PDA

View Full Version : The End of States Rights



Don Corleone
06-06-2005, 16:50
You do what we in DC tell you to and SHUT UP! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060600666_pf.html)

Well, it would appear that the Supreme Court & the Federal Government aren't even paying lip service to the concept of 'those rights & responsbilities not directly apportioned to Congress are ceded to the States' anymore. They used to at least wear a fig leaf & claim jurisdiction based on interstate commerce. In this case, the entire process is intra-state, and carefully defined to be such. None the less, it would appear that the Supreme Court has taken a shot at the Constitution & it's protection of State's Rights, and the bullet hit the mark straight between the eyes. Here's my question... if the Attorney General's office now has jurisdiction over every little village & hamlet, why are we paying to maintain state & local governments? Wouldn't it just be more efficient to institute a national police force that the current administration (Republican or Democrat) can wield as it sees fit?

I'm not a huge supporter of medicinal marijuana usage (not opposed to it either, for that matter), but this decision is the final straw. From now on, we are all slaves to our masters in DC. Anything your locally elected representatives do or say can be overturned on Congressional or Presidential whim.

KukriKhan
06-06-2005, 17:00
Uh-oh.

They got it wrong that time, IMO. I too am no fan of medi-maryJane, but I am seriously pissed the the will of the California electorate has been disregarded.

I wait with bated breath to see my Gover-nator's response.

Pindar
06-06-2005, 18:04
Don,

Do you reject the Supremacy Clause?

Goofball
06-06-2005, 18:36
Hmmm.

Since they have pissed off both liberals and conservatives with this one, maybe they SC actually made the right decision here...

Don Corleone
06-06-2005, 18:40
No, but I thought the 10th Ammendment was worth the paper it was written on...


Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. 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.

I don't remember the declaration of the War on Drugs, or the recognition of the Attorney General as it's primary protagonist anywhere in the rest of the document.

Don Corleone
06-06-2005, 18:42
Hmmm.

Since they have pissed off both liberals and conservatives with this one, maybe they SC actually made the right decision here...

If we outlawed popular election of Congressional Representatives, that would piss both sides off too. Are you advocating that as the right decision? Maybe we should have members of Congress appointed by the Supreme Court?

lancelot
06-06-2005, 19:12
Follow the bear guys!!

Seccesion, Seccession!!!


(sorry, couldnt help it ~;) )

doc_bean
06-06-2005, 19:36
Impeach them !

There's way too little impeachment these days :duel:

Pindar
06-06-2005, 20:16
No, but I thought the 10th Ammendment was worth the paper it was written on...

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. 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.

I don't remember the declaration of the War on Drugs, or the recognition of the Attorney General as it's primary protagonist anywhere in the rest of the document.

If you accept the Supremacy Clause Article VI of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...

then, Amendment X does not apply as Federal law is stipulated as having final authority. The Clause lists three legal criteria: the Constitution, U.S. Treaties and Federal Law as trumping State law. The nature of this power was demonstrated in the 1824 Gibbons v. Ogden ruling:

''In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it....In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.''

Thus, State laws cannot exceed their mandate and speak contrary Federal legislation. If a state passes law X and there is a Federal law -X, the Federal law holds sway and the other must bow before it.

Don Corleone
06-06-2005, 20:44
When did Congress gain the right to pass drug policy laws for the country? I must have missed the article in the Constitution that grants Congress the right to pass local criminal laws on a nationwide basis. I'm guessing you're making the point that if the state had the medicinal marijuana law on the books prior to a federal law being passed, it would stand, right?

Or is it your point that whenever Congress passes a law, or a president issues an executive order, screw the states?

What's more, you never answered my question. If the Federal government has appropriated for itself the authority to issue laws at all levels, why do we need a state assembly or a city council? Why should I continue paying the salaries of my state government and my local government, if, at the end of the day, they're useless?

Goofball
06-06-2005, 21:16
If we outlawed popular election of Congressional Representatives, that would piss both sides off too. Are you advocating that as the right decision? Maybe we should have members of Congress appointed by the Supreme Court?

Actually, I was just being a smart-arse.

Sorry, should have added this ~;) after my first post...

Don Corleone
06-06-2005, 21:31
Sorry, this is a bit of a touchy issue for me (an autocratic federal government assuming rights and priveleges not granted them, not maryjane as a home remedy).

The funny thing, it was the Bush White House that hammered this through. Conservatives are supposed to be for limited government, and the more local, the better. Okay, well, I guess I should be a real pain in the ass and start calling the White House switchboard and telling them I want a waiver on the right-of-way zoning on the platt for my land. If they want to get into everybody's business, so be it. While I'm at it, I'll jump their ass about why my sanitation fees are so high this year.

KukriKhan
06-06-2005, 21:37
Maybe it's time to re-look at a Western Alliance of Baja Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, Yukon, and Alaska.

What could we name that country?

Seriously though, in addition to Don's "why spend on local lawmaking and enforcement" question, I add: why are we bothering to vote at all, if the DC powermavens are just going to do whatever the hell they want to do, will of the electorate be damned?

Revolutions have been fought for less.

Kanamori
06-06-2005, 21:51
"Seriously though, in addition to Don's 'why spend on local lawmaking and enforcement' question, I add: why are we bothering to vote at all, if the DC powermavens are just going to do whatever the hell they want to do, will of the electorate be damned?"

Because the states still have more legislation locally than the federal government does by a lot.

To me, the issue is not with the federal government enforcing it's law that does not fit w/ the lesser state law, but the issue is with whether or not the act is constitutional in the first place. My knowledge of this act is sketchy, but its constitutionality seems a bit of a stretch to me. Perhaps, one who is more knowledgeable could point to the specifics of why it is constitutional, in regards to the interstate commerce portions, and how that applies here.

Pindar
06-06-2005, 23:54
When did Congress gain the right to pass drug policy laws for the country?

I am unaware of any special drug immunity prohibiting Congressional action. In fact, there seems several clear examples of just the opposite: both the 18th and 21 Amendments deal with drug status. Part of the Amendment process includes Congressional approval and thus implies authority to speak to said issue. There is also the Wiley Act of 1906 that led to the creation of the FDA that serves as a simple example. What is specifically relevant here is the 1970 Controlled Substances Act.



I'm guessing you're making the point that if the state had the medicinal marijuana law on the books prior to a federal law being passed, it would stand, right?

No, States are not sovereign and wholly independent, but beholden to a larger national structure. The Fourteenth Amendment is a simple example of this.



What's more, you never answered my question. If the Federal government has appropriated for itself the authority to issue laws at all levels, why do we need a state assembly or a city council? Why should I continue paying the salaries of my state government and my local government, if, at the end of the day, they're useless?

Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical. The division between local, state and national government is primarily for efficiency's sake. It is hierarchical. No lower governmental entity is autonomous and subject only to its own will. The city is beholden to the state. The state is beholden to the Federal Government. This does not mean the state has no recourse, there are self-limiting provisions. They do not apply in this instance.

Since I think you are interested let me explain the Court's rationale. The Court decision was based off of earlier rulings. Since 1971 Perez v. United States the Court has held that: "the Commerce Clause permits congressional regulation of three categories: (1) the channels of interstate commerce; (2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce; and (3) activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce." Point three has been further elaborated on: " Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." "Substantially affect" is given a Judicial test as found in 1995: United States v. Lopez and in 2000: United States v. Morrison. That test is: whether the statute in question obliterates the distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. The Court has found this is not the case for the following reason: Congress has undertaken to extinguish any interstate market of controlled substances. The legal precedant for this goes back as I mentioned to 1906. The defendants in this case grow or have provided by certain "John Does" marijuana for their use obstensively to relieve pain. Regardless, the Court has ruled: Congress need not accept on faith that state law will be effective in maintaining a strict division between a lawful market for “medical” marijuana and the more general marijuana market. The onus is therefore on the state to show it can in fact distinguish between the two markets in both distribution and overall control.

Beirut
06-07-2005, 00:07
I saw this on the news and the very first word that came to mind was...

Cowards.

Don Corleone
06-07-2005, 00:08
Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical. The division between local, state and national government is primarily for efficiency's sake. It is hierarchical. No lower governmental entity is autonomous and subject only to its own will. The city is beholden to the state. The state is beholden to the Federal Government. This does not mean the state has no recourse, there are self-limiting provisions. They do not apply in this instance.


It's not more efficient. My taxes are paying for three sets of autocrats, when in reality only one is worth listening to. If all the local government does is bow to the state, who in turn bends over for the federal government, what on Earth am I paying the two middle men for?

Geez Pindar, even assuming you're right, what kind of a mess do we have in our country? We have a system where annointed judges trump congress & the white house, who trump the state, who trump the local government, who have infinitely more rights than the individual taxpayer. And you call this representational? If what you've said is true, how far we have fallen. That's not at all the system mapped out in the original constitution, but I'll grant you, it is damn good for you lawyers. But if what you say is true, don't say we have a representational republic. The only difference between us and China is that they have one party dominating people's lives, we have two.

No offense, your legal opinion is much more qualified than mine, that's all it is, your legal opinion. I sure hope you're wrong. And what kind of conservative are you that you think concentrating all the power in priestly caste up in DC is such a terrific idea?

Kaiser of Arabia
06-07-2005, 00:14
States rights ended with the surrender at Appomatox.

Samurai Waki
06-07-2005, 00:25
I always wondered what would happen if all the states governments just gave DC the finger and told em' to shove off... I mean if you get right down to it, there is only what, a couple hundred or thousand men and women (not sure :embarassed: ) who vote to make laws, and destroy our constitutional rights. hasn't anyone realized yet, that we outnumbered them vastly? are people too dumb or ignorant? I mean if it came right down too it, if we were to rise up, we could easily dismantle our entire government, and either declare independence or re-institute a new government from scratch. I know for a fact, that the vast majority of our armed forces are more loyal to the people then to the government, and would disband. I don't think it will ever come close to this, but I've always just had an itch to be a partisan... things will change in the future I should hope, we are expiriencing the last real glimmer of the right wing conservatives fight for dominance in government. As our elder conservative population (who are the majority of voters) begin to die, I should expect that things may tilt in the other direction... or better, find mediocrity... which america seems to lack at this moment.

Proletariat
06-07-2005, 00:36
This ruling is a great relief. We can't have people getting rid of their nausea in their final days with natural substances in this country. It is immoral, unnatural, and leads to stronger illegal drugs.

"Medical Marijuana" is clearly a trojan horse for those who would push illicit drugs upon our children.

Thank you Supreme Court for Standing Up for America!

Signed,
The Pharmaceutical Industry


Unfreakingbelievable. What a country.

I love how they say it was based on broader social and financial implications, yah that's the reason.

O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas dissent. Anyone have a link to anything Scalia said on this?



The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.




O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

I'm all for just about anything that will piss off hippies (no offense, Merc), but this is sickening.

KukriKhan
06-07-2005, 00:37
" Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

That's the bit that has my ire. But I see it's supported by precedent going back to 1938 and a guy growing more wheat (for his own family's consumption) than the federal regulation allowed.

