Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Eagleon]

The Federal Government is not, in fact, the people. Nor, for that matter, are corporations people.

That is a completely bullshit argument that doesn't pass muster of precedent. If that was truly the case, the 10th amendment would be worthless and the bulk of the constitution with it.

Where did I say this? O.o You're not reading what I'm writing. We set up the election system, they set up other systems, and we elected people that reenforced those systems ad nauseum. We've given up our rights to vigilantism, for instance, because it's commonly believed that leads to injustice - hence the police.

It's not as simple as the constitution could ever possibly outline, and that's a good thing, because it's not a roll of toilet paper for us to scribble on. It sets out the foundation for everything, so it has to be vague, because the world changes and we'd like to be able to take down a government that doesn't fit it. That doesn't mean we don't want a government, though.

[GlyphGryph]

As near I can tell, you've just said that the federal government doesn't have to follow the limitations of the federal government, because it is elected by the people and the people don't have to follow those limitations.

If you meant something else, you might have to re-explain it, because I'm struggling to fine a different meaning here. I assume I'm understanding you incorrectly, but I don't actually know what you are trying to say.


To clarify:
I argued that the federal government has no granted constitutional powers to pass such a law, and that by the tenth amendment, they have no right to pass such a law, since it is reserved to the states (or people).

You stated that the federal government is elected by the people, and thus it is not actually limited by this amendment in anyway, since anyone powers not granted to it are granted to it by virtue of of being elected by the people.

Which doesn't make much sense, as far as I can tell.

[Eagleon]

The people define the limitations of the federal government. If the federal government steps outside those limitations, we're free to riotpeacefully protestelect new officials that change them. The people also define their own limitations, and that's where we get law. The constitution has a few basics in it, like life, the right to property, certain limitations of abuse by the military, etc. but it was never meant to be considered for individual criminal cases. It's considered bad form to cite the 5th amendment for murder, for instance, when it has nothing to do with the criminal proceedings that have to do with punishing it. Whether or not the federal government has the right to take a life for a crime is, again, a matter for the people to decide - as they have, in the past, as they may again.

What the 10th amendment would prohibit is the head of the DEA suddenly deciding it's open season on people's homes, because drug crime is up. That would violate rights we haven't given to them by the process we've set up.

[GlyphGryph]

... that is not how it works. Wow.

Have you ever actually read the constitution? It very clearly defines what powers the federal government has. And this sort of thing isn't one of them.

You're basically saying the paper it's written on is worthless, because the government can do whatever the hell it wants (so long as its done by elected officials). That's... kind of unbelievable. I mean, seriously. I understand there are people who want to move away from the whole "constitution" thing, but this is kind of a step beyond.

The federal government is ONLY allowed, ever, to engage in powers explicitly granted by the constitution. They are not (legally) allowed to go beyond that without amending the constitution first.

This is why we are a constitutional republic instead of, say, a democracy or even a regular old republic.

[Eagleon]

No, again, for the third or so time, it can do what we've said it can do. Part of having a right is the right to give it up. We had the right to say that the federal government has nothing to do with something, but we chose to give them that right instead, in order to handle things better than us presumably. I don't understand how I can be any clearer so I'll just stop.

Edit - never mind, you understood. That is how it works. The elected federal government can even introduce changes to the Constitution. Welcome to America.

[GlyphGryph]

No. No it can't. Not according to the constitution.

You can say you WANT them to have the power to do whatever, but they don't - they need to justify it within their constitutional powers. (Get some traction out of the interstate commerce law, go!)

"we" don't actually have any say, whatsoever, on what the federal government can or can not do, except through amendments to the constitution. If "we" don't change the consitution, the federal government CAN'T DO IT. And we HAVEN'T changed the constitution to allow them to do what you are describing.

And argh, the federal government doesn't even have the power to change the Constitution either! ARGH!
You said introduce. Yes, they can propose changes. But they can't actually CHANGE it, so that's irrelevant.

But okay, I get it. You believe the constitution is worthless. Hypothetically because the government tends to ignore it and if they ignore there is no to enforce it unless we rebel. Fine. But seriously, you are arguing that the constitution is utterly meaningless. What meaning could it possibly have under your framing of the situation?

If you disagree- If you think the consitution holds worth - under what power does the US government have the ability to legislate (generally) against killing within states where it is legal?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

*Imagines GG going Hulk over constitutional powers*

[GlyphGryph]

Just to clarify, here are the consitutionally defined powers of our legislature, the only group allowed to pass federal laws:

Section. 8.

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;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You'll probably want to try to jump off that last bit, but it's going to be a bit of a stretch to find another power granted to the federal government which this law would crucial to the execution of.

[Eagleon]

But okay, I get it. You believe the constitution is worthless. Hypothetically because the government tends to ignore it and if they ignore there is no to enforce it unless we rebel. Fine.

