Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    853

    Default Re: Constitution and U.S. Code

    Sure they did- any compact that you enter you can leave. The reason the secession didn't work is that military force was used to prevent it. It is not so much that they were wrong, but that they LOST. The outcome of the Civil war had nothing to do with who was wrong, but instead proved the rule of "might makes right."

    Having the the same party in control of both branches enhances efficiency? Efficiency of what? The controlling party's agenda?

    Yes, we are a populist, socialist oligarchy. That is a small group of people who maintain power through the promise of free stuff at the expense of the other guy. Yet, no matter who is in office, very little changes.


    The fact that our government still stands is less a testament to its effectiveness and popularity than it is to the fact that we are a very young country.

    One last thought- if we were supposed to have the Government we have now, explain the following to me:

    the 10th amendment
    explain what Article 1, Section 8 meant when it said Congress had the power: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    Where does the Constitution grant the Executive, or the Legislature, the power to "redistribute wealth?"

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington comma the Great State of.
    Posts
    1,211

    Default Re: Constitution and U.S. Code

    Quote Quoting divemedic
    View Post
    Sure they did- any compact that you enter you can leave. The reason the secession didn't work is that military force was used to prevent it. It is not so much that they were wrong, but that they LOST. The outcome of the Civil war had nothing to do with who was wrong, but instead proved the rule of "might makes right."

    Having the the same party in control of both branches enhances efficiency? Efficiency of what? The controlling party's agenda?

    Yes, we are a populist, socialist oligarchy. That is a small group of people who maintain power through the promise of free stuff at the expense of the other guy. Yet, no matter who is in office, very little changes.


    The fact that our government still stands is less a testament to its effectiveness and popularity than it is to the fact that we are a very young country.

    One last thought- if we were supposed to have the Government we have now, explain the following to me:

    the 10th amendment
    explain what Article 1, Section 8 meant when it said Congress had the power: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    Where does the Constitution grant the Executive, or the Legislature, the power to "redistribute wealth?"
    It probably has something to do with that pesky "ensure the general welfare" bit that you seem to ignore. And that petty little bit about the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. For that matter, if a state wanted to leave the union, all that would be needed is the concurrence of three quarters of the states to amend the Constitution such that said state is specifically removed from the union. To get to that point, a state need only either be very convincing, or capable of pissing off just about everyone.

    That we are a young country isn't determinative of whether our system of government will or won't work. Thousands of countries have failed in far less time than ours. Considerably less time at that.

    You also ignore the supremacy clause, which essentially means that federal laws are superior to state laws. Or, in a more day to day use, the federal government has power to mandate to the states certain courses of actions, and to restrict from them other courses of action. That they were told they can't secede, and that they attempted to do anyway but weren't powerful enough to force their will on the remainder of the nation is really of no moment.

    After all, what good is the law if the government lacks the power to enforce it?

    The Law: "No, you can't do that."

    The Rebel: "But I will since you can't stop me!"

    The Law: "Well-played, sir, well-played. Drats, bested again!"

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Constitution and U.S. Code

    Populist ... maybe. At times. Currently, the executive is at the head of a (blind) populist tide, but that tide of populism can change.

    Socialist ... uh, no. Not yet, anyway. But, Obama and the left are trying. In broad terms, socialism advocates cooperative or state control of the means of production and even may advocate a more even distribution of wealth.

    Oligarchy ... Well, I suppose it can be seen that way, but I don't think so. Since this requires the rule of a privileged few, we would have to define that ruling class. Who are they? Yes, we know who they are after they are elected, but can you point out people that are members of that same ruling class? Are they rich? Are they lawyers? Are all the rich and lawyers members of this class? Why not? My local representative is a farmer ... he is well-to-do, but hardly "rich" and is not an attorney. So, unless we define the privileged ruling class as our elected representatives, I don't see this as an oligarchy, either.

    Personally, I am not in to labeling our government because it really serves no purpose. Are we currently leaning to the left and sprinting towards a socialist state? Yeppirs, we are. Will we end up there in four or eight years? I hope not. But, are we a populist, socialist oligarchy? No. Are there elements of all three in the current administration and legislative mindset? Sure.