I guess I'll just stew in my own juices for now. I don't care if marijuana is de-criminalised for a small or large class of people. I DO care if we fund and hold elections to vote on propositions, make those propositions law (in our jurisdiction) only to be told that some higher power trumps that decision of the people. Makes a mockery of that process.

We gotta change that.

Pindar
06-07-2005, 00:52
It's not more efficient.

A city is immensely better placed to deal with city issues than a Federal body. The same is generally the case for states.



My taxes are paying for three sets of autocrats, when in reality only one is worth listening to. If all the local government does is bow to the state, who in turn bends over for the federal government, what on Earth am I paying the two middle men for?

Local taxation applies only insofar as you take up residence or involve yourself in commerce within a particular locale. Federal tax is due for your citizenship and the former standards.


Geez Pindar, even assuming you're right, what kind of a mess do we have in our country? We have a system where annointed judges trump congress & the white house, who trump the state, who trump the local government, who have infinitely more rights than the individual taxpayer. And you call this representational? If what you've said is true, how far we have fallen. That's not at all the system mapped out in the original constitution, but I'll grant you, it is damn good for you lawyers. But if what you say is true, don't say we have a representational republic. The only difference between us and China is that they have one party dominating people's lives, we have two.

I am no fan of Judicial Review. I have commented on it fairly extensively in at least two other threads recently. Even so, Judicial interpretation of law is not necessarily an abuse.

Yes, 'it' is good for lawyers.

Yes, we do have a republic


No offense, your legal opinion is much more qualified than mine, that's all it is, your legal opinion. I sure hope you're wrong. And what kind of conservative are you that you think concentrating all the power in priestly caste up in DC is such a terrific idea?

What I outlined on the Court decision is not my opinion it is the legal standard as of June 6 by a six to three decision. The result means for those who support medical doobage: either the State must clearly delineate and control doobie use, or one would have to lobby the Congress to legalize Mary Jane.

I do not believe in concentrating law making power in the black robes of the bench. This does not mean I believe States are independent of Federal oversight. The Confederacy was wrong.

Pindar
06-07-2005, 02:08
Don,

To simplify the issue consider the following: does Congress have authority to pass law that effects States?# Does the Congress have a right to protect the interests and intent of such legislation?## Today's ruling indicates it does and that was the justification given.



#The Supremacy Clause indicates this is the case.

##This also has precedent.

bmolsson
06-07-2005, 03:22
Well, US could have a referendum on the constitution...... ~;)

Pindar
06-07-2005, 03:49
Well, US could have a referendum on the constitution...... ~;)

Actually it's called a Constitutional Convention and yes, it is legally possible.

bmolsson
06-07-2005, 03:53
Actually it's called a Constitutional Convention and yes, it is legally possible.

If so, it would be in order to check how large the French and Dutch part of the population is before going for it....... ~;)

Kanamori
06-07-2005, 03:55
"I DO care if we fund and hold elections to vote on propositions, make those propositions law (in our jurisdiction) only to be told that some higher power trumps that decision of the people. Makes a mockery of that process."

So, if some district creates a law that sends Jews to the crematories, then the national government is not in its place to stop that from happening to its citizens?

The problem is not that the Federal government is enforcing its laws, but the problem is that its laws are getting too limiting or taking too much power, in this case, and I feel that some portions of the CSA are unconstitutional. The Constitution sets a good basis on how limiting Federal can be, and that the laws should get more and more specific or menial, I cannot think of a better way to describe it, as they get closer and closer to the local level. The FDA is clearly regulating interstate commerce, whereas, I am not so sure the ladies using the marijuana were sending their goods anywhere else, or that the laws in California were in argument w/ any constitutional portion of CSA.

Aurelian
06-07-2005, 04:09
Okay, first things first: I support the idea that states should be able to pass medical marijuana laws, and that citizens should be able to treat themselves with prescription marijuana. Therefore, I want the same outcome as the people here who were upset with this decision.

From the article, it appears that the individual justices were also generally sympathetic to the plaintiffs.

HOWEVER, the Supreme Court's role is merely to interpret the law with respect to the Constitution and previous rulings. They have done so in this case, because the Federal government has long since had control through the interstate commerce clause over food and drug issues. The Court was merely making a decision based on current laws and the history of their interpretation.

The place to direct your attention, if you really want to see medical marijuana made legal is simple: the Congress and Executive branches. It's the laws of Congress and their enforcement by the Executive that are the real problem here. If Congress changes the drug laws so that exemptions are made for state medical marijuana, then there will be no more problem.

This is really more of a political problem than a legal one. The Court probably made the right decision on the basis of current Constitutional interpretations... even if we don't morally agree with the effect that that decision will have on the public.

At the moment, the only real way to solve this issue would be to get a consensus within the Republican party that the drug laws need to be changed. Call or write your legislators.

Of course, it probably won't do any good because politicians like to be seen as being 'tough' on drugs; but it certainly can't hurt to try. If Dobson, Limbaugh, and FOX NEWS took this up as an issue I'm sure they could get it passed. Compassionate conservatism and all.

Gawain of Orkeny
06-07-2005, 05:11
If Dobson, Limbaugh, and FOX NEWS took this up as an issue I'm sure they could get it passed. Compassionate conservatism and all.

They already have.



More Evidence of Out of Control Judiciary (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060605/content/stack_d.guest.htm)

ichi
06-07-2005, 05:57
The problem isn't the Supreme Court - they ruled based on existing case law and a reasonable interpretation of the Commerce Clause

The problem is (IMHO) with the Federal laws prohibiting marijuana. They are not effective, fair, nor a legitimate use of government power. They also have the unintended consequences of propping up organized crime and delegitimizing other laws.

Millions of Americans are high right now (hey, that could be a Frontroom thread What are you smoking now, Yes, Right Now!

We allow people to smoke and chew tobacco, which in the common forms is deadly. A man can drink his liver into toxic shock, as long as he is inside his house. We can ingest Prozac and Percoset and whatever by prescription. Kids are so doped up legally today its sad.

In a land based on freedom we don't need a nanny state. Pot is illegal because the liquor industry hooked up with the righteous religious and the law and order types, in a fit of hysteria. The war on drugs will eventually turn out to be the war on personal liberty.

The illicit status makes criminals rich, and this subverts everything from law enforcement to how people view the law. Once a person smokes pot they realize that all of the dangers were hyped. This leads to a degradation of the credibility of other laws. Once you start buying grass from a criminal you are in the criminal world, ready to move to the next level of criminality.

I don't smoke pot. I'm tested routinely and am in a position where I need to be 100% unimpaired. But these anti-dope laws are just plain stoopid, and now peeps who benefit from medical treatment based on marijuana will suffer.

That's not right.

ichi :bow:

Xiahou
06-07-2005, 06:15
The place to direct your attention, if you really want to see medical marijuana made legal is simple: the Congress and Executive branches. It's the laws of Congress and their enforcement by the Executive that are the real problem here. If Congress changes the drug laws so that exemptions are made for state medical marijuana, then there will be no more problem.

This is really more of a political problem than a legal one. The Court probably made the right decision on the basis of current Constitutional interpretations... even if we don't morally agree with the effect that that decision will have on the public.

Exactly- if people want this changed petition your federal congress to change the federal law. I see no problem with this decision.

I'm all for decentralization of power and states rights, but shouldn't it be done via legislative reforms instead of judicial decision? I'd much rather see judges meddle less.

Pindar
06-07-2005, 06:50
Exactly- if people want this changed petition your federal congress to change the federal law. I see no problem with this decision.

That is right.


I'm all for decentralization of power and states rights, but shouldn't it be done via legislative reforms instead of judicial decision? I'd much rather see judges meddle less.

I agree. The Court didn't meddle in this case. The Fed. (Attorney General) challenged California's law. This made it a Federal issue for the Courts.

Samurai Waki
06-07-2005, 08:58
Doesn't really apply to me, but the Magistrate here is not very lax on those possessing marijuana or any other drugs, simply because this area seems to be rather rampant with drug smugglers moving between Columbia and Florida. RN Cayman has something like 20 Patrol Boats, 4 Lynx Gunships, and a Couple of Scout Planes running all the time and busting smugglers on a daily basis.

I do however agree that Federal Government needs to stop excersizing it's right to meddle in domestic affairs, and overriding state bills. Feds need to be more concerned about economic and foreign affairs...in which case the feds haven't been doing too good of a job anyway if you look at it from a neutral or liberal viewpoint.
It's kind of funny mentioning Liberals wanting more powerful federal government, and conservatives wanting less government... isn't when right-wing conservatives who want more government, moving more towards the alignment of national-socialism?

Steppe Merc
06-07-2005, 13:29
I'm with the States Rights people. Go marijiuana! Allow States to legalize it for at least the medicinal people. Washington has no right to say whether or not people should smoke at all, but especially when they overide a law that allows people to.

KukriKhan
06-07-2005, 14:28
Exactly- if people want this changed petition your federal congress to change the federal law. I see no problem with this decision.

I'm all for decentralization of power and states rights, but shouldn't it be done via legislative reforms instead of judicial decision? I'd much rather see judges meddle less.

I saw it rather as an opportunity for the Supremes to undo the 1930's-era meddling it had done in over-extending Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, when the activities involved were neither interstate, nor commercial.

They (the Court) missed that chance to return Congress and the Executive to the powers enumerated in the Constitution, and leave the rest to the States vs 'Big Brother Knows Best, and you may petition His Highness, the President and his advisory Council for reform measures.'

Gawain of Orkeny
06-07-2005, 15:22
Anther problem we can blae on FDR ~;) It was he pushing his New Deal through .over the objections of the supreme court I believe that started this whole train of thougt.

Heres what was in the link I posted earlier. Seems almost all the rightwing radio hosts are up in arms over this. This is Rush's take on the subject.


More Evidence of Out of Control Judiciary
June 6, 2005



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
(AP) "Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana."

Now, this was a closely watched case, and it was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in 2003, and at issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves interstate commerce, and that's what's interesting about this because there arguably is no interstate commerce in this. If you are sick in California -- forget that this is marijuana, I want to talk about this on the constitutional side. When I saw this ruling, you know, I kind of chuckled. I wondered what the libs are going to do with this. How are the libs are going to react to this?

