Constitutional ignorance on display

[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.

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.

I agree, but it is possible for a law to be unconstitutional on the federal level, but not unconstitutional for the states.

Even in regard to health care, is it very possible that the law will be deemed unconstitutional under the commerce clause, yet that ruling would not effect the constitutionality of the same program run by a 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.

I agree, but it is possible for a law to be unconstitutional on the federal level, but not unconstitutional for the states.

Even in regard to health care, is it very possible that the law will be deemed unconstitutional under the commerce clause, yet that ruling would not effect the constitutionality of the same program run by a state government.

That ruling, itself, ultimately will not address the states at all. So technically, no. Unless somebody pulls a rabbit out of their nether regions at the Supremies level, there are no issues here to affect the states and no state mandates would be overturned, addressed, mentioned, acknowledged or affected by this particular ruling.

But that doesn't mean state mandates would be constitutional either. Just that they weren't questioned this time around. Courts rule on the facts before them. Ideally, anyway.

If challenged, the States would still have to defend their own power to place and enforce the mandates under separate grounds that pertain to them.

I know it seems like I'm being picky and unnecessarily complicating things, but in the context of the questions raised in the subject of the OP it makes a difference.

 

[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).



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?

You mean disbanding the states from the union?
No Im not for it, but it will happen in time.,
I do support stronger states, smaller fed.
The trough feeding is sickening.

 

[Valerie]

I know it seems like I'm being picky and unnecessarily complicating things, but in the context of the questions raised in the subject of the OP it makes a difference.

I think you did an awesome job of delineating the whole thing...

 

[Valerie]

This does not mean that I am not still looking forward to seeing Yurt's briefs.

 

[goldcatt]

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?

You mean disbanding the states from the union?
No Im not for it, but it will happen in time.,
I do support stronger states, smaller fed.
The trough feeding is sickening.

I meant the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to apply to the States, via the 14th.

I do agree there is an imbalance in some areas where the powers of the Feds and states are concerned. Unfunded mandates in particular drive me up a wall, as does in some ways the expansion of the commerce clause. It's one of the few areas where I actually agree with Scalia, in particular his two-tiered analysis laid out in his concurrence to Gonzales.

But there's a difference between adjusting the balance and going back to the Bill of Rights not applying to the States at all. I don't care which level of government does it, there are certain liberties that should not be encroached on by government at all. Not if we want to maintain even the illusion of individual liberty or government by consent of the governed.

 

[goldcatt]

This does not mean that I am not still looking forward to seeing Yurt's briefs.

I say pics or it didn't happen.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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

I take it you favor reversing incorporation? Why?

You mean disbanding the states from the union?
No Im not for it, but it will happen in time.,
I do support stronger states, smaller fed.
The trough feeding is sickening.

I meant the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to apply to the States, via the 14th.

I do agree there is an imbalance in some areas where the powers of the Feds and states are concerned. Unfunded mandates in particular drive me up a wall, as does in some ways the expansion of the commerce clause. It's one of the few areas where I actually agree with Scalia, in particular his two-tiered analysis laid out in his concurrence to Gonzales.

But there's a difference between adjusting the balance and going back to the Bill of Rights not applying to the States at all. I don't care which level of government does it, there are certain liberties that should not be encroached on by government at all. Not if we want to maintain even the illusion of individual liberty or government by consent of the governed.

Without it states would revert to tyrannies and gulags.

 

[Ravi]

This does not mean that I am not still looking forward to seeing Yurt's briefs.

I say pics or it didn't happen.

 

[goldcatt]

You mean disbanding the states from the union?
No Im not for it, but it will happen in time.,
I do support stronger states, smaller fed.
The trough feeding is sickening.

I meant the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to apply to the States, via the 14th.

I do agree there is an imbalance in some areas where the powers of the Feds and states are concerned. Unfunded mandates in particular drive me up a wall, as does in some ways the expansion of the commerce clause. It's one of the few areas where I actually agree with Scalia, in particular his two-tiered analysis laid out in his concurrence to Gonzales.

But there's a difference between adjusting the balance and going back to the Bill of Rights not applying to the States at all. I don't care which level of government does it, there are certain liberties that should not be encroached on by government at all. Not if we want to maintain even the illusion of individual liberty or government by consent of the governed.

Without it states would revert to tyrannies and gulags.

That can and would also happen with states, just at 50 different paces. Power corrupts, the level matters not. The eight years under the Articles of Confederation and the late 18th and early 19th centuries prior to the Civil War amendments is proof of that.

Viewing state power as an assumed "right" and Federal power as a limited "power" is the problem.

Both are limited powers that must be granted in order for the entity to act. Power is and has always been balanced three ways, that's how it's designed to function. And the powers of government at all levels are limited, both some powers and all rights belong to the people.

 

[manifold]

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.

You keep mentioning this point, which I complete agree with, but I haven't seen anyone actually make the claim you are implicitly refuting.

Yes, it doesn't automatically make it okay for the states AND also doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional for the states.

And the bolded part is exactly the ignorance Ravi put on display that is referenced in the OP. She claimed that it does automatically make it unconstitutional for the states which is a false statement.

 

[manifold]

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

Exactly. It depends.

Which of course means that your black & white assertion that if Obamacare is found unconstitutional then Romneycare must also be, is no guarantee.

Glad you finally saw the light and I accept your gracious concession.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

You keep mentioning this point, which I complete agree with, but I haven't seen anyone actually make the claim you are implicitly refuting.

Yes, it doesn't automatically make it okay for the states AND also doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional for the states.

And the bolded part is exactly the ignorance Ravi put on display that is referenced in the OP. She claimed that it does automatically make it unconstitutional for the states which is a false statement.

She was referring to something completely different, as well you know - or should. She only explained it half a dozen times or so on this thread. And as far as her argument, she was correct. It simply wasn't applicable to the health care debate going on now.

As far as yours, if you weren't taking a so-called "States Rights" position I have no idea what you were talking about. But since you really haven't been part of the discussion, it was more answering Ravi's and others' questions and explaining how constitutionality operates in that respect - not relating to whatever it is you were trying to say other than to point out it's extremely vague and, as far as I can tell, not relevant to the context of the issues in health care mandates either.

IOW, you weren't involved so we left you behind.

Words have very specific meanings in legal parlance. Vagueness leads to colossal misunderstandings and people talking waaaay past each other. True story.

 

[manifold]

Ok, whatever you say.

But the bottom line is that we all agree that it's theoretically possible for the USSC to strike down Obamacare without necessarily striking down Romneycare in Massachusetts.

And that is really the ONLY point i've been trying to illustrate. Perhaps I did a poor job or perhaps the partisan hacks were being intentionally obtuse. Either way, we got it sorted out.

 

[goldcatt]

Ok, whatever you say.

But the bottom line is that we all agree that it's theoretically possible for the USSC to strike down Obamacare without necessarily striking down Romneycare in Massachusetts.

And that is really the ONLY point i've been trying to illustrate. Perhaps I did a poor job or perhaps the partisan hacks were being intentionally obtuse. Either way, we got it sorted out.

Yep, you did a piss poor job of it.

Chalk it up to language.

But if that's all you were trying to say, then it's not just possible - it's the way it's going to happen. The parties have no standing to even bring it into the discussion.

Happy?

 

[Ravi]

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

Exactly. It depends.

Which of course means that your black & white assertion that if Obamacare is found unconstitutional then Romneycare must also be, is no guarantee.

Glad you finally saw the light and I accept your gracious concession.

Ah, but it would depend on if anyone challenged a state's ability to do so.

You still fail.

But thanks for playing.

 

[Ame®icano]

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?

 

[goldcatt]

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?

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.

 

[manifold]

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

Exactly. It depends.

Which of course means that your black & white assertion that if Obamacare is found unconstitutional then Romneycare must also be, is no guarantee.

Glad you finally saw the light and I accept your gracious concession.

Ah, but it would depend on if anyone challenged a state's ability to do so.

I never said otherwise.

You still fail.

But thanks for playing, I enjoyed your meltdown.

 

[Ravi]

Exactly. It depends.

Which of course means that your black & white assertion that if Obamacare is found unconstitutional then Romneycare must also be, is no guarantee.

Glad you finally saw the light and I accept your gracious concession.

Ah, but it would depend on if anyone challenged a state's ability to do so.

I never said otherwise.

You still fail.

But thanks for playing, I enjoyed your meltdown.

I never said Romneycare must also be found unconstitutional.

Tissue?