Constitutional ignorance on display

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I think they will, too...after all, income tax is constitutional no matter how people pretend that it isn't.

The income tax is legal because the Constitution was amended in 1913 to allow for it. It's the 16th Amendment. Prior to that, it was illegal. When you hear people today say it's illegal they are referring to a conspiracy theory that the 16th Amendment was never actually ratified by 2/3 of the states.

I'm sleepy so I will think about what you've said. But just because an amendment is put forth and ratified doesn't mean that it was a needed amendment.

In the case of the income tax an amendment was needed because it was illegal under Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution which reads "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The SCOTUS struck down the income tax as unconstitutional twice prior to the 16th Amendment.

 

[Yurt]

can we all agree manifold is an ignorant tool for calling out ravi as the reason for making this thread....

[X] yes

[ ] no

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

In here somewhere.
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.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

 

[goldcatt]

In here somewhere.
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.

The 10th. (I cant believe I wrote the 9th - ouch!)

But then the question becomes.....which ones go to the States, and which ones left to the People? It doesn't exactly spell it out. That's for us, or rather the courts, to decide. And some of those decisions have been prickly. I don't even want to bring up the most obvious perennial favorite.

That big "A" tends to derail threads faster than anything.

 

[Valerie]

In here somewhere.
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.

All encompassing covering of all bases from the inside out...

 

[goldcatt]

can we all agree manifold is an ignorant tool for calling out ravi as the reason for making this thread....

[X] yes

[ ] no

I think mani was looking for an oversimplified answer to a complicated question.

No, it wasn't worth a call out. But it's been cool to have a thread that's lasted this long and nobody told anybody to fuck off or kiss their ass or anything.

Poor mani might be disappointed.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

In here somewhere.
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.

The 9th.

But then the question becomes.....which ones go to the States, and which ones left to the People? It doesn't exactly spell it out. That's for us, or rather the courts, to decide. And some of those decisions have been prickly. I don't even want to bring up the most obvious perennial favorite.

That big "A" tends to derail threads faster than anything.

To me it put limits on unlimited federal power Thought some people are interested in that.
What states can and cant do is up to the prisoners of each state.

 

[goldcatt]

In here somewhere.
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.

The 9th.

But then the question becomes.....which ones go to the States, and which ones left to the People? It doesn't exactly spell it out. That's for us, or rather the courts, to decide. And some of those decisions have been prickly. I don't even want to bring up the most obvious perennial favorite.

That big "A" tends to derail threads faster than anything.

To me it put limits on unlimited federal power Thought some people are interested in that.
What states can and cant do is up to the prisoners of each state.

Good luck with that. The reservation of unenumerated rights and powers to the people is in both the 9th and 10th for a reason.

Not that I;m criticizing or anything, but it would have saved us all a lot of trouble and head scratching if they'd been just a *little* more specific about it.

 

[Charles_Main]

It's entirely possible that the USSC could rule that the federal government does not have the authority to impose a mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional. This would not automatically mean that states cannot impose such a mandate.

I thought that was obvious.

I think you are incorrect. If SCOTUS said that the feds couldn't outlaw weed then the states couldn't either.

You are so confused my dear. Just because the Court says the Feds can not do something does not mean that states can not do it.

You are failing to understand the fundamental Design of our Government. Powers not given to the Feds often fall to the states. Just because the SCOTUS says the Federal Government can not do something. Does not mean state governments can not do it.

You are really displaying a complete and total lack of understanding of our government.

 

[Missourian]

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

Lawyers...they make things so complicated.

The Supreme Court could decide that the Federal Government does not have the authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution to enforce a mandate and punitive tax. Federally Unconstitutional.

A State Government Healthcare plan does not depend on an interstate commerce clause, because they are only regulating intrastate commerce.

Therefore, what is Constitutional for a state could be Unconstitutional for the Federal Government.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I would think understanding original intent could be best discovered with the federalist papers in this case 44. But maybe not.
Federalist Papers Index
Ask me about Islam and jihad .

 

[Avatar4321]

The explanation is fairly simple.

The Federal government is a government of limited jurisdiction. It may only legislate in the areas proscribed by the Constitution. Any power not explicitly granted to the Federal Government remains in the states.

The states can do a hell of a lot that is unconstitutional at the Federal level. Because the states are granted general police powers. They are only limited their own constitutions and the Federal Constitution in a few isolated places.

Heck, the Bill of Rights wasn't even binding to the States until after the Civil war amendments. They could regulate speech.

 

[Charles_Main]

I find her ignorance of our Federal Republic government to be willful myself. She is a far lefty who clearly thinks we should have an all powerful Federal Government. In her mind the states are just servants of the fed anyways.

Of course those of us who know the truth, understand that states rights is not just rallying cry for Racists, it is also an important part of our System of government.

This willful ignorance of the intended Balance of power Not only between the branches of the Federal Government, but between the Fed and the states Ravi displays is Very typical of lefties/Statists

 

[jgarden]

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.

Governments do lots of things they know are unconstitutional, in the full knowledge that it will take years before they are ever held accountable by the US Supreme Court.

By that time, those involved expect to have reaped the political benefits and moved on to "greener pastures" - leaving it to somebody else to cleanup their "mess!"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

She's saying if it is NOT UNconstitutional at the state level, meaning if it IS constitutional at the state level, then it can not be unconstitutional at the federal level...

That would be an incorrect statement. There are many things that are done at the state level that are unconstitutional at the federal level.

All elements of a state constitution are required to be federally constitutional...

