congress closed session...smokescreen

[Julie Fern]

finally, your nonsense about feds "stepping in all time" show how your dogma interfering with your karma.  and what wrong, anyway:  you not believe in bill of rights?  answer that one, freak-boy!

Do I believe in the Bill of Rights? My beliefs have nothing to do with them. They are law, I just stated why they probably weren't believed necessary.

dogma is short for doctrine which has nothing to do with karma, which I don't belive in btw.

If you mean that I'm a strict constructionalist, and I am contradicting myself because I sound as if I think the bill of rights shouldn't have been written, you're wrong.

1. I'm not a strict constructionalist and I don't think anybody really is. You might say I'm a textualist. But basically, I don't think judges should make law, they should simply interpret it. I know law is morality enforced, I believe that's the Leg's job.
2. I am happy we have a bill of rights.

Space, I totally agree with your commerce clause assessment. If you'll notice, it wasn't used like that until the 1900's (Lochner was 1905). The 13/14 amendments were shortly before that. The civil war change our nation dramatically.

then presumably we agree that post-war congress failed to do its job wehen drafting 14th a.  this has had more to do with expanding power of judiciary than anything else, julie think.

[Julie Fern]

Space, I totally agree with your commerce clause assessment. If you'll notice, it wasn't used like that until the 1900's (Lochner was 1905). The 13/14 amendments were shortly before that. The civil war change our nation dramatically.

well now youre mixing me up... Lochner was not commerce clause, it was 14th A. and it was a state law, not federal.  i always understood the commerce clause runaway train as a combination of the power to regulate interstate commerce coupled with the necessary and proper clause, which are in the original body of the constitution, preceding the civil war by about 70 years or so.

But the clause wasn't a run-a-way train until after the civil war.

I mentioned Lochner because that was a case where the SC stepped in to take away a state right. It wasn't a commerce clause case, but it was very closely related to the types of things feds regulate using the commerce clause.

there was no 14th a. prior to civil war, period.

and when that d.p. clause (as opposed to one in 5th a.) used, it not used to help blacks, that for sure.

[Freak]

Agreed, Julie. They should've simply incorporated the bill of rights. I agree with Holmes in that respect.

[Julie Fern]

final word on lochner:  julie think that as simple as courts protecting interest of business.  idea that federal government's power being expanded decidedly secondary consideration.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

an attempt to enlighten you:

in essense we are in agreement...however you insist that the overturn of "some" cases will automatically move the court further to the right... understand that there is no movement unless MANY case decisions fall on one side...get it?

right now it is on the right and shall continue to "wallow" in the right hand lane...aye wrote "wallow" not "move further"...even with alito and roberts.

your qualifying assesment of "distance in degree" is fallacious...

blahblahblah... do you realize that you are proving nothing here?  your distinction between "some" and "many" is completely arbitrary.  if "some" decisions are overturned to favor conservative policy then that indicates "some" shift to the right, unless there are an equal or greater amount of cases overturned to favor liberal policy.  get it now?

now...here is where you are switching definitions...TRUE federalism follows thusly:

aye mark madison's "first" consideration applied to the federal system of america...

..."which place that system in a very interesting point of view.

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered  by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.  The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."

madison is focusing on people and rights; the structure of federalism is concerned with people enjoying greater freedom...the people are the boss not the state nor the republic...

hope you understand that the quintessential focus has been blurred...even your eyes have been mislead...you cannot believe everything that is spoonfed...sometimes you have to go to the source.

so...deference is to individual liberty (the people)  not states rights nor federal rights...that is the point of view madison is expressing...

sadly, you are wrong with your little definition.  you should read some madison from time to time...aye mean...as you move further in school.

first, "all the power surrendered by the people" simply recognizes the fact that any government draws its power from that given up by the people.  it does not mean that the people are in control or should be consulted.  second, "a double security arises to the rights of the people" refers to the fact that the federal and state governments check each other so that they do not do things not in their power (ie, explicitly limited by the constitution ... i just think Madison may have had a hand in writing that ... and i'll give you a hint ... there aren't many limits on the states while the tenth amendment gives them a blank check).  third, that blurb does not define federalism in any way and it says nothing about deference.  it simply discusses checks and balances within the context of a compound republic.  now, here are some real definitions for you:

from wikipedia:
In Canada and Europe, "federalist" is often used to describe those who favor a strong federal government and weaker provincial governments. Curiously, in the United States it describes those who generally favor a weaker federal government and stronger state governments.

from dictionary.com:
Main Entry: fed·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'fe-dr&-"li-z&m, 'fe-d&-r&-
Function: noun
often cap : distribution of power in a federation between the central authority and the constituent units (as states) involving esp. the allocation of significant lawmaking powers to those constituent units

aye still don't feel ya on the moving...aye don't expect much "waivering."


distribution of power in a federation between the central authority and the constituent units (as states) involving esp. the allocation of significant lawmaking powers to those constituent units.

"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people  is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises  to the rights of the people.  The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."


is there another form of "ism" which can claim the same as the above paragraph other than "Federalism"...please elaborate. aye think that the above paragraph cuts to the very heart of federalism.

federalism has the peoples rights at hand because federalism provides the double security for its citizens...

federalism arises to the rights of the people because the double security means that the people have two servents and not two masters!

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

madison saw every aspect of american national governmental structure, including--but by no means limited to--federalism, as guaranteeing individual freedom because they all limit concentration of power in one way or another;  that why madison not think national constitution needed bill of rights, which today we rightly regard as ultimate protection of individual liberty.

however, consensus definition of federalism is system that allows for both national and provincial authority, without particular reference to individual freedom.  if we adopt your definition, then separation of powers and bicameralism and anything else having to do with structure of national government meet your defnition.  any definition that broad lose all utility.

no particular manifestation of balance reflected in federalism categorically support or denigrate individual freedom, as effect of federalism on individual freedom ultimately become--if can drag self out of 18th-century context--matter of values:  i.e., where one see civil rights violations, another see freedom of thought, action, and association;  and where one see freedom of choice, another see freedom to murder.

madison made point to speak of rights of "people" to contrast that way of thinking about new constitution with rights of state governments, which was old way.

consider yourself enlightened.

aye am not focusing on the structure of federalism...aye am talking about the "security" gained from a system where the people...the individual has two servents and not two masters...the essence of federalism...the nature...the unique and defining part.

the "system" does not allow for national and provincial authority...the "people" allow it...and the people...the ultimate authority...inherent to federalism allow each authority to look in on one another...aye believe the protection is for the people.

[Julie Fern]

you doofus, but julie play some more anyway:  please explain to julie how state governments effectively control feds in any way other than ratifying, or not, constitutional amendments.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

you doofus, but julie play some more anyway:  please explain to julie how state governments effectively control feds in any way other than ratifying, or not, constitutional amendments.

how much power do you wish the state to have?

it is the people's right to allow power.

so how much control do YOU personally want? your rights are the important...the state has NO rights...only powers given to it by the people.

would you let your servents work for you?

then again there are the "mischiefs of factions"...like you mr. fern...

Alden te v.ermiceli with Maine lobster...mmmm...good.

[Julie Fern]

putz.