 |
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You mean that you agree with it because it must be something conservative about it? I would have thought you would need a good understanding of something before you can come up with an informed opinion.
Tut
It's a simple concept . We know what the founders meant because there are enough supporting documents by them telling us what the clauses mean. We know what the meaning of the amendments are because we have the public records of the deliberations and the opinions of the authors. It's only a conservative thing because conservatives tend to respect the narrow original meaning ,rather than the expansions that have rendered the original text meaningless in many instances.
You mean a farmer who wanted to save money by growing his own wheat? That's actually a great idea, but at the time of the ruling the fear was wheat prices being unstable across the market. The rationale was that if all the farmers did it locally, the price of wheat would be destabilized on the markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What happened to supply and demand that you free traders love so much, and the profits? Lets not forget the profits.Quote:
In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (4.5 ha) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices, Filburn planted 23 acres (9.3 ha) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (4.8 ha) of excess area.[1]
The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Filburn. The Act required an affirmative vote of farmers by plebiscite in order to implement the quota. Much of the District Court decision related to the way in which the Secretary of Agriculture had campaigned for passage: The District Court had held that the Secretary's comments were improper. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which called the District Court's holding against the campaign methods which led to passage of the quota by farmers a "manifest error." The court then went on to uphold the Act under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Not meaningless I would say, but you have to be able to change with time, and circumstances. I mean the country has changed since the days of 13 original colonies. Innovation, and technology and an ever expanding capability has to be met with a wider view just to accout for the effect on the way we do things or see things. Especially since the day of the farmer has given way to industry, and manufacturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If you don't change with the times/conditions, how do you solve the challenges? I seriously doubt that Jefferson would be able to make policy for the auto industry, or rail roads for that matter.
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes it is a simple concept and that is exactly the problem problem.
"Narrow meaning" is convenient because it unites original intent, textualism, originalism or any other way you want to derive it so long as it is a descriptive interpretation it exists under the one banner.
Isn't that why Scalia makes clear distinctions in relation to this issue? In other words, to avoid the fallacy of group think as it applies to committee decisions.
Tut
Tal ,why punish self sufficiency ? Do they make you pay a fee for growing veggies in a home garden ? Filburn had no intention of selling his wheat . So the market impact was abstract in the mind of the activist judges .
But the effect was that it completely distorted the role of the Federal government in our lives by this ridiculous expansion of the Commerce Clause . Hopefully SCOTUS will finally put an end to that with this ruling on Obamacare as the only barrier that hasn't been crossed yet is the Federal government forcing people to enter into contract with another private company /individual.
Back to cause and effect Tom, as yourself sufficiency is my bankruptcy. More so the court has to deal (hopefully), with the practical effects on people as that's the final judgement of any law or policy.
And rigging the game is not my idea of freedom, nor equal protection under the law.
"So the market impact was abstract in the mind of the activist judges"Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Sorry to push your previous "narrow meaning" thing again, but you are advocating the same type of abstractionism as the activist judges.
The only arguments I have seen so far are those that support a generalized conservative position. In other words, the correct interpretation of the Constitution is the interpretation that people who think like me prefer.
Tut
Tut , the commerce clause says that[ Congress has the power ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
So tell me how in hell that gives them the power to do what they did to Filburn ,or to mandate the purchase of goods or services that an individual doesn't want ? You have to have a very creative imagination to divine that from the penumbras and eminations of the clear written word. I also backed that up with many references to the clause in the Federalist papers ,written by the key founders at the Constitutional Convention.
Try it this way Tom, Filbin acted outside the law for his own advantage. If everyone did that, what would we have? The same with health insurance, if I pay for yours, can I afford mine?
It may smack down your rugged individualism, but it helps the village get through the winter. We can all gain, and are stronger for having defined boundaries of good behavior. As a nation we all have to move together in one direction to thrive and survive, or fall to our own inefficiency. My gosh, the reality of uniting 360 million people requires the co-operation of all of them, and for whatever reason the right is against that, I respectfully submit the notion of returning to the good old days of a few million people mostly Euro, white christians having there complete way, and subjugating others to their standard, are not feasible, or sustainable.
What part of equal and fair are you afraid of? Why are you ignoring and dismissing those that don't agree with you? Why can't you compromise?
It appears to me that you have a single minded goal of how everyone should live, think, and act, that preserves your own superiority, and suggests everyone else inferiority. Sorry, that's not reality.
The law was an unconstitutional exercise of power by the Roosevelt Adm. I don't care how SCOTUS ruled ,they were wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Strawman ,that is not what I am saying and you know it. The Constitution works for a nation of a few million or hundreds of millions ;if it is followed .Quote:
I respectfully submit the notion of returning to the good old days of a few million people mostly Euro, white christians having there complete way, and subjugating others to their standard, are not feasible, or sustainable
Love it ! All week long ,all I read in the press is which Conservative judge would compromise . I read nothing about how the progressive judges need to budge... and that's the same argument you are making . I have to compromise which means move closer to your position without any reciprocal move .Quote:
Why can't you compromise?
You need to get closer to the middle. I mean you can't stay far right, and say NO! You have to actually have a solution to negotiate.
No I don't. Compromise means the left entrenched and their agenda moving a little more slowly than they like. Eventually their Fabian strategy wins.
Hello:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Here's the right wing plan... Give tax breaks to the richest of the rich. By and by, it'll make its way down to the poor, and then they can BUY insurance.
What's more American than that?
Bwa, ha ha ha.
excon
Creating commerce for the purpose of regulating it, then penalizing those who do not wish to participate is what a dictatorship does.
How about creating commerce to generate money? Profit... the oldest motive in the world.
Easy to profit when you force your service on your clientele . In the underword they call it a protection racket .
Hello again, tom:
Let me see if I can reduce your argument down to it's basics... You got those who want to make sure that insurance companies can't dump you when you get sick, versus FREEDOM.
Seems like those are two great arguments that pass each other in the night.
excon
So Tom perhaps the legislation can be struct down as contravening the RICO ActQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The answer to preventing insurance companies from dumping people is to reward them by forcing people to buy their services ?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:21 AM. |