President Elon Musk

It's only expensive if you eventually fix it. There is no problem if you just keep cutting costs baby!

this man is like 60 years old, with idk dozens(?) of artificially-inseminated children. actually you know what, they're much better off without him around. carry on with the cringe meme "comedy" from ~2005...

The wildest thing is an Italian citizen living in Italy waxing poetic about whatever the **** this crap is

I can’t even begin to imagine how meaningless my life would have to be that I’m wasting hours upon hours upon hours upon hours upon hours of my life each week jerking off about propagandist ‘government spending cuts’ in let’s say, Turkey

Lucy, I don’t know how to tell you this without insulting you deeply, which is good cuz that’s my goal

Based on your clearly demonstrated priorities of being a far-right Internet superhero, your life and its work has been a total waste

I see you are having an attack of LDS, i hope you get well soon

To be fair, US politics is big news in most other countries. My wife works with people all over the world. They always want to talk about what is going on here. I thought it was kind of odd, but several years ago I had to go to the UK for work a few times. Everyone in the office asked about stuff happening here.

More posts like this and I will move you up in my personal poster ratings.

You really think it's impossible that the people who voted for that grant actually liked the idea of having more trees in urban areas?

Fwiw I believe Montreal is very likeable because of more trees in the city .
I remember the 1970s and early 1980s when they just started to make massive implementations of trees .
Man the city was bad compared to today shrug .
Green is good .
Who loves a land behind their house with no grass ?

https://www.montrealgazette.com/news/art...

Lots of benefits and it look better then a neighbor windows…

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.

then vote for it and if people agree you get it at the local level. What the hell does the federal government have to do with it at all?

Hard-core states rights was put aside 160 years ago.

Damn straight. And anyone who has a problem with that is free to put a few billions into a survival bunker, and that is the only freedom that matters.

Nope, actually commerce clause shenanigans are more recent *and currently under judicial assault*. A man can dream but it's fairly plausible SCOTUS will rule in favor of a reduction of power of the federal government in various ways soon enough.

You are conflating basic negative rights being guaranteed nationwide when they clash with state preferences, which happened when you mention it more or less, with the completely fabricated unconstitutional justification for federal government intrusion in welfare, regulation and so on which came after the Lochner era and started with the FDR regime.

Like the federal minwage is completly unconstitutional simply because it's not a matter for the federal government (again, regardless of wheter one likes min wage laws), and many other things like that.

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923) even considered STATE minwage laws blatantly unconstitutional as a violation of the 5a lol

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecou...

Reversed in 1937 under the FDR regime.

In 1941 SCOTUS (again under the FDR regime) decided that federal minwage laws don't violate the 10a, that was one of the key brutal eversive decisions i am contesting. So not even a century ago.

A commerce clause psychopatic justification because "it affects interstate commerce" so the feds can regulate that lol (commerce clause doesn't mean or imply anything of the sort in the negative at all). If anything the commerce clause can justify striking DOWN things that make inter-state commerce less smooth, but it can never justify any federal regulation of a topic "because it's a topic that has effect on interstate commerce", that's not what the commerce clause was AT ALL.

Commerce clause was , very clearly, "the federal government can impose to states to have very smooth interstate commerce", not "the federal gvmnt can regulate anything that directly or indirectly affects interstate commerce" in the negative. It can strike down any state decision that directly or indirectly REDUCES interstate commerce, it cannot write any regulation that directly or indirectly REDUCES interstate commerce.

So the federal government can never impose any standard higher than what a state is willing to allow, while it can always force a lower standard to states. That's the commerce clause in it's actual transparent meaning.

You must have a different version of the Constitution than I have, because it doesn't say that at all.

I'll admit to not being an expert on this at all but the commerce clause is this:

I have no idea where your argument that it doesn't give the power to impose any sort of regulations is coming from at all. Even the Lochner era (1905-1937) that you seem to be arguing from doesn't appear to be related to your argument. The historical difference in interpretation of the commerce clause only seems to have been around what was considered commerce, not how the federal government was allowed to regulate it.

The only thing I can think is that maybe you're actually referring to something else and incorrectly calling it the commerce clause?

Lochner era has a lot of anti-commerce-clause enlargement decisions predicated on the ideas I described above.

Anyway the textualist interpretation of the commerce clause would allow even bizzarre regulations, but exclusively for goods or services that pass state lines, and never "imply" that if it "affects commerce between states" then the fed can regulate it.

The originalist interpretation (mine) would look at what they meant when they wrote it (they just wanted the federal gvmnt to be able to intervene if some states built tariffs or non tariff impediments to trade with other states).

But even under textualism (which is what you seem to lean toward given your analysis) the federal government could never impose a federal minimum wage or regulate any production of any good or service that doesn't cross state line.

