The Democratic Party's Slide Into Irrelevance
Attaching a poll ... Dems unfavorability rating increased from 45% to 57% during the Biden Administration.
You don't think so? There is nothing in the constitution giving the federal government power to regulate anything like that.
it was a ban limited to federally funded schools and educational institutions, pretty straightforward power the fed have to link their money to their preferences.
You woud be right if they attempted to ban it nationwide or whatever, but they didn't.
it doesn't work like this in theory, in theory the feds can only do what they have explicits power to do (ofc leftists and occasionaly the right disregard that basic approach). Ie unless specifically listed as a power of the fed, the fed cannot do anything about X. Which is why EPA and the DOE are unconstitutional btw.
But in the specific case discussed, it was about institutions taking federal money so it wouldn't have been unconstitutional. They can "attach strings" to federal money
it was a ban limited to federally funded schools and educational institutions, pretty straightforward power the fed have to link their money to their preferences.
You woud be right if they attempted to ban it nationwide or whatever, but they didn't.
Sure, they could cut off money to anyone who didn't do what they want, but that's not the same as banning it. You didn't say it was about funding.
it doesn't work like this in theory, in theory the feds can only do what they have explicits power to do (ofc leftists and occasionaly the right disregard that basic approach). Ie unless specifically listed as a power of the fed, the fed cannot do anything about X. Which is why EPA and the DOE are unconstitutional btw.But in the specific case discussed, it was about institution
I don't think there is anything unconstitutional about the federal government creating new agencies and departments. Some of the actions of those groups could be unconstitutional though.
I believe this framing is disingenuous. Obviously dems don't "like" high crime. However, many dems believe that some policies ostensibly designed to reduce crime can cause more societal harms than they solve. (e.g. 'fighting crime' with mass incarceration of lawbreakers which is expensive and doesn't even necessarily reduce crime)
and cash-less bail?
Because cash bail puts a disproportionate burden on poor folks who can't afford bail.
I don't see why cash ball should ever be an option. People arrested for violent crimes should be kept in jail prior to trial (which should be done very quickly), and those arrested for non-violent crimes are unlikely to be a danger to their community so should be released pending trial unless they have some history that makes them a likely flight risk.
I don't see why cash ball should ever be an option. People arrested for violent crimes should be kept in jail prior to trial (which should be done very quickly), and those arrested for non-violent crimes are unlikely to be a danger to their community so should be released pending trial unless they have some history that makes them a likely flight risk.
A citizen arrested for an alleged violent crime has a bail-hearing in court. The judge assesses the flight risk of the defendant and sets the bail accordingly (or denies the defendant bail altogether).
In other words, the court takes into account those things you mentioned.
A citizen arrested for an alleged violent crime has a bail-hearing in court. The judge assesses the flight risk of the defendant and sets the bail accordingly (or denies the defendant bail altogether).
In other words, the court takes into account those things you mentioned.
I understand that, but I think no one arrested for a violent crime should be given the option of bail.
Fair enough.
Problem is, cateogrically denying bail to an alleged violent offender seems to violate the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty."
I don't think bail is generally offered to someone caught at the scene of a murder with the murder weapon in his hand.
OJ Simpson wasn't offered ball when he was arrested for murder, and that wasn't even at the scene of the crime.
I don't think there is anything unconstitutional about the federal government creating new agencies and departments. Some of the actions of those groups could be unconstitutional though.
Ofc not, but the fact is that in theory the federal government has no explicit power to regulate the environment or education. Outside of federally managed schools for children of the militaries overseas, or pollution on federal land ofc, and stuff like that.
They can create agencies and departments, but only if they deal with enumerated powers of the federal government. At least that's the restrictive reading of the "general welfare" clause of the constitution
Does the department of energy actually regulate anything that doesn't involve things being moved across state lines?
I don't think bail is generally offered to someone caught at the scene of a murder with the murder weapon in his hand.
OJ Simpson wasn't offered ball when he was arrested for murder, and that wasn't even at the scene of the crime.
Of course. I said earlier that the bail judge makes a determination.
And OJ had to be chased 50+ miles down the freeway to be apprehended.
My pushback was against you saying that NO alleged violent criminal should be eligible for bail.
Ofc not, but the fact is that in theory the federal government has no explicit power to regulate the environment or education. Outside of federally managed schools for children of the militaries overseas, or pollution on federal land ofc, and stuff like that.They can create agencies and departments, but only if they deal with enumerated powers of the federal government. At leas
And 'general welfare' isn't even a clause in the Constitution iirc! I believe it's in the Preamble.
And 'general welfare' isn't even a clause in the Constitution iirc! I believe it's in the Preamble.
It's in article I
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; .
It's in article I
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; .
Okay, thanks!
As usual, I misremembered.
I owe my poor memory to old age and Big Pharma.
I thought you meant Education at first as well, but I'm pretty sure they don't regulate anything at all. They mostly just hand out money.
ever heard of title IX regulations? the horrific absurd set of inane policies democrats made worse every chance they got, including violating all basic rules of due process when someone accuses another of sexual harassment in a school setting?
that is something the DoE implements in detail.
preponderance of evidence and you can't even know who the accuser is lol
Wasn't title 9 something passed by congress? I thought that was related to being eligible to receive government funds, just like the proposed law regarding women's sports you just said was constitutional.
Wasn't title 9 something passed by congress? I thought that was related to being eligible to receive government funds, just like the proposed law regarding women's sports you just said was constitutional.
title IX , passed by congress, isn't the title ix regulations purportedly created to enact title IX, which is what the DoE decides in detail.
congress can and did prohibit entities taking federal money to discriminate et cetera.
but ofc all controversies should be adjudicated by courts of laws, the idea of a parallel judicial system micromanaged by the DoE and implemented by colleges themselves to adjudicate complaints with legal repercussions (expulsion, loss of tenure and so on) is an unconstitutional monstrosity
Didn't the regulations to be eligible for funding have to be passed by congress as well?
I don't know anything about the pseudo-judicial system you mention so can't make a Judgment on that.
Didn't the regulations to be eligible for funding have to be passed by congress as well?
I don't know anything about the pseudo-judicial system you mention so can't make a Judgment on that.
yes the idea (in a restrictive view of the constitution i expouse obv, not everyone agrees) is that everything that in any way limits the people freedom has to pass congress explicitly textually.
Not a single line of rules that apply to anyone should be allowed to be written, decided, and voted for by anyone who isn't congress. Except executive orders ofc for the very limited roles they can play for private entitities.
So for example, the FDA being allowed which substances are legal or not is absolutely, uncontroversially (for my judicial philosophy) unconstitutional. The FDA as an advisory board is absolutely fine. The FDA as a comptroller that the textual statutes of congress are applied as written, fine as well.
But the idea that a substance can become legal or not depending on the determination of the FDA is absurd, violetnly subversive, a deep violation of the constitution. Congress has that power *and it cannot delegate it to unelected officials under the partial control of the executive*. Every single determination on the legality of every single substance, allowed quantities and everything else should pass by congress.
And ofc everything is completly legal until and unless congress explicitly bans it.
And that is, if you believe congress can decide which substances can be producted, sold and consumed nationwide. Which it actually can't, it can only decide what can pass the international borders.
The commerce clause does NOT give congress the power to make something illegal nationwide. At most, it gives congress the power to force some states to accept the legality of something which is legal in other states, to smooth commerce. The commerce clause can never reduce potential commerce, in the restricting reading.
Same thing for title IX regulations
What a pathetic statement. If you are too cowardly to standup to fascists get the **** out of the way.
