Posted on 12/06/2017 7:02:05 PM PST by mdittmar
Naive is not stupid.
The constitution is more complex than rocket science.
The point is that, outside of those with divine knowledge, what the document means has to come from the humans reading it. You, me, or the man on the street has to tell us.
As I said before the Founders’ disagreed profoundly as to what parts of it means so there is nothing unusual in disagreement.
If there is no agreement among the writers or Founders why does it shock you that there are still disagreements?
Your unsupported conclusion carries little weight.
A reasonable view of the original intent of the CC was the limited right for the feds to remove hindrances to smooth commerce between states.
Interfering with state union laws has nothing to do with remove hindrances to commerce between states, nor has the growth of most of the federal government been justified by the CC or any other part of the Constitution.
I don’t know what you’re doing on FR. You are a good Leftist justifying the unconstitutional growth of the federal government for the past 100+ years.
Unions don’t have any impact on interstate commerce?? Sure the Teamsters don’t impact interstate commerce or the Railroad unions, even the Steel Works, Airline pilots and mechanics? In what world? Contracts that cover the whole nation?
Certainly the language of the clause implies as much federal involvement with internal commerce as it can have with external commerce. Federal power was increased by the ratification of the constitution, not diminished under any reading.
How does describing a situation or history mean I approve of it? False claims as to some unanimity among the writers need to be addressed as does the idea that federal power was diminished by the constitution comparatively to the states.
Screaming that everything you don’t approve of is “Leftist” does no good. As a representative republic the opinion of the people has supported the Court and the growth of federal power. Only within the last few decades has Court appointments even been considered important.
We do not have a problem with a grasping federal government but with the People who have voted for and approved this power grab.
Because I doubt that any of the founders believed that what it meant was exactly the opposite of what was written.
Your generalities are irrelevant to the case at hand. What exactly about the state requiring their employees to pay union fees hinders interstate commerce to the point of triggering constitutional federal action.
The Left has argued for the past 100+ years for continuing and sweeping government expansion with no constitutional basis for doing so, but they have consistently used the same arguments you have used - that the Constitution in text, intent, and original understanding is somehow unknowable. THAT is why I call your argument “Leftist”.
That is a bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think?
“...the Constitution in text, intent, and original understanding is somehow unknowable.”
I never said anything like that.
There are issues which demand more than shouting “the tenth amendment” when they are raised.
I have not read the findings of the case being appealed so do not know exactly what the appeal addresses.
The case does not address interstate commerce but the violation of the constitutional right to free speech which makes it clearly a federal issue.
Your personal moral or value standards are also irrelevant here. What section/clause in the Constitution authorizes the feds to interfere with state law regarding state union fees?
The case revolves around the deprivation of first amendment rights. As I said before, this makes it a federal issue.
“Your personal moral or value standards are also irrelevant here.” No idea what you are referring to.
When you find the Section/Clause in the Constitution that authorizes the feds to interfere with state union laws, let me know. The rest is just fluff and a waste of time.
There were no unions when the constitution was written.
When you recognize that the first amendment rights can be violated and are a federal issue, let me know.
When you actually READ the first amendment and see that ONLY THE FEDS can violate it and, thus, has no relevance at all to justifying federal interference with state law, let me know.
Initially the BoR applied only to the States. That began to change with Barron V Baltimore case. It was the beginning of the expansion of what was covered. But the document clearly anticipates that expansion.
“Article 4, section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general prescribe the Manner in which Acts, Records and Procedures shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
It has finally been applied to the ownership of firearms, although not fully.
“section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” This is part of the attempt to make the Union stronger.
Absurdities such as Marriages valid in Illinois not being recognized in Indiana would not have been prevented. This was one of the problems with slavery and led to the Fugitive Slave Act.
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.