Posted on 10/16/2009 8:29:12 AM PDT by Huck
The New Deal in 1904? FDR must have had a time machine handy.
The New Deal Commerce Clause is responsible for the greatest expansion of federal power in our history, and it's still going on. The beltway bureaucracy and politicians who seek to expand it have a vested interest in establishing and maintaining the perception that it is a legimate exercise of federal power, and that nothing can or should be done to change it.
Why do you defend the New Deal, and try to protect it from criticism?
What does it say? Take a hit and write something down.
I'm watching you dig that hole. If you want something to read, try the article.
No hysteria. Just a firm commitment to uphold the Constitution.
The bolded sections are part of the same text written by the same men who built the Constitution.
Do you really mean to say these men intended for the Constitution to be overthrown and torn apart? Is THAT what you're arguing?
Well let's see, the Founders published the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and didn't write the Constitution until 1787, so I gues that gives me 11 years to work on it. Should they have had a finished Constitution ready to go before criticizing their government?
Get to work.
When you have a genuine alternative which you are prepared to argue and defend with your honor, your fortune and your very life, then let us know.
I definitely believe there is a better way. As soon as I discover it, I'll let you know, sweetie.
LOLOL!
Yeah, it's out there... Somewhere!
*pffft*
That's right up there with "Socialism will work THIS time. All the past attempts were just implemented wrong."
You have no credibility.
Baloney. It's much easier to do what you do. Proclaim yourself unworthy to determine your own destiny. Scream STOP and cover your ears rather than subject your most dearly held beliefs to scrutiny. Assume whatever we have right now is the best we'll ever have and therefore do NOTHING to improve it.
I assume nothing. The facts of the matter are written in the pages of history for all to see.
There *IS* no better alternative than our Constitution, until the Lord Himself reigns upon the earth.
It is MAN who is flawed, and this is what leads to tyranny and suffering. There has never been and will never be any form of government involving flawed, mortal man that will be better than our Constitutional Republic.
Your "out there, somewhere" answer is pathetic and laughable.
Don't you worry about the Founders. They did pretty darn well for their time, and won't suffer from my criticisms. They understood that whatever they got right or wrong would be judged by posterity, and I'm sure they hoped it would be judged. You think they thought they had arrived at the perfect solution? You think they thought themselves the infallible crowning achievement of man? Uh....no.
I have never claimed that I or the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution is perfect.
However, I adamantly contend that your criticisms of it are misguided and destructive. The improvment which is sorely needed is not in the document, but in the people and their elected representatives!
We don't need a better Constitution, we need people of better character. People of low character will not serve better, nor be better served with changes to the letter of law they have significantly rejected in whole.
I would say publishing my thoughts here opens it up to scrutiny. And in some cases, the scrutiny is well-reasoned and substantive. In other cases, like yours, it's just weepy emotionalism that would have made the founders cringe.
Your hubris is showing again.
You can speak for the Founding Fathers and declare what would make them cringe? Wouldn't a comfortable, protected and prosperous American sitting at home taking potshots at their life's work more likely make them cringe?
I object to the very nature of your effort. It is repulsive to me. You ignore the fact that our government is operated by imperfect people, to whom the criticism rightfully belongs, and instead attack the very foundation and principles upon which it was built.
At the end of the day, all you could hope to accomplish is to devise a government operated by the same flawed people, but guided by lesser principles.
You basically consider the Constitution a holy writ, equal to the Bible itself. You are plain wrong. Now go get a tissue and blow your nose.
You are more or less correct here.
The Constitution is very nearly scripture. Its fruits have proven the quality of the tree from which they sprang.
Again, the Constitution is not in need of repair; the men who ignore and abuse it ARE.
A 1904 SCOTUS decision was part of the "New Deal"? Trippy.
BTW, have you figured out how the 1895 "New Deal" Lottery Act secretly only applied to "registered common carriers" yet?
The “substantial effects” test dates from 1937 in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, which was before Wickard and Wrightwood Dairy in 1942.
Thanks for that.
Thanks for that.
Is it an exercise in expansion of federal power under the New Deal Commerce Clause, and the "substantial effects doctrine".
Wickard v Filburn is considered the "landmark" case that established that doctrine, and is the "lightning rod" for discussion of that doctrine.
Do you wish to defend that doctrine as politically conservative, and consistent with original intent jurisprudence?
I've figure out that chasing your red herrings prevents discussion of the salient issues.
You make a false assertion, you're caught, you flee.
[time passes]
You repeat the false assertion, you're caught, you flee.
You’re the one who got suspended.
Never happened.
But you still got suspended.
For example, let's see if you will source your bogus "registered common carrier" Constitutional revisionism.
[crickets]
RobertPaulsen used to throw out those same red herrings to try and disrupt discussions of the Commerce Clause.
There's no way to debate whether or not the Constitution is Divinely inspired, or merely a piece of work by some great men, so there's nothing to discuss there.
And since you insist that the Constitution is the be-all and end-all of government design, there's nothing to talk about there.
We could continue to exchange smart remarks, which accomplishes nothing. Or we could just agree to disagree and leave it at that. I've made my choice. Have a nice evening.
In the constitutional law textbooks used in law schools, Wickard, if mentioned at all, is usually a mere footnote, with Jones & Laughlin Steel considered in full because it established the "substantial effects" doctrine.
Wickard draws the attention that it does from conservatives because its facts are simple and result easy to criticize. Granted, Wickard was an ill-chosen exercise of federal power in service of economically ruinous policies, but it was not bad law after Wrightwood Dairy and Jones & Laughlin Steel and in the larger context of the growth of Commerce Clause power.
I agree with the results in Lopez and Raich but I am otherwise unsure where to draw the line on the Commerce Clause and what doctrinal formula to use. I do know that the expansion of the Commerce Clause helped make the US a more prosperous and economically free country than it would be if state and local governments could burden and Balkanize our markets and economy.
Like most Americans, on economic issues, I am a Hamiltonian and want a large, prosperous, economically free, and powerful America. That makes me accepting of a broad view of the Commerce Clause. And I would rather attack New Deal policies on their merits as stupid and counter-productive instead of trying to reverse the court decisions and legal doctrines that facilitated them.
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.