Let's say that you are sick, you have cancer and your doctors prescribe medical marijuana for you in California, whatever state that made it legal. So you go get the marijuana, however it's delivered to you, and you use it to alleviate your pain or whatever it is you're suffering, your nausea, whatever it works for, I'm not sure. I don't see where the interstate commerce is there. In fact, folks, it's hilarious to read Justice John Paul Stevens lecturing about democracy because he's the leading judicial supremacist on the Supreme Court, and he routinely leads the effort to rewrite federal law even if it involves using foreign law. And in this case he basically said federal government trumps state law, and if Congress wants to change it they can go back and refuse to write a law in this case. It's sort of hilarious. But I want to look at this from the constitutional viewpoint, because look, whether it's legal or not, marijuana, that's not the point I want to get into here and I'm saying it because I don't want phone calls all day from the legalize marijuana crowd. I understand you're out there, but I don't want to deal with it. I mean, I understand you believe what you believe, that's not the point of this ruling to me, not in a constitutional sense.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
All right, federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke marijuana on doctor's orders, Supreme Court ruling today. Let's just look at this a moment from a constitutional viewpoint. I've had just the barest amount of time to read the opinion, but based on the news story here, the Associated Press story, the majority's decision, it was 6-3, by the way, the majority's decision was based on the federal commerce clause. Now, for interstate commerce to occur, there needs to be a transaction between someone in a legal transaction between someone in one state and someone in another state. In this case, the product is home grown, it's used within the state, and it's used under state authorization. I'm not commenting on whether I like the idea or not. It's not the point, but the people of these ten states voted for this. You know, once again states' rights have just been squished here by the federal Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court. So, you know, take the issue out of the argument here for just a second. The question is this: What does this have to do with interstate commerce legally?

The answer is nothing. This opinion does not deal with the possibility that patient A in a state gets a legal dose of marijuana then sends it to a buddy who's not sick in another state. Doesn't deal with that. That's not what is being adjudicated here. I'll tell you where this case goes back to. This all goes back to the New Deal, folks, that is where the Supreme Court had to come up with a way to uphold all the programs that Congress was passing even though they had no power to do so under the Constitution.

Remember, the Constitution gives the federal government limited enumerated powers, and after Roosevelt tried to pack the court, the court became far more political and supportive of his agenda. Now, there was a 1942 case Wickard vs. Filburn, and in that case the Supreme Court issued what is a ridiculous decision, holding that a farmer who had grown wheat on his own farm for his own use and consumption and which was never sold or traded out of the state, was nonetheless involved in interstate commerce because the fact that he did not sell his wheat out of state or purchase wheat out of state for his own use, somehow effected interstate commerce. This is what they ruled. In other words, there would no longer be any limits to the federal government's power to regulate state and private economic activity. Now, this is not what the framers intended or what the Constitution provides. But this is what the 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn Supreme Court case resulted in. So we have people who went to the polls in several states, they voted to allow the state regulation of medical marijuana. Now, you put the politics of this aside and which political forces are on one side or the other, put even the policy aside, this is a constitutional issue for the court. So, you know, I will be interested in knowing more about the case, and I will reserve ultimate judgment until we read the arguments in full but based on this news story, this Associated Press story, you know, this is how I see it. Now, the court did in fact, we know this much, the court did in fact rely heavily on Wickard vs. Filburn in making this ruling. That's the case which brought us the New Deal, that is the case which made the New Deal constitutional, if you will, 1942, commerce clause includes commerce solely within a state. The interstate commerce clause deals with the commerce among the several states, but the 1942 Wickard vs. Filburn case said no, no, no, no, interstate commerce can be commerce within a state. But it's hilarious to read Justice Stevens lecturing about democracy because he's the guy that wants to look at foreign law a lot, writes his own law from the bench. He did say in this case if Congress wants to change this they can write a law specific to it.

The other reason Congress has to write a law specific to it is because the US Supreme Court in 1942, in order to authorize the New Deal and make it constitutional, went ahead and changed the Constitution without there being such a law on the books. So Congress now has to go back and correct what the 1942 Supreme Court did if they want to limit interstate commerce to one state or prohibit interstate commerce from including one state. It's now up to Congress by this decision to go back and say, "No, no, no, no, Wickard vs. Filburn, that's not what we meant. If a state passes a law on medical marijuana, and the people there vote for it, the representatives vote for it, that's not interstate commerce." That's how convoluted things have become, folks. The court might say the law is unconstitutional, if Congress did try to -- yeah, just because Justice Stevens said Congress will have to write a new law doesn't mean that this court would find a new law constitutional if it contradicts one of its own decisions. And this is where you get into this whole argument, "Do we have any recourse to deal with the courts, even with our elected officials?" I mean, in this case, Justice Stevens in his majority opinion clearly says Congress needs to go back, they want to make this legal and rewrite it. But it's convoluted because without the previous Supreme Court case -- I hope I'm making this understandable. It's so crazy, you might think, "Rush, there's something you're missing here. How can they do this, how can they say interstate commerce is state commerce? How can they say that?" They did. It was crucial, folks, in establishing the New Deal, and by the way, making the New Deal constitutional is part of institutionalizing the New Deal and its ideological underpinnings, which are liberalism, so it's a convoluted case.
Again, I don't want to spend any time today, Mr. Winterble, on legal marijuana, illegal marijuana, it's happened before on this program and when it starts... I mean, these calls last for a week, so I just don't want to go there. By the way, one of the reasons Janice Rogers Brown -- by the way, her vote comes up this week, her vote could come as early as Wednesday with William Pryor, perhaps, on Friday. Now, Janice Rogers Brown, in that famous speech that we posted on our website and I read excerpts from on this program about three weeks ago, she questioned the whole constitutional underpinning via Supreme Court decisions of the New Deal and that's why Ted Kennedy and others just threw up their arms in opposition, how could she dare do this? She says when the Constitution was altered by the US Supreme Court in this case and others in order to legalize the New Deal and make it constitutional by twisting and bending the Constitution that's when she says an aura of -- used the word socialism -- was sanctioned as a means of governing the country and that's why she has been under such vicious assault.

There was another Supreme Court decision today, and it is this. "The Supreme Court, expanding the scope of a landmark federal disabilities law, ruled Monday that foreign cruise lines sailing in U.S. waters must provide better access for passengers in wheelchairs. The narrow 6-3 decision is a victory for disabled rights advocates, who said inadequate ship facilities inhibited their right to 'participate fully in society.'" Here's the majority. Kennedy, who wrote; John Paul Stevens; David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer. The dissent was written by Justice Scalia. He argued that extending the federal law to foreign ships, "will create international discord and is wrong because Congress did not explicitly call for it. The ruling should leave no opening for ships to be required to change their amenities to fit the laws of each country they visit," he said. This is sort of the international law argument in reverse, if you will, because Scalia said not only should we not import foreign law into our decisions, we shouldn't impose our law on other nations. Now, seems to me that Scalia is being quite consistent here. The others are not. Now, I know many of you say, "Rush, this is harmless, so what, they should have to modify this." It's all a matter of law and the Constitution, folks. Take your feelings out of these things and take each issue out of it, and examine what the court's doing, you have a better understanding of why so many people are concerned and why so many people say the judiciary is out of control and needs to be reined in.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Talking about Justice Stevens saying that Congress wants to change the Supreme Court ruling today, they need to go write a new law. I was in error. He was not suggesting write a law that would conflict with the previous Supreme Court decision. What he was saying was, if Congress doesn't like this they can write a law legalizing marijuana use for medical purposes. So that's his suggested remedy, Congress can write a law legalizing marijuana use if they don't like this ruling.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Everett in Elk Grove, California. We go back to the phones. Welcome, sir, nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Dittos, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I am disabled but I think that law -- or the court's judgment isn't exporting our law because I think any ship or airplane that comes into our waters or on our land needs to be obey our laws. I want to take away -- let's say it's not the disability act. I woke up the second Friday in May of '69 totally blind so I have a sensitivity to disabled people, but let's take that law out, and let's say the boat was licensed in a country where it's legal to have sex with 12-year-olds, we wouldn't be able to -- when it came into New York harbor, we wouldn't be able to do anything about it. So I think they should apply, and I don't really think it's exporting --

RUSH: Now, I don't think that's the point. I don't think anybody would be drawing that conclusion. I don't know that any country has sex with 12-year-olds legal, particularly on their cruise ships. If somebody does, I know a bunch of people are going to be signing up. I don't know them personally, but I mean you just know that if that's legal you'll have some people signing up for this. It doesn't happen. See, this is the problem. This is the problem. We've got somebody who's disabled and that trumps everything. And I said, forget the issue. Not only in this, but on the medical marijuana. This is an exercise, it was an attempted exercise in explaining why some people are upset about what some think is an out-of-control judiciary that needs to be reined in. On the one hand we have a Supreme Court, which says, "Yeah, it's totally fine to incorporate foreign law into US constitutional law as we decide cases here, it's totally fine to consult foreign thinking if we can't find any." By the way, this is all about the personal policy preference of the justices, so we can't find anything in American law that backs up what I want to do, go find it in international law. Then they import it, bammo, we can do it because we're the Supreme Court. Scalia says no, you shouldn't do that. By the same token, if we're going to say that the Americans for Disabilities Act applies to ships that are made and registered in foreign countries, then we ought to be able to say that every other one of our laws applies to any business that does business in the United States or with Americans and so forth, and look, I'm in the majority on this. It was a 6-3 case, and even my buddy Clarence Thomas was in the majority on this case. Scalia was the only one dissenting in this, but it may not even be the best example, because nobody here is against helping out disabled people. That's why this is such a tough thing to argue on this side of it because it's such an emotional case, or situation, disability. But, you know, the Americans with Disability Act has a lot more to it than just wheelchair access or access for blind people. The Americans with Disability Act has been used to say alcoholism is a disease and you can't fire anybody for it, so technically a cruise line could have a drunk waiter and they couldn't get rid of him when he's working in US waters if you're going to go this way. It's up to you, folks, your country. You know, I got mine.

END TRANSCRIPT
(SJMN: Plaintiffs in medical marijuana case to defy Supreme Court ruling)
(CSM: ''No'' on medical marijuana use)
(AP: Rehnquist Backs Medical Marijuana Patients)
(US court: Government can bar medical marijuana use)
(Taxpayer Group Criticizes Medical Marijuana Decision)

Steppe Merc
06-07-2005, 20:20
Wow. Right wingers for marijiuana...

Don Corleone
06-07-2005, 20:44
Not in favor of pot, in favor of making the guys in charge play by the rules. Personally, I don't think the Federal government needs to get into local crime & regulation issues. Pindar & others think it's a good thing to have the Federal government calling all the shots.

Steppe Merc
06-07-2005, 20:47
I know. But it's funny. However, I don't understand how one can be a supporter of states rights and not of individual rights. To me, the individual's right to smoke pot (as an example) outweighs that of the state's rights to allow sick people to smoke pot.
But then, I'm not normal. ~;)

Duke Malcolm
06-07-2005, 21:15
Doesn't really apply to me, but the Magistrate here is not very lax on those possessing marijuana or any other drugs, simply because this area seems to be rather rampant with drug smugglers moving between Columbia and Florida. RN Cayman has something like 20 Patrol Boats, 4 Lynx Gunships, and a Couple of Scout Planes running all the time and busting smugglers on a daily basis.

The Cayman Islands has its own branch of the Navy? Damn, I wanted to be Commander of Her Majesty's Forces in the Cayman Islands...
Does the Cayman Islands have the same drug laws as here?

Don Corleone
06-07-2005, 21:23
Be careful with the term 'right-wing'. It's a wide breadth of people. William F. Buckley, editor of National Review, has written some of the best arguments in favor of abandoning the 'War on Drugs' out there. For much the reasons you cite, an adherence to individual rights & liberty. If you want to ruin your life by smoking pot, that's your right. Just don't expect me to fund your lifestyle when you can't hold down a job.

My point in this case is not pot is good or pot is bad. My point was that the Federal government, citing this case as precedence, is pretty much unfettered, free to do and regulate anything they damn well please, and tough luck if you don't like it.

Steppe Merc
06-07-2005, 21:40
Excellent point. And yeah, I can see how the people like Gawain would be for the legaliziation, and the total freedom of people.


If you want to ruin your life by smoking pot, that's your right. Just don't expect me to fund your lifestyle when you can't hold down a job.
Of course. I think that if a person can't handle their drugs, and they end up loosing their job, they should not get any sort of support from the government. Only truly poor people that have consitently tried to get a job ought to recieve government support.

Pindar
06-07-2005, 22:14
Not in favor of pot, in favor of making the guys in charge play by the rules. Personally, I don't think the Federal government needs to get into local crime & regulation issues. Pindar & others think it's a good thing to have the Federal government calling all the shots.

Don,

Where did I write it's a good thing for the Federal Government to be calling all the shots? What I have pointed out is that States are ultimately beholden to the Federal Government. They are not independent polities. This means Federal law has an impact. I , like Justice Scalia, recognize this as a basic point of our nation's law. The Court's decision recognizes this standard.

Now whether doobies should be legal or illegal is not for the courts to decide. It is for legislatures to decide. State legislatures decide for states and Congress decides for the nation. If Congress wishes to legalize doobies so be it. If they wish to push for an enforced ban, then the Feds will have to provide resources to do so. It does not fall to the states to do so. Regardless, those are issues that are beyond the scope of the Court's ruling.

I understand your dislike of the Courts, but not all rulings are equally misapplied or unjust.

Don Corleone
06-07-2005, 22:46
Pindar,

We had the whole debate about the 10th Ammendment, and what it means. You turned around and cited a case saying that essentially, the 10th Ammendment is a bunch of hot air, because the Congress can make any laws they want to. I disagree with that.

Redleg
06-07-2005, 22:59
Pindar,

We had the whole debate about the 10th Ammendment, and what it means. You turned around and cited a case saying that essentially, the 10th Ammendment is a bunch of hot air, because the Congress can make any laws they want to. I disagree with that.

In essence the 10th Admendment is circumvented when the Federal Legislative body makes a Federal Law. That is within the power of that body, and is in fact its right. By making Federal Law the Federal Government must provide the means and ways to enforce or accomplish that law.

Citing the Interstate commerce aspects of the Consitution to enforce a drug law is not the presedence I would like to see from the Federal Government and the Federal Courts System - but it is within the aspects of my understanding of the consitution.

Frankly there are better subjects that show that the courts and the Federal Government have circumvented parts of the United States Constitution. The Emerancy War Powers Act of 1973 is a prime examble of the Federal Legistlative branch removing itself from a governing requirment and responsiblity of the Legislative body. And the Court has never brought that into focus for Judicial Review. Several others bear in mind - but this one does not.

Pindar
06-07-2005, 23:15
Pindar,

We had the whole debate about the 10th Amendment, and what it means. You turned around and cited a case saying that essentially, the 10th Amendment is a bunch of hot air, because the Congress can make any laws they want to. I disagree with that.

I cited no case that said the 10th Amendment was hot air or that Congress can make any law they want to. I did explain the 10th Amendment does not apply since the crux of the debate revolves around an enumerated power. This power is the Commerce Clause found in Article One of the Constitution. I then showed how this has been understood from at least 1824. I also tried to point out how this naturally follows if one recognizes the Supremacy Clause which is found in Article Six of the Constitution.

One can reject the Constitution. One can reject an interpretation of the Constitution, but it seems problematic to argue that yesterday's decision was somehow an end of State's rights when it is a legal standard that traces back to the early part of the Nineteenth Century.

Don Corleone
06-07-2005, 23:51
Okay, maybe we're failing to communicate, and it sounds like I'm annoying you. So, in 50 words or less, please no 5 page explanations, how does the interstate commerce clause jibe with a limited federal government? If Congress can enact laws on anything involving interstate commerce, that's 95% of anybody's daily business. This new ruling gives them the last 5%.

I say that, because this ruling relates to a case that specifically does NOT involve interstate commerce. The Medicinal Marijuana laws were carefully written to avoid the Interstate Commerce Clause. And you say, too bad, State Governments are subservient to the Federal Government. Then, you take issue when I suggest that you support an expanded Federal Government. Well, which is it? Should Congress be limited to it's Constitutionally defined roles, or should it be free to do whatever it deems appropriate on the latest whim? In truth, if Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court were fulfilling the spirit of the 10th ammendment, and not just having the Supreme Court grant them new powers every year or two, wouldn't they restrict their laws and governances to those roles enumerated by the Constitution?

Finally, where in the whole document does it say that Congress is in charge of drug policy, or even enforcing morality for that matter? If Congress decided that it wanted to dictate that each and every citizen must keep the grass in their lawn cut to no lower than 2", no higher than 3", according to your logic, what would stop them?

I'm am shocked and amazed that Scalia voted with the majority on this one. I guess Thomas and Rehquist are the only two true conservatives left on the bench.

Gawain of Orkeny
06-08-2005, 00:44
If Congress decided that it wanted to dictate that each and every citizen must keep the grass in their lawn cut to no lower than 2", no higher than 3", according to your logic, what would stop them?

I would guess nothing. Look at this law.


FRIDAY, June 4, 2004, 9:24 a.m.
Getting Government Out Of Our Bathrooms

As the federal government has grown larger and larger over the last several decades, its reach into the lives of everyday Americans has become more and more intrusive. There’s no better example of the current power of Big Brother than the Energy Policy Act of 1992. For those who may be unaware, this is the federal law which regulates the amount of water that you can use in your bathroom.

Prior to the early 1990s, the standard toilet in the United States used 3.5 gallons of water per flush. Effective January 1, 1994, federal law mandated that toilets manufactured in the United States could only use 1.6 gallons of water per flush. This is a nationwide standard that applies regardless of whether or not a water shortage exists in the particular area of the country that a person lives.

For homes built after 1990, the low flush toilet mandate is really not that much of an issue. In newer homes, sewer lines and drain systems are designed and built to accommodate the smaller amount of water available to transport waste. On the other hand, for owners of many older homes whose drain lines were built in reliance on 3.5 gallon toilets, the federal requirements have been a disaster.

Anyone who lives in an older home that has been retro-fitted with newer low flush toilets can testify that they are a source of never ending problems. Whether it’s the need to flush multiple times (thereby negating any water savings) or the need for repeated sewer line cleaning (because of insufficient water to carry the waste to the municipal system), low flush toilets are a plumbers’ dream and a homeowners nightmare. Nevertheless, in a capitulation to the environmental lobby, the government elected to thrust itself into our bathrooms. This is, of course, working out about as well as most federal government efforts to micro-manage our everyday lives do.

Unquestionably, toilets are the greatest water users in the home. At the same time however, the federal government does not tell people how many times they can shower in a given day or how many loads of laundry they can do in a particular week. If the federal government has the right to regulate the size of our toilets in the name of water conservation, will the next step be time clocks on our showers?

To the extent water usage by toilets is a problem, it is a problem best solved by operation of market forces as opposed to government regulation. As noted earlier, low flush toilets are more than adequate for most newer homes and some older ones. For homes where low flush toilets do the job, there is absolutely no reason for homeowners to pay the added costs associated with the extra water usage of the larger capacity toilets. On the other hand, for those who need more water and are willing to pay for it, there is no reason why the federal government should deny this option.

The ban on the United States manufacture of adequate capacity toilets has had a number of interesting side effects. Every weekend, people regularly scour yard sales looking for older toilets adequate to address their needs. Additionally, since full capacity toilets are still manufactured in Canada, a mini-black market is thriving as Americans look to our neighbors to the north to solve our bathroom woes. Just as Wisconsin residents used to make “oleo runs” to Illinois to avoid outdated government restrictions on margarine, a new class of smugglers has been created and forced by government policy to make “toilet runs” to Canada.

The flush toilet issue is just one of many examples of unwanted and unnecessary government intrusion into people’s lives. Current FDA regulations prohibit Americans from buying prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies even though an identical drug costs up to 60% more if purchased in the United States. If the market were allowed to work and Americans were allowed to buy drugs from Canada legally, drug prices in this country would necessarily decrease in response to the competition. Nevertheless, misguided government policy deprives the consumer of the right to choose where they’ll buy their drugs just like it deprives them of the right to choose what equipment they can use in their bathrooms.

Government policy on flush toilets and prescription drugs are classic examples of why the least government is frequently the best government. Bureaucrats in Washington are simply ill-suited to know what’s best for a senior citizen living in an 80 year old home in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. If that senior citizen wants cheaper prescription drugs in her medicine chest and a toilet that works, what gives the bureaucrat the right to say “no”?

There’s an old saying that goes: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. An updated version could well be: “Since cheaper prescription drugs and toilets that work have been outlawed, only outlaws have them”. Personally, I’m hoping I can convince a senior citizen to pick me up a couple of 3.5 gallon toilets when she goes to Canada to score her heart medication. I wonder if that’s how Al Capone got started?

Do any of you believe the founding fathers wanted the federal government regulating how much water we can use in our toilets?

Heres another take on it


Moreover, no one is able to estimate the cost of all federal, state and local regulations. Most state and local regulations were not even included in our study.

Even so, we conservatively estimated that government regulation now costs the country more than $1 trillion per year ($1,064 billion). Total federal, state and local spending is now more than $2.6 trillion ($2,658 billion), for a total government cost of $3.7 trillion ($3,722 billion). This total cost of government is oppressive, depriving the American people of economic freedom and control over their own lives. At a minimum, the government is cutting your income and prosperity in half. What the government does with that money does not seem to be nearly worth this enormous cost. So much of what the government does can in fact be done far better outside its system of taxes, spending and regulation. For example, workers today can get a far better deal out of personal savings, investment and insurance accounts than through Social Security, a huge component of the federal government in itself. Such personal savings and insurance accounts also are the best solution for the collapsing Medicare program. Private sector employment is still far better for the poor than our still huge welfare system.

LINK (http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-26-99.html)

Don Corleone
06-08-2005, 00:49
Preach on brother Gawain.

Pindar
06-08-2005, 01:29
Okay, maybe we're failing to communicate, and it sounds like I'm annoying you. So, in 50 words or less, please no 5 page explanations, how does the interstate commerce clause jibe with a limited federal government? If Congress can enact laws on anything involving interstate commerce, that's 95% of anybody's daily business. This new ruling gives them the last 5%.

You are not annoying me. Sorry if it sounds like I'm annoyed.

