Constitutional ignorance on display

[manifold]

Yes to did Ravi.

You were clearly wrong, at least academically anyway.

It's a real shame you've gotten to a place where you can no longer admit when you make a mistake.

Tissue?

 

[Ravi]

Yes to did Ravi.

You were clearly wrong, at least academically anyway.

It's a real shame you've gotten to a place where you can no longer admit when you make a mistake.

Tissue?

"Yes to did"????????????? The snot must be leaking onto your fingers...dry your tears.

 

[manifold]

That's what I get for trying to multi-task.

regardless, you were shown to be wrong but you're not a big enough person to admit it.

Too bad. I knew you when you were.

 

[manifold]

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

I never said Romneycare must also be found unconstitutional.

 

[Ravi]

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

I never said Romneycare must also be found unconstitutional.

You are purposely misunderstanding me. It is my belief that if Romney care is not unconstitutional at at state level it isn't unconstitutional at a federal level.

That doesn't mean it must be found unconstitutional or constitutional or ever even be ruled upon. It very well may be that Massholes enjoy their Romneycare and no one will ever move against it. In other words, it could be unconstitutional and still be the law of the land. Kind of like slavery was for so many years.

 

[manifold]

You are purposely misunderstanding me. It is my belief that if Romney care is not unconstitutional at at state level it isn't unconstitutional at a federal level.

That doesn't mean it must be found unconstitutional or constitutional or ever even be ruled upon. It very well may be that Massholes enjoy their Romneycare and no one will ever move against it. In other words, it could be unconstitutional and still be the law of the land. Kind of like slavery was for so many years.

I assure you I'm not purposely misunderstanding you. When I do that it's usually obvious and always in jest.

My only point all along was that it is possible (at least theoretically) for something to be deemed unconstitutional at the federal level but not the state level. And I interpretted your comments as insisting that this is not possible.

 

[Ravi]

You are purposely misunderstanding me. It is my belief that if Romney care is not unconstitutional at at state level it isn't unconstitutional at a federal level.

That doesn't mean it must be found unconstitutional or constitutional or ever even be ruled upon. It very well may be that Massholes enjoy their Romneycare and no one will ever move against it. In other words, it could be unconstitutional and still be the law of the land. Kind of like slavery was for so many years.

I assure you I'm not purposely misunderstanding you. When I do that it's usually obvious and always in jest.

My only point all along was that it is possible (at least theoretically) for something to be deemed unconstitutional at the federal level but not the state level. And I interpretted your comments as insisting that this is not possible.

I don't know how to explain it any clear than I did in the post you just replied to...

 

[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

Please...my main point is that the state cannot deny a federally protected right
.

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

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

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.

 

[manifold]

You are purposely misunderstanding me. It is my belief that if Romney care is not unconstitutional at at state level it isn't unconstitutional at a federal level.

That doesn't mean it must be found unconstitutional or constitutional or ever even be ruled upon. It very well may be that Massholes enjoy their Romneycare and no one will ever move against it. In other words, it could be unconstitutional and still be the law of the land. Kind of like slavery was for so many years.

I assure you I'm not purposely misunderstanding you. When I do that it's usually obvious and always in jest.

My only point all along was that it is possible (at least theoretically) for something to be deemed unconstitutional at the federal level but not the state level. And I interpretted your comments as insisting that this is not possible.

I don't know how to explain it any clear than I did in the post you just replied to...

I get it now.

But as CM pointed out, this is different from what you initially stated.

No worries, we got it worked out in the end.

 

[Avatar4321]

The very fact that people don't understand this issue says alot about the sorry state of education in this country.

 

[goldcatt]

The very fact that people don't understand this issue says alot about the sorry state of education in this country.

A lot of people don't understand it. And just as many people think they do, but they're wrong.

There should be a mandatory class in high school - basic constitutional concepts. Just the basics.

But then there would be all kinds of hooting and hollering over whose idea of what should be taught....and most of the parents yelling about indoctrinating their kids wouldn't understand it themselves....and after the inevitable cave under pressure we're back to square one.

*sigh*

 

[signelect]

The constitution is more dependent on who is sitting on the Supreme Court and what is right and it has always been that way. When we say it is unconstitutional we are saying we don't agree, don't know why but it has to be the constitution.

Government right now makes no sense but the thing to remember is that government is making laws that apply to us, the voters, not to them. Does anyone have a problem with that????

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

In theory that's the way it's supposed to work, but I would argue that today we have become servants of them.

 

[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
.

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

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

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?



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

 

[Ravi]

There should be a mandatory class in high school -

Would that be constitutional?

 

[Ravi]

I assure you I'm not purposely misunderstanding you. When I do that it's usually obvious and always in jest.

My only point all along was that it is possible (at least theoretically) for something to be deemed unconstitutional at the federal level but not the state level. And I interpretted your comments as insisting that this is not possible.

I don't know how to explain it any clear than I did in the post you just replied to...

I get it now.

But as CM pointed out, this is different from what you initially stated.

No worries, we got it worked out in the end.

My bad...I didn't realize that I needed to label my opinions as opinions. I'll try to watch that in the future.

 

[goldcatt]

There should be a mandatory class in high school -

Would that be constitutional?

Here's a story for you. No kidding.

When I was in high school it was mandatory to have a basic civics class and then another class they called Problems of Democracy, which was supposed to be a sort of more advanced civics/constitutional issues and history kind of thing. The teacher was one of those whacked out types who spent most of the class time up front railing against the government and lecturing on why the CIA killed JFK.

Our only grade in the class came from every person in it having to memorize and recite one of the Federalist Papers. Most of the class didn't even know what they were or why they were important, but we had to know one by heart. Truly screwed up.

That's about what a lot of these classes would turn into if they were taught, I think. Teachers here at least aren't trained in it, the ones who volunteer would have some sort of agenda, parents who disagreed with that agenda would bitch, and it would be a joke.

But it's constitutional.

 

[manifold]

I don't know how to explain it any clear than I did in the post you just replied to...

I get it now.

But as CM pointed out, this is different from what you initially stated.

No worries, we got it worked out in the end.

My bad...I didn't realize that I needed to label my opinions as opinions. I'll try to watch that in the future.

You can borrow my sig-line, I won't even charge you any royalties.

 

[Charles_Main]

Please...my main point is that the state cannot deny a federally protected right
.

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

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

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?



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.

 

[manifold]

The Fed did the same end-around on the drinking age. Vermont held out the longest, but eventually capitulated and raised it from 18 to 21.