Law School Discussion

congress closed session...smokescreen

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
« Reply #140 on: November 28, 2005, 06:08:45 AM »
supreme court now going to turn against kurds.  turks been waiting long time for this.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
« Reply #141 on: November 28, 2005, 06:43:59 AM »
spiff right.

bluecoward such putz.

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

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
« Reply #142 on: November 28, 2005, 10:34:10 PM »
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...




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. ;)





no, they're just going further to the right.  they are and have been Republican.  see Bush v. Gore.

you made a nonsensical remark about the sc going farther to the right...aye called you on your misguided perception...and you can't get back to the fact that the sc IS on the right...and NOT moving anywhere...


the sc will add two more federalist judges if roberts and alito get on board...

i tried ignoring you but you just won't go away, will you.  bumping the thread 3 times?  i mean, really...

scotus is and has been controlled by republicans and, with many notable exceptions, is on the right.  i never said anything to contradict this.  in fact, my Bush v. Gore example clearly demonstrates it.  the court is moving further to the right because O'Connor was, get this, she was what we call a moderate.  she sided with the liberals on some 5-4 decisions which could be in question if Alito is confirmed, such as the recent 10 commandments case.  if i remember correctly, she was also one of the 5 majority in Stenberg v. Carhart.  if any of these decisions are overturned, and i believe Stenberg will be sooner or later, you will see exactly what i mean by the court moving further to the right.

as to this: federalism is concerned with individual liberty, not "state sovereignty" or "power.", you cannot just redefine a term because someone points out that you made a mistake in applying it.  federalism in american politics is defined as deference to states rights rather than federal.  it has nothing to do with individual liberty.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
« Reply #143 on: November 29, 2005, 06:23:51 AM »
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.

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • View Profile
Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
« Reply #144 on: November 29, 2005, 01:32:05 PM »
The reason we had no need for a bill of rights was because states were expected to uphold our rights. They failed (alternatively voters failed). Before the 13/14th amends. the bill of rights only protected us from the Fed. gov. After the civil war it was apparent that states couldn't/wouldn't protect ex-slaves. The fed. stepped to solve that problem. Now the 13/14th amends. allow the Fed. gov. to step in all the time. Since the Feds step in constantly now, we need the bill of rights to protect us.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
« Reply #145 on: November 29, 2005, 02:01:07 PM »
man, do you got problems with this.

you correct that that bill of rights not included in constitution because, in part, states were to have significant power and thus could protect us.  however, this not work unless states have significant power, which bring us back to federalism.  inclusion of supremacy clause in national constitution make it pretty clear that although national governmment to be limited, it still could trump states.

another reason framers reluctant to include bill of rights that failure to list something would be construed as not having intended to protect that right--which has come true, as this very philosophy of so-called strict constructionists (who hypocrites).

it 14th amendment that interpreted to apply bill of rights to states, but this intentionally muddled by post-war congress:  it no more explicit than requiring states to give "due process."  first to get protection of this sort were corporations, certainly not blacks.

and "incorporation," as this called, not case with entire bill of rights (e.g., second amendment not incorporated at all--so even if nra's interpretation correct, it not right that states must repect as matter of federal constitution);  hence, "partial" incorporation.

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!

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
« Reply #146 on: November 29, 2005, 02:17:14 PM »
when congress handled this in such vague fashion, it provided very flexible doctrine for defining federal power over states and pretty much guaranteed big role for courts.

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • View Profile
Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
« Reply #147 on: November 29, 2005, 02:46:24 PM »
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.

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • View Profile
Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
« Reply #148 on: November 29, 2005, 03:05:12 PM »

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.

Julie Fern

  • *****
  • 25797
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: congress closed session...smokescreen
« Reply #149 on: November 29, 2005, 03:46:17 PM »
are you talking about the 14th a., Julie? i definitely see how it guaranteed a big role for the courts, but how does it blur the distinction between federal and state power (im assuming you mean legislative or executive)?

14th a.'s d.p. clause blurs distinction because it so vague--hence, piecemeal incorporation spread out over more than century.