Too Many Lawyers?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nice way to avoid answering.

In any event, even if it would never happen, you can nonetheless answer the question. Is this situation a problem?

Yes, I have a problem answering nonsensical hypothetical scenarios which inevitably change as we get deeper into a discussion about them. Forgive me if I pass on partaking in a pointless discussion.

Did you notice that what you describe as a "nonsensical hypothetical scenario" is actually based on a real case that was really decided by the real SCOTUS?

Nope.

 

[Varth Dader]

Varth- I answered.. =)

But you are not Kevin_Kennedy.

By the way Kevin, here is a link to Oyez on a case you might find interesting. Or maybe I created a fake entry just to drive you crazy. Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc., U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc
Facts of the Case:
The Illinois legislature adopted a law requiring all trucks and trailers traveling on the state's highways to operate with contour mudguards. The legislators believed that this specific type of mudguard would protect motorists by preventing trucks from throwing debris into the windshields of passing or trailing vehicles.

Question:
Did a law which required a specific type of rear mudguard on trucks and trailers operated on Illinois's state highways conflict with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution?

Conclusion:
Yes. The Court held that the Illinois requirement did place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce. While arguing that safety measures "carry a strong presumption of validity when challenged," Justice Douglas nevertheless affirmed that if the effect of such measures are "slight or problematical" then the interests of commerce should prevail. Since the Illinois law was unlike the requirements of almost all of the other states in the nation, the Court found that it did place a great burden on the interstate transport of goods.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Navajo Freight Lines Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

Ah yes and this decision is valid. And I don't have to be Kevin to answer.. You ask, WE answer. Those who can, should. I already said this very thing, anyways.

This decision makes sense, because the state of Illinois was imposing a restriction upon truck drivers that would potentially interfere with free trade (even if that trade was domestic).

Again, the judicial system INTERPRETS the law- that means that if the law is found to be hokey (like this one was, by splitting hairs and being completely ridiculous- an asinine request made by the state) and is not practical when weighted against the Constitution (Yes the articles of confederation DO count as constitutional, LOL) then that law will be deemed null and void.

Gosh..

Now, why is it that you have a problem with someone other then KEV answering???

I'm not sure if I should make a Borg joke or a socialist joke.

I don't have a problem with someone other than Kev answering, it's just that only him in this thread holds positions such as is, and the specific positions are the elements I am answering.

More generally, there are people that plead "states rights! states rights" without really understanding how fuzzy that can be sometimes, especially when you think of the commerce clause.

Are you currently studying for your JD?

 

[Varth Dader]

Yes, I have a problem answering nonsensical hypothetical scenarios which inevitably change as we get deeper into a discussion about them. Forgive me if I pass on partaking in a pointless discussion.

Did you notice that what you describe as a "nonsensical hypothetical scenario" is actually based on a real case that was really decided by the real SCOTUS?

Nope.

I'm a patient guy. Let's try again.

In the case, "Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc.", the SCOTUS had to decide a case with those facts:

The Illinois legislature adopted a law requiring all trucks and trailers traveling on the state's highways to operate with contour mudguards. The legislators believed that this specific type of mudguard would protect motorists by preventing trucks from throwing debris into the windshields of passing or trailing vehicles.

I just copy pasted those from a website that deals with legal cases.

So what do you think the Supreme Court did? And, what would you have done?

 

[JD_2B]

But you are not Kevin_Kennedy.

By the way Kevin, here is a link to Oyez on a case you might find interesting. Or maybe I created a fake entry just to drive you crazy. Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc., U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

Ah yes and this decision is valid. And I don't have to be Kevin to answer.. You ask, WE answer. Those who can, should. I already said this very thing, anyways.

This decision makes sense, because the state of Illinois was imposing a restriction upon truck drivers that would potentially interfere with free trade (even if that trade was domestic).

Again, the judicial system INTERPRETS the law- that means that if the law is found to be hokey (like this one was, by splitting hairs and being completely ridiculous- an asinine request made by the state) and is not practical when weighted against the Constitution (Yes the articles of confederation DO count as constitutional, LOL) then that law will be deemed null and void.

Gosh..

Now, why is it that you have a problem with someone other then KEV answering???

I'm not sure if I should make a Borg joke or a socialist joke.

I don't have a problem with someone other than Kev answering, it's just that only him in this thread holds positions such as is, and the specific positions are the elements I am answering.

More generally, there are people that plead "states rights! states rights" without really understanding how fuzzy that can be sometimes, especially when you think of the commerce clause.

Are you currently studying for your JD?

Oh My Gosh, I'm sorry. I did not realize the extent of your conversation to this point.. I do hope that I can help you to explain this better to him, then. =) May I please? I promise to stop stepping on your toes, lol!!

