Constitutional ignorance on display

Had you simply said that I would not have been arguing with you at all. That statement is true. No State can Deny you rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

However that is not what you said. You said Which is not true.

If the Fed attempts to do something not spelled out in the Constitution, It could very well be deemed unconstitutional for the Fed to do it precisely because it is a power reserved to the states.

IMO you are being willfully ignorant of that Fact.

If and when the SCOTUS gets around to hearing a case against the Individual Mandate in the Health care law. The Feds will be arguing that under the interstate commerce clause they can do it. The States are arguing they can not. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the states, Which it seems is entirely possible. Then you will have a nice example of something being Constitutional at the state level and Unconstitutional for the Feds to do.

Just one other example is the Attempts to impose a Federal Speed limit. Back when they Fed Forced it to 55MPH. They had to do an end run around the Constitution to pull it off. They knew if they passed a law to impose a Federal Speed limit it would not stand up to legal scrutiny, as the Constitution does not allow for the Fed to do such a thing. So instead they threatened states with withholding Federal Highway Funding unless they complied with a 55MPH standard. Yet Another example of the Separation of powers and the Fed attempting to thwart them. Had they passed a law making a Federal Speed limit. It would have undoubtedly been ruled unconstitutional again because the Fed is not given the power to set the speed limits, it therefore is a power of the states.

All this might seem like nit picking to some, but our Founders were no to keen on every little decision in their lives being made by people Many miles away, that is why the Intended Division of powers between the Fed and States was so important to them. They understood that if they traded King George for a Strong Centralized Federal Government here in the US, all they would be doing is trading 1 Tyrant in England for a Bunch of Tyrants in DC. They wanted all but the most essential Things, like Defense, Kept at the most local level possible.
It should be constitutional to set speed limits on federal highways.

Is it constitutional for states to set speed limits against the wishes of cities?

:eusa_whistle:

btw...I don't think SCOTUS ever visited the speed limit problem.

You may or may not be right that it should be constitutional, but as it is written it is not. Only through the amendment process can and should that be changed. Personally I do not see the need for it. I am not sure why you think everything must be handled from DC. I think the states are perfectly able to determine how fast they want people to go on their roads. But then I think that may be the difference between you and me. I see value in The Division of power between the Many States and the Fed. You seem to not place much value in it at all. That is why people sometimes refer to people who think like you as Statists. Nothing to be ashamed of, just the facts. You believe the Fed should be omnipotent and have the Final say in just about every aspect of our lives from if we buy health insurance, to how fast we can drive. I think I would rather have people a little closer to home in charge of most things.

Not sure on your second question, I would assume that depends on the wording of each states constitution.

And as to the last, you are correct the SCOTUS never visited the speed limit question, because they never had to, Because the Fed did an end run around the Constitution and forced compliance with their Standard not with law, but with threats of withholding Federal Dollars.
I think it should, and is supposed to be handled, this way:

The people decide.
The city decides.
The county decides.
The state decides.
The fed decides.

The people being #1

If you can make a case that the state can set county and city speed limits then you can make a case that the federal government can do the same.

It isn't me that wants the power to be put in the hands of the federal government, rather it is you that wants it to be put in the hands of the state government. I prefer it to be in the hands of the people.

That said, the states, cities and counties cannot deny a right to any citizen guaranteed via the US constitution.
 
It should be constitutional to set speed limits on federal highways.

Is it constitutional for states to set speed limits against the wishes of cities?

:eusa_whistle:

btw...I don't think SCOTUS ever visited the speed limit problem.

You may or may not be right that it should be constitutional, but as it is written it is not. Only through the amendment process can and should that be changed. Personally I do not see the need for it. I am not sure why you think everything must be handled from DC. I think the states are perfectly able to determine how fast they want people to go on their roads. But then I think that may be the difference between you and me. I see value in The Division of power between the Many States and the Fed. You seem to not place much value in it at all. That is why people sometimes refer to people who think like you as Statists. Nothing to be ashamed of, just the facts. You believe the Fed should be omnipotent and have the Final say in just about every aspect of our lives from if we buy health insurance, to how fast we can drive. I think I would rather have people a little closer to home in charge of most things.

Not sure on your second question, I would assume that depends on the wording of each states constitution.

And as to the last, you are correct the SCOTUS never visited the speed limit question, because they never had to, Because the Fed did an end run around the Constitution and forced compliance with their Standard not with law, but with threats of withholding Federal Dollars.
I think it should, and is supposed to be handled, this way:

The people decide.
The city decides.
The county decides.
The state decides.
The fed decides.

The people being #1

If you can make a case that the state can set county and city speed limits then you can make a case that the federal government can do the same.

It isn't me that wants the power to be put in the hands of the federal government, rather it is you that wants it to be put in the hands of the state government. I prefer it to be in the hands of the people.

That said, the states, cities and counties cannot deny a right to any citizen guaranteed via the US constitution.

It's not about the speed limits or drinking age, it's about the money.

