States Rights

[tonystewart1]

Now in the case of interstate commerce, the railroad for example, that does fall under federal authority. If a contract between two individuals in two different states is in dispute then federal courts have the juridisction.

 

[tonystewart1]

James Madison on the power of congress:

Feb. 1791Papers 13:376--78
The third clause is that which gives the power to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute the specified powers.

Whatever meaning this clause may have, none can be admitted, that would give an unlimited discretion to Congress.

http://http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s9.html

You state it then you back it up.

 

[Sallow]

Now in the case of interstate commerce, the railroad for example, that does fall under federal authority. If a contract between two individuals in two different states is in dispute then federal courts have the juridisction.

Sure it does..and does so often.

You can't sell infected or diseased meat to people. That's a federal regulation. Falls under the commerce and general welfare clauses.

You can't sell products that don't meet federal safety standard to people. That's a federal regulation. Falls under the commerce and general welfare clauses.

You can't refuse service to people based on their race, religion or ethnicity. That's a federal regulation. Falls under the commerce and general welfare clauses.

None of these enumerated powers are explicitly defined anywhere in the constitution. There's a reason for that. The Constitution was written by forward thinking liberals who did not want to see a government hobbled by a restrictive constitution. The wanted a document that outlined a government that would withstand the test of time.

 

[The T]

Now in the case of interstate commerce, the railroad for example, that does fall under federal authority. If a contract between two individuals in two different states is in dispute then federal courts have the juridisction.

As correct you would be since a single transportation company crosses State lines in the act of commerce.

 

[Sallow]

James Madison on the power of congress:

Feb. 1791Papers 13:376--78
The third clause is that which gives the power to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute the specified powers.

Whatever meaning this clause may have, none can be admitted, that would give an unlimited discretion to Congress.

http://http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s9.html

You state it then you back it up.

No legislation is derived from the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were a series of opinion pieces specifically written to get New Yorkers..who were leary that a big federal government would become another form of Conservative government, like a Monarchy, to sign on to the Union.

 

[code1211]

tony, your post demonstrates you know very little about the Constitution, American history, and our legal history. You can build a case from those foundations.

How about article 1 section 8 the enumerated powers of congress. No where do I see the right to regulate an industry within a sigle state.

Article 3 Judical powers no where do I read that the Supreme court has the right to overturn a state courts decision unless it has something to do with a dispute between 2 states or citizens of 2 states.

The 10th admendment. Giving the states powers not given to the federal govt as spelled out in article 1 section 8

I wonder have you even read the constitution.



The founders never intended for a federal govt to have the influence over the lives of people like they do today.

Alexander Hamiliton stated that:

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”

As far as out legal past goes it has been on a long trend in the wrong direction since FDR and keeps picking up steam as it goes. The federal govt in our recent modern history is in no way a reflection of what our founding fathers intended.

At their base, your assertions are probably right, but in the real world, our laws, including the Constitution, are an evolving body of guides.

Somebody smarter than me can probably cite the actual points of law that allow the Supreme Court to be the Supreme arbiter of the Constitution. I think the actual case was Marbury vs. Madison, but, again, I look to the more educated here abouts to say that.

The Founders were very, very smart and they built into every part of the Constitution limits on the Federal Government. Those limits have been under assault since they were first adopted and particulary during the 20th century.

How far from the original words can we wander before the actual words are only a quaint refection of the parochial notions of men long dead?

Jefferson said that we hold certain truths to be self evident, but today we affirm with most of laws that we are not all created equal and that there is not a creator to endow any rights. Even rights that we seem to hold dear are not unalienable and can be withdrawn at the caprice of the chief exectutive.

We are nearing a tipping point in our freedoms and we blithely prceed unconcerned.

 

[tonystewart1]

Now in the case of interstate commerce, the railroad for example, that does fall under federal authority. If a contract between two individuals in two different states is in dispute then federal courts have the juridisction.

Sure it does..and does so often.

You can't sell infected or diseased meat to people. That's a federal regulation. Falls under the commerce and general welfare clauses.

You can't sell products that don't meet federal safety standard to people. That's a federal regulation. Falls under the commerce and general welfare clauses.

You can't refuse service to people based on their race, religion or ethnicity. That's a federal regulation. Falls under the commerce and general welfare clauses.

None of these enumerated powers are explicitly defined anywhere in the constitution. There's a reason for that. The Constitution was written by forward thinking liberals who did not want to see a government hobbled by a restrictive constitution. The wanted a document that outlined a government that would withstand the test of time.

The federal govt has abused the commerce and gereral welfare clauses for many years. Joseph Story had this to say about that clause:

"The whole stress of the argument is, therefore, to establish, that the words, "to provide for the common defence and general welfare," do not form an independent power, nor any qualification of the power to lay taxes. And the argument is, that they are "mere general terms, explained and limited by the subjoined specifications."

