Posted on 12/04/2012 5:51:13 AM PST by Resettozero
Your stripes are showing. What was that you were saying about conservatives (who embarrass you) embarrassing (your idea of) conservatives?
All I was saying to you is that the ground is crumbling under your stance and you might want to consider modification of your location.
Sincere thanks for providing a target for this thread to shoot down.
Sincere thanks for providing a target for this thread to shoot down.
Sincere thanks for answering my arguments.
We must fight the socialists any way we can.
“Brown didn’t say that the court ‘cheated’ in Plessy”
I’m not saying the Roberts court cheated in Obamacare, really. I was just borrowing your language.
“its finding of fact was in error”
So SCOTUS was in error. Whatever became of them being right by definition?
“debate about Brown continues (sadly, IMO, but legitimately)”
Why sadly if it’s legitimate? I think Brown was flat out wrong, personally. We must accept silly sociological arguments for what constitutes legitimate state interest since we lost wide ideological agreement on what constitutes just governance. But playing on their field, segregation is not inherently damaging to children. Racially, ethnically, and otherwise homogenously populated schools have proven to outperform in every measurable manner melting pot public schools. Brown was factually mistaken.
“The arguments that won in Brown couldn’t have been made much earlier than 1950”
What’s this now? The Constitution’s meaning changes over time? Or, again, was SCOTUS previously wrong, in which case it is not by definition right?
“It’s important to note how rare such reversals are”
No it isn’t. Or if it is, not for this discussion. It is irrelevant to my point.
“We have to fight it intelligently”
You think nullification is stupid, I know. But what am I to think of that coming from someone who shortly ago was arguing for SCOTUS infallibility?
You sound foolish unless you REALLY think the commerce clause and general welfare clause covers socialism. Do yo REALLY think that?
“What if we won with better ideas instead of sore-loser lawsuits and state-level bills”
Firstly, I don’t know how much time and effort this bill is wasting. If it publicizedls the much deprived notion of nullification, that much is worth it to me. Not that I like symbolic bills. But I do like press for my pet issues.
Secondly, enough with this sore-loser stuff. Were the complaintants of Brown sore losers? Is everything Might Makes Right with you?
You sound foolish unless you REALLY think the commerce clause and general welfare clause covers socialism. Do yo REALLY think that?
“I choose my battles with more wisdom”
It comes down to this, again and again. You think nullification is dumb; I get it. I think it’s noble. I recommend reading up on it. At least cure yourself a little of your SCOTUS dependency.
Violence over parking spots would be petty, yes. I see the gradual nationalization of healthcare as of rather more importance. And invoking nullification is not like punching a stranger. It is vain, yes, and mostly useless. But it is ever the more admirable.
The US Constitution delegated and codified a republic. It explained the small and limited functions of the Federal Govt. The BOR codified a few individual rights.
Each state could go fully communist as long as that state did not violate any of the BOR's. Each state could be a Libertarian paradise. The states should be 50 laboratories of self governance. If you didn't like it in one state you used to be able to vote with your feet. But now the republic has been so bastardized that it is now under the thumb of the FEDs which are socialist. The original intent of the USC was to prevent that from happening. As such the USC is an utter failure. I totally understand what the original intent was, so spare me.
Try to open your mind up and learn from those that know history and have an understanding you seem to lack.
Or, again, was SCOTUS previously wrong, in which case it is not by definition right?
C'mon, Tublecane, you can do better than this. The Plessy case was grounded in contemporary "racial science." Racial science was all the rage for quite some time (e.g. racist beginnings of Planned Parenthood). For some reason, after WWII it fell out of favor. Reversing a Supreme Court decision is extremely difficult (as it should be), but a fundamental flaw in its finding of fact is one avenue.
Ive been trying to figure out what the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality is, if not the Supreme Court, and I've realized that it's you, some other Freepers and South Carolina. Great to have that cleared up.
The US Constitution delegated and codified a republic. It explained the small and limited functions of the Federal Govt. The BOR codified a few individual rights.
I hate to break this to you (and others), but this legal theory was tested repeatedly in the early 1800s and lost. We then had an internal war over it and the people fighting for this idea lost. For better or worse, we're at the tail end of about 200 years of having a strong federal government. If you want to see how well a weak federal government works, please look at the EU.
“Where were these winning arguments when the case actually went to the Supreme Court?”
Well, in the first place SCOTUS’ jurisdiction over tax law is restricted until after they have been paid. So that’s out. 10th amendment arguments were made, at least implicitly. I can speak for a majority of my arguments being different than those presented in court because I am not bound by caring what the justices think, and therefore do not argue as if SCOTUS precedent, especially over the last 70 or so years, is legitimate.
This was a wacky case, as Roberts flopped last minute and the administration won on a point no one thought central. I can’t say exactly what were the arguments made against the mandate as a tax, other than that it was coercive, maybe. Anyway, like I said, lawyers argue for the judge’s ears, and often judges are tuned to anything but the actual law. And I’m not just talking about the gulf between the Constitution and precedent (see Roberts on the result of elections).
“I’m talking about the voting. House votes. Senate votes.”
House and Senate votes, respectively, only considered in relation to themselves? Not taking into consideration, for instance, which side must pass it first? So what are you saying they followed properly? Majority rules? That’s a rather low bar to jump.
“That argument lost”
I’m not sure it’s even made. There is no compunction to prove the Constitution empowers something. The benefit of the doubt is given to constitutionality. Seriously, that’s official SCOTUS policy, with a few exceptions (violation of favored bill of rights rights, dealing with the political process especially elections, and impacting favored “discreet minorities”).
“No one has to do prove it wrong anymore”
You don’t have to, but howbout for the heck of it?
Well, in the first place SCOTUS’ jurisdiction over tax law is restricted until after they have been paid.
Wow, well you'd better call them up and tell them that, since they apparently forgot and ruled on the case anyway.
10th amendment arguments were made, at least implicitly.
I love how all of these 10th Amendment arguments were made -- just nobody bothered to cite the 10th Amendment when making them. That's priceless.
I can speak for a majority of my arguments being different than those presented in court because I am not bound by caring what the justices think, and therefore do not argue as if SCOTUS precedent, especially over the last 70 or so years, is legitimate.
So you win in Make Believe Supreme Court. I guess that's what we have here: MBSCOTUS. How adorable.
If Free Republic is a place for conservatism applied to make-believe worlds, then yeah, I'm in the wrong place.
“Do you have another explanation as to why a 10th amendment challenge was not tried in court?”
I believe it was, at least implicitly. Any time you argue for something as unconstitutional due to a lack of positive power on the part of the feds it is basically a 10th amendment argument. Saying the commerce clause doesn’t apply because nit having bought insurance coverage is not a regulatable activity is in essence a 10 th amendment argument.
If it isn’t explicitly invoked, that’s because it’s sorta pro forma. There shouldn’t be a 10th amendment in the first place, as you can get the same idea from simply reading the Constitution and understanding the mechanism. All the 10th does is spell it out, and even that wasn’t too much to easily ignore.
There’s also the presumption of constitutionality, like I said. SCOTUS would probably start throwing things at you if you went line by line through the bill saying “this isn’t mentioned in the Constitution...this isn’t mentioned in the Constitution...this isn’t...” Unless it’s one of the aforementioned usual exceptions or so painfully obvious as not having bought insurance not being interstate commerce, they let it be.
ObamaCare directly violates the Enumerated Powers and the 10th Amendment. If you are going to correct people on the Constitution . . .
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.