The Interstate Commerce Clause was deemed so important it is found in Article One of the Constitution. Why? Because it is this exact authority that delineates a federal polity from a simple confederation. What does this mean? This means only the Federal Government can control commerce between states. If individual states could apply tariffs, or other duties, or declare legal transport status, it undercuts the very notion of nationhood.

The Federal government is the ultimate legal authority by necessity. Were it not so there could be no resolution short of war for any conflict between states. Even so, Federal authority is not without limit. Those limits are Constitutionally imposed. The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power. It is not an example of a Federal limitation. Federal limitation is found not only in the tripartite division between: Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches and the general deference to popular sovereignty, but also in the interpreted scope of Congressional purview as declared by a non-legislative Federal branch: the Supreme Court. To whit: Congress cannot pass legislation that eliminates what is truly national and truly local. ( 1995: United States v. Lopez ) Passage of a national drug standard does not do this as enforcement remains entirely Federal.

Over 50 words but maybe still passable I hope.


I say that, because this ruling relates to a case that specifically does NOT involve interstate commerce. The Medicinal Marijuana laws were carefully written to avoid the Interstate Commerce Clause.

The law was not written very well given 1971 Perez v. United States clearly states: "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." Further, as I previously mentioned the Court held that the State has not demonstrated that they can effectively maintain a division between the legal distribution of marijuana and the general marijuana market. This should be obvious given patients were at liberty to grow their own weed. Should the State demonstrate a market control the case could be revisited.




Finally, where in the whole document does it say that Congress is in charge of drug policy, or even enforcing morality for that matter?

The Commerce Clause. Congress can speak to any issue involving business traffic, its legal standing or the effects on such traffic.

Legislation of morality is implicit in the very notion of law, case in point: making murder illegal.



I'm am shocked and amazed that Scalia voted with the majority on this one. I guess Thomas and Rehquist are the only two true conservatives left on the bench.

Your notion of the Judicial strain of conservatism is confused. Conservativism is deferring to the will of the people as determined by their chosen representatives, not appealing to Judicial fiat. In this case the people's representatives have spoken. This has force until there is a change in popular opinion. It is that simple.

Don Corleone
06-08-2005, 01:46
Alright man, I respect you too much to go much deeper with this. We're going to have to agree to disagree. Based on your definition, EVERYTHING is at the end of the day a commercial enterprise, and therefore, under Congress's thumb. Even if everything you say is accurate and correct, it sounds like a game rigged by lawyers, for lawyers, desgined to keep power at a level the people can't exercise it, i.e. in Washington, away from prying eyes at the State & local level. You are in affect telling me that the most cynical characterizations of our government are true, and what's more, exactly the way they should be. It's not the way we portray ourselves, and shame on us for being a bunch of hypocrites.

Pindar
06-08-2005, 01:52
Alright man, I respect you too much to go much deeper with this. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Please ignore the sound of the jackboots that will be approaching your door shortly. You will feel only slight pain and soon will have the correct view of things. :helmet:

Don Corleone
06-08-2005, 01:55
No kidding. As long as beer is still allowed in this New World Order you guys are creating for us...

Honestly, not a legal opinion, but a personal one, do you really think it's such a great idea to concentrate so much power in the hands of so few, who are so detached from the rest of the population up in DC?

ichi
06-08-2005, 02:03
Conservativism is deferring to the will of the people as determined by their chosen representatives, not appealing to Judicial fiat.

Classical conservatism is opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This rapid change might be due to majoritarian impulses empowered through the legislative process.

In a case where rapid change through legislative action was thwarted by judicial review, the courts would be acting 'conservatively', and therefore the quoted definition above is a poor one. It confuses social attitudes with government mechanisms.

ichi :bow:

Pindar
06-08-2005, 02:12
Honestly, not a legal opinion, but a personal one, do you really think it's such a great idea to concentrate so much power in the hands of so few, who are so detached from the rest of the population up in DC?

I don't like arguing with Sicilians. You guys are scary. But I must tell you, Number Three really did suck.


A litigious society is a weakened society.

Concentrated power is always dangerous.

Local control is generally better than its opposite.

But, I make a distinction between stupid law and unjust law or law that is illegitimate.

The Supreme Court upholding this Federal law against medical doobies is an example of stupid law, but I understand the principle.

The Supreme Court creating a right to abortion in 1973 is an example of illegitimate law. The ruling is extra-legislative and therefore has no standing. If the Congress had passed a law allowing abortions my opinion would be different.

Law should be the product of the legislative Branch and thus subject to popular will. This is the touchstone of democracy.

What we've been discussing isn't really a lawyer created issue (accept for the Attorney General). Lawyer problems are typically civil.


(the jackboots will be there presently) :helmet:

Pindar
06-08-2005, 02:18
In a case where rapid change through legislative action was thwarted by judicial review, the courts would be acting 'conservatively', and therefore the quoted definition above is a poor one. It confuses social attitudes with government mechanisms.

ichi :bow:


Judicial conservatism does not recongnize Judical Review as a legitimate use of the power of the Court. My basic definition is correct.

:bow:

ichi
06-08-2005, 06:02
A judge is judicially conservative if he/she comes to a legal conclusion by following the letter of the law as closely as possible. This can include determining that a law contradicts other laws, or that a law is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Judicial activism, or positivism, is the result of a judge creating laws. It is not the result of judges striking down unconstitutional (or otherwise illegal) laws.

For example, if The Congress were to pass a law prohibiting more than 5 people to gather in one place, the court that struck down that law would be judicially conservative. A court that ruled that people must gather together would be judicially active.

ichi :bow:

Xiahou
06-08-2005, 10:09
Not entirely on topic, but since someone mentioned it.... I do think the recent decision on cruise ships and the Disabilities Act was out of line- judges creating something that wasn't there before. I could be wrong, because I haven't read the law, but I don't think there's anything in it to suggest it should apply in such a broad manner. I'm with Rush on that one.

Samurai Waki
06-08-2005, 10:53
The Cayman Islands has its own branch of the Navy? Damn, I wanted to be Commander of Her Majesty's Forces in the Cayman Islands...
Does the Cayman Islands have the same drug laws as here?

Yes RN Cayman is it's own district Branch of the Royal Navy... mostly as the main base for all British Forces needing to Serve in the Caribbean. The last time any large amount of British Forces or Royal Navy Forces stationed here was during the Faulklands War... Occasionally (about every 2 to 6 months) The HMS Invincible docks here for refueling and/or any necessary repairs before embarking back to Glasgow... The Invincible Makes it's run from Glasgow to Saint Helena Island to the Faulklands to RN Cayman and Back to Glasgow.
The Caymans being a Crown Colony (although it was offered it's independence in 1964 and Refused by the Cayman Parliament) is still subject to federal law in the United Kingdom. We Pay Taxes to the United Kingdom, and therefore we are Citizens of the United Kingdom. According to Cayman Parliamentary Act of 1982 we are also economic Subsidiaries of the United States, meaning the Caymanian Dollar is essentially legal tender of the United States, but not in the UK (much like Scottish or Northern Ireland Bank Currency). Because of our Economic Standpoint, we are also subject to the Pan-American Drug Enforcement Agencies and Laws... meaning USDEA (United States Drug Enforcement Agency) is the sole authority on all drug related matters, pertaining to the illegal smuggling of drugs into the United States.
In the Caymanian Parliamentary Act of 1991 we expelled the USDEA because British Parliament did not want the United States intervention on British Soil. The NDLEA (National Drug Law Enforcement Agency) of the UK took over all USDEA matters pertaining to the Island. In 1992 The NDLEA began seeing a trend in many wealthy Caymanian Natives actually benefitting from the Drug Routes, and the Cayman Islands had a nasty underground drug Mafia, thus SAS-12 began heading up Operations in detaining the Drug Barons. With a lot of success the SAS managed to annhilate the Drug Rings in the Cayman Islands, and has held a detachment of SAS in Cayman Brak since then. In 1993 The Caymanian Parliament held all residents of the Islands as Subject to any and all laws in the United Kingdom, and called for the RN to permanently patrol all the smuggling routes that may lead into or around the Cayman Islands... thus the large detachment of Royal Navy Patrol boats and Lynx Helicopters. Once a smuggler is detained by the RN, then they become a legal subject to the United States authorities... in the case of a legal citizen in the Island that has been caught, then we are bound by UK laws pertaining to drugs and any illegal narcotics or activity.
So although we still abide by UK laws, the ones involving drugs are very strictly enforced.

Divinus Arma
06-08-2005, 11:55
Hi, I usually stick to the RTW forums, but thought I would weigh in on this VERY important issue.

MJ be damned, I could care less. The greatest issue of the v. Raich case was indeed states rights.

With this finding, the supremacy clause and commerce clause jointly put an end to all State Power and Rights. Here is how:

Everything affects intrastate commerce as the Supreme Court now defines it. Consider this, property taxes set by state and local governmetns that are used to produce local revenue also affect the demand for housing. High property taxes (such as Mello Roos) suppress demand for housing in the high tax area. Property may be bought and sold by anyone, thus the purchases of investment properties by out-of-state residents is affected by state and local property taxes. Therefore, local taxes affect intrastate commerce and are at risk of being regulated by the Federal government.

While this example is overly simplistic, it demonstrates the potential power given to the federal government. In essence, we have just lost the concept of semi-autonomus states. If we wanted the federal government to have this much power in state affairs, we would have amended the constitution. Which, incidently, is why the framers may the constitution such a bitch to ammend. We a re on that slippery slope my amigos.

I truly fear for the future of my country. I do not like the direction that we are headed. Hell I am a Republican, and my Party doesn't even sound like itself anymore! We used to stand for individual and states rights and reduced government meddling. Now, the government only leaves business alone and stick its nose into the lives of the states and the individual.

And it isn't like we have a choice. The democrats are imploding! Examples: Democrats typically supported both Unions and illegal immigrant minorities, both of whom compete against each other. Democrats also represent minorities and pro-abortion types, but Mexicans are catholic and hate abortion, and so do baptist religious blacks! The comparisons go on and on.

We are so screwed.

Don Corleone
06-08-2005, 12:27
Couldn't have said it better myself. The Supreme Court has granted itself, Congress & the White House authority carte blanche.

You know, between the Attorney General's stance on this, the so-called Medicaid prescription drug benefit, the position the government has taken on illegal immigration, and all sorts of minorly irritating issues, I think I'm done supporting the Republican party. No more contributions, I'm registering independent, and I don't even know if I'm going to vote anymore. I can't imagine voting for too many of the Democrats I've seen, but now it seems there's no real difference. They both have a story to tell, but at the end of the day, they're in the 'big government cabal" together. Sure, crossfire & filibusters look great on TV, but it's all smoke and mirrors. They're all on the same team. ~:grouphug:

Steppe Merc
06-08-2005, 12:54
Which is why next year when I register (or I guess it would be the year after, since I think you have to register before my birthday... not sure though), I'm gonna be independent. I also see no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats seems to pay lip service to the things I care about, but they never really do anything to further those causes, and either care to much about what the Republicans will think, or not enough.
I relized this when watching the Presidential debates. Kerry could have brought out the big guns, but he was scirting around the issues, and didn't have a plan of his own.