 

[tonystewart1]

James Madison on the power of congress:

Feb. 1791Papers 13:376--78
The third clause is that which gives the power to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute the specified powers.

Whatever meaning this clause may have, none can be admitted, that would give an unlimited discretion to Congress.

http://http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s9.html

You state it then you back it up.

No legislation is derived from the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were a series of opinion pieces specifically written to get New Yorkers..who were leary that a big federal government would become another form of Conservative government, like a Monarchy, to sign on to the Union.

They are also a great insight into the minds of our founding fathers. What they meant and how they wanted the constitution to be viewed.

 

[Sallow]

They are only broad powers should you choose to interpret them instead of read them for what they are.

No.

They are broad, period.

Do you understand what broad means in this case? And it ain't a chick.

Yes, I do, Broad means exactly what you want it to mean. It's a word used by the left to say "We will interpret this to fit our agenda". It's code word for "We are about to **** everything up and get away from the original founders intentions, and do it rather quickly before 2012".

This country was created by "Liberals" or what you call "The Left" of the day.

The right..wanted to remain colonies...and loyal to the King.

Now they just want a new King.

 

[tonystewart1]

Thats my whole point we can steer ourselves in the right direction becasue the trend of greater federal power has not yielded as many positive results as they would have you beileve.

 

[tonystewart1]

No.

They are broad, period.

Do you understand what broad means in this case? And it ain't a chick.

Yes, I do, Broad means exactly what you want it to mean. It's a word used by the left to say "We will interpret this to fit our agenda". It's code word for "We are about to **** everything up and get away from the original founders intentions, and do it rather quickly before 2012".

This country was created by "Liberals" or what you call "The Left" of the day.

The right..wanted to remain colonies...and loyal to the King.

Now they just want a new King.

If liberals wrote the constitution then why do they today seem so bent on trashing it?

 

[Sallow]

James Madison on the power of congress:

Feb. 1791Papers 13:376--78
The third clause is that which gives the power to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute the specified powers.

Whatever meaning this clause may have, none can be admitted, that would give an unlimited discretion to Congress.

http://http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s9.html

You state it then you back it up.

No legislation is derived from the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were a series of opinion pieces specifically written to get New Yorkers..who were leary that a big federal government would become another form of Conservative government, like a Monarchy, to sign on to the Union.

They are also a great insight into the minds of our founding fathers. What they meant and how they wanted the constitution to be viewed.

Yes and no.

Specifically they were cheer leading the Constitution and assuring Citizens they weren't getting more of the same in terms of what the new government would look like.

 

[Sallow]

Yes, I do, Broad means exactly what you want it to mean. It's a word used by the left to say "We will interpret this to fit our agenda". It's code word for "We are about to **** everything up and get away from the original founders intentions, and do it rather quickly before 2012".

This country was created by "Liberals" or what you call "The Left" of the day.

The right..wanted to remain colonies...and loyal to the King.

Now they just want a new King.

If liberals wrote the constitution then why do they today seem so bent on trashing it?

They aren't.

It's conservatives that don't know the Constitution.

Here's a good example.

Check out Rush around 8:23.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0RHwLgH7LE]YouTube - ‪Rush Limbaugh CPAC 2009 part 1 of 11‬‏[/ame]

He recites the Declaration of Indepence as the Preamble to the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

No.

They are broad, period.

Do you understand what broad means in this case? And it ain't a chick.

Yes, I do, Broad means exactly what you want it to mean. It's a word used by the left to say "We will interpret this to fit our agenda". It's code word for "We are about to **** everything up and get away from the original founders intentions, and do it rather quickly before 2012".

This country was created by "Liberals" or what you call "The Left" of the day.

The right..wanted to remain colonies...and loyal to the King.

Now they just want a new King.

Modern day notions of "left" and "right" have no bearing on the politics of the 18th Century. In those days a "liberal" was someone who supported the institutions of private property and the free market - exactly the opposite of what it means to today.

 

[bripat9643]

You can't sell infected or diseased meat to people. That's a federal regulation. Falls under the commerce and general welfare clauses.

That may be a federal regulation, but it's not authorized by the Constitution.

You can't sell products that don't meet federal safety standard to people. That's a federal regulation. Falls under the commerce and general welfare clauses.

That may be a federal regulation, but it's not authorized by the Constitution.

You can't refuse service to people based on their race, religion or ethnicity. That's a federal regulation. Falls under the commerce and general welfare clauses.

That may be a federal regulation, but it's not authorized by the Constitution.

None of these enumerated powers are explicitly defined anywhere in the constitution. There's a reason for that. The Constitution was written by forward thinking liberals who did not want to see a government hobbled by a restrictive constitution. The wanted a document that outlined a government that would withstand the test of time.

