So what don't you get? You already ackowledge that the constitution does not mention much less delegate any such power to the federal gov't nor does it prohibit the states. Therefore, the power is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Hucakbee the Health Nazi...
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
So what don't you get? You already ackowledge that the constitution does not mention much less delegate any such power to the federal gov't nor does it prohibit the states. Therefore, the power is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Yes, it is.
However, if it is an interstate commerce issue they can regulate the activity. Hence, airports, their prerogative... your local bar, the State's.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
This does not follow. You assume that the federal government -- the United States, as per Amendment 10 -- cannot regulate anything not specifically and explicitly mentioned in the constitution. This is a fallacious assumption, since the courts have consistently rejected this interpretation for generations. The courts decide what is constitutional, not you -- nor I, for that matter.
Sure, the commerce clause has been abused. We all probably agree on that. Doesn't matter, though, since it's now the Supreme Law of the Land and if you don't like it, you have to push for another amendment.
Or we can elect a President that understands the Consitution's limits on government.
Your argument is nothing more than a conservative rationalization for unlimited government.
uscitizen
Villified User
Like bush ?
Bush is a radical, not a conservative. Radical changes in law are not a conservative idea. Ergo, changing the law to disallow certain things would be radical, not conservative.
uscitizen
Villified User
In reality yes but the right wing cons supported him to the max, thru 2 elections.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
No, it is a pragmatic recognition of the fact that, like it or not, the courts really do have the final say about what is and is not constitutional. It is not for the president to say, nor is it up to any other citizen. We're all entitled to our opinions, of course -- "But officer, I was only going 64! I saw the speedometer!" -- but our opinions only count to the extent that we work to get the law changed.
It is a firmly established principle of American law that many powers not explicitly enumerated in the constitution are indeed delegated to the United States.
uscitizen
Villified User
well it is true that republicans are obviously not for states rights, in spite of their rhetoric. The last few have proved that.
It is up to the President and every citizen to judge the constitutionality of law. That does not mean our judgement will win out or that we may rationally act on it in contradiction to the law.
You may wish to shrug it off and leave it to the government to decide what its powers, I don't.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
True. And among Democrats -- and most left-leaning third party types -- "states' rights" has become a code phrase for "no abortion rights."
While true, I am not sure what relevance that has to what I said.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
<*sigh*> You just don't get it, do you? The constitution itself vests the power of arbitration in the courts. Not in the citizenry nor in Congress nor the executive branch. Read Article 3, Section 2. Where controversy arises between citizens of different states, or between the United States (e.g. the federal government) and any other entity, the courts are granted power to decide such controversy. End of argument.
uscitizen
Villified User
I do what i can, I vote for the candidate that i consider the least dangerous.
i have not seen anyone in the federal govt in a long time I wanted to vote for.
I have actually voted for a couple on the local scene. one was a repub and one was a dem.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
The law can be wrong, certainly. It's just stupid to pretend it's not the law even when it is wrong.
Hey, I'm an old school lefty: I believe in civil disobedience. I believe even more in uncivil disobedience. The thing is, though, that when you're breaking the law you can't just turn around and claim that it's not really a legal law . . . or whatever.