Pindar
06-08-2005, 18:28
A judge is judicially conservative if he/she comes to a legal conclusion by following the letter of the law as closely as possible. This can include determining that a law contradicts other laws, or that a law is inconsistent with the Constitution.

Judicial activism, or positivism, is the result of a judge creating laws. It is not the result of judges striking down unconstitutional (or otherwise illegal) laws.

For example, if The Congress were to pass a law prohibiting more than 5 people to gather in one place, the court that struck down that law would be judicially conservative. A court that ruled that people must gather together would be judicially active.

ichi :bow:


Practical concerns, particularly in regards to case law are one thing, but as far as a basic Jurisprudential ethos is concerned: the above is not quite correct. Judicial activism is the assumption of extra-Constitutional authority by the Court. This includes Court created law or rights, as you noted, but it also includes striking down law. This is not a Constitutionally laid out power of the Court. This is very much tied up with Judicial Review. Courts have assumed this power, but originally it was not so.

Judicial Conservatism takes on many forms. There are: constructionist, statist, economic, libertarian as well as natural law theorists. Some of these can overlap on occasion. The more general conservatism tends toward majoritarian deference and restraint. For Judicial Review opponents this would also include restraint on Constitutionally troubling cases. The primary watchdog responsibility is seen to lie with the people, not the courts.

:bow:

Pindar
06-08-2005, 18:50
Hi, I usually stick to the RTW forums, but thought I would weigh in on this VERY important issue.

MJ be damned, I could care less.

Hello, Divinus

You don't like Michael Jordan? ~D



The greatest issue of the v. Raich case was indeed states rights.

With this finding, the supremacy clause and commerce clause jointly put an end to all State Power and Rights. Here is how:

Everything affects intrastate commerce as the Supreme Court now defines it.

Actually it doesn't. As found in the 1995: United States v. Lopez and upheld in 2000: United States v. Morrison. a Judicial test was implemented. Regardless, if you are really up in arms about this, the case that should really get your ire is the 1971 Perez v. United States. This is where intrastate transactions formally fell under Commerce Clause applicabiltiy.

If you claim any kind of fealty to judicial conservatism you must justify why a base majoritarianism should not hold sway. Assuming you accept the Supremacy Clause: this applies even if the majority is on a Federal level.

Pindar
06-08-2005, 18:51
I also see no difference between Democrats and Republicans.


You need to look again.

Don Corleone
06-08-2005, 18:53
If you claim any kind of fealty to judicial conservatism you must justify why a base majoritarianism should not hold sway. Assuming you accept the Supremacy Clause: this applies even if the majority is on a Federal level.

A base majoritanianism should only hold sway where the body of laws that created it say it should hold sway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Commerce Clause was created to prevent individual states from levying import duties against each other. It wasn't supposed to be a 'well, if it deals with commerce in any way, shape or form, the Federal Government has the right to do with it whatever it desires".

Now, before I say I do or do not accept the Supremacy Clause, I would appreciate it if you would cite the specific article or ammendment of the Constitution to which you are referring.

Don Corleone
06-08-2005, 18:58
You need to look again.

Actually, I've voted Republican in every election I've been elligible to, and the lines are getting pretty blurry to me as well. Without employing the accompanying rhetoric from the White House, could you explain to me how the Prescription Drug Benefit, or the Education Reform Bill of 2003 are congruent with a conservative agenda? Can you tell me why we continue to pour more of a % of the federal budget into maintaining industries that suffer from shoddy business practices, in affect subsidizing these shoddy practices? Hell, we haven't even reversed the marriage penalty yet, for crying out loud. I'm in the William F. Buckley camp, and while it beats the alterntives out there, I definitely do not like what I see.

Pindar
06-08-2005, 19:26
What are you still doing here? I thought you had been taken care of. :helmet:


A base majoritanianism should only hold sway where the body of laws that created it say it should hold sway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Commerce Clause was created to prevent individual states from levying import duties against each other. It wasn't supposed to be a 'well, if it deals with commerce in any way, shape or form, the Federal Government has the right to do with it whatever it desires".

The Commerce Clause is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. It states: "( The Congress shall have Power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Determining the scope of that charge is exactly the duty of the Courts.

Establishing uniform national duties is found in Clause 1.


Now, before I say I do or do not accept the Supremacy Clause, I would appreciate it if you would cite the specific article or ammendment of the Constitution to which you are referring.

The Supremacy Clause is found in Article VI. It states: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

This is one of the legal standards used contra the secessionist dogs of the 1860's

Pindar
06-08-2005, 19:41
Actually, I've voted Republican in every election I've been elligible to, and the lines are getting pretty blurry to me as well. Without employing the accompanying rhetoric from the White House, could you explain to me how the Prescription Drug Benefit, or the Education Reform Bill of 2003 are congruent with a conservative agenda?

They are not: makes me feel all dirty inside just thinking about them.



Can you tell me why we continue to pour more of a % of the federal budget into maintaining industries that suffer from shoddy business practices, in affect subsidizing these shoddy practices? Hell, we haven't even reversed the marriage penalty yet, for crying out loud. I'm in the William F. Buckley camp, and while it beats the alterntives out there, I definitely do not like what I see.

I consider myself in the Buckley camp as well.

A purist will not survive the political arena. Recall, politics is the art of the possible. This means embracing an instrumentalism in moving forward an agenda is a sound policy. It also means making certain sacrifices to maintain power is also justified. Consider the $40 billion for the Prescription Drug bill as a Defense Department expenditure.

No Administration is perfect: recall, Reagan's immigration amnesty. There is a basic difference in political philosophy between the two parties. This impacts general legislation and the direction of the nation.

And the Demos are nuts. :dizzy2:

Steppe Merc
06-08-2005, 21:35
You need to look again.
Fine. There isn't enough difference. Democrats are not nearly liberal enough, or the sort of liberalness that I think we need.

Pindar
06-08-2005, 22:33
Fine. There isn't enough difference. Democrats are not nearly liberal enough, or the sort of liberalness that I think we need.

I see. Does this mean you consider yourself a socialist or marxist?

Divinus Arma
06-11-2005, 05:55
A base majoritanianism should only hold sway where the body of laws that created it say it should hold sway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Commerce Clause was created to prevent individual states from levying import duties against each other. It wasn't supposed to be a 'well, if it deals with commerce in any way, shape or form, the Federal Government has the right to do with it whatever it desires".

Here, here! EXACTLY.



Actually it doesn't. As found in the 1995: United States v. Lopez and upheld in 2000: United States v. Morrison. a Judicial test was implemented. Regardless, if you are really up in arms about this, the case that should really get your ire is the 1971 Perez v. United States. This is where intrastate transactions formally fell under Commerce Clause applicabiltiy.

Are you referring to the guns in school zones?


If you claim any kind of fealty to judicial conservatism you must justify why a base majoritarianism should not hold sway. Assuming you accept the Supremacy Clause: this applies even if the majority is on a Federal level.


I agree, BUT, the inrepretation of the commerce clause is too liberal. The interpretation assumes too much. This is where the problem is.

Steppe Merc
06-11-2005, 13:59
I see. Does this mean you consider yourself a socialist or marxist?
Probably a socialist. I think the end result of Marxism is the ideal society, but I disagree with it's methods of violence, and think it's impossible to reach.

Kanamori
06-11-2005, 21:30
I'd have a hard time following the ideals of somebody that let his family starve...

Pindar
06-12-2005, 07:21
Originally Posted by Pindar
Actually it doesn't. As found in the 1995: United States v. Lopez and upheld in 2000: United States v. Morrison. a Judicial test was implemented. Regardless, if you are really up in arms about this, the case that should really get your ire is the 1971 Perez v. United States. This is where intrastate transactions formally fell under Commerce Clause applicability.


Are you referring to the guns in school zones?

The Perez case involved loan sharking.





I agree, BUT, the inrepretation of the commerce clause is too liberal. The interpretation assumes too much. This is where the problem is.

I don't understand. Are you saying the Congress shouldn't be able to pass legislation on drug legality? Or, Are you saying Congress can pass such laws, but shouldn't have any enforcement ability?

This case basically gives the Feds. the ability to enforce their own law. It places no onus on States. Further, should States decide to revise their own laws whereby they can control for legal vs. the illegal drug market there would not be a problem.

Pindar
06-12-2005, 07:23
Probably a socialist. I think the end result of Marxism is the ideal society, but I disagree with it's methods of violence, and think it's impossible to reach.


So you have a penchant for collectivist systems. Why? What is the appeal of socialism to you?

Steppe Merc
06-12-2005, 17:40
Because capatlism doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why the pursuit of wealth ought to be such a big part of a government style. I think that the governments job ought to be to look after the citizens that have bad living conditions, while having no say in personal morality and enforcing the most basic of laws (killing, stealing, rape, etc.)

Of course this sort of thing could never happen. Ideally, I think there would be no government anywhere in the world, with people just having town councils where everyone gets a say, and handeling things themselves that envolve the town. But that would be impossible to achieve.

I suppose it would be more of a democratic socalism, as I would never advocate the sort of socalist states such as China and USSR.

Gawain of Orkeny
06-12-2005, 17:53
Because capatlism doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why the pursuit of wealth ought to be such a big part of a government style.

Capitalism isnt a type of government. In the USSR you could say the government had all the wealth and the people squat. The reality of communism is everythings owned by the state. Capitalism gives everyone a shot at the gold. You dont have to work hard or try to be rich. Its your choice.

Ironside
06-12-2005, 18:59
Capitalism isnt a type of government. In the USSR you could say the government had all the wealth and the people squat. The reality of communism is everythings owned by the state. Capitalism gives everyone a shot at the gold. You dont have to work hard or try to be rich. Its your choice.

I would call "the need to be rich" to be capitalist mentality though.

Did you know that it was a time when people rised the salaries, his employes would work less? Big problem after the Black Death in Europe (although it took the form of increased celebration of saints ~D ).

Gawain of Orkeny
06-12-2005, 19:14
Did you know that it was a time when people rised the salaries, his employes would work less?

Are you trying to say that they used to raise your salary and that also meant less work? Things havent changed.

Ironside
06-12-2005, 19:49
Are you trying to say that they used to raise your salary and that also meant less work? Things havent changed.

No I'm saying that if it was hard to get employees (they had died by different reasons), you made the reasonable thing and raised the salaries, but the employed would work less than normal, because when he had earned enough to live on money he would stop working.

To show it easily, if you earn 400 a week (a 48 hour week) and survives quite well on this (nothing extravagant though), get a raise by 20%. Would you work 1/6 times less (now 40 hours) so you still earned 400 a week, or work as much as before, for 480 a week?

It was a time when option nr 1 was the standard answer.

Steppe Merc
06-12-2005, 21:46
Capitalism isnt a type of government. In the USSR you could say the government had all the wealth and the people squat. The reality of communism is everythings owned by the state. Capitalism gives everyone a shot at the gold. You dont have to work hard or try to be rich. Its your choice.
That is why I didn't choose Communism. Because it really can't be reached, because of the corruption that almost always happens.