    - Carl

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    853

    Default Re: Constitution and U.S. Code

    And that petty little bit about the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of what the Constitution means.
    Where exactly does the Constitution say that? What you are referring to is actually a SCOTUS case, Marbury v Madison, where the Marshall Court took judicial power for itself. (Rightly or wrongly, that case is an entirely different debate, which is ripe for abuse. For example, when the SCOTUS was going to declare the "New Deal" unconstitutional, FDR threatened to pack the court by adding more Justices to it, so that we would have 15 instead of the current 9. They caved)

    It probably has something to do with that pesky "ensure the general welfare" bit that you seem to ignore.
    So, are you a "negative rights" person? That is, do you believe that the people and the states only have the rights that are enumerated in the COTUS? For if you read the "general welfare" clause to mean "redistribute wealth" then the 10th amendment becomes meaningless, as the government can twist "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" to mean anything it wants it to mean.

    Oligarchy ... Well, I suppose it can be seen that way, but I don't think so. Since this requires the rule of a privileged few, we would have to define that ruling class.
    The heads of the two political parties. They call the shots. Them and the big money supporters who fund them. There are really very few differences between the R's and the D's. Sure, they squeal loudly over what few differences there are, but when push comes to shove, they all follow the same path.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Constitution and U.S. Code

    Quote Quoting ashman165
    View Post
    You also ignore the supremacy clause, which essentially means that federal laws are superior to state laws. Or, in a more day to day use, the federal government has power to mandate to the states certain courses of actions, and to restrict from them other courses of action. That they were told they can't secede, and that they attempted to do anyway but weren't powerful enough to force their will on the remainder of the nation is really of no moment.

    Federal law does not always supercede/pre-empt state laws, but mostly, yes.

    The feds have NO power against any state who would wish to repeal thier ratification of the constitution, that is, secede from the Union, as was done in the Civil war, HOWEVER, such would be Sovereign suicide.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Constitution and U.S. Code

    Quote Quoting BOR
    View Post
    Federal law does not always supercede/pre-empt state laws, but mostly, yes.
    If it did, then medical marijuana laws would have been struck down.

    - Carl

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Constitution and U.S. Code

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    If it did, then medical marijuana laws would have been struck down.

    - Carl

    They were, but Obama has told his US Attorney's to back off on the states that permit it.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Constitution and U.S. Code

    Quote Quoting BOR
    View Post
    They were, but Obama has told his US Attorney's to back off on the states that permit it.
    They were not struck down at all. What happened was that Obama told the DEA to back off enforcing the federal law, not that the courts overturned CA's law. In fact, the courts have thus far upheld the states' rights to make these laws.

    What I liked (prior to this administration) was the prospect that the cops could drop a dime to the feds when they were ordered to return copious amounts of marijuana to a suspect, and then the feds could pop him for possession/sales/cultivation outside the police station! That won't happen now because the DEA has been effectively told to stand down.

    - Carl

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    853

    Default Re: Constitution and U.S. Code

    They were, but Obama has told his US Attorney's to back off on the states that permit it.
    But only because the court ruled that there was no way to tell the difference between pot grown in interstate commerce, and pot grown entirely within a state.

    An interesting challenge to that theory is happening in Montana. Montana has passed a law, authorizing people to make firearms without a Federal License, in violation of Federal Law, as long as they are stamped "made in Montana." The theory is that the Federal Govt cannot outlaw the manufacture, as long as the firearm is not involved in interstate commerce.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,835

    Default Re: Constitution and U.S. Code

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    They were not struck down at all. What happened was that Obama told the DEA to back off enforcing the federal law, not that the courts overturned CA's law. In fact, the courts have thus far upheld the states' rights to make these laws.

    What I liked (prior to this administration) was the prospect that the cops could drop a dime to the feds when they were ordered to return copious amounts of marijuana to a suspect, and then the feds could pop him for possession/sales/cultivation outside the police station! That won't happen now because the DEA has been effectively told to stand down.

    - Carl

    Here is the case I was refering to: It prohibits local cultivation?

    Held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6—31.



    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Civil Rights Issues: Guns and the Constitution
    By wrtrblk in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-02-2010, 07:41 AM
  2. Living Constitution vs. Originalism
    By anberlin32 in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-24-2010, 04:18 AM
  3. Parking and Access: Can Landlord Change Gate Code and Refuse to Give New Code to Tenants?
    By Bluemeanieeater in forum Landlord-Tenant Law
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-20-2008, 01:29 PM
  4. Constitution Day
    By BOR in forum Banter
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-18-2007, 03:48 AM
  5. Flag Burning and the Constitution
    By njkaters in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-17-2006, 10:12 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources