Constitutional ignorance on display

[manifold]

I can't decide if Goldcatt is being intentionally obtuse, or if he/she is really that ignorant.

I don't really have a fix on G's posting history, but this one sure does paint a clearly partisan picture.

 

[Ravi]

Here is the original set of posts that led to mani's meltdown (and believe me, he is melting down behind the scenes).

I've always had a thing for Mitten's hair so I wouldn't mind seeing him run.

Yet he came up with Obamacare before Obama did so I doubt he is a viable candidate...unless MA healthcare is a smashing success.

True, but at the state level mandatory insurance isn't unconstitutional.

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

But how IS mitten's healthcare plan working out, overall?

Again, if the federal government cannot mandate a limiting action, then neither can a state government. Am I wrong on this?

 

[manifold]

A sure sign that Ravi know's she's been pwned when she starts flinging allegations of meltdowns.

 

[Ravi]

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.

I guess you didn't read Charles Main's post.

 

[Ravi]

A sure sign that Ravi know's she's been pwned when she starts flinging allegations of meltdowns.

Why don't you explain to us how the state can mandate a limiting action that the federal government cannot?

 

[goldcatt]

Here is the original set of posts that led to mani's meltdown (and believe me, he is melting down behind the scenes).

True, but at the state level mandatory insurance isn't unconstitutional.

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

But how IS mitten's healthcare plan working out, overall?

Again, if the federal government cannot mandate a limiting action, then neither can a state government. Am I wrong on this?

It's hard to say exactly, because you're both using vague, nonspecific language for a complicated and technical analysis. You were actually talking about two different things as far as I can tell. Ravi is talking about individual rights and mani is talking about state powers, two sides of the issue, but neither of you in ways that actually apply to the context.

In the one case actually in the pipeline where there was a finding that the health care mandate is unconstitutional, no. There is no issue of individual rights that would apply to the states. Nor is there a credible 10th Amendment States Powers argument being made that falls into the Court's analysis.

And there is no indication a mandate would be automatically constitutional at the state level, depending on the mandate and the state. It's fundamentally different in a legal sense from other insurance mandates, such as car insurance, because it's not incident to a separate state privilege.

I get what both of you are saying, but the fact is neither one is always true or even really applicable to the context.

Then you have the ideological position coloring the perceptions, which complicates things when there is no distinction between "is" and "should".

I know us lawyers are bad about complicating things, but its not without good reason.

 

[Ravi]

Here is the original set of posts that led to mani's meltdown (and believe me, he is melting down behind the scenes).

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

But how IS mitten's healthcare plan working out, overall?

Again, if the federal government cannot mandate a limiting action, then neither can a state government. Am I wrong on this?

It's hard to say exactly, because you're both using vague, nonspecific language for a complicated and technical analysis. You were actually talking about two different things as far as I can tell. Ravi is talking about individual rights and mani is talking about state powers, two sides of the issue, but neither of you in ways that actually apply to the context.

In the one case actually in the pipeline where there was a finding that the health care mandate is unconstitutional, no. There is no issue of individual rights that would apply to the states. Nor is there a credible 10th Amendment States Powers argument being made that falls into the Court's analysis.

And there is no indication a mandate would be automatically constitutional at the state level, depending on the mandate and the state. It's fundamentally different in a legal sense from other insurance mandates, such as car insurance, because it's not incident to a separate state privilege.

I get what both of you are saying, but the fact is neither one is always true or even really applicable to the context.

Then you have the ideological position coloring the perceptions, which complicates things when there is no distinction between "is" and "should".

I know us lawyers are bad about complicating things, but its not without good reason.

In other words, the answer is, "it depends."

 

[goldcatt]

Here is the original set of posts that led to mani's meltdown (and believe me, he is melting down behind the scenes).



Again, if the federal government cannot mandate a limiting action, then neither can a state government. Am I wrong on this?

It's hard to say exactly, because you're both using vague, nonspecific language for a complicated and technical analysis. You were actually talking about two different things as far as I can tell. Ravi is talking about individual rights and mani is talking about state powers, two sides of the issue, but neither of you in ways that actually apply to the context.

In the one case actually in the pipeline where there was a finding that the health care mandate is unconstitutional, no. There is no issue of individual rights that would apply to the states. Nor is there a credible 10th Amendment States Powers argument being made that falls into the Court's analysis.

And there is no indication a mandate would be automatically constitutional at the state level, depending on the mandate and the state. It's fundamentally different in a legal sense from other insurance mandates, such as car insurance, because it's not incident to a separate state privilege.

I get what both of you are saying, but the fact is neither one is always true or even really applicable to the context.

Then you have the ideological position coloring the perceptions, which complicates things when there is no distinction between "is" and "should".

