Posted on 07/03/2005 2:37:02 PM PDT by Torie
Roberts and O'Connell are in the top tier of legal minds abroad in the land it appears. Roberts was first in his class at the most selective law school in the nation (and how top tier law school applicants sort themselves out is on a national basis - one goes to the "best" law school one can get into regardless of location. I hoofed it off to Michigan Law School because that was the best law school which chose to admit me). That to me suggests genius.
Have mercy!
Did you really type that?
Right to Privacy. Haven't heard that in a while. That was the theme of Vance Packard's "the Naked Society," which pointed out many of the complaints about gov't etc knowing our private business, and that back in 1965 before the Internet, before buying everything via credit and debit cards, before GPS.
Yikes! You mean , sorta like, France ?! Federalism is what made the US what it is today, IMO. More local control means more democracy, not less. A more narrow reading of the commerce clause is better than what youre suggesting, one would think.
And that just keeps bringing us back to my point: if society really is as dependent on this misrepresentation of the law as you say it is, then it shouldn't be that hard for them to actually change the law "back" to what they want it to be.
But even then the problem is, you haven't really said how re-applying the commerce clause as it was originally understood would be troublesome, beyond making some vague analogies. Nothing concrete. It's not like it would cause mile-high trade barriers to go up between all the states.
It will be interesting to see if the Dem senators (and Specter and the New England "RINO's") go to the wall for Roe. My sense is that the Dems see Roe as costing them votes on a net basis now, and while politicians don't mind red ink when it comes to money, they don't like it when it comes to votes. Ditto for guns.
I have come to be niggardly in applying the term 'genius' even to those so obviously above my level.
Yep. I call them as I see them. That has always been my view (although of course wise policy is to let the states be laboratories of experimentation sometimes). You just don't read my posts enough. :)
Well I made my case. You just are not persuaded. I didn't persuade you on gay marriage either. ) And so it goes, painful as it might be when smart folks whom I respect just say no to my little opinions. :)
By the way, unlike the commerce clause, Roe is NOT in the scambled egg category.
Well let us say the Feds can't regulate speed limits. More folks are maimed and die. The Feds cut checks associated with that. One state legalizies pot. Then we need drug guards on state borders. Maybe it makes the citizens of state state mind numbed zombies. The Feds cut more checks, the economy is damaged. And on and on it goes. No state is an island, even Hawaii, as it were.
How many states do you imagine would have "signed on" to the union knowing that they were to become "mere administrative regions"?
There are plenty of ways to handle competing risks and opportunities regarding both negative and positive externalities, for which regulatory government was illegally constituted. You may not envision how the nation would run effectively without it, but it is quite realistic.
None. I am not claiming the Consitution provided for such a lowly state for the states. That would be well, errant.
I've often thought you ought to have your eyes examined.
Just post a link to your book again. :) I kind of figuered out what its deus ex machina is that you keep hidden behind the curtain. But land use issues do not really dispose of my larger point, assuming your full employment act for environmental consultants grand unified theory worked.
That does not follow. The states can do that just fine, seeing as they are the ones enforcing those laws.
Strike one.
One state legalizies pot. Then we need drug guards on state borders.
Then the various states might figure out the risks versus the benefits of various regulatory or criminal schema and optimize them by competition. You got sumthin' agin Federillism?
The very assumption that the Federal government is the only competent regulatory authority is beyond laughable. You've got to do better than that.
Whew! Glad we cleared that up! ;>)
No, it is externality issue writ large.
Actually, the model in the book is in more respects applicable to traditional regulation than it is toward managing intangible environmental risks.
We use it already in manufacturing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.