Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights

[seniorjudge]

How is it, that the several states do not require that the general government of the Union, Regulate commerce according according to its specifically enumerated power, and with the full accuracy of official weights and measures it is also empowered and, in my opinion, ethically, legally, and morally obligated to fix and ensure?

Daniel, what are you asking?

Rephrase this.

[blueeagle]

Daniel, what are you asking?

Rephrase this.

Do you have ANY idea what he's talking about, your honor? Can you translate it for those of us who lack a doctorate in law???? To bad you can't issue an arrest warrant for him. I'm sure we could think up with a few charges.

[jk]

the problem is, it doesn;t say anything.

How is it, that the several states do not require that the general government of the Union, Regulate commerce according according to its specifically enumerated power, and with the full accuracy of official weights and measures it is also empowered and, in my opinion, ethically, legally, and morally obligated to fix and ensure?

it is a complex sentence so if yo ubreak it down, you end up with:

How is it, that the several states do not require that the general government of the Union, Regulate commerce according according to its specifically enumerated power

Before I would even address that question, dan needs to give example of the claim the states are not requiring the fed to regulate commerce as it is directed (presumably in the constitution).

and then he tosses in:

and with the full accuracy of official weights and measures it is also empowered and

often known as fluff or bullshit. It bares no direct relation to the question posed.

then he tosses in this:

and, in my opinion, ethically, legally, and morally obligated to fix and ensure?

this appears to be an attempt to cause the reader to believe dan has some great understanding of the subject at hand while what it actually does is make him sound like he has no idea of what he speaks. First he asks why the states do not demand action of the fed gov't but then he follows that up with stating that somebody (since this sentence fragment is not attached to any part of the main sentence it is impossible to determine which entity he is referring to) is supposed to fix something (where in the actual question was there anything that addressed repairing anything) or ensure (where was there any claim that either entity was required to demand the other entity acted in a specific manner concerning the original question) some unknown right or action.

[blueeagle]

Ok, I'm following you, but I still don't know what Dan's referring to here. Why can't he back it up with an example?

[jk]

Nobody knows what dan is referring to. I suspect dan ,himself, is included in that group.

[blueeagle]

Nobody knows what dan is referring to. I suspect dan ,himself, is included in that group.

I bet it's something he came up with while in jail!!!! You ever been in Jail, JK?

[jk]

only when I was helping build one.

from what I saw and what the guards told me (we were builinding a new jail to replace the existing jail but they were attached buildings so I got to talk to the sheriffs there), I will stay on the straight and narrow. I would not be a good inmate.

[danielpalos]

Daniel, what are you asking?

Rephrase this.

I guess, as simpler way to say that is, why have not the states enjoined the general government of the Union to perform the specific powers enumerated to it? Regulating commerce among the several states is a specifically enumerated power.

The power to Prohibit commerce among the several states is not anywhere to be found in our Constitution since the legal and political precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

[danielpalos]

the problem is, it doesn;t say anything.

it is a complex sentence so if yo ubreak it down, you end up with:

Before I would even address that question, dan needs to give example of the claim the states are not requiring the fed to regulate commerce as it is directed (presumably in the constitution).

and then he tosses in:

often known as fluff or bullshit. It bares no direct relation to the question posed.

then he tosses in this:

this appears to be an attempt to cause the reader to believe dan has some great understanding of the subject at hand while what it actually does is make him sound like he has no idea of what he speaks. First he asks why the states do not demand action of the fed gov't but then he follows that up with stating that somebody (since this sentence fragment is not attached to any part of the main sentence it is impossible to determine which entity he is referring to) is supposed to fix something (where in the actual question was there anything that addressed repairing anything) or ensure (where was there any claim that either entity was required to demand the other entity acted in a specific manner concerning the original question) some unknown right or action.

It was concerning the powers and obligations of the federal government.

[jk]

It was concerning the powers and obligations of the federal government.

uh, ya, that is what I said, isn;t it?

Quote:

How is it, that the several states do not require that the general government of the Union, Regulate commerce according according to its specifically enumerated power

Before I would even address that question, dan needs to give example of the claim the states are not requiring the fed to regulate commerce as it is directed (presumably in the constitution).

First he asks why the states do not demand action of the fed gov't