I know us lawyers are bad about complicating things, but its not without good reason.

In other words, the answer is, "it depends."

Yep. On all that stuff we were talking about earlier, plus the facts of the case before the court.

I know it gets complicated. But as far as it goes, you were right. If the issue were civil rights or an individual liberty reserved to the people, neither the states nor the Feds could do it.

If the issue were States Powers, then a finding that the Feds can't do it would in most cases automatically give the states the power to do it.

The way the analysis is shaping up and will be decided one way or the other, finding the Feds can't do it won't address whether the states can or not. It'll still be wide open as to whether it is a power granted to the states or reserved to the people.

Which means....it depends.

 

[Ravi]

Great thread: lots of information and a manifold epic fail all rolled into one.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Here is the original set of posts that led to mani's meltdown (and believe me, he is melting down behind the scenes).

True, but at the state level mandatory insurance isn't unconstitutional.

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

But how IS mitten's healthcare plan working out, overall?

Again, if the federal government cannot mandate a limiting action, then neither can a state government. Am I wrong on this?

Some states used to have state religions , as the power of the federal government grew that was deemed unconstitutional an encroachment on states rights .

 

[goldcatt]

Here is the original set of posts that led to mani's meltdown (and believe me, he is melting down behind the scenes).

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

But how IS mitten's healthcare plan working out, overall?

Again, if the federal government cannot mandate a limiting action, then neither can a state government. Am I wrong on this?

Some states used to have state religions , as the power of the federal government grew that was deemed unconstitutional an encroachment on states rights .

First, states are governmental entities. Governments have no rights, only powers.

I take it you favor reversing incorporation? Why?

 

[Ravi]

Here is the original set of posts that led to mani's meltdown (and believe me, he is melting down behind the scenes).

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

But how IS mitten's healthcare plan working out, overall?

Again, if the federal government cannot mandate a limiting action, then neither can a state government. Am I wrong on this?

Some states used to have state religions , as the power of the federal government grew that was deemed unconstitutional an encroachment on states rights .

There is no state right to enforce a state religion. Every person is free to choose his or her own religion.

 

[Two Thumbs]

W/o really knowing the details of the conversation.

States have the right to have thier own constitutions, and laws.

I say states rights over rides federal ones, but since Lincoln that hasn't been the case.

 

[goldcatt]

Here is the original set of posts that led to mani's meltdown (and believe me, he is melting down behind the scenes).



Again, if the federal government cannot mandate a limiting action, then neither can a state government. Am I wrong on this?

Some states used to have state religions , as the power of the federal government grew that was deemed unconstitutional an encroachment on states rights .

There is no state right to enforce a state religion. Every person is free to choose his or her own religion.

At one time that wasn't true. The Bill of Rights is worded to only apply to the Feds, via Congress. "Congress shall make no law...."

So before the 14th and incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights to the States, the states were arguably free to ignore any and all rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and many did.

The P&I Clause in Article 4 was simply not strong enough to override the wording in the Amendments. After the 14th was ratified, most of the Bill of Rights was incorporated or applied to the states through its P&I clause.

Absent that incorporation, depending on where you live you'll be back to state churches, warrantless searches and seizures, trials without a jury and restrictions on speech and assembly. Welcome to early 19th Century America.

 

[Ravi]

Some states used to have state religions , as the power of the federal government grew that was deemed unconstitutional an encroachment on states rights .

There is no state right to enforce a state religion. Every person is free to choose his or her own religion.

At one time that wasn't true. The Bill of Rights is worded to only apply to the Feds, via Congress. "Congress shall make no law...."

So before the 14th and incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights to the States, the states were arguably free to ignore any and all rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and many did.

The P&I Clause in Article 6 was simply not strong enough to override the wording in the Amendments. After the 14th was ratified, most of the Bill of Rights was incorporated or applied to the states through its P&I clause.

Absent that incorporation, depending on where you live you'll be back to state churches, warrantless searches and seizures, trials without a jury and restrictions on speech and assembly. Welcome to early 19th Century America.

I understand your point...however, I do believe that the spirit of the DOI and the constitution forbids such things...even at the time when it was legal for states to do.

There is no self determination when a government entity decides for you.

 

[goldcatt]

There is no state right to enforce a state religion. Every person is free to choose his or her own religion.

At one time that wasn't true. The Bill of Rights is worded to only apply to the Feds, via Congress. "Congress shall make no law...."

So before the 14th and incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights to the States, the states were arguably free to ignore any and all rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and many did.

The P&I Clause in Article 6 was simply not strong enough to override the wording in the Amendments. After the 14th was ratified, most of the Bill of Rights was incorporated or applied to the states through its P&I clause.

Absent that incorporation, depending on where you live you'll be back to state churches, warrantless searches and seizures, trials without a jury and restrictions on speech and assembly. Welcome to early 19th Century America.

