pharmacist have 1st Amendment right to refuse to dispense Plan B

[Quantum Windbag]

the fed does regulate it in the manner i previously described. it just does not regulate every aspect of it. it regulates the age, and BAC limit by witholding federal highway dollars for road maintenance. Thus states would rather comply than lose those funds.

this is just one example. the fed also regulates transportation and shipping between states. every see a diesel rig with DOT sticker? that means they are regulated by the federal government. it provides consistency.

You can get a drivers license at 14 in some states, and can legally drive at 12 as long as you stay off highways and public roads. There is no federal oversight of driver's licenses. The drunk driving thing has nothing to do with drivers licenses.

you can get a permit at 14 in some states but not a license, the only state i could find that an age of 15 was acceptable was montana. and these licenses came with huge restrictions as to appease the fed.

Too late, you just through your dignity under the bus.

Driver's license in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

ANd you're wrong again. What a shock.

The feds only have regulations for speed limits and BAC on interstate highways, which are actually "owned" by the federal government even though each state takes care of that that is located in their own states as far as maintenance and policing. IOW the feds don't know nor care what each state is doing in regards to speed limits on state highways and they don't help fund maintaining them either.

look it up again. i didnt say they regulated everything. they regulated part.
see what happens if a state decides to making the legal driving age 14. or wants to make the BAC minimum .10, or wants to allow people to drink while a passenger in a motor vehicle. youre federal funding will be pulled so fast you wont know what hit you.

this proves my point.
Federal requirements for driver's licenses a costly headache for states
"The Real ID Act sets minimum security standards for state IDs, a response to the fact that several Sept. 11 hijackers had U.S. driver's licenses, some of them fraudulent. But the act was tacked onto a military appropriations bill, and critics say it was passed with little debate by Congress and no input from the states, which will wind up footing 99 percent of a very big bill."
and before you go into the see federal regulation costs money, that is not part of the debate here. (oh and Bush signed this into to law when he had a change to veto it and he didnt)

REAL ID is about making it harder to make fake IDs, not about the requirements for actually getting a drivers license. You are seriously loosing this debate, stop while you still have some dignity.

No kidding. He just keeps moving the argument as he gets beat on topic after topic.

 

[Syphon]

look it up again. i didnt say they regulated everything. they regulated part.
see what happens if a state decides to making the legal driving age 14. or wants to make the BAC minimum .10, or wants to allow people to drink while a passenger in a motor vehicle. youre federal funding will be pulled so fast you wont know what hit you.

this proves my point.
Federal requirements for driver's licenses a costly headache for states
"The Real ID Act sets minimum security standards for state IDs, a response to the fact that several Sept. 11 hijackers had U.S. driver's licenses, some of them fraudulent. But the act was tacked onto a military appropriations bill, and critics say it was passed with little debate by Congress and no input from the states, which will wind up footing 99 percent of a very big bill."
and before you go into the see federal regulation costs money, that is not part of the debate here. (oh and Bush signed this into to law when he had a change to veto it and he didnt)

REAL ID is about making it harder to make fake IDs, not about the requirements for actually getting a drivers license. You are seriously loosing this debate, stop while you still have some dignity.

No kidding. He just keeps moving the argument as he gets beat on topic after topic.

how am i moving the argument? i have maintained the federal government is involved in regulations drivers licenses. i have never claimed that they set all the standards. so you cite wikipedia as your evidence, yet anyone can go on wikipedia and create a page?

how are BAC standards set? by the Fed.
President Clinton recently endorsed a national blood alcohol content (BAC) standard for drunk driving. The new standard, .08 percent, is being pushed by advocacy organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. If approved by the House of Representatives—it passed the Senate March 4 by a wide margin—Nevada and 34 other states will face a choice between lowering their present .10 percent limits or potentially losing federal highway funds. A broad coalition of opponents, from civil libertarians to lobbyists for the restaurant and beverage industries, have coalesced to fight this latest proposed federal mandate. Herewith, an examination of the BAC debate.
The Rationale
A tougher BAC limit, proponents argue, will result in fewer drunk-driving fatalities. "We know that .08 percent laws alone will not win the war on drunk driving," said Karolyn Nunnallee, national president of MADD, "but we also know that we surely will not win the war unless we start making .08 percent the law of the land." Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who co-authored the BAC bill with Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, asserts "A national standard of .08 percent will save at least 500 lives a year and prevent devastating injuries to thousands more, all without infringing upon the right of anyone to drink socially and responsibly." Lautenberg and his allies base their claims on a study which compared states that lowered their BAC limits with nearby states that did not. Author Ralph Hingson concluded that a national .08 percent standard would save as many as 600 lives each year.