Can you give an example of one of these many things that are done at the state level which are unconstitutional at the federal level so I can understand what you mean...?

The Federal Constitution allows only for those powers delineated ( enumerated) in the Constitution. Leaving all other powers to the States or the people. State Constitutions may have powers enumerated that are NOT enumerated at the Federal level.

 

[goldcatt]

Look, it's all academic until the USSC says it isn't.

And the fact remains that Obamacare is precedent setting in that it's the first federal mandate to purchase anything. And if the USSC rules that this is unconstitutional, not because it violates rights, but because it's not a power granted to the federal government by the Constitution, then it wouldn't strike down Romneycare. If on the other hand they say it's a violation of individual rights, then yes, that would also strike down Romneycare.

I wouldn't necessarily bet on either, both both are still academically reasonable and plausible.

No, both are not plausible. There are no issues of individual rights on the table and preserved for appeal in the one case where the mandate has been found unconstitutional. So this scenario is incorrect, as far as possible outcomes for what's in the pipeline. You're making the same mistake Ravi did, just in the opposite direction.

There were two main arguments, States' Rights and the 10th, which failed, and commerce, which succeeded at trial. Nobody argued individual rights, only government powers.

So technically no, there is no way this specific case can overturn Masscare.

EDIT: I should say there's no plausible and reasonable scenario under which it could happen, under the Rules of Appellate Procedure and the arguments that are preserved and can be made. But there is always the slim outside chance the Supremies could cook up their own that has nothing to do with the arguments presented. You just never know what those old squirrels will do sometimes. But that was more a feature of the Rehnquist court, the Roberts court has pretty much played straight so far. Face it mani, it's a 19th Century fight between lords and lords - nobody gives a shit abut us serfs.

 

[Ravi]

I find her ignorance of our Federal Republic government to be willful myself. She is a far lefty who clearly thinks we should have an all powerful Federal Government. In her mind the states are just servants of the fed anyways.

Of course those of us who know the truth, understand that states rights is not just rallying cry for Racists, it is also an important part of our System of government.

This willful ignorance of the intended Balance of power Not only between the branches of the Federal Government, but between the Fed and the states Ravi displays is Very typical of lefties/Statists

Please...my main point is that the state cannot deny a federally protected right...why anyone would argue against that point is a mystery to me.

The state and fed are servants of the people...we the people.

 

[goldcatt]

It's entirely possible that the USSC could rule that the federal government does not have the authority to impose a mandate that everyone must purchase health insurance, and therefore Obamacare is unconstitutional. This would not automatically mean that states cannot impose such a mandate.

I thought that was obvious.

I think you are incorrect. If SCOTUS said that the feds couldn't outlaw weed then the states couldn't either.

You are so confused my dear. Just because the Court says the Feds can not do something does not mean that states can not do it.

You are failing to understand the fundamental Design of our Government. Powers not given to the Feds often fall to the states. Just because the SCOTUS says the Federal Government can not do something. Does not mean state governments can not do it.

You are really displaying a complete and total lack of understanding of our government.

As are you. Because you fail to apply context or distinguish between grounds, particularly in the marijuana debate which is the hypothetical Ravi brought up and to which you responded. There are multiple issues involved with that debate, some of them limited to the Feds (see Gonzales) and some of which are individual rights that are incorporated to the States, meaning it is not a State power either. It is reserved to the people.

It does not automatically follow that, simply because the Feds can't do something, the States can. While there are portions of the constitution that do not apply to the States, there are many portions that do. It was made that way in order to keep the States from trampling on the rights and powers reserved to the people, as they had a track record of doing in contempt of the pre-existing P&I Clause.

Nor do you take into consideration the fact jillian and others pointed out, that state constitutions exist, and in areas of civil rights (those pesky things that get in the way of state tyranny - remember?) they are allowed to provide higher levels of individual protection than the Federal COTUS does. The COTUS is merely the mandatory minimum as far as civil liberties, not the maximum. And the effect of a law found unconstitutional at the State level is the same within its jurisdiction as one found unconstitutional under the COTUS. Often while it must be litigated separately under separate grounds the theory is remarkably similar to that at the Federal level.

What you put out as a bright line rule is simply much more complicated and fact specific than you want us to believe, and would depend on the specific Federal constitutional grounds followed by the separate State constitutional grounds. Which is exactly how the system of government is set up to function.

 

[goldcatt]

I find her ignorance of our Federal Republic government to be willful myself. She is a far lefty who clearly thinks we should have an all powerful Federal Government. In her mind the states are just servants of the fed anyways.

Of course those of us who know the truth, understand that states rights is not just rallying cry for Racists, it is also an important part of our System of government.

This willful ignorance of the intended Balance of power Not only between the branches of the Federal Government, but between the Fed and the states Ravi displays is Very typical of lefties/Statists

Please...my main point is that the state cannot deny a federally protected right...why anyone would argue against that point is a mystery to me.

The state and fed are servants of the people...we the people.

He's a Tenther, Ravi. In their estimation, generally only the half of the 9th and 10th giving power to the States is relevant. The part about reserving rights and powers to the people is window dressing at worst, and at best you would have your say in your rights and powers only at the voting booth - and the State governments would decide who is and is not allowed to vote.

That's liberty.

 

[manifold]

Please...my main point is that the state cannot deny a federally protected right...why anyone would argue against that point is a mystery to me.

Nobody argued any such thing. That was just your strawman rising again.

But fortunately, you were able to pig-stick it and take it down like you always do.

Well done.