Posted on 07/03/2005 2:37:02 PM PDT by Torie
I am not always as obtuse as I sound, Bigun. :) And as a lawyer, I always have verbal exit strategies. If those don't work, well about once bi-annually, I just admit that I was well, wrong.
Most, it being a question of the big states having more authority than they should and the little states being squeezed out but going along because they have to eventually. Would the borders of the admin regions be adjusted to even out population numbers? That would end up the same as squeezing out the little states, too. Opinion was split at the Constitutional convention just as it is here. The FedGov ended up with either too much power or not enough power depending on the state in question, and we're still right there after all this history.
It's called the Long Beach Grand Prix.
Weeding season isn't over.
Take care. Post a pic of your beautful "managed" forest again when you get a chance.
As I said, the author's focus was on the commerce clause, with a swipe at Garza for venting over Roe as suggesting maybe larger loose cannon concerns (not persuasive since only Roe drove him over the top).
I beg to disagree. That is precisely why the states were given (regardless of size) the exact same representation in the federal government. (Since ratification of the 17th amendment, the states now have NO representation in the federal government.)
The Fed Gov ended up with either too much power or not enough power depending on the state in question, and we're still right there after all this history.
The fed gov has far more power than any of the founders ever intended, most of it unconstitutionally usurped, but that has nothing whatever to do with the physical sizes of the states.
Only in the Second House and in the Electoral College. Some big names were willing to consider eliminating the states altogether, although the majority were not interested in that.
Some "big names" would have heartily endorsed the naming of a king! I thanks God for the sensible majority!
You're right, he's focusing on the commerce clause. This seems like an odd focus since it's going to be abortion that drives the liberals' position on the nominees. I wonder if Rosen plans on doing another article focused on the judges' paper trails regarding abortion.
Wait a minute, you're missing a step in logic. If the feds stop regulating speed limits, who's to say that the states won't start? In fact, haven't they already started?
One state legalizies pot. Then we need drug guards on state borders.
Not at all. One state legalizing pot should help the states that don't, because all the druggies will move to the state where it's legal.
The point is that there is a federal interest in what states do, 24/7. Think about gay marriage. There is a federal interest in that too. It simply won't be sustainable to have legalized gay marriage in some states, and not others. You just watch.
The Democrats will try to prevent the appointment of any of these people. Sometimes I think the Dems are trying to refine the practice of stalling confirmation, with the ultimate objective of preventing GWB from making ANY appointments to the Court. If they can run out the clock in 3 and a half years, that's what they'll do.
Whomever the President announces as his first selection, the headlines are sure to call it a "major blunder," and it'll go from there to a protracted battle. Poor Justice O'Connor will have to stay on, as she stated she would until her successor is confirmed. Big bad W will be blamed for preventing her from caring for her ailing husband. The Chief Justice will retire in the meantime and the Mud Sling Media will call it a national crisis brought about by the stubborn, divisive George W. Bush.
Oh, and Jimmy Carter will put in his two cents before it's over, and so will the Toon. And those members of the super-elite True Presidents Club, John Eff Kerry and Al Gore.
Looks to be a bumpy hayride, kiddies. You must be thirty-six dukakises tall to board this ride...
That ultimately depends on what SCOTUS rules. If it rules (correctly) that states do not have to recognize same-sex "marriage" from other states, then it would be sustainable. As sustainable as having that policy in one country but not in another.
How is this not grounds for a discrimination suit? How is this different that the U/Michegan case? Come to think of it, didn't Alberto defend quotas in that case?
A wonderful feast of commerce clause pruning powerhouses. Let's appoint three!
Too bad for Janice she's the wrong minority. Word is Jorge will be discriminating against non-Hispanics this time around.
You have it completely backwards. The states created the federal government. The states can tell the Federal government to stick it up its ass. The commerce clause was never intended to change that.
Unless, of course, you are a "conservative" FDR worshipper.
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.