The Feds put together a big, fat welfare check to the State as highway funds with strings attached. If the State doesn't like the strings, it can turn down the cash anytime it wants. There's no obligation to suck Uncle Sam's teat, as our friends on the right often refer to it.

And yes, the State often does the same to municipalities.

Those are funding mandates, and I have no problem with those since participation is strictly voluntary. The fact that the States can refuse unwanted Federal money, keep their power over setting speed limits or setting the drinking age and not adhere to the Feds' conditions makes it perfectly legit.

It's a choice. It has nothing to do with infringing anyone's rights, :)
 
It's not about the speed limits or drinking age, it's about the money.

The Feds put together a big, fat welfare check to the State as highway funds with strings attached. If the State doesn't like the strings, it can turn down the cash anytime it wants. There's no obligation to suck Uncle Sam's teat, as our friends on the right often refer to it.

And yes, the State often does the same to municipalities.

Those are funding mandates, and I have no problem with those since participation is strictly voluntary. The fact that the States can refuse unwanted Federal money, keep their power over setting speed limits or setting the drinking age and not adhere to the Feds' conditions makes it perfectly legit.

It's a choice. It has nothing to do with infringing anyone's rights, :)

Well you should have a problem with it because in any business other than the government they'd be prosecuted for blackmail and extortion. Sure, they have the option of turning down the funding, but they don't have the option of preventing the government from taking that money out of their state in the first place, now do they. So, it's really not much of an option is it, being that highway maintenance is incredibly expensive. The feds take the state's money and say "if you want it back, do what we say." Sounds more like the Mafia to me. How does a reasonable person think this is a fair choice and have no problem with it?
 
Ame®icano;3245426 said:
I am not worried about constitutionality of the laws, or in another words, I think that SCOTUS got it right sooner or later.

I do worry about politicians that propose and/or vote in favour of laws which are later deemed to be unconstitutional. And even when SCOTUS decide on law unconstitutionality, they keep proposing and voting for the same laws...

"Lawmakers" like that should be expelled from office due to being unfit to uphold the given oath. Would that be unconstitutional?

There are some questions that are close enough that if the pols get it wrong, it doesn't bother me. If the lawmakers have one opinion and the courts another, but both have some reasonable basis I'm fine with that. That's what we have the courts for. I agree with you on the more blatant violations though. Sometimes I read these cases and think WTF were they smoking?

Local ordinances are the worst for that, usually. I can think of a few real winners that literally made me LOL when I read them. In one case, the same town tried to push through the same exact law three times, and each time it was shot down by the courts. Same law, same complaint, going to the same court, what did they think would happen? :cuckoo:

It actually became an important precedent concerning when the court is and is not bound by its own ruling on a closely related matter. I'll have to remember the name of the cases, it was in California somewhere...too funny.

Then again, most local town council members aren't elected for their constitutional expertise. I expect more from State and Federal level pols.

I red about Communications Decency Act that SCOTUS ruled as unconstitutional and just year later lawmakers pushed basically the same law under different name Child Online Protection Act. That law was also ruled unconstitutional but government appealed. over and over but SCOTUS stick to their decision.

How long before government try to ram the same, or similar legislation again even they know (do they) it's unconstitutional? I'm not talking just about law I mentioned above, but in general, all laws. Something is telling me they wont give up.
 
If it isn't unconstitutional at the state level it can't be unconstitutional at the federal level.

Ok, who wants to volunteer to explain to Ravi why her comment here is patently false and betrays an obvious ignorance about constitutionality vis-a-vis federal vs. state power limits?

I just don't have the energy right now.
Hey Doofus!

Look who agrees with my opinion...your hero's SG.

"The only prohibitions I can think of that this bumps up against -- the liberty clause is of the 14th and 15th amendment. If that is so, not only is Obamacare unconstitutional but then so is Romneycare in Massachusetts, and that is an example of an argument that proves too much," Fried said, referring to state health care reformed signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney.

Reagan Solicitor General Says Health Care Is Constitutional (VIDEO) | TPMDC

:lol:
 
If it isn't unconstitutional at the state level it can't be unconstitutional at the federal level.

Ok, who wants to volunteer to explain to Ravi why her comment here is patently false and betrays an obvious ignorance about constitutionality vis-a-vis federal vs. state power limits?

I just don't have the energy right now.
Hey Doofus!

Look who agrees with my opinion...your hero's SG.

"The only prohibitions I can think of that this bumps up against -- the liberty clause is of the 14th and 15th amendment. If that is so, not only is Obamacare unconstitutional but then so is Romneycare in Massachusetts, and that is an example of an argument that proves too much," Fried said, referring to state health care reformed signed by former Gov. Mitt Romney.

Reagan Solicitor General Says Health Care Is Constitutional (VIDEO) | TPMDC

:lol:

I can't tell if you're conceding or attempting to gloat.

But either way it's premature. This is just one man's opinion, just like mine, just like yours.

So I guess we'll have to see. ;)
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top