supporting that by pointing to the 10th amendment and saying 'See!  I'm right because the powers not given to the federal government are reserved by the states or the people!' is no sort of argument since I am not claiming that the federal government should have powers which are not delegated to it.  The dispute is over exactly what the scope of the powers delegated to it are.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

they were very clear and were not considered tautological at all. 

Madison didn't seem to find any of them of much importance at all when he was writing about them in his letters.  

 

 

there were certainly groups that wanted the constitution to go farther than it did in terms of Federal power, but they largely lost out at the Constitutional Convention and especially with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights--the 9th and 10th amendment were the guarantees against this kind of crap.  There is no decent argument from the constitution in favor of the drug laws, they are clearly unconstitutional...

 

That depends on the drug law.  Drug laws which use the fact that the drug trade is an interstate matter are pretty tricky and even Scalia, who is a pretty ardent testualist and opponent of federal power, has backed some of them.  Personally, I agreed with Thomas in Gonzales v. Raich but I don't think it's really fair for you to characterize one side in most of these arguments as 'obvious' while the other is just obviously false.  Unless you believe that the whole history of the USSC is just people acting in bad faith.  

 

 

your point is well taken that often the constitutional argument is thrown out there in a rather simplistic way, but the fact is that the framers, even the most federalist among them, did not believe that the commerce clause granted such broad power and they did not think that the 9th and 10th amendments were useless tautologies.  these things were put in place and understood for what they were, and the things the Federal government does now is completely outside of the understanding the framers had of what the Constitution said. 

Well that's not really a fair comparison since we now have 17 Amendments that we didn't have when the Bill of rights were passed.  

 

 

there were certainly then, as there are now, people who wanted to give more power to the federal government than the constitution gave, but those people back then respected the constitution as a roadblock they had to get around much more, whereas today they try to argue that the constitution allows for basically anything and everything with RIDICULOUSLY broad interpretations of the general welfare clause and the commerce clause.

 

I guess that when I've had classes where all we did was read USSC opinions I came away with a very different view of the integrity of the people involved on both sides.  I can think of only a few cases where I thought that the other side just had no case at all.  I respect your knowledge and judgement a lot but I think that you are being really way to dichotomous on this issue.  

[Aloysius]

ehh... a little bit, there is usually an argument and maybe I over-simplify how wrong that argument is, but I do think the argument for a novel reading of the commerce clause is very wrong.  I mean, to be honest, even Roberts' decision on Obama Care had a line of reasoning I could follow, I think it was totally and unequivocally wrong but it's not without its own internal logic, just like all the USSC decisions you're talking about, they have their own internal logic to them but it's always a pretty far stretch I think; it's those lines of reasoning that can make the constitution say basically anything you want it to say, that could really make any document say anything you want it to say.  I have said already that regulating the sale of drugs across state lines or the importation of them could be a use of the commerce clause, there'd be an argument there but there'd be more of a case, but I don't think there is really any case for laws regarding use or possession or even sale of drugs, and the fact is that for over a hundred years the Federal Government believed this too.  the fact that alcohol prohibition was a constitutional amendment is a pretty solid proof that you would need an amendment to outright prohibit use, sale, and possession of a substance.

 

btw, have the drug laws ever made it to a challenge on the Supreme Court for their constitutionality?  I am genuinely curious, as the decision there would be interesting and I've never actually heard or seen anything mentioned about such a decision.

[Winchester]

 But there was not a single, unified 'intent' behind the constitution. 

 

I agree with this.
 

[dUSt]

your love of Mitt Romney makes more sense now...

 

I do not like Mitt Romney.

[PhuturePriest]

Proof that Romney is a fascist in disguise that is working for the liberal agenda:

 

[Winchester]

Proof that Romney is a fascist in disguise that is working for the liberal agenda:

 

False. He was never in disguise.