The Key Issue for the Court Isn't Abortion
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:21:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  The Key Issue for the Court Isn't Abortion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: The Key Issue for the Court Isn't Abortion  (Read 5926 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2005, 09:40:39 PM »

Congress may not confer such its power on other authorities, even states.

Where do you get that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

Concurred by some of your favourite Justices I might add.

How is that relevant? The line item veto changed the legislative process.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2005, 09:44:06 PM »

Let's see if you guys understand this. When Congress leaves some leeway to the states to have regulation, Congress is not removing any power from itself. There is clearly nothing unconstitutional about Congress not doing something that they could.
Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2005, 09:44:16 PM »

Congress may not confer such its power on other authorities, even states.

Where do you get that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

Concurred by some of your favourite Justices I might add.

How is that relevant? The line item veto changed the legislative process.

...by delegating the power to change the legislation to the President. Your position is exactly the same: That the States should have the power to raise the minimum wage within their own State, when under the most reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause, it is clear that a dichotomy of sovereignty is present.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2005, 09:45:06 PM »

Congress may not confer such its power on other authorities, even states.

Where do you get that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

Concurred by some of your favourite Justices I might add.

How is that relevant? The line item veto changed the legislative process.

...by delegating the power to change the legislation to the President. Your position is exactly the same: That the States should have the power to raise the minimum wage within their own State, when under the most reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause, it is clear that a dichotomy of sovereignty is present.

The states have the power to do whatever the federal government doesn't prevent them from doing.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2005, 09:46:05 PM »
« Edited: October 29, 2005, 09:48:21 PM by Emsworth »

The Constitution specifically provides that all legislative powers granted therein "shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Clearly, Congress cannot vest such powers elsewhere. It cannot transfer its legislative powers to the states, any more than it can transfer its legislative powers to the government of France, to the AFL-CIO, or to the Board of Directors of Microsoft.

Furthermore, when Congress chooses to not take action, it has decided that a particular commercial activity shall be free from rules. Remember, regulation is not only the imposition of rules, but also entails keeping things free from rules: it indicates the complete result. No state may add to or subtract from those rules that Congress has prescribed for interstate commerce.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2005, 09:47:47 PM »

The Constitution specifically provides that all legislative powers granted therein "shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Clearly, Congress cannot vest such powers elsewhere. It cannot transfer its legislative powers to the states, any more than it can transfer its legislative powers to the government of France, to the AFL-CIO, or to the Board of Directors of Microsoft.

Congress can implicitly allow the states to regulate. If Congress was concerned about such regulation, then they'd forbid it.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2005, 09:48:31 PM »

Why is that true of states, but not the president?

Congress may not confer such its power on other authorities, even states.

Where do you get that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

Concurred by some of your favourite Justices I might add.

How is that relevant? The line item veto changed the legislative process.

...by delegating the power to change the legislation to the President. Your position is exactly the same: That the States should have the power to raise the minimum wage within their own State, when under the most reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause, it is clear that a dichotomy of sovereignty is present.

The states have the power to do whatever the federal government doesn't prevent them from doing.

The federal Constitution prevents them from doing this.
Logged
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2005, 09:51:46 PM »

The states have the power to do whatever the federal government doesn't prevent them from doing.

No, they have power to do anything that the federal Constitution doesn't prevent them from doing. The distinction is subtle.

If the Constitution allows regulation of the minimum wage by Congress then under all non-drug induced readings of the commerce clause, that power is solely vested in Congress and denied to the States.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2005, 09:53:15 PM »

This thread has become highly amusing.  Good show.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2005, 10:03:20 PM »

Whilst I agree that this dichotomy is true: something is either interstate commerce or intrastate commerce, never both, it is worth noting that this restriction does not extend to the other powers - nobody would seriously suggest that only the federal government may build roads.
That's an interesting point. I would say that all powers granted under Article I, Section 8 are exclusive, except the concurrent powers to tax, to establish post offices and post roads, to grant copyrights and patents, to establish courts, and to make provisions with respect to the militia.

Furthermore, the powers to coin money, to declare war, to raise armies, and to raise a navy are not, in and of themselves, exclusive. However, the Constitution specifically does forbid states from taking all of these actions.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2005, 11:10:09 PM »

It is important to be fair about this. There is some historic support for jfern's position on the Commerce Clause.

As Hamilton notes in Federalist No. 32: "[N]notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States."

Also, the view that the mere allocation of the commerce power to Congress displaced state power over the same subject finds no support in the records of the Constitutional Convention, nor in the discussions preceding ratification.

Chief Justice Marshall's discussion of the "exclusiveness" doctrine in Gibbons v. Ogden was logically irrelevant to his holding, and represents a position that no one arguing in favor of the Constitution's ratification would likely have taken.

I accept the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine not because it so clear, but because it is long in tradition, and limited in scope. Stare decisis.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2005, 11:12:03 PM »

The states have the power to do whatever the federal government doesn't prevent them from doing.

No, they have power to do anything that the federal Constitution doesn't prevent them from doing. The distinction is subtle.

If the Constitution allows regulation of the minimum wage by Congress then under all non-drug induced readings of the commerce clause, that power is solely vested in Congress and denied to the States.

And Congress can implicitly allow the states to set higher standards.
Just because the feds do something doesn't mean that the states can be in the business, as long as they follow any federal rules (laws, court rulings, Constitution).
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2005, 11:18:07 PM »

If the "exclusiveness" doctrine is correct, the states can not regulate anything that Congress may regulate under the interstate commerce clause.

It is clear that Congress may not delegate its enumerated powers to any other entity or entities.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.042 seconds with 11 queries.