No, I am not in law school quite yet. I have an AS in Paralegal (Just graduated on Saturday- well the Commencement was Saturday) and am applying to a State University for my BS. Then, <sigh> another long 3 years until I am an actual lawyer. I chose this username as a way of keeping myself motivated to stay in school. I am a JD to be.. I just haven't started law school or even begun my bachelor's degree yet. Hopefully this is not misleading.

However, I do enjoy the practice here.. And it helps to have people like you who kinda fill me in on whose side I should be on, instead of debating against, lol.. ;-)

 

[Varth Dader]

Ah yes and this decision is valid. And I don't have to be Kevin to answer.. You ask, WE answer. Those who can, should. I already said this very thing, anyways.

This decision makes sense, because the state of Illinois was imposing a restriction upon truck drivers that would potentially interfere with free trade (even if that trade was domestic).

Again, the judicial system INTERPRETS the law- that means that if the law is found to be hokey (like this one was, by splitting hairs and being completely ridiculous- an asinine request made by the state) and is not practical when weighted against the Constitution (Yes the articles of confederation DO count as constitutional, LOL) then that law will be deemed null and void.

Gosh..

Now, why is it that you have a problem with someone other then KEV answering???

I'm not sure if I should make a Borg joke or a socialist joke.

I don't have a problem with someone other than Kev answering, it's just that only him in this thread holds positions such as is, and the specific positions are the elements I am answering.

More generally, there are people that plead "states rights! states rights" without really understanding how fuzzy that can be sometimes, especially when you think of the commerce clause.

Are you currently studying for your JD?

Oh My Gosh, I'm sorry. I did not realize the extent of your conversation to this point.. I do hope that I can help you to explain this better to him, then. =) May I please? I promise to stop stepping on your toes, lol!!

No, I am not in law school quite yet. I have an AS in Paralegal (Just graduated on Saturday- well the Commencement was Saturday) and am applying to a State University for my BS. Then, <sigh> another long 3 years until I am an actual lawyer. I chose this username as a way of keeping myself motivated to stay in school. I am a JD to be.. I just haven't started law school or even begun my bachelor's degree yet. Hopefully this is not misleading.

However, I do enjoy the practice here.. And it helps to have people like you who kinda fill me in on whose side I should be on, instead of debating against, lol.. ;-)

I hope all your years of study go well (and that you have a nice paying job at the end to pay back those student loans!).

No problem for the qs and answers. I'm sure, in advance, that you will ace any constitutional law exam.

I cannot say the same for Mr. Kennedy who refuses to discuss a SCOTUS case.

 

[JD_2B]

I think you may be right.. on both points (not to toot my own horn or anything, LOL)

 

[Varth Dader]

I think you may be right.. on both points (not to toot my own horn or anything, LOL)

If you toot your own horn very well then you will definitely be a lawyer -- that's what they all do.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did you notice that what you describe as a "nonsensical hypothetical scenario" is actually based on a real case that was really decided by the real SCOTUS?

Nope.

I'm a patient guy. Let's try again.

In the case, "Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc.", the SCOTUS had to decide a case with those facts:

The Illinois legislature adopted a law requiring all trucks and trailers traveling on the state's highways to operate with contour mudguards. The legislators believed that this specific type of mudguard would protect motorists by preventing trucks from throwing debris into the windshields of passing or trailing vehicles.

I just copy pasted those from a website that deals with legal cases.

So what do you think the Supreme Court did? And, what would you have done?

Well since we're now talking about an actual case rather than a hypothetical situation where the facts can change to suit an argument, we can have a discussion.

Without knowing any of the facts outside of what this website provides:

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc., U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

I can say that I actually agree with the Supreme Court's decision. For one, I don't think the state should be mandating what type of mudflap a truck can use, but that's not the main reason I agree with the court. If Illinois mandates one type of mudflap be used, but Indiana mandates a different kind, then that obviously creates a strain on those trucks that travel between Illinois and Indiana. The problem only gets compounded if you look at the fact that Kentucky could then mandate a third type of mudflap, and on and on it goes. If every state can set its own requirements like that then you do have a concern for interstate commerce being interrupted. Since regulating interstate commerce means "to make regular" I see this as a legitimate constitutional decision by the Supreme Court.

 

[JD_2B]

I think you may be right.. on both points (not to toot my own horn or anything, LOL)

If you toot your own horn very well then you will definitely be a lawyer -- that's what they all do.

TOOT TOOT!!!

LMAO!! Thanks.. You are awesome.

 

[Varth Dader]

Nope.

I'm a patient guy. Let's try again.