The Federal DUI Mandate: A Step BAC >> Nevada Policy Research Institute

 

[Texanmike]

So here's the real problem with 99% of the people in this thread's views. Why in the hell are we advocating running to the federal government and having them babysit the states? Why is this a federal issue? This is a state issue. I'll say this, to the right:

You watch. If this goes to the SCOTUS and IF you get the ruling you want (which is motivated by a social/religious issue) you will see this ruling blow up in your face at some point. At some point a SCJ will refer back to this very case and decide that the federal government should define the role between you and your doctor. They will also determine that the 1st amendment does apply to the states and what little room your state has in the protection of your religious freedom from the federal government.

To the left:

It is the same thing when YOU run to the federal government and demand they get involved. You are seeing the other side of it. If you don't live in Wa then let Wa residents do as they will do and if you do then either vote to change it or move.

You see. Nobody is happy. Why can't there be states where it is legal and states where it is not? Why do you all demand one size fits all? 49% of the country approves and 49% disapproves with the ramaining 2% deciding it. You are, by default, determining that 49% will be unhappy when you do a one size fits all solution.

If you get your way on the plan b pill then you lose your fight in gay marriage. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS. If you get your way on gay marriage then you lose your fight on this pill. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS.

Mike

To the idiots like Mike. The federal government is not involved, the judicial branch is doing its job by preventing the state government from infringing on people's rights. This is not a states right issue, it is an issue of individual rights.

The federal government is certainly involved. It is a FEDERAL district court. Start reading your own links, it will help you from being wrong so often.

It is not doing its job, it is extending beyond its authority.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Your beliefs are unfounded and your logic is faulty. The only thing that you stand on is hearsay and a few articles written by journalists and professors... People like you are the problem. I agree with your sentiment that the pharmacist should be able to decline to sell whatever they want but I don't live in that state and as a result my opinion, just like yours, means jack shit.

And I don't expect you to read what I have said. You, like so many, are not here to study, you are, as your name implies here to blow hot air. You do that very well.

Now go read the 11th amendment, which prohibits the federal courts from hearing a suit between citizens of one state against another state. You really believe that they have the power to get involved? Only through case law precedent can the powers be extended.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

So here's the real problem with 99% of the people in this thread's views. Why in the hell are we advocating running to the federal government and having them babysit the states? Why is this a federal issue? This is a state issue. I'll say this, to the right:

You watch. If this goes to the SCOTUS and IF you get the ruling you want (which is motivated by a social/religious issue) you will see this ruling blow up in your face at some point. At some point a SCJ will refer back to this very case and decide that the federal government should define the role between you and your doctor. They will also determine that the 1st amendment does apply to the states and what little room your state has in the protection of your religious freedom from the federal government.

To the left:

It is the same thing when YOU run to the federal government and demand they get involved. You are seeing the other side of it. If you don't live in Wa then let Wa residents do as they will do and if you do then either vote to change it or move.

You see. Nobody is happy. Why can't there be states where it is legal and states where it is not? Why do you all demand one size fits all? 49% of the country approves and 49% disapproves with the ramaining 2% deciding it. You are, by default, determining that 49% will be unhappy when you do a one size fits all solution.

If you get your way on the plan b pill then you lose your fight in gay marriage. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS. If you get your way on gay marriage then you lose your fight on this pill. UNIVERSAL POLICY SUCKS.

Mike

To the idiots like Mike. The federal government is not involved, the judicial branch is doing its job by preventing the state government from infringing on people's rights. This is not a states right issue, it is an issue of individual rights.

the reason things are controlled at the federal level is so that there are uniformity and consistency across state lines. this is why we are called the United States. Lets use the example of Europe, which with the establishment of the EU made things uniform across country lines to promote trade. this was modeled after the US. as we move good and services across state line. the commerce clause allows for the fed to regulate those good and services. if we did not have uniformity with interstate products, the states would need to have individual agreements with other states, and thus would not have to honor certain states laws or regulations. what if say the DMV was returned to the state level. and california had one standard and nevada had another. to be even more specific, ca driving age was 18 and NV was 16. would california be forced to accept nevada law?

