Have the Democrats even Read the Constitution?

[M14 Shooter]

I found a good example of congress exercising such power. When they passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.

Yes - something obviously related to Interstate commerce.
How does that relate to prohibiting the state regulation of a medical procedure within that state?

Keep in mind that the interstate commerce clause does not give the federal government the power to prohibit the states from regulating traffic, even on interstate highways.

 

[postman]

The Supremacy clause is irrelevant when Congress does not have the power to enact the law in question.
Thus:
Nothing in Article I of the Constitution (which defines Congress' powers) even hints at such powers resting with Congress. Is it the Interstate Commerce Clause? Nothing.

As I pointed out, congress used the same authority to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.

In October 2005, Bush signed PLCAA into law. It blocked any lawsuit seeking damages from the industry for the unlawful use of a gun.

What is uncommon about PLCAA, however, is that it provides blanket immunity to an industry... Never before had Congress granted a single industry such extensive legal protection.

A Guide to the Gun Industry's Unique Legal Protections

The federal law called PLCAA provides legal immunity to gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers.

www.thetrace.org

 

[BackAgain]

Doesn’t matter. If they read it, they never understood it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I pointed out, congress used the same authority to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA.

That's nice.
How is it relevant?
How does that relate to prohibiting the state regulation of a medical procedure within that state?
Keep in mind that the interstate commerce clause does not give the federal government the power to prohibit the states from regulating traffic, even on interstate highways.

 

[postman]

Yes - something obviously related to Interstate commerce.
How does that relate to prohibiting the state regulation of a medical procedure within that state?

You should read Scalia, in the upholding of the federal law against marijuana. That makes it illegal for someone in California (that legalized marijuana) from growing it in California, NOT selling it, and using it purely within California.
Where the marijuana didn't travel interstate, nor was it sold (commerce), yet as goes back to Miller V US, it still a constitutional use of the interstate commerce clause.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You should read Scalia, in the upholding of the federal law against marijuana.

That's nice.
How is it relevant?
How does that relate to prohibiting the state regulation of a medical procedure within that state?
Keep in mind that the interstate commerce clause does not give the federal government the power to prohibit the states from regulating traffic, even on interstate highways.

 

[postman]

Keep in mind that the interstate commerce clause does not give the federal government the power to prohibit the states from regulating traffic, even on interstate highways.

Actually it does. Please note that states are prohibited from enacting their own regulations that contrast those of the federal government. Whether that's the size of lanes, or the types, colors, etc of signs used on them. That they can only use signs that comport with federal regulation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually it does.

Now you're just lying.
And thus, now you're gone.

 

[postman]

That's nice.
How is it relevant?
How does that relate to prohibiting the state regulation of a medical procedure within that state?

It upheld Miller V US, which said that congresses power to regulate interstate commerce, only has to indirectly effect interstate commerce. Even if it doesn't actually involve either interstate movement of goods, or commerce of such goods.

That an activity purely within a state, is still interstate, if people can travel outside the state for the same service. Hence if they didn't get it inside the state, they would be invoking interstate commerce, to get it outside the state.

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit. You called Bush W an illegitimate President. You called Trump an illegitimate President. Every time there's a recount for a close election, democrats seem to find more votes. Get the hell out of here.

I did nothing of the kind

What I did was say that neither Bush or Trump represented the Will of the people

 

[postman]

Now you're just lying.
And thus, now you're gone.

We saw this when one state tried to honor the police by painting the yellow lane dividers with blue in honor of the men in blue. The federal government forced them to paint them yellow, according to federal regulations.

Blue Lines on Streets to Honor Police Run Afoul of Federal Regulators

The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) has prohibited local municipalities from painting a blue line down the middle of streets near police stations. State and local governments are pushing back, saying the prohibition "defies common sense."

www.planetizen.com

Blue Lines on Streets to Honor Police Run Afoul of Federal Regulators
The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) has prohibited local municipalities from painting a blue line down the middle of streets near police stations.

But a blue marking that runs between a double-yellow line does not comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways and is a traffic hazard, Federal Highway Administration Director Mark Kehrli said in a December letter to Somerset County’s engineer. Blue markings are reserved for designating handicap parking spaces, he said.

The FHA's stance on the issue has provoked a response from state and federal lawmakers. "State Assemblymen Erik Peterson, R-Hunterdon, and Jon Bramnick, R-Union, on Tuesday sponsored a resolution petitioning the federal government to allow blue lines between double yellow stripes near municipal buildings.

Federal regulation has supremacy over state or local regulation on streets and highways.

So yes. The federal government through interstate commerce regulates what the states can do, even on their own roads.

 

[postman]

Keep in mind that the interstate commerce clause does not give the federal government the power to prohibit the states from regulating traffic, even on interstate highways.

Actually it does.

Now you're just lying.
And thus, now you're gone.

See my post how federal highway laws overrule state and local

Blue Lines on Streets to Honor Police Run Afoul of Federal Regulators

The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) has prohibited local municipalities from painting a blue line down the middle of streets near police stations. State and local governments are pushing back, saying the prohibition "defies common sense."

www.planetizen.com

 

[BS Filter]

Oh yes. Al Franken vs Coleman in Minnesota. Senate election. Where it went to he Michigan supreme court, where Coleman was behind, and after the lawsuits and the appeals, Frankens lead just kept getting bigger.

Compare to Florida 2000, where Bush v Gore, the more they counted, the more Bush's lead kept getting smaller.

Also happened in Washington. Gee, what a coincidence.

 

[BS Filter]

I did nothing of the kind

What I did was say that neither Bush or Trump represented the Will of the people

So why do you hate the Constitution?

 

[postman]

Also happened in Washington. Gee, what a coincidence.

That's because recounts take into accounts, votes which aren't normally counted because the election isn't close enough for it to make a difference.

Absentee ballots are often not counted until days after the election is over (up to 2 weeks for military and overseas ballots) So they don't even finish counting them for two weeks after election day.

If there are 1,000 absentee votes, and a victory margin of 2,000 votes. No matter how those absentee votes go, it wouldn't change the outcome. So the victory can be certified without having to wait two weeks.

But in a close election, those 1,000 absentee ballots get counted (waiting the two weeks for all of them to show up) Hence why the vote counts change in a recount.
\

 

[BS Filter]

That's because recounts take into accounts, votes which aren't normally counted because the election isn't close enough for it to make a difference.

Absentee ballots are often not counted until days after the election is over (up to 2 weeks for military and overseas ballots) So they don't even finish counting them for two weeks after election day.

If there are 1,000 absentee votes, and a victory margin of 2,000 votes. No matter how those absentee votes go, it wouldn't change the outcome. So the victory can be certified without having to wait two weeks.

But in a close election, those 1,000 absentee ballots get counted (waiting the two weeks for all of them to show up) Hence why the vote counts change in a recount.
\

And they always favor democrats. Gee, what a coincidence.

 

[postman]

So why do you hate the Constitution?

Why do you hate the will of the people?

What happened to wanting the president to have a mandate (support of the people).

 

[postman]

And they always favor democrats. Gee, what a coincidence.

I guess more democrats end up out of the country on election day than republicans.

 

[BS Filter]

Why do you hate the will of the people?

What happened to wanting the president to have a mandate (support of the people).

Tell me something; When the President of the United States takes the oath of office, do they swear allegiance to the will of the people or the Constitution? Get the fuck out of here.

 

[BS Filter]

I guess more democrats end up out of the country on election day than republicans.

Oh yeah, yup, uh huh, yes, that must be it, gee I never thought about that..