The massive, insane change in interpretation was liberal, a complete invention, where the fed were allowed by SCOTUS to regulate farming production everywhere because even if you produce to consume yourself or to sell within your state that has an effect on nationwide prices (because you don't buy elsewhere or your customer doesn't buy elsewhere).

Wickard v. Filburn 1942 changed the interpretation completely allowing basically unlimited federal regulation as everything or almost everything with some degrees of separation can be found to affect everything else in the economy

The point about commerce that doesn't cross state lines is fair (but somewhat hard to apply) but your "originalist" interpretation about the powers for interstate is a frankly absurd reach without a lot of other supporting evidence. The fact that it's included alongside foreign trade implies that Congress has the same powers to regulate interstate commerce as foreign commerce and as far as I'm aware there is no argument that Congress has anything other than complete power to enact whatever rules they want on trade with foreign nations. I don't buy any argument that the writers of the commerce clause intended the powers over interstate to be any different to that.

For reference I am neither textualist or originalist and think that relying on the interpretation of a 200 year old document for defining modern laws is just dumb. Since there's no realistic way of reducing the influence of the constitution though I guess you could most closely classify my views under the "living constitution" concept.

Personally I prefer to summon the spirits of dead jurists and communing with them.

Thankfully, they always agree with me.

They meant what they wrote. Otherwise, they would have written it differently. Did some people want it to mean something else? Sure, probably all of them. But they each wanted something different. Some probably wanted the federal government to be totally hands-off (even beyond your silly interpretation). While others wanted the federal government to be all-powerful. But, the way things work is that they come together and compromise on something most of them can get behind. And that is what they write. And what they write is the supreme law of the land.

that's textualism. some people agree with you. not many these days, less than 10% of "experts" afaik. all on the "far right".

anyway even under textualism the federal gvmnt cant interfere with what isn't sold across state lines.

so yes they can mandate whatever to what is made in Alabama and sold in Colorado, but they can never legislate about how things are done in Alabama if they are sold within Alabama (under textualism). they literally can't regulate labor relations *at all* when it's firms that don't sell outside Alabama.

they have no constitutional power to even discuss healthcare coverage, maternity, wages, strike rights and everything else except when it's federal constitutional rights they have to preserve.

the civil right act for the parts that regard private companies is fully unconstitutional under that reading of the constitution which you seem to agree with, for firms that don't sell outside their state, do you understand that ?

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) uphold the civil right act (for the parts that banned discrimination in restaurants and so on) because of the enlarged reading of the commerce clause you are denying any validity to.

a restaurant certainly isn't inter state trade right? so the federal government has no right to regulate restaurants, including for discrimination

so what do you propose? judges can just invent what they like?

for the bold just read federalist paper 11

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century...

there wasn't even a vague notion of the vaguest idea of wanting the federal GVMNT to regulate in the sense leftists mean it now. the entire and only reason for the unity of the commerce clause was having smooth unimpeded trade among states.

or this take on the topic

https://pacificlegal.org/the-commerce-cl...

One of the limited powers that the Constitution delegates to the federal government is regulating “commerce . . . among the several States.” This departed from the Constitution’s predecessor, the Articles of Confederation, which did not give the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. In the opinion for Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retails Association v. Thomas, the Supreme Court wrote, “Under the Articles of Confederation, States notoriously obstructed the interstate shipment of goods.” Thus, “removing state trade barriers was a principal reason for the adoption of the Constitution.”

/

The convention that drafted the Constitution was called for the express purpose of addressing interstate commerce. In The Federalist Papers numbers 7, 11, and 42, authors Alexander Hamilton and James Madison urged Americans to ratify the Constitution to foster “free trade among the States” and thereby reduce the chances of trade wars (and kinetic wars) between the states. This argument persuaded Americans and they ratified the Constitution, including its Commerce Clause

/

it's basically uncontroversial. the commerce clause was explicitly added to block states from impeding trade. not to give the mother****ers in Washington the power to decide how many days of sick leave you should have nationwide or anything like that.

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 if that state wants to.

in it's truest sense the commerce clause should mean that regulations in the less regulated state of the federation have to be accepted by all, and never viceversa, for inter state trade.

it's a tool to have the minimum indispensable amount of regulations not the opposite. the horrific distortion operated since the FDR era on the topic are a bleeding wound in society and caused unimaginable amount of economic losses nationwide.

I mean, the US is a judicial system based on common law, where ruling is based on precedent. So, yes - it is literally a system based on judge-made-law. One can hope that they aren't just ruling based on "what they like", but judges under common law can have very broad powers of interpretation.

You and I come from countries with the far more boring system of civil law, where judicial judgment is expected to adhere to legal code and precedent is secondary.

Of course, as legislation grows more encompassing, common law can take on some aspects of civil law. And if broad principles are codified in a system of civil law, judgments under civil law can take on aspects of common law.