If I gave you an issue to read about, would you do it? Seriously. I want to just give you a reference, you do the research and tell me what conclusion you come to about the Commerce Clause. There is a very specific reason the commerce clause was inserted into the Constitution. Commerce does not mean goods and services either, which is the entire problem. Look up the Potomac Company.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

Actually, my point is that normally, the conservative wing nuts would be making exactly that argument if we were talking about, for example, an employee complaining about their employer not providing birth control coverage as part of their health care coverage, or pretty much any other scenario. But now, when the argument goes against the ideology, people want to insist it's no longer valid. Either it's always valid, or never valid. Validity of an argument does not change based on subject matter.

No they wouldn't, but nice try.

Really? Because that's exactly what has been said by some in the thread about the gay judge who refuses to perform wedding ceremonies for straight couples.

I've been reading that thread as well and as far as I can remember, I am the only conservative that has participated in both threads and my position has been the same in both threads. Edit: I suppose I should clarify this statement as there may be more than one of those threads. The one I have been reading was started by del and here is a link to it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/209769-gay-dallas-judge-wont-perform-straight-marriages.html

There were other conservatives participating in that thread who had opinions differing from mine though.

Can you please tell me which conservatives you are talking about who participated in both? I'm not saying that you are wrong yet, just that I don't recall a conservative besides myself participating in both threads.

My position: The judge has the right not to perform marriages and if her employers think that she should perform them, then they have the right to remove her from the bench.

The pharmacist has the right not to dispense Plan B. If he is an employee of the Pharmacy then his employer has the right to decide whether or not to continue to employ him.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No they wouldn't, but nice try.

Really? Because that's exactly what has been said by some in the thread about the gay judge who refuses to perform wedding ceremonies for straight couples.

I've been reading that thread as well and as far as I can remember, I am the only conservative that has participated in both threads and my position has been the same in both threads. Edit: I suppose I should clarify this statement as there may be more than one of those threads. The one I have been reading was started by del and here is a link to it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/209769-gay-dallas-judge-wont-perform-straight-marriages.html

There were other conservatives participating in that thread who had opinions differing from mine though.

Can you please tell me which conservatives you are talking about who participated in both? I'm not saying that you are wrong yet, just that I don't recall a conservative besides myself participating in both threads.

My position: The judge has the right not to perform marriages and if her employers think that she should perform them, then they have the right to remove her from the bench.

The pharmacist has the right not to dispense Plan B. If he is an employee of the Pharmacy then his employer has the right to decide whether or not to continue to employ him.

Immie

Damn, identical to my position.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Really? Because that's exactly what has been said by some in the thread about the gay judge who refuses to perform wedding ceremonies for straight couples.

I've been reading that thread as well and as far as I can remember, I am the only conservative that has participated in both threads and my position has been the same in both threads. Edit: I suppose I should clarify this statement as there may be more than one of those threads. The one I have been reading was started by del and here is a link to it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/209769-gay-dallas-judge-wont-perform-straight-marriages.html

There were other conservatives participating in that thread who had opinions differing from mine though.

Can you please tell me which conservatives you are talking about who participated in both? I'm not saying that you are wrong yet, just that I don't recall a conservative besides myself participating in both threads.

My position: The judge has the right not to perform marriages and if her employers think that she should perform them, then they have the right to remove her from the bench.

The pharmacist has the right not to dispense Plan B. If he is an employee of the Pharmacy then his employer has the right to decide whether or not to continue to employ him.

Immie

Damn, identical to my position.

Ditto for me as well. And I'm in both threads as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The federal government is certainly involved. It is a FEDERAL district court. Start reading your own links, it will help you from being wrong so often.

That is really amusing coming from you. Did you miss the part where I said the federal court was doing its job?

It is not doing its job, it is extending beyond its authority.

Oops, I guess not, you just ignored what it meant. Good job.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Good cut and paste, too bad you missed Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Notice how the part you just quoted applies to the Supreme Court and outlines it constitutional powers. As such it doesn't apply to the federal appellate court system. If you want to site the constitutional authority for appellate courts you need Article 1 Section 8, which says, in part:

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

When Congress created the federal appellate courts and gave them the power to review state laws. That is completely constitutional, something you would know without me explaining it if you actually knew anything about the constitution.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Your beliefs are unfounded and your logic is faulty. The only thing that you stand on is hearsay and a few articles written by journalists and professors... People like you are the problem. I agree with your sentiment that the pharmacist should be able to decline to sell whatever they want but I don't live in that state and as a result my opinion, just like yours, means jack shit.