They weren't enumerated in the Constitution because the Found Fathers did not want the federal government to have such powers and they gave none to the federal government when they wrote the document. They actually did want the federal government to be hobbled by a restrictive Constitution. That's precisely what they wanted. The government has not stood the test of time because we have ended up precisely with what the Founding Fathers tried to prevent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is everybody elses mind set on this? And how would we go about fixing the problem and give states the power that they should have?

I accept Supreme Court rulings on this and other issues as the law of the land.

Those who wish to address the issue will need to either manage to have some 74 years of Constitutional case law overturned or convene a Constitutional convention; it can’t be addressed by amendment alone.

The case law is explained in the link below – a fairly good summary.

There are numbers of ways in which the federal government is permitted to secure the assistance of state authorities in achieving federal legislative goals. First and most directly, the federal government may coerce the states and their employees into complying with federal laws of general applicability. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985). Second, Congress may condition the grant of federal funds on the States' taking governmental action desired by Congress. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

State judicial and administrative bodies may be required to apply federal law. Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (1947); FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 760-61 (1982). The federal government may offer to preempt regulation in a given area, and permit the states to avoid preemption if they regulate in a manner acceptable to Congress. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, 452 U.S. 264, 290-91 (1981).

The federal government has been permitted effectively to compel the states to issue registered rather than bearer bonds. South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 514 (1988). Finally, the federal government has been permitted to require state utility regulators to consider prescribed federal standards in determining regulatory policies. FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. at 765. In the course of the latter ruling, the Supreme Court referred to and rejected the "19th century view" that "Congress has no power to impose on a State officer, as such, any duty whatever, and compel him to perform it." Id. at 761 (quoting Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 107 (1861)). That view, said the Court, "is not representative of the law today." Id. "The federal government has some power to enlist a branch of state government . . . to further federal ends." Id. at 762.

The Tenth Amendment view espoused in Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 U.S. (24 How.) 66, 107 (1861), overruled by Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987), was that "the Federal Government . . . has no power to impose on a State officer, as such, any duty whatsoever . . . ." See Brown, 521 F.2d at 841. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the view espoused in Kentucky v. Dennison is no longer representative of the law. FERC, 456 U.S. at 761.

Legal Definition of Tenth Amendment

The Court has therefore settled the issue in the favor of the Hamiltonian Constitutional model. Which is appropriate given the needs of the nation to exist in the modern world.

You can count on the souther counties of WV to go with you. All of us here are sick of federal involvment in what should be state issues.

Secession is un-Constitutional, see Texas v White (1869).

Its not about whats in article 1 section 8 its about what is not. The right to regulate an industry within the confines of one state is NOT in there. Therefore the 10th admendment gives that right to the state since it is not forbidden to them.

The issue is not the Constitution proper but how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution in the context of the rule of law.

After dealing with individuals such as you for many years now I’ve come to the conclusion that your position is that you reject all Supreme Court case law, starting with and including Marbury v Madison (1803).

If that is indeed the case then further debate is pointless – as we can not agree on the basic ‘ground rules,’ as it were. I would at least recommend you familiarize yourself with the case law you reject, however.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That may be a federal regulation, but it's not authorized by the Constitution.

You realize this like much of your post makes no sense, yes? Otherwise you’ll need to cite the Supreme Court case striking down such a regulation as un-Constitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

tony, your post demonstrates you know very little about the Constitution, American history, and our legal history. You can build a case from those foundations.

All those Supreme Court justices that pointed out that the preamble did not give the government any power were just idiots who do not understand the Constitution. good to know that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now dont just insult me and let it go. If you have another point of view state it and back it up.

Jake Starkey doesn't have points of view, he just has insults.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

tony, your post demonstrates you know very little about the Constitution, American history, and our legal history. You can build a case from those foundations.

How about article 1 section 8 the enumerated powers of congress. No where do I see the right to regulate an industry within a sigle state.

Article 3 Judical powers no where do I read that the Supreme court has the right to overturn a state courts decision unless it has something to do with a dispute between 2 states or citizens of 2 states.

The 10th admendment. Giving the states powers not given to the federal govt as spelled out in article 1 section 8

I wonder have you even read the constitution.



The founders never intended for a federal govt to have the influence over the lives of people like they do today.

Alexander Hamiliton stated that:

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”

As far as out legal past goes it has been on a long trend in the wrong direction since FDR and keeps picking up steam as it goes. The federal govt in our recent modern history is in no way a reflection of what our founding fathers intended.

Did you skip over these parts?

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Try reading the whole thing.

Did you ever respond to the other thread where I pointed out how absurd it was for you to insist that these were broad powers?