In the case, "Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc.", the SCOTUS had to decide a case with those facts:

The Illinois legislature adopted a law requiring all trucks and trailers traveling on the state's highways to operate with contour mudguards. The legislators believed that this specific type of mudguard would protect motorists by preventing trucks from throwing debris into the windshields of passing or trailing vehicles.

I just copy pasted those from a website that deals with legal cases.

So what do you think the Supreme Court did? And, what would you have done?

Well since we're now talking about an actual case rather than a hypothetical situation where the facts can change to suit an argument, we can have a discussion.

Without knowing any of the facts outside of what this website provides:

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc., U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

I can say that I actually agree with the Supreme Court's decision. For one, I don't think the state should be mandating what type of mudflap a truck can use, but that's not the main reason I agree with the court. If Illinois mandates one type of mudflap be used, but Indiana mandates a different kind, then that obviously creates a strain on those trucks that travel between Illinois and Indiana. The problem only gets compounded if you look at the fact that Kentucky could then mandate a third type of mudflap, and on and on it goes. If every state can set its own requirements like that then you do have a concern for interstate commerce being interrupted. Since regulating interstate commerce means "to make regular" I see this as a legitimate constitutional decision by the Supreme Court.

You agree with the inner logic of the decision. I agree with your reasoning. But what is your constitutional reasoning?

How can federal law (or the federal constitution) interfere with something that, you have to agree, looks like a local matter to begin with? Is it clear to you that this falls under the federal government having the power to regulate interstate commerce?

Because for me, I think the argument could be (and was made) either way.

Same for health care. If you think of healthcare as something affecting our ability to compete internationally (for example, prevening GM from being competitive worldwide), then I could see how the federal government would need to get involved in the matter.

Anyways, I know I am getting side tracked, but I just wanted to show you a case where "nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government can regulate what mudflaps states want to mandate", yet we don't see this ruling as the federal government usurping the power of the states.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm a patient guy. Let's try again.

In the case, "Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc.", the SCOTUS had to decide a case with those facts:



I just copy pasted those from a website that deals with legal cases.

So what do you think the Supreme Court did? And, what would you have done?

Well since we're now talking about an actual case rather than a hypothetical situation where the facts can change to suit an argument, we can have a discussion.

Without knowing any of the facts outside of what this website provides:

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines Inc., U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

I can say that I actually agree with the Supreme Court's decision. For one, I don't think the state should be mandating what type of mudflap a truck can use, but that's not the main reason I agree with the court. If Illinois mandates one type of mudflap be used, but Indiana mandates a different kind, then that obviously creates a strain on those trucks that travel between Illinois and Indiana. The problem only gets compounded if you look at the fact that Kentucky could then mandate a third type of mudflap, and on and on it goes. If every state can set its own requirements like that then you do have a concern for interstate commerce being interrupted. Since regulating interstate commerce means "to make regular" I see this as a legitimate constitutional decision by the Supreme Court.

You agree with the inner logic of the decision. I agree with your reasoning. But what is your constitutional reasoning?

How can federal law (or the federal constitution) interfere with something that, you have to agree, looks like a local matter to begin with? Is it clear to you that this falls under the federal government having the power to regulate interstate commerce?

Because for me, I think the argument could be (and was made) either way.

Same for health care. If you think of healthcare as something affecting our ability to compete internationally (for example, prevening GM from being competitive worldwide), then I could see how the federal government would need to get involved in the matter.

Anyways, I know I am getting side tracked, but I just wanted to show you a case where "nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government can regulate what mudflaps states want to mandate", yet we don't see this ruling as the federal government usurping the power of the states.

As I said, this legitimately falls under interstate commerce which the Constitution does give the federal government the power to "regulate." Universal healthcare is unconstitutional because no where in the Constitution does it say that the government can tax its citizens to enact universal healthcare.

 

[William Joyce]

Yes, too many lawyers.

Be an engineer, a doctor, a medical researcher, a builder, a scientist, a computer person...

I do tell young pro-whites to consider being lawyers, however. Helps us fuck with the system.

 

[Charles Stucker]

The states is NOT the people. The federal government is as much an elected body as the state government. People can vote in both. They both represent the people.

Yet it is easier for a minority to force their will on everyone else at the national level.
51% of the voters in 26 of the states could dictate senate decision if they coordinated.
The more power the federal government has, the less anyone else has.
Especially the people.

 

[Varth Dader]

The states is NOT the people. The federal government is as much an elected body as the state government. People can vote in both. They both represent the people.

Yet it is easier for a minority to force their will on everyone else at the national level.
51% of the voters in 26 of the states could dictate senate decision if they coordinated.
The more power the federal government has, the less anyone else has.
Especially the people.

But what about the House? You need both for most (but not all) decisions.