Scalia Defends The Constitution, Questions The 17th Amendment

Western Journalism ^ | May 13, 2015 | Randy DeSoto

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Original article contains links.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

PING!

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

That’s a really good point.

[Perdogg]

This is strange, Scalia voted with the majority in South Dakota v Dole, 1987 yet he sounds like he is criticizing it.

[Publius]

He observed: “In the republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [federal and state], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments [legislative, executive, judicial]. 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.”

Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping.

[Jim Robinson]

Bump!

[eyeamok]

Repealing 16 and 17 would fix most of our problems in short order.

[Publius]

Ping.

[cripplecreek]

Its hard to tell what judges will do once they’re seated in the Supreme Court.

[Perdogg]

true, but it sounded like he was criticizing himself.

[cripplecreek]

Not to mention it might get people interested in their own state politics again.

It never ceases to amaze me how few people have a clue what’s happening in their state capitols.

[Hostage]

Scalia with Thomas and Alito are enough for the US Supreme Court. The other six should be dismissed post haste.

[gattaca]

ping

[Ken H]

I wonder how he justifies this crap =>

Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

The South Dakota vs Dole case was about funds. It didn’t deny the states from making their choice. Plus here he is simply saying that the Senators would be more apt to protect state’s rights if they were elected by state legislatures. That makes a lot of sense. The court case was about a law passed by both houses of Congress and had to do with conditioning money to the legal drinking age. The consequences of the lower ages were considered significant on the entire nation. It didn’t forbid states from having the lower age. It just left them holding some of the financial responsibility. They lost 10% of their highway funds because they contributed more than their fair share to drunk driving. So that’s how they ruled. I don’t see a contradiction in the two positions.

[DocRock]

Bookmark

[cripplecreek]

A local judge I’d like to see on our state supreme court.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3289403/posts

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[TBP]

We need to instruct the Court on the proper interpretation of the taxing clause, repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, then figure out what to do on Day 2.

[TBP]

We need to instruct the Court on the proper interpretation of the taxing clause, repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, then figure out what to do on Day 2.