2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Missouri will soon be under martial law. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/17/po...ers/index.html

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Maybe because it has nothing to do with the story I posted about Tribe saying Obama is burning the Constitution?

That sweet, sweet tang of partisan turncoatedness is reversed, too. Sauce for the goose, my friend.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Missouri will soon be under martial law. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/17/po...ers/index.html

Took em long enough.

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

That sweet, sweet tang of partisan turncoatedness is reversed, too. Sauce for the goose, my friend.

I still don't see what that has to do with Tribe calling out Obama. But I understand your continued avoidance is in your best interest.

I think both parties are way too obstructionist in confirming appointments if that helps put away this other issue you are trying to divert me to.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

But I understand your continued avoidance is in your best interest.

How so? You have no idea of my stance on the original issue.

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

My first question Bob is "who's paying the guy"? If its nobody, okay I can respect that. If he's signed on as an industry consultant, that might explain the hyperbole.

Reminds me of the Clinton era. Accusations were always coming fast and furious when there was a pending book deal waiting from a right wing media house. Funny how the accusations dried up immediately after it was discovered there was no actual money to be had from said book deals. So, not questioning Tribe's motives yet, but making sure there's no reason to start....

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

My first question Bob is "who's paying the guy"? If its nobody, okay I can respect that. If he's signed on as an industry consultant, that might explain the hyperbole.

He received an "undisclosed sum" from Peabody Energy.

Now, it's fair to say that Tribe may well have made the same argument without the payment.

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

How so? You have no idea of my stance on the original issue.

People tend to avoid uncomfortable issues, so your posts to this point, being totally unresponsive to what I posted, make me suspicious. But, hey, I could be wrong and you could be a coal mining industry shill.

[Bob Gray]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

He received an "undisclosed sum" from Peabody Energy.

Now, it's fair to say that Tribe may well have made the same argument without the payment.

At this point in time, I don't think Tribe would flip against his well-known advocacy for environmental causes for a few bucks. It's not like the guy is destitute or something. I don't always agree with him, but he's always struck me as someone who says what he believes.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

At this point in time, I don't think Tribe would flip against his well-known advocacy for environmental causes for a few bucks.

The odd thing is, that article says he's actually been an advocate for Peabody for years and in other fights. His argument, taken at face value, is that while he's pro-environment he's got procedural complaints with how the EPA levies requirements against the states. The Fifth Amendment argument seems pretty straightforward -- a regulation is a taking without compensation. My reply would be that either completely negates all federal regulation of the private sector or it's wrong, and my money's on the latter. The Tenth Amendment argument is more complicated and I'll defer to somebody who knows the law (UNO maybe?) to 'splain it.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

People tend to avoid uncomfortable issues, so your posts to this point, being totally unresponsive to what I posted, make me suspicious. But, hey, I could be wrong and you could be a coal mining industry shill.

Curses! You have seen through my carefully-constructed disguise.

I didn't start out to deliberately ignore the EPA issue, I had other fish to fry (I was tweaking you or no reason because right now I am very, very bored). I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you know from my 32,465 prior posts that subtle misdirection is not my rhetorical style. I'm more a global thermonuclear war man, myself.

I've address the EPA issue below.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

The odd thing is, that article says he's actually been an advocate for Peabody for years and in other fights. His argument, taken at face value, is that while he's pro-environment he's got procedural complaints with how the EPA levies requirements against the states. The Fifth Amendment argument seems pretty straightforward -- a regulation is a taking without compensation. My reply would be that either completely negates all federal regulation of the private sector or it's wrong, and my money's on the latter. The Tenth Amendment argument is more complicated and I'll defer to somebody who knows the law (UNO maybe?) to 'splain it.

The feds have been using very loose complements in order to try to circumvent the tenth amendment for years. For example, they justify the drinking age circumvention based upon postal roads.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

The feds have been using very loose complements in order to try to circumvent the tenth amendment for years. For example, they justify the drinking age circumvention based upon postal roads.

The thing is, the Tenth Amendment adds nothing to the constitution regarding federal powers, so you can't "circumvent" it. The entire underlying principle of the constitution is that the federal government has only those powers positively stated in the constitution either explicitly or implicit in the necessary and proper clause:

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional. -- McCulloch v. Maryland

What the Tenth does do is reserve powers actively to the states unless they conflict with federal powers. Again, though, I'd have thought that was implicit in the federal system; hence, the Tenth Amendment doesn't appear to have any real purpose except to reiterate facts which are otherwise apparent.

If I were a Fed Hater, I'd be hanging my hate, er, hat on the Ninth, not the Tenth.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

The thing is, the Tenth Amendment adds nothing to the constitution regarding federal powers, so you can't "circumvent" it. The entire underlying principle of the constitution is that the federal government has only those powers positively stated in the constitution either explicitly or implicit in the necessary and proper clause:



What the Tenth does do is reserve powers actively to the states unless they conflict with federal powers. Again, though, I'd have thought that was implicit in the federal system; hence, the Tenth Amendment doesn't appear to have any real purpose except to reiterate facts which are otherwise apparent.

If I were a Fed Hater, I'd be hanging my hate, er, hat on the Ninth, not the Tenth.

Actually, you CAN circumvent it by trying to justify that something which truly should be a state power is somehow a federal power because it's associated with a federal power in the smallest degree. It's called a loophole; I'm sure you've heard of it; people have revolved their lives around it for the last 40 years or so.

I'm not worried about the 9th amendment, as that's used to guarantee that you have the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights, and another person's claim to rights cannot trump your already established claim of rights.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Actually, you CAN circumvent it by trying to justify that something which truly should be a state power is somehow a federal power because it's associated with a federal power in the smallest degree. It's called a loophole; I'm sure you've heard of it; people have revolved their lives around it for the last 40 years or so.

The federal/state boundary line is THE ongoing fight in Con Law. It drifts back and forth over time -- the Feds advanced for a time in the 20th century; the states have been recapturing territory since the 80s. This reflects the politics of the justices, with conservatives overall favoring states' rights and liberals favoring federal powers. If the Dems continue to win the White House the states' advance will eventually be checked and even reversed.

Marshall's statement of "means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end" is by definition open to interpretation, and the ultimate interpreters are the people, via the twice-removed mechanism of electing presidents who appoint justices.