Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Boy, are you daft?

You state, with one sentence, that no one is debating whether or not states can regulate and prohibit certain transactions within their borders and then say that you don't understand how anyone can prohibit anything.

The federal government was founded and designed for just this purpose. To regulate matters that manifested between and among the states.

I will wait while you dig out that dog eared copy of the Constitution that your Grammy gave you at your bar mitzvah.

If a state can legalize (and, conversely, make illegal) a substance, so can the fed when interstate transportation is made.

---

I think we are mis-communicating in our discussion. Some of the opposing viewpoint seem to be confusing the traditional police powers of a state, to the specifically delegated powers to the general government of the Union.

I only quibble that states have no constitutional authority to declare any forms of private property alienable or defeasible, contrary to the their own constitution.

From one perspective, why have a federal form of government, if the Founding Fathers felt that a one continental government was the most conducive to freedom and individual liberty?

I disagree with your position concerning that specific power, usurped by the federal government, to Prohibit commerce among the several states. That power was clearly repealed in accordance with the Constitutional process. There has been no Constitutional process re-Delegating that power to the general government of the Union.

I have been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states via the Constitutional process, to Prohibit commerce among the several states, since the repeal of that delegated power by the several states via the Constitutional process.

And you are wrong.

You are spouting a non-sequitur.

The repeal of the prohibition amendment was simply that; it didn't change anything else in the constitution.

Next question?

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

You are spouting a non-sequitur.
?

---

are you sure it isn't simply a fallacy?:p

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

The words in question were Regulate and Prohibit. Why have you brought Control into the argument? I read somewhere that there is a legal maxim that states that if a different word is used, it is because there is a different meaning associated to it.

I have not been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states, to Regulate commerce among those states.

I have been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states via the Constitutional process, to Prohibit commerce among the several states, since the repeal of that delegated power by the several states via the Constitutional process.

---

Yes, we know.

And you are still wrong. No matter what your nickel's worth of Constitutional study told you.

Let me try this another way.

An easier way to view the hierarchy of law is to go through the legal process.... something I am reasonably sure you are familiar with.

First, you go to municiple court. Then to the appeals court for the state. Then to the state supreme court. Then to the federal district court. Then to the federal appelate court. Finally, you go to the Supreme court.

After the supreme court, there are no more appeals... because they are the supreme law of the land.

There ya go.

Has anyone established that Dannyboy actually understands the meaning of the word, fallacy?

Was his mother frightened by a thesaurus?

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

I have been arguing that the federal government does not have the specifically enumerated power, delegated by the several states via the Constitutional process, to Prohibit commerce among the several states, since the repeal of that delegated power by the several states via the Constitutional process.

And you are wrong.

You are spouting a non-sequitur.

The repeal of the prohibition amendment was simply that; it didn't change anything else in the constitution.

Next question?

---

The repeal of the specific power to Prohibit commerce among the several states, delegated by the several states, and the legal and political precedent established by that public act is what we are discussing.

Why was it felt that the states needed to Delegate the power to Prohibit commerce between the several states, if that power already existed, by enacting a prohibition amendment that specifically enumerated that delegated power to the general government of the Union?

What would Madison have thought of such "latitude of construction", if he was even willing to veto a public works bill that could have had "signal advantage" to the Union, if only our federal congress had that specifically enumerated power.

The power to Provide for the general Welfare of the United States is clearly an enumerated general power. The power to Prohibit commerce among the several states was repealed by the several states who no longer had a need to delegate that power to the general government of the Union.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Yes, we know.

And you are still wrong. No matter what your nickel's worth of Constitutional study told you.

---

You seem to be under the impression that legal precedent and political precedent mean nothing in a State that adheres to the principles of common law.

Whence has there been shown any clear and compelling reason to Prohibit commerce among the several states concerning drugs? The Drug War was supposed to have been won sometime around 1995. Drugs are still plentiful, and can be found in most any city in the US.

We could be lowering our tax burden by simply requiring that the general government of the Union, contain itself to its enumerated powers.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Yes, we know.

And you are still wrong. No matter what your nickel's worth of Constitutional study told you.

---

You are always welcome to your opinion.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

You seem to be under the impression that legal precedent and political precedent mean nothing in a State that adheres to the principles of common law.

---

I guess you DON'T mean the hundreds of cases tried daily buttressing our argument about the legality of the prohibition of illegal drugs.

If anyone is ignoring legal precedent, it is you.

Quote:

---

Whence has there been shown any clear and compelling reason to Prohibit commerce among the several states concerning drugs?

---

Whence? Who, outside of an obscure Shakespeare reference class at the learning annex, uses whence?

Anyway, I could refer you to the several thousand page FDA handbook, but you wouldn't go there.

Quote:

---

The Drug War was supposed to have been won sometime around 1995. Drugs are still plentiful, and can be found in most any city in the US.

---

And so the fight should stop? The fact that some people persist in committing illegal activity doesn't mean the law for it isn't valid.

People are still committing murder, rape and child molestation despite our best efforts to stop these crimes. That doesn't mean we should stop the prosecution... it just means that the punishments aren't harsh enough yet.

Quote:

---

We could be lowering our tax burden by simply requiring that the general government of the Union, contain itself to its enumerated powers.

---

Or, we could just start using your posts as an inexpensive alternative to compost and/or manure.