The End of States Rights

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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]

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

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.

[Pindar]

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?

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]

I also see no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

You need to look again.

[Don Corleone]

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]

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]

What are you still doing here? I thought you had been taken care of.

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]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'd have a hard time following the ideals of somebody that let his family starve...

[Pindar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ).

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

[Divinus Arma]

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]

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]

Capitalism gives everyone a shot at the gold.

And ensures that most people will fail to achieve it.