President Elon Musk
He probably deserves his own thread at this point, discuss accordingly
and? still not a federal matter. They should get it at the state level if they want it. The encroaching of the federal government over local matters should stop , it's eversive and unconstitutional. And again, it's completly irrelevant if you agree or not with specific policies, if they regard topics which the federal government shouldn't be involved with.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
You claimed the reason the program was created was to keep people beholden to party politicians, which is ridiculous.
IMO they should have completely eliminated all rights of states at that time, along with having a much longer and stricter reconstruction period in the former Confederacy.
The ideal IMO would have been that all the former confederacy comes under complete control of the Federal government for an indefinite period of time, which eventually would have become permanent. The same thing would have happened for new western territories, and eventually the people in the south would have gotten tired of states in the north having any rights, leading to the complete dissolution of all state power.
what the commerce clause would be for these days is say a state dislikes some dye in food, and the federal government intervenes and blocks it (federal judges do) from enacting legislation making it illegal to sell food with that dye in that state if other states think it's ok to use that dye.not the opposite, and never the federal government telling a state he can't use a dye
I think the question is what smooth trade between states entails. I would certainly argue that if a state wants to use a dye that has been shown to be harmful but allows them to produce a good at a fraction of the cost of an alternative and wants to use that as a competitive advantage to sell the good in other states then that would create significant friction in trade between states. In that scenario a national government "directed to a common interest" (as Hamilton puts in fed 11) would be obliged to regulate the legality of the dye nationwide in the interests of smooth trade between the states.
Things like protectionist tariffs are what that the commerce clause should prevent. On the other hand regulations that make the playing field level between states directly reduces the ways in which trade could be "fettered, interrupted, and narrowed" between them. It's doubtful that the writers would originally have considered workers' rights as part of this category (but slavery was legal so I'm inclined to not give a damn about that) but under the spirit of creating an even playing field in order to reduce the friction of trade between states it's not a totally absurd argument that minimum wage laws and the like could fall under the powers of the commerce clause (and obviously this has been the opinion of judges on the supreme court at some points as well).
I think the question is what smooth trade between states entails. I would certainly argue that if a state wants to use a dye that has been shown to be harmful but allows them to produce a good at a fraction of the cost of an alternative and wants to use that as a competitive advantage to sell the good in other states then that would create significant friction in trade between
no the opinion of the judges that allowed the federal minimum wage (and much else) was that the commerce clause allowed federal intervention about anything that has any implication with trade between states, even if indirect.
anything that affects prices can be regulated because of that according to that eversive set of opinions.
and you haven't touched how discriminating for gender, age, infirmity or race in a restaurant in Boulder is about state trade.
no the opinion of the judges that allowed the federal minimum wage (and much else) was that the commerce clause allowed federal intervention about anything that has any implication with trade between states, even if indirect.anything that affects prices can be regulated because of that according to that eversive set of opinions.and you haven't touched how discriminating for ge
And u disagree 0o ?
yes I do, the constitution exists to limit the power of GVMNT.
anything that isn't transparently and explicitly listed as a power, isn't.
if a line says the federal GVMNT can regulate the trade between states, you either take it at face value the day it was written (textualism) or at the meaning the day it was written (originalism), and in either case it doesn't allow the federal government to regulate anything that doesnt cross state lines, no matter it's effects.
for it to be trade between states some people in one state have to pay for something produced in another state for the federal government to be allowed to legislate on that, no "implication" or "indirect" elements are allowed.
and btw more generally every time even the slightest shadow of doubt exists the interpretation always has to err on the restrictive side.
only allow the GVMNT to do something if it is absolutely certain without even the smallest doubt that it can constitutionally, not viceversa.
Let’s not complicate things…
Hopefully we agree commerce is business ?
When there is a business fraud being done involving more than one state , crossing over state lines and becoming interstate , u don’t believe it becomes federal crime ?
FWIW to me the concept of originalism vs textualism is nonsense .
Society evolve and so interpretation evolve too.
I guess the 3/5th of a man exemplify how originalism doesn’t hold and gladly so …
I mean taking your logic , surely you would be against the present way how the second amendment permits so many “guns” that have absolutely no comparaison of what kind of guns was allowed when it was written and the needed of being part of a militia …
Originalism is just an excuse to not obey the law .
Surprised by you u advocate such a thing .
Let’s not complicate things…Hopefully we agree commerce is business ? When there is a business fraud being done involving more than one state , crossing over state lines and becoming interstate , u don’t believe it becomes federal crime ?Ps: the concept of originalism vs textualism is nonsense .Society evolve and so interpretation evolve too. I guess the 3/5th of a man exempl
I am not sure you have even the vaguest clue of what you are talking about here.
Yes the federal gvmnt can regulate stuff that is related to more than one state, that's the commerce clause. I never said it can't.
I said it can't regulate how restaurants work inside Colorado (or any other state) in any aspect (not with the commerce clause).
Originalism or textualism are the only viable jurisprudential ways of applying constitutional law. Everything else is eversive and incompatibile with the rule of law.
From the day a rule is written until it is amended there can only exist one exact interpretation of it, and no more.
No matter what happens or how much time passes it cannot change even slightly.