This coming from a guy that just cited the wrong part of the constitution to make his point. Want to try again?

And I don't expect you to read what I have said. You, like so many, are not here to study, you are, as your name implies here to blow hot air. You do that very well.

My name does not mention hot air in any way, shape, or form. If you actually posted anything that was accurate and/or educational I would learn from it. Even though you don't I think I just proved I actually read your posts. If I didn't I wouldn't be able to point out what you get wrong, would I?

Now go read the 11th amendment, which prohibits the federal courts from hearing a suit between citizens of one state against another state. You really believe that they have the power to get involved? Only through case law precedent can the powers be extended.

Mike

Can you explain how this involves the citizens of another state suing the state of Washington? If not, why mention the 11th at all?

 

[Texanmike]

The federal government is certainly involved. It is a FEDERAL district court. Start reading your own links, it will help you from being wrong so often.

That is really amusing coming from you. Did you miss the part where I said the federal court was doing its job?

It is not doing its job, it is extending beyond its authority.

Oops, I guess not, you just ignored what it meant. Good job.



Good cut and paste, too bad you missed Section 1.



Notice how the part you just quoted applies to the Supreme Court and outlines it constitutional powers. As such it doesn't apply to the federal appellate court system. If you want to site the constitutional authority for appellate courts you need Article 1 Section 8, which says, in part:



When Congress created the federal appellate courts and gave them the power to review state laws. That is completely constitutional, something you would know without me explaining it if you actually knew anything about the constitution.



This coming from a guy that just cited the wrong part of the constitution to make his point. Want to try again?

And I don't expect you to read what I have said. You, like so many, are not here to study, you are, as your name implies here to blow hot air. You do that very well.

My name does not mention hot air in any way, shape, or form. If you actually posted anything that was accurate and/or educational I would learn from it. Even though you don't I think I just proved I actually read your posts. If I didn't I wouldn't be able to point out what you get wrong, would I?

Now go read the 11th amendment, which prohibits the federal courts from hearing a suit between citizens of one state against another state. You really believe that they have the power to get involved? Only through case law precedent can the powers be extended.

Mike

Can you explain how this involves the citizens of another state suing the state of Washington? If not, why mention the 11th at all?

What? You are making no sense. Congress has the authority to establish inferior courts. We weren't arguing that. We were arguing whether or not the federal government (which includes the Judicial branch) has the authority in this case. I didn't need to cite section 1 because that explains the structure of the Judicial branch.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

So the Judicial branch of the government is made up of SCOTUS and inferior courts as congress (who is given authority in article 1 section 8) shall authorize.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The judicial power (defined in section 1) shall extend to all of the circumstances described in section 2.

There, it is all quoted. Article 1 section 8 is redundant. They still fall under the Judicial branch of the government. Section 2 lays out what the court has jurisdiction over. That is what is up for debate here. This case should NOT have been heard by a federal court. Of course you don't know any of this because once again, you have done no research you are merely parroting what somebody else told you. Read article II sections 1 and 2 and tell me what gives them the authority to hear this case, period.

Just highlight and tell me how that applies. I'm dying to see this.

Again, you have no interest in reading the document itself for what it is, you merely want to make it say what you want it to say.

I included the 11th amendment to demonstrate that the federal government does not have absolute power in the judicial branch. If it did then the 11th wouldn't exist and section 2 would read "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in the United States".



Mike

 

[Texanmike]

No they wouldn't, but nice try.

Really? Because that's exactly what has been said by some in the thread about the gay judge who refuses to perform wedding ceremonies for straight couples.

I've been reading that thread as well and as far as I can remember, I am the only conservative that has participated in both threads and my position has been the same in both threads. Edit: I suppose I should clarify this statement as there may be more than one of those threads. The one I have been reading was started by del and here is a link to it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/209769-gay-dallas-judge-wont-perform-straight-marriages.html

There were other conservatives participating in that thread who had opinions differing from mine though.

Can you please tell me which conservatives you are talking about who participated in both? I'm not saying that you are wrong yet, just that I don't recall a conservative besides myself participating in both threads.

My position: The judge has the right not to perform marriages and if her employers think that she should perform them, then they have the right to remove her from the bench.

The pharmacist has the right not to dispense Plan B. If he is an employee of the Pharmacy then his employer has the right to decide whether or not to continue to employ him.

Immie

My position: Well it is clearly stated in this thread. It is a State issue. In the other thread? It is a county (maybe a state) issue. We don't really have enough information to make the call in the other thread.

Mike

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Really? Because that's exactly what has been said by some in the thread about the gay judge who refuses to perform wedding ceremonies for straight couples.

I've been reading that thread as well and as far as I can remember, I am the only conservative that has participated in both threads and my position has been the same in both threads. Edit: I suppose I should clarify this statement as there may be more than one of those threads. The one I have been reading was started by del and here is a link to it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/209769-gay-dallas-judge-wont-perform-straight-marriages.html

There were other conservatives participating in that thread who had opinions differing from mine though.

Can you please tell me which conservatives you are talking about who participated in both? I'm not saying that you are wrong yet, just that I don't recall a conservative besides myself participating in both threads.

My position: The judge has the right not to perform marriages and if her employers think that she should perform them, then they have the right to remove her from the bench.

The pharmacist has the right not to dispense Plan B. If he is an employee of the Pharmacy then his employer has the right to decide whether or not to continue to employ him.

Immie

My position: Well it is clearly stated in this thread. It is a State issue. In the other thread? It is a county (maybe a state) issue. We don't really have enough information to make the call in the other thread.

Mike

Why do you believe that anything not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states?

This is NOT a state issue. The state of California can no more tell you what products you may sell than the the country of USA can.

 

[Texanmike]

I've been reading that thread as well and as far as I can remember, I am the only conservative that has participated in both threads and my position has been the same in both threads. Edit: I suppose I should clarify this statement as there may be more than one of those threads. The one I have been reading was started by del and here is a link to it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/209769-gay-dallas-judge-wont-perform-straight-marriages.html

There were other conservatives participating in that thread who had opinions differing from mine though.

Can you please tell me which conservatives you are talking about who participated in both? I'm not saying that you are wrong yet, just that I don't recall a conservative besides myself participating in both threads.

My position: The judge has the right not to perform marriages and if her employers think that she should perform them, then they have the right to remove her from the bench.

The pharmacist has the right not to dispense Plan B. If he is an employee of the Pharmacy then his employer has the right to decide whether or not to continue to employ him.

Immie

My position: Well it is clearly stated in this thread. It is a State issue. In the other thread? It is a county (maybe a state) issue. We don't really have enough information to make the call in the other thread.

Mike

Why do you believe that anything not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states?

This is NOT a state issue. The state of California can no more tell you what products you may sell than the the country of USA can.

Sure they can. The Tenth Amendment makes that clear. Even if you try to encompass the commerce clause, that says among the states. That wording was specifically chosen as a result of the Potomac river dispute.

Fireworks for example. Guns. Cars. There are probably thousands of items that states regulate that.

Mike

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

My position: Well it is clearly stated in this thread. It is a State issue. In the other thread? It is a county (maybe a state) issue. We don't really have enough information to make the call in the other thread.

Mike

Why do you believe that anything not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states?

This is NOT a state issue. The state of California can no more tell you what products you may sell than the the country of USA can.

Sure they can. The Tenth Amendment makes that clear. Even if you try to encompass the commerce clause, that says among the states. That wording was specifically chosen as a result of the Potomac river dispute.

Fireworks for example. Guns. Cars. There are probably thousands of items that states regulate that.

Mike

Again I ask, WHY are you saying that something is a state issue simply by virtue of not being a federal issue? And we are not talking about illegal or controlled items. We're simply talking about the concept of forcing a business to sell an item.

Oh and read the 10th it states that rights belong to one of three groups, the feds, the states, and the people themselves.

THIS is certainly an individual right.

 

[saveliberty]

Many liberals simply refuse to consider individual rights.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Many liberals simply refuse to consider individual rights.

Oh, I believe Mike claims to be a conservative so let's not pretend that that particular problem is only with liberals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The federal government is certainly involved. It is a FEDERAL district court. Start reading your own links, it will help you from being wrong so often.

That is really amusing coming from you. Did you miss the part where I said the federal court was doing its job?



Oops, I guess not, you just ignored what it meant. Good job.