Gawain of Orkeny
06-12-2005, 22:22
To show it easily, if you earn 400 a week (a 48 hour week) and survives quite well on this (nothing extravagant though), get a raise by 20%. Would you work 1/6 times less (now 40 hours) so you still earned 400 a week, or work as much as before, for 480 a week?

Depends on my mood. Right now I tend to work just enough to pay my bills ~:)

Divinus Arma
06-13-2005, 00:23
To show it easily, if you earn 400 a week (a 48 hour week) and survives quite well on this (nothing extravagant though), get a raise by 20%. Would you work 1/6 times less (now 40 hours) so you still earned 400 a week, or work as much as before, for 480 a week?


This is completely contrary to the laws of supply and demand.


You see, Capitalism (and this includes wages for employees) is based upon the idea of the "invisible hand" that sets prices and wages, etc.

At higher prices, businesses want to sell more. And consumers will buy less.

At lower prices, business want to sell less. And consumers will want to buy more.

This results in a buyer/seller equillibrium, and is the "invisible hand".

Edit: For example. If you could sell a homemade glass of Lemonade for 1 American penny, how much would you want to sell? If you could sell that exact same glass for $1,000,000 US, then how many glasses of lemonade would you want to sell?

If you could buy a plane ticket for 1 penny, how often would you fly? If that same plane ticket costs $1,000,000 then how often would you fly?

Same thing with wages, UNLESS the wages are by SALARY.

Once basic needs of survival are met: If someone is paid more per hour, they will want to work more hours. If someone is paid less, they will want to work less.

Once basic needs are met: If someone is paid by SALARY, they will attempt to work as little as is possible, PERIOD. An increase in salary does not make a person want to work more. Only threats of a decrease in salary can force more work, or the promise of an increase. But once the increase or decrease has taken place, effort will be reduced.

THIS IS WHY COMMUNISM DOES NOT WORK!

Why would I work more if I do not recieve more? Yay, let's all work our asses off and get nothing for it!


Moderately regulated capitalism is the only answer. The joy in capitalism and free society is that citizens have the choice to be lazy or work hard, do alot or do nothing, succeed or fail. All it takes is ability, vision, and commitment.

This also why socialism sucks. I don't want to give any lazy bastards a free ride. You want social benefits? Work. But don't expect something for nothing. And don't punish people for working hard. The fact is, the money incentive pays off both society and the individual. Society benefits from innovations, new technology, new business, new discoveries, new resources, etc all because someone with guts and vision had the courage to take a risk and work hard to see it through and had the idea of a reward at the end. How many brilliant innovations and social benefits come out of North Korea?

Capitalism is win-win. The individual works directly for both himself and society.

In communism, the individual works for society and gets leftovers for himself.

In socialism, those who work there butts off get taxed so hard, they have no reason to try harder. Why worker aharder if you get nothing for it?



Okay thats enough. I made my point.

Pindar
06-13-2005, 08:19
Because capatlism doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand why the pursuit of wealth ought to be such a big part of a government style.

What you object to above is not something that fits under a standard capitalist model. Do you understand the basic tenets and differences between capitalism and socialism? If not, we can work on these if you would like.



I think that the governments job ought to be to look after the citizens that have bad living conditions, while having no say in personal morality and enforcing the most basic of laws (killing, stealing, rape, etc.)

You may want to consider again what you wrote above. You have basically given the government a moral charge: "looking after citizens" in a bad way. You then said government should stay out of personal morality and followed this with a basic enforcement provision which is itself a moral positioning: proscribing killing, rape etc. are moral stances. This seems sticky.

My guess is you wanted to say government should help people improve their lot, but not get tangled in their personal affairs. If I'm correct then I want to ask you: what do you think is the basic purpose of government? By this I mean: what is the fundamental charge or reason government exists. Once this is determined we could look again at what you wrote.

Ironside
06-13-2005, 08:29
If you could sell that exact same glass for $1,000,000 US, then how many glasses of lemonade would you want to sell?

7. ~D


If you could buy a plane ticket for 1 penny, how often would you fly?
As often as now. ~;)

I'm well aware what capitalism means, but I dislike the consumerism of today and the abuse that will occur if they got the chance (as you said moderate capitalism works best).

What I'm saying is that capitalism is a mentality to, not only a principle.


In socialism, those who work there butts off get taxed so hard, they have no reason to try harder. Why worker aharder if you get nothing for it?

Right, you're telling me that there's people that work 1000 times more than a common worker? Is that 40.000 hour weeks or is it maybe a mix? They work 6 times better than the average worker and works 168 (24*7) hour weeks perhaps?

I'm not against different salaries for different jobs, it's only that I feel that somewhere it gets absurd by your reasoning. And besides, a doctor would certainly need more money to pay for the education, but I really hope that they didn't choose thier job only because of the good salary.


BTW, got any ideas what would happen if the sevice sector would be reduced by increased automatation? Were would the new jobs appear?

Samurai Waki
06-13-2005, 08:42
Actually even in communist states, people with a higher degree in education (Doctors and such) live to a much higher standard than Farmers or people with little education. The biggest failing to the Communist ideal was the fact that in a globalized society, no country can be self-sufficient. Capitalism has survived for so long because countries can exchange one commodity for another... and although most countries can only dream of being self-sufficient, it ain't gonna happen. Thats why most 2nd and 3rd World Countries whore themselves out to wealthy countries just for that almighty dollar... The Thing I hate is when people bitch about taxes like they aren't good for anything... without taxes we'd all be living in some destitute crap-hole, with dirty water, and no streets... thats why many countries are socialist, they don't have the population to support only relatively small or mediocre tax rates, so they have to take a large cut out of peoples frivolous efforts. Nobody ever looks to the future, we are just too focused on ourselves :no:

Divinus Arma
06-13-2005, 12:30
Taxes are necessary, but to a limited degree.

It seems that the socialist mentality is this:
The government needs more money. lets raise taxes so we can get more money. Bigger slice of pie, so to speak.

Try this instead:
The government needs more money. Let's encourage growth by growing the tax base. Same size slice, but with a bigger pie.


So how does one grow the tax base? BY giving individuals and businesses more of their own money so that it may be spent and reinvested into the total economy.

I understand the concept of including government expenditures as part of GDP. But increasing government expenditures does not necessesarily increase GDP. This is because the increase in government spending comes at the expense of sacrificing private spending.


The Thing I hate is when people bitch about taxes like they aren't good for anything... without taxes we'd all be living in some destitute crap-hole, with dirty water, and no streets... thats why many countries are socialist, they don't have the population to support only relatively small or mediocre tax rates, so they have to take a large cut out of peoples frivolous efforts

I hear you. You are right. Taxes are important... in moderation. I would prefer that the government was only able to tax 10% of income or less and be able to meet all of society's needs, but unfortunatley, there are too many people who leech on society and feel that the government should take care of their problems.

Steppe Merc,

As per a government's role, let me sum it up this way: A government should not help you. A government should help you to help yourself. Don't feed me. Teach me to fish so I can feed myself.

Listen to Pindar. The man has good points.


Or maybe you socialists can help me to understand yours?

DA

Divinus Arma
06-13-2005, 12:40
I don't understand. Are you saying the Congress shouldn't be able to pass legislation on drug legality? Or, Are you saying Congress can pass such laws, but shouldn't have any enforcement ability?


Can congress pass a law on gay marriage? Should they be able to? Same difference. If it applies nationally, their should be a constitutional amendment. Like alcohol prohibition.

I really don't give two squats about the drug issue. It is a matter of states rights. The federal government is too empowered on issues that can be resolved at the state level. And this is a major problem.

If you want my opinion on drugs, I think it should be handled at the state level with federal regulation of intrastate transactions such as sales and transport. If South Dakota wants to legalize MJ, fine. And if North Dakota wants to criminalize it, fine. The federal government's job is to ensure that this works out okay. Just like many products, agriculture, and so on now.

The concept of a "union" of states is being replaced by the concept of a single state. States are becoming a reference for location and nothing more.

DA

Hurin_Rules
06-13-2005, 15:03
Capitalism gives everyone a shot at the gold.

And ensures that most people will fail to achieve it.

Pindar
06-13-2005, 17:43
Originally Posted by pindar
I don't understand. Are you saying the Congress shouldn't be able to pass legislation on drug legality? Or, Are you saying Congress can pass such laws, but shouldn't have any enforcement ability?


Can congress pass a law on gay marriage?

Yes, In 1996 Congress passed the: Defense of Marriage Act. This was signed by Clinton. One aspect of the act is to state that for purposes of Federal law marriage is between one man and one woman and it further defines spouse as a reference to the person one married of the opposite sex.


Should they be able to?

This appears to be a moral question.


The federal government is too empowered on issues that can be resolved at the state level. And this is a major problem.

I agree. However, questions of prudence and authority are not the same.


If you want my opinion on drugs, I think it should be handled at the state level with federal regulation of intrastate transactions such as sales and transport. If South Dakota wants to legalize MJ, fine. And if North Dakota wants to criminalize it, fine. The federal government's job is to ensure that this works out okay. Just like many products, agriculture, and so on now.

I don't think South Dakota should legalize Michael Jackson. :stunned:


The concept of a "union" of states is being replaced by the concept of a single state. States are becoming a reference for location and nothing more.

DA

The operative is "Union" not states. This is clear from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as well as the first clause of the Preamble that serves as the theoretical justification for the Constitution: We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...

Steppe Merc
06-13-2005, 20:02
What you object to above is not something that fits under a standard capitalist model. Do you understand the basic tenets and differences between capitalism and socialism? If not, we can work on these if you would like.
I admit, that I have not taken any classes that have gave me any understandable deffinition of the two. Really, the only form of government I really get is feudalism...


You may want to consider again what you wrote above. You have basically given the government a moral charge: "looking after citizens" in a bad way. You then said government should stay out of personal morality and followed this with a basic enforcement provision which is itself a moral positioning: proscribing killing, rape etc. are moral stances. This seems sticky.

My guess is you wanted to say government should help people improve their lot, but not get tangled in their personal affairs. If I'm correct then I want to ask you: what do you think is the basic purpose of government? By this I mean: what is the fundamental charge or reason government exists. Once this is determined we could look again at what you wrote.
Right, that was what I was trying to say: improve people's lot, while not getting into their personal belief and life. Sorry for being so vague, I've been having trouble with that lately. :embarassed:

I believe the government exists to help those that need bettering do so, without telling those people how to act morally, as well as insuring the people are safe from outside harm (protect from murderers, but not from people harming only themselves).


Listen to Pindar. The man has good points.
I agree, Pindar does have excellent points. I may not always agree with them, or understand them, but they are good points. ~D

And I can't explain socalism, as I'm not sure I understand it myself. I said "probably socialism" as I believe that is closest to what my views are from what little I understand, but I'm not sure.

Hurin_Rules
06-14-2005, 05:34
And I can't explain socalism, as I'm not sure I understand it myself. I said "probably socialism" as I believe that is closest to what my views are from what little I understand, but I'm not sure.

It all depends on how you define socialism. Is any government interference in the market socialism? Then the USA is a socialist country. The fed sets interest rates, the government takes in taxes and spends them on social programs, etc. All nations are socialist to some degree if one defines it as such, and I believe we should. The end of marxist socialism is of course the elimination of private property, but other forms of Socialism, such as the evolutionary forms one sees in many European countries, mix capitalism with socialism. I don't really see any country that has progressed beyond hunter/gatherer stage that is or has been wholly socialist or wholly capitalist, and I'm not even sure about the hunter/gatherers.

Pindar
06-14-2005, 07:46
I admit, that I have not taken any classes that have gave me any understandable deffinition of the two. Really, the only form of government I really get is feudalism...

OK, lets get some basic economic working definitions in play:

Capitalism: an economic system where the primary means of production and commerce are in private hands. This means the state is restrained in its involvement, though not entirely. The state functions as a regulatory body: enforcing the rule of law (i.e. contracts, fraud etc) and maintaining equal access to the market. The market is the general determiner of value via supply and demand. Success or failure is considered an individual concern not a state issue.

Capitalism supporters do so because it is seen as maximizing personal economic liberty (ala the entrepreneur), efficiency, flexibility and checks government, which is typically seen as embodying the opposite of the traits mentioned. Capitalists often see government as a necessary evil.

Socialism: an economic/political system where government oversight and/or control is found in major industries. The state partners with major industries to lessen the harsher realities of the market and enhance social organization. Socialism has a collectivist impulse and is also egalitarian in basic orientation. The state's role is seen as promoting a reasonable standard for its citizenry while working against excess on the periphery.

Socialism supporters do so because it is seen as providing security, reliability and a base equity.



Right, that was what I was trying to say: improve people's lot, while not getting into their personal belief and life. Sorry for being so vague, I've been having trouble with that lately. :embarassed:

I believe the government exists to help those that need bettering do so, without telling those people how to act morally, as well as insuring the people are safe from outside harm (protect from murderers, but not from people harming only themselves).


Alright, it sounds like you agree that government has a charge towards its citizenry. In fact, you list this as the fundamental purpose of government: government exists to help. Government therefore has a moral onus. You also restrict government from impinging on personal liberties even self harm. Now what if these two conflict? What if the moral minimalism runs counter to the state's role in bettering lives?

We also need to define what this bettering entails. Is this an economic standard? If so, is this measured by state performance i.e. GDP, national unemployment etc. or does it operate along some personal line: personal per capita income or buying potential etc?




I agree, Pindar does have excellent points. I may not always agree with them, or understand them, but they are good points.

:bow:

Steppe Merc
06-15-2005, 00:34
Thank you for the economics lesson. I get it a lot more now. ~D

I'll try and break it down, and say my views on each thing.


an economic/political system where government oversight and/or control is found in major industries.
Yes, I am strongly for this. I believe that the government has to control the industries to protect the workers and the enviromnet. Unless the government controls the big buisnesses, it will continue to screw the workers and destroy our enviornment.


The state partners with major industries to lessen the harsher realities of the market and enhance social organization.
Not quite sure what the social organization means, or the harsh realities of the market...


Socialism has a collectivist impulse and is also egalitarian in basic orientation.
Well I don't think that money can or ought to be outlawed, nor do I think that all land should be taken and redistributed by force. I would never advocate the forced reallacation of wealth through violence, which is why I would not consider myself a Communist.


The state's role is seen as promoting a reasonable standard for its citizenry while working against excess on the periphery.
Not sure what a periphery is, but I do think that the state should better the living and economic conditions of the people.
Now about the morals. It is a difficult thing for me to explain, and it does have serious limiting effects on how much the government can help the poor. For example, how does the gov't help a junkie who just wants to spend the money on herion?
I believe that if someone wants to spend their money of pot, or acid or whatever, and do so in their own house, the government should not intervene. When the drug user (or whatever) starts to harm others or put others at risk (by driving under the influence for example), then the government ought to step in.
As for helping people, I believe that if a person is poor, the government ought to insure that that person has a good living condition and enough money in order to find a job. As I mentioned, I'm not sure when the government can or ought to say "This guy is hopeless, he wastes all of our money, sorry guy, you're on you're own."
I'd probably have to say that if the person wants to ruin their life, they have that perogitive, and that overides the governments purpose to try and better them. Not sure how that would fit in legally and all, however.

As for bettering, I think it would be personal. National is all well and good, but for example, America may be rich, but the poor are still poor. If the government just focuses on raising the national average, than the people who really need to be helped will not be. The goverment should focus on allowing the individual poor people to get homes and steady jobs, as opposed to just trying to keep the national quota good. Again, I don't see how this would be practical or possible, but it's what I think.

And I'd like to thank you for causing me to write perhaps the longest post I've ever written, and challenging me to try and put my thoughts into intellegible words. :bow:

Divinus Arma
06-15-2005, 07:01
MJ = Marijuana

Not Michael Jackson, AKA Michael "wishing tree" Jackson

Pindar
06-15-2005, 07:06
Thank you for the economics lesson. I get it a lot more now....

And I'd like to thank you for causing me to write perhaps the longest post I've ever written, and challenging me to try and put my thoughts into intellegible words. :bow:

Is this interesting to you? Would you like me to help you flush out some of your ideas and challenge them a little or are you content? Regardless, I'll answer some of the questions you asked below.



Social organization: socialism can be defined in economic terms but the notion is part of a larger body of thought that has socio-political overtones. Social organization refers to the attempt to reinforce man's part in the larger community and thus avoid any kind of atomization.

Harsh realities: capitalism is often seen by its opponents as giving place to the jungle were only the strong survive and the weak get eaten. In economic terms this refers to seemingly arbitrary firings, lay offs, job displacement or any other situations were one may be the odd man out.

Periphery: the extreme economic ends of the scale: the very poor and very rich. Both are seen as relative negatives.

If you wish to continue then I will focus on what you wrote concerning the moral element of government.

Pindar
06-15-2005, 07:11
MJ = Marijuana

Not Michael Jackson, AKA Michael "wishing tree" Jackson

I know, I just couldn't resist referencing a former black man turned white woman who pursues hispanic boys.

Papewaio
06-15-2005, 07:14
With regards to the USAs less then sterling success at free trade (steel tariffs, lamb quotas, other primary industries).

Does that make it a Capitalist internal economy and a Socialist external economy as the USA buffers the internal industries from the harsher economics reality of free trade?

Pindar
06-15-2005, 07:21
With regards to the USAs less then sterling success at free trade (steel tariffs, lamb quotas, other primary industries).

Does that make it a Capitalist internal economy and a Socialist external economy as the USA buffers the internal industries from the harsher economics reality of free trade?

No, the examples you cite are due to political (and mistaken) caves to constituencies. Particular cases are not without merit or relevance, but when discussing national economic policy one has to stay with general patterns.

Papewaio
06-15-2005, 07:28
Well the general pattern for the US with regards to economic policy abroad is to protect industries and trade unless the industries have an advantage with the trading partners.

Now that is what I would call socialist. The government protects the less well off.

Pindar
06-15-2005, 07:47
Well the general pattern for the US with regards to economic policy abroad is to protect industries and trade unless the industries have an advantage with the trading partners.

Your sense of U.S. economic history is flawed. The U.S. TV, microwave, stereo, video, vcr, ship building and car industries all serve as simple counter examples to your position. One could also add the present $160 billion trade deficit with China as another simple example.

The U.S. is not a Laissez-faire economy, but it is difficult to find a more open market driven society.


Now that is what I would call socialist. The government protects the less well off.

Socialism is not defined by simple protectionism. Socialism involves government ownership of major industry.

Papewaio
06-15-2005, 08:54
Your sense of U.S. economic history is flawed. The U.S. TV, microwave, stereo, video, vcr, ship building and car industries all serve as simple counter examples to your position. One could also add the present $160 billion trade deficit with China as another simple example.


None of those is a primary industry. Also the push for Chinese goods is pushed by some of the USAs biggest companies.

Again I state that the USA guards its primary industries in a manner that is not capitalistic nor free trade based. As for other industries being off shored it was a basis of bigger lobby groups wanting cheaper goods. Much like France, the USA's primary goods sector punches above its economic output due to its voting demographics.


Socialism is not defined by simple protectionism. Socialism involves government ownership of major industry.

Socialism does not require ownership according to your own supplied definition of:


an economic/political system where government oversight and/or control is found in major industries. The state partners with major industries to lessen the harsher realities of the market and enhance social organization. Socialism has a collectivist impulse and is also egalitarian in basic orientation. The state's role is seen as promoting a reasonable standard for its citizenry while working against excess on the periphery.

Government oversight / protection of certain industries. The state is partnering (through loby groups) in buffering primary industries from the harsher realities of the global market. This is to maintain jobs and businesses for its citizens.

Now how is that not a socialist agenda as regards international trade?

Being open market only where industries choose to be open is hardly a real open market, it is simply a protectionist one disguised as a free market.

Pindar
06-15-2005, 09:58
None of those is a primary industry.

Ship building and the automotive industry are primary industry. Each of the others mentioned were industries that developed in the U.S. involving large markets and each died due to foreign competition.


Also the push for Chinese goods is pushed by some of the USAs biggest companies.

That is right. This doesn't affect the central point.


Again I state that the USA guards its primary industries in a manner that is not capitalistic nor free trade based. As for other industries being off shored it was a basis of bigger lobby groups wanting cheaper goods. Much like France, the USA's primary goods sector punches above its economic output due to its voting demographics.

I don't think you understand the U.S. economy either in regard to its history or structure. If you wish to argue the U.S. is a socialist state there is a fundamental misunderstanding of command vs. market economies. If you wish to argue the U.S. has protected certain sectors of the economy that was granted, but that does not change the base placement of the U.S. on the free market scale vis-a-vis other nations.




Socialism does not require ownership according to your own supplied definition of:

an economic/political system where government oversight and/or control is found in major industries. The state partners with major industries to lessen the harsher realities of the market and enhance social organization. Socialism has a collectivist impulse and is also egalitarian in basic orientation. The state's role is seen as promoting a reasonable standard for its citizenry while working against excess on the periphery.

I used oversight to cover the various super-regulatory agencies that govern industry in socialist states. The prime evidence of a socialist approach is nationalization of industry. This is state control.




The state is partnering (through loby groups) in buffering primary industries from the harsher realities of the global market. This is to maintain jobs and businesses for its citizens.

Now how is that not a socialist agenda as regards international trade?

Lobby groups are private organizations. Not all lobbyists are aiming at the same goal. The confluence of a political position and a lobby is fluid and operates from the outside inward not the reverse. This is a critical distinction. As the one reflects popular participation in government and the other is dictated.

You need to study the differences between the Anglo-American economic model, the Rhineland model and National Industrial policy.