Allowing otherwise is to give the power to decide what the law is (which is basically the totality of the power) to whomever you nominated to decide about that.
There are amendments to change stuff people don't like, like the 3/5 you cited. And yes until the amendments were passed the 3/5 was the law no matter your or anyone else preferences.
Btw the 3/5 was not what you think it was.
Originalism or textualism are the only way to avoid judges completely inventing anything they want which is antidemocratic and unamerican
I am not sure you have even the vaguest clue of what you are talking about here.Yes the federal gvmnt can regulate stuff that is related to more than one state, that's the commerce clause. I never said it can't.I said it can't regulate how restaurants work inside Colorado (or any other state) in any aspect (not with the commerce clause).Originalism or textualism are the only vi
So why you disagree on post 3279 ?
Because the wage is an exchange of money for work that happens within a state so it's not interstate trading.
The federal government under the commerce clause in the proper interpretation cannot regulate how you produce anything within a state, it can only regulate what can go from a state to another.
Because the wage is an exchange of money for work that happens within a state so it's not interstate trading.
The federal government under the commerce clause in the proper interpretation cannot regulate how you produce anything within a state, it can only regulate what can go from a state to another.
Under a stretched textualist interpretation the federal government might perhaps impose a federal minwage in manufacturing or agriculture for goods that are exported to other states.
But certainly not for hospitality, untradeable services and so on that happen within the state.
It's pretty obvious that the commerce clause cannot be used to regulate ANYTHING about what a waiter or a nurse do in a state ok?
Because the wage is an exchange of money for work that happens within a state so it's not interstate trading.The federal government under the commerce clause in the proper interpretation cannot regulate how you produce anything within a state, it can only regulate what can go from a state to another.Under a stretched textualist interpretation the federal government might perhap
It doesn’t ….
Minimum wages do not target anyone specifically.
Minimum wages just put a floor on what wages should be which obviously is an indirect effect on commerce .
I mean how could you be against a flat wages but in favour of a flat tax ?
Minimum wage is just a kind of an harmonious tool for commerce inside the U.S. shrug .
It doesn’t ….
Minimum wages do not target anyone specifically.
Minimum wages just put a floor on what wages should be which obviously is an indirect effect on commerce .
I mean how could you be against a flat wages but in favour of a flat tax ?
Minimum wage is just a kind of an harmonious tool for commerce inside the U.S. shrug .
Everything has an indirect effect on commerce.
Because everything has indirect effect on production. By allowing the commerce clause to be used to regulate anything that affects production, you allow the federal government to regulate anything at all, and that's clearly an eversive interpretation of the constitution, because if the constitution wanted to allow the federal government to be able to regulate anything without limit it would simply have said so.
Anything has an indirect effect on production because human beings are part of the production function so anything to indirectly affects human beings in any way indirectly affects production.
In fact, at some point leftists tried exactly to claim that the commerce clause allowed for basically any sort of regulation.
In 1995 the court decided it was otrageous, grotesque, and violently unconstitutional enough they had to stop that, after almost 60 years of unchecked and unlimited eversive abuses of the commerce clause allowing the federal government to intrude upon american lives infinitely more than the constitution had ever allowed.
In 1995 in Lopez
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...
The court stated that introducing "gun free zones" nearby schools wasn't allowed under the commerce clause (something that keep in mind, anyone who can read would have obviously and instantly recognized by *reading the commerce clause*, if not in complete bad faith in a transparent attempt to subvert the constitution).
And the court split 5-4 on that (!!!!), meaning 4 sitting judges in 1995 were enemies of the plain vanilla reading of the constitution and hellbent on usurping power illegally from states.
Keep in mind again that Lopez was still far too broad in allowing the federal government to abuse the commerce clause, but it was the first time they reined in those abuses and they did it only in a very limited way.
It's time this court, the first actual rightwing (ie, not motivated by outcomes in "interpreting" the constitution in a way to allow for what they like to happen) court in 90 + years, very significantly builds on that and very significantly reduces the possibility of abuses of the commerce clause.
And again all this conversation never even vaguely depends on what you think of the political validity of minwage laws or any other policy that would be banned at the federal level if the commerce clause is interpreted correctly.
States (if their constitutions allow for it) can still regulate anything as much as they want, within the limit of the federal constitution
Now, I admit I wasn't paying extremely close attention to opinion at the time so I might have missed it, but could you cite for me where "grotesque" and "violently" were used by the court?
I was wondering the same, couldn't find the "grotesque" and "violently" .
Did they also say it was ''obscene'' and ''utterly insane''?
The latest twitter drama is that Grok is being written off by right wingers as woke because evidence just doesn't support many right wing claims that make the rounds
Just another rejection of reality from the party of logic and reason
The latest twitter drama is that Grok is being written off by right wingers as woke because evidence just doesn't support many right wing claims that make the rounds
Just another rejection of reality from the party of logic and reason
the contested claims are all subjective evaluations with no "evidence" to assess.
even the above labeling of AFD is a purely subjective exercise.
I'm sure you want political spectrum to be this personal subjective thing when its convenient for your arguments but its not and AFD is objectively far right on the global scale