Good cut and paste, too bad you missed Section 1.



Notice how the part you just quoted applies to the Supreme Court and outlines it constitutional powers. As such it doesn't apply to the federal appellate court system. If you want to site the constitutional authority for appellate courts you need Article 1 Section 8, which says, in part:



When Congress created the federal appellate courts and gave them the power to review state laws. That is completely constitutional, something you would know without me explaining it if you actually knew anything about the constitution.



This coming from a guy that just cited the wrong part of the constitution to make his point. Want to try again?



My name does not mention hot air in any way, shape, or form. If you actually posted anything that was accurate and/or educational I would learn from it. Even though you don't I think I just proved I actually read your posts. If I didn't I wouldn't be able to point out what you get wrong, would I?



Can you explain how this involves the citizens of another state suing the state of Washington? If not, why mention the 11th at all?

What? You are making no sense. Congress has the authority to establish inferior courts. We weren't arguing that. We were arguing whether or not the federal government (which includes the Judicial branch) has the authority in this case. I didn't need to cite section 1 because that explains the structure of the Judicial branch.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

So the Judicial branch of the government is made up of SCOTUS and inferior courts as congress (who is given authority in article 1 section 8) shall authorize.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The judicial power (defined in section 1) shall extend to all of the circumstances described in section 2.

There, it is all quoted. Article 1 section 8 is redundant. They still fall under the Judicial branch of the government. Section 2 lays out what the court has jurisdiction over. That is what is up for debate here. This case should NOT have been heard by a federal court. Of course you don't know any of this because once again, you have done no research you are merely parroting what somebody else told you. Read article II sections 1 and 2 and tell me what gives them the authority to hear this case, period.

Just highlight and tell me how that applies. I'm dying to see this.

Again, you have no interest in reading the document itself for what it is, you merely want to make it say what you want it to say.

I included the 11th amendment to demonstrate that the federal government does not have absolute power in the judicial branch. If it did then the 11th wouldn't exist and section 2 would read "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in the United States".



Mike

Can you point out anywhere I said that the courts have absolute power? Or where I even implied that the government has it? Article two lays out what the court has original jurisdiction over. Congress has the power to assign appellate jurisdiction to anyone it wants, and it delegated it to the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. It also has the power to expand the federal court original jurisdiction to things not mentioned in the constitution, like reviewing federal and state laws. Believe it or not, it also has the power to strip the courts jurisdiction from those areas if it wants.

 

[Texanmike]

Why do you believe that anything not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states?

This is NOT a state issue. The state of California can no more tell you what products you may sell than the the country of USA can.

Sure they can. The Tenth Amendment makes that clear. Even if you try to encompass the commerce clause, that says among the states. That wording was specifically chosen as a result of the Potomac river dispute.

Fireworks for example. Guns. Cars. There are probably thousands of items that states regulate that.

Mike

Again I ask, WHY are you saying that something is a state issue simply by virtue of not being a federal issue? And we are not talking about illegal or controlled items. We're simply talking about the concept of forcing a business to sell an item.

Oh and read the 10th it states that rights belong to one of three groups, the feds, the states, and the people themselves.

THIS is certainly an individual right.

Interesting. I'm going to set off a firestorm, I'm sure, when I say this. It does not prohibit it to the states. The people of the state have made a decision. They elected representatives who made this law.

Now look, if there weren't a law on the books (and I don't agree with the law) then this would be a non-issue.

I agree that it is an individual choice but it is not a right. And it was left to the people. The people collectively ceded that authority to the State. There is not a law that requires Catholics to sell this, it requires pharmacists to do it. It is your choice to be a pharmacist. Not only that but it is your choice to be a pharmacist in Wa. There are rules associated with that. Elect people who will change the law or move.

Mike

 

[Syphon]

To the idiots like Mike. The federal government is not involved, the judicial branch is doing its job by preventing the state government from infringing on people's rights. This is not a states right issue, it is an issue of individual rights.

the reason things are controlled at the federal level is so that there are uniformity and consistency across state lines. this is why we are called the United States. Lets use the example of Europe, which with the establishment of the EU made things uniform across country lines to promote trade. this was modeled after the US. as we move good and services across state line. the commerce clause allows for the fed to regulate those good and services. if we did not have uniformity with interstate products, the states would need to have individual agreements with other states, and thus would not have to honor certain states laws or regulations. what if say the DMV was returned to the state level. and california had one standard and nevada had another. to be even more specific, ca driving age was 18 and NV was 16. would california be forced to accept nevada law?

If I gave you an issue to read about, would you do it? Seriously. I want to just give you a reference, you do the research and tell me what conclusion you come to about the Commerce Clause. There is a very specific reason the commerce clause was inserted into the Constitution. Commerce does not mean goods and services either, which is the entire problem. Look up the Potomac Company.

Mike

what exactly is your definition of commerce then?
according to websters dictionary. Commerce is defined as (2) the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
Commerce - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

a commodity is defined as
(1) A raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.
(1) A useful or valuable thing, such as water or time.

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators[who?] have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is not uncommon to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: The Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[1] and the Indian Commerce Clause.
Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

how does the 10th amendment apply in overruling the commerce clause? the 10th amendment reads: 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.

not sure why you want me to look at a mergers and acquisitions company, but they provide a service. thus if they provide that service in several states they can be regulated under the commerce clause. if they only operate in one state, then the commerce clause would not apply.

 

[Texanmike]

That is really amusing coming from you. Did you miss the part where I said the federal court was doing its job?



Oops, I guess not, you just ignored what it meant. Good job.



Good cut and paste, too bad you missed Section 1.



Notice how the part you just quoted applies to the Supreme Court and outlines it constitutional powers. As such it doesn't apply to the federal appellate court system. If you want to site the constitutional authority for appellate courts you need Article 1 Section 8, which says, in part:



When Congress created the federal appellate courts and gave them the power to review state laws. That is completely constitutional, something you would know without me explaining it if you actually knew anything about the constitution.



This coming from a guy that just cited the wrong part of the constitution to make his point. Want to try again?



My name does not mention hot air in any way, shape, or form. If you actually posted anything that was accurate and/or educational I would learn from it. Even though you don't I think I just proved I actually read your posts. If I didn't I wouldn't be able to point out what you get wrong, would I?



Can you explain how this involves the citizens of another state suing the state of Washington? If not, why mention the 11th at all?

What? You are making no sense. Congress has the authority to establish inferior courts. We weren't arguing that. We were arguing whether or not the federal government (which includes the Judicial branch) has the authority in this case. I didn't need to cite section 1 because that explains the structure of the Judicial branch.

So the Judicial branch of the government is made up of SCOTUS and inferior courts as congress (who is given authority in article 1 section 8) shall authorize.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The judicial power (defined in section 1) shall extend to all of the circumstances described in section 2.

There, it is all quoted. Article 1 section 8 is redundant. They still fall under the Judicial branch of the government. Section 2 lays out what the court has jurisdiction over. That is what is up for debate here. This case should NOT have been heard by a federal court. Of course you don't know any of this because once again, you have done no research you are merely parroting what somebody else told you. Read article II sections 1 and 2 and tell me what gives them the authority to hear this case, period.

Just highlight and tell me how that applies. I'm dying to see this.

Again, you have no interest in reading the document itself for what it is, you merely want to make it say what you want it to say.

I included the 11th amendment to demonstrate that the federal government does not have absolute power in the judicial branch. If it did then the 11th wouldn't exist and section 2 would read "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in the United States".



Mike

Can you point out anywhere I said that the courts have absolute power? Or where I even implied that the government has it? Article two lays out what the court has original jurisdiction over. Congress has the power to assign appellate jurisdiction to anyone it wants, and it delegated it to the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. It also has the power to expand the federal court original jurisdiction to things not mentioned in the constitution, like reviewing federal and state laws. Believe it or not, it also has the power to strip the courts jurisdiction from those areas if it wants.

If the bolded is the case then it does have unlimited power. If Congress may grant authority to the courts that is not defined by the Constitution (which is by definition unconstitutional) then the federal government has absolute power. I see nowhere that says that Congress may assign any additional Jurisdiction. In fact, the reason I brought up the 11th Amendment was that the Marshall (I think, I'll look it up) court went outside the boundaries described in Section 2 and so congress wrote passed and the states ratified an amendment to put SCOTUS in check. Unfortunately Marshall did what he did and found another loophole.

Where do you find the authority for Congress to redefine the Judicial branch of the federal government's authority without amending the Constitution? Don't quote some SCJ, give me where in the Constitution it says that. I've read it thousands of times and never seen it.

Mike