It's as worthless as we've made it. It can be made more or less powerful by our actions. If you want a withdrawal of all federal law enforcement from all but the rights given to it in the constitution (mostly related to war) you're going to have to make a case to everyone in the nation that we're better off with the states enforcing our rights instead. Historically, though, that means we'd still probably be practicing segregation, if not slavery. It's not a bad way of making sure the people of other states behave themselves in such cases.

[GlyphGryph]

Well, obviously not slavery - that's unconstitutional.

But meh, this argument is pointless. Of course they can do whatever they want as long as they can get away with it. There's not going to be any success in my arguing against that. But you don't seem to be arguing that "this is the way things work" but that "this is the way things should be".

But do you really believe they should be able to? Should the federal government have the right to FORCE segregation on states that don't want it, despite no constitutional powers towards that end? That's the question here. Your opinion appears to be "Yes, they should have that power if the people elect representatives that want that."

I disagree.

[Eagleon]

Well, obviously not slavery - that's unconstitutional.

But meh, this argument is pointless. Of course they can do whatever they want as long as they can get away with it. There's not going to be any success in my arguing against that. But you don't seem to be arguing that "this is the way things work" but that "this is the way things should be".

But do you really believe they should be able to? Should the federal government have the right to FORCE segregation on states that don't want it, despite no constitutional powers towards that end? That's the question here. Your opinion appears to be "Yes, they should have that power if the people elect representatives that want that."

I disagree.

How else do you expect the constitution to be enforced if a state goes against it? You say obviously not slavery, and a lot of people before the 13th amendment would agree on account of the 5th amendment. But we had the civil war to prove that's it's not so obvious that it can't be misinterpreted enough to let it by. A large number of people in the south didn't think segregation was unconstitutional, but a majority of people elsewhere did. We fixed that without another civil war because we let the federal government rule it unconstitutional, step in with people to make sure that it was fixed, and watch closely to make sure it didn't go back to the way it was.

Allowing states complete creative freedom over interpreting the constitution is asking for trouble. Or, for that matter, any other law, because the constitution is far from everything we want protected. Things like being able to dump waste in the middle of freeways are not technically prohibited by the constitution, for instance. After all, you can just go around. It would be complete chaos to rely on one single level of authority (state or federal) to guide our behavior, because there's too many issues with violations of trust.

What we have is a good, not perfect, balance of power. If nothing else, it makes sweeping changes like the DEA much easier to fight, because instead of relying on a president to change it (would never happen, too risky), we can always just come up with enough drug money to bribe enough congressmen to make a majority, ha ha. Ha. Or care about election reform, that kinda works too.

[Shadowlord]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Hey, wait a minute...

Also:

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The Democrats are violating the Constitution by being elected to state legislatures!

[EveryZig]

But do you really believe they should be able to? Should the federal government have the right to FORCE segregation on states that don't want it, despite no constitutional powers towards that end? That's the question here. Your opinion appears to be "Yes, they should have that power if the people elect representatives that want that."

I disagree.

This basically seems to be boiling down to a question of which level of majority (federal, state, other?) is the least terrible.
Is this am accurate impression on my part, or an I oversimplifying somewhere?

[Shadowlord]

But do you really believe they should be able to? Should the federal government have the right to FORCE segregation on states that don't want it, despite no constitutional powers towards that end? That's the question here. Your opinion appears to be "Yes, they should have that power if the people elect representatives that want that."

I disagree.

You might as well use a real situation: Did the US federal government have the right to put Japanese-Americans in (non-lethal!) concentration camps during WWII (which they did; whether it was constitutional or not, I do not know). I would expect it would violate the parts that guarantee all citizens the right to not be grabbed off the streets for no reason and held with no accusation or evidence of wrongdoing or trial, but I am neither a lawyer, constitutional scholar, nor a judge.

This basically seems to be boiling down to a question of which level of majority (federal, state, other?) is the least terrible.
Is this am accurate impression on my part, or an I oversimplifying somewhere?

We had the "states' rights" debate around 150 years ago (with the pro-states-rights states tending to be also pro-slavery). As I recall, the Union (pro-federal) won and the Confederacy (pro-states-rights) was crushed - and claims of states' rights have had little potency since then, as federal (and corporate) power has only grown, although lately the gears of the federal legislature have been jammed by partisan gridlock republican obstructionism.

[Neonivek]

Did the US federal government have the right to put Japanese-Americans in (non-lethal!) concentration camps during WWII

Interesting. To me the fault wasn't so much that they did put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. Afterall logically this was wartimes and they had the idea that this was the best way to guarentee the safety of America which would include them.

I don't really agree with that idea but to me that wasn't the real issue.

The issue was everything else that gone along with these camps. From forced labour all the way to selling their things.

Had they been places where people could wait out the war while under suspicion in relative comfort and didn't mess with their stuff... it would almost be a story about how America kept its cool under paranoid delusions.