I understand your point...however, I do believe that the spirit of the DOI and the constitution forbids such things...even at the time when it was legal for states to do.

There is no self determination when a government entity decides for you.

There is a clause in Article 4 Section 2 of the original constitution stating basically what the 14th does, that the states cannot deny their citizens the privileges and immunities of the citizens of all other states. What it failed to do is what was fixed in Section 1 of the 14th, which is guarantee the citizens of each state the privileges and immunities granted at the Federal level.

Because the Bill of Rights was worded to apply to the Federal level (and several other things including the 19th Century feudal battle over who retained primary power over the people and purse and the hangover from the Alien and Sedition Acts), the P&I clause was interpreted as meaningless when it came to things like free speech or religion or protection from unreasonable search and seizures. The wording was strict, the Bill of Rights is Federal in nature and P&I only applied to the States.

So you had laws like those which established state churches. And those which made any gathering of two or more people in public to voice a political opinion a "criminal conspiracy". The list goes on and on. 19th Century America, depending where you lived, could be an ugly place as far as individual liberties.

There were many who disagreed, and I agree with you. The existence of the P&I Clause in Article 4 shows the intent for those rights to apply to the States. But it took a separate Amendment to fix the language so it would be read that way.

That's what the amendment process is for. To fix these little goofs.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Marbury v. Madison; the Supreme Court decided on the issue of constitutionality. If a law is deemed Unconstitutional it is on any level (local, state, federal) unconstitutional.
State law can never supersede federal law.
When the Supreme Court found the death penalty unconstitutional is was outlawed throughout the land; if a state outlawed capital punishment, it would only apply in that state.

 

[Missourian]

I think a lot of the problem in this thread is the thinking of Constitutionality as only applying to the Bill of Rights as a function of Individual Rights versus Federal Powers.

States have powers that are denied the Federal Government.

I study mostly 2nd Amendment cases, so that is the example that comes to mind.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandated local background checks as a prerequisite to a firearm purchase.

In Printz v. U.S., that provision was deemed unconstitutional. The Federal Government had overstepped it's authority by compelling state law enforcement to execute federal law.

So, a federally mandated local background check is unconstitutional.

But that in no way inhibits the states from enacting laws that require local background checks.

Unconstitutional for the Federal Government, Constitutional for the State Government.

 

[goldcatt]

I think a lot of the problem in this thread is the thinking of Constitutionality as only applying to the Bill of Rights as a function of Individual Rights versus Federal Powers.

States have powers that are denied the Federal Government.

I study mostly 2nd Amendment cases, so that is the example that comes to mind.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandated local background checks as a prerequisite to a firearm purchase.

In Printz v. U.S., that provision was deemed unconstitutional. The Federal Government had overstepped it's authority by compelling state law enforcement to execute federal law.

So, a federally mandated local background check is unconstitutional.

But that in no way inhibits the states from enacting laws that require local background checks.

Unconstitutional for the Federal Government, Constitutional for the State Government.

Yes...and no.

There are a lot of things the States can do that the Feds can't, true. But merely finding that the Feds lack the power to do something, absent any further finding, does not mean it's automatically okay for the states. There is still the question of whether it is a power of the states or a right reserved to the people.

In the case of Printz, it was made clear that it is, in fact, a state power. So your analysis there is correct. But in the question before the courts in the context of the thread's OP, the health care mandate, whether the states have the power to enact or enforce them is not part of the analysis. So the question of whether the States have separate grounds to mandate a purchase that is not tied to a separate State privilege would still be undecided.

A subtle distinction, but an important one. Power is balanced throughout the system three ways. The three branches of government, and the three levels of Federal, State and People. Knocking out one still leaves the question of the other two, unless clearly indicated otherwise.

 

[Valerie]

I think a lot of the problem in this thread is the thinking of Constitutionality as only applying to the Bill of Rights as a function of Individual Rights versus Federal Powers.

States have powers that are denied the Federal Government.

I study mostly 2nd Amendment cases, so that is the example that comes to mind.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandated local background checks as a prerequisite to a firearm purchase.

In Printz v. U.S., that provision was deemed unconstitutional. The Federal Government had overstepped it's authority by compelling state law enforcement to execute federal law.

So, a federally mandated local background check is unconstitutional.

But that in no way inhibits the states from enacting laws that require local background checks.

Unconstitutional for the Federal Government, Constitutional for the State Government.

Yes, I think much of the confusion stems from the wording and what it literally means to be "unconstitutional"...Because technically the Constitution itself spells out that whatever powers are not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people, BUT it also stipulates that these things must not be otherwise prohibited by the Constitution...In other words, as long as it's not otherwise unconstitutional.




The Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia