Posted on 11/04/2003 10:08:00 PM PST by JohnHuang2
I am.
You've mentioned they exist, but aren't very clear about what they are. What is preventing the USSC from rejecting the substantial effects doctrine? If the USSC and the Constitution cannot limit the power of the federal government, why do we have them? What "specific rights and limitations found elsewhere" were the basis for overturning the VAWA?
The massive dosages of illict drugs you did back then must have made you forget your were a doper. Now you are just a criminal hypocrite.
Huh for someone, who doesn't know about drugs, you sure do know alot.
I guess you take the parallel Clintonian route in spouting "I never took that drug, LSD".
The music was a hell of a lot better then.
Yep, and have done all manner of illegal ones as well. Criminals like you should crawl away.
Ta Ta to you also Pro, and beware of the window pane they will be pushing at you at the rave you attend tonight.
Oh don't forget your pacifier.
Ta Ta to you also Pro, and beware of the window pane they will be pushing at you at the rave you attend tonight.
Oh don't forget your pacifier.
You have to give the poor little thing credit. At least he understands that my drugs of choice as legal. Must really tear him up to know that...oh, that's right, he doesn't use illegal drugs nor would he ever even if they were legal.
Either that or the wife and I are heading for the Museum of Flight to watch the Concord arrive. They're going to be serving coffee...
Nonsense---it was clear as recently as 1918. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251: "Over interstate transportation, or its incidents, the regulatory power of Congress is ample, but the production of articles, intended for interstate commerce, is a matter of local regulation. 'When the commerce begins is determined, not by the character of the commodity, nor by the intention of the owner to transfer it to another state for sale, nor by his preparation of it for transportation, but by its actual delivery to a common carrier for transportation, or the actual commencement of its transfer to another state.' Mr. Justice Jackson in Re Greene (C. C.) 52 Fed. 113. This principle has been recognized often in this court. Coe v. Errol, 116 U.S. 517 , 6 Sup. Ct. 475; Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U.S. 504 , 33 Sup. Ct. 299, and cases cited. If it were otherwise, all manufacture intended for interstate shipment would be brought under federal control to the practical exclusion of the authority of the states, a result certainly not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution when they vested in Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the States. Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 21 , 9 S. Sup. Ct. 6."
Gotta go also, but tomorrow there will be more comments after we have left commenting about us "JBT's".
Take it easy.
Institutional Weakness No. One: The Constitution does not expressly provide the Supreme Court with any power or authority to substitute its judgement for that of Congress. Please keep that limitation in mind when you are encouraging the Supreme Court to more closely scrutinize the constitutional decisions that are made by the Congress. Marbury v. Madison was seen by many as a judicial power grab at the time and while the Court's new power has gained general acceptance over time, the Court has usually tried to be judicious in exercising it in part because it doesn't have very solid roots. Why should the Court assume that it is somehow inherently more capable than the Congress at interpreting the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states?
Institutional Weakness No. Two: The Supreme Court is not elected by the people and is not supposed to be a political branch of government. The members have no political constituency to serve as a basis for support. The Court is, in the last analysis, completely answerable to the political branches (budget, jurisdiction, impeachment power, court-packing). This institutional weakness provides a check on just how ambititious the Court can be in telling the political branches to pound sand.
Institutional Weakness No. Three: Ordinarily, when the Congress passes legislation, it does so after extensive hearings at which witnesses are heard and materials submitted. Proceedings like that result in legislative findings that because of their breadth are often very unlike the kinds of questions of fact that courts are used to deciding. The Supreme Court is not accustomed to holding lengthy hearings with witnesses testifying as to the impact that a piece of legislation might have on interstate commerce and they do not usually see it as a judicial function to determine which of two alternative paths are best for the country. Nor is the Supreme Court openly familiar with the legislative tactic of compromising on one part of a legislative act for benefits in another part. Courts are just inherently poorly equipped for these kind of functions.
What is preventing the USSC from rejecting the substantial effects doctrine? If the USSC and the Constitution cannot limit the power of the federal government, why do we have them?
The Supreme Court made up the doctrine (it's not in the Constitution) and I suppose that they can, if they wish, dispense with it. It won't solve their institutional weaknesses, though.
What "specific rights and limitations found elsewhere" were the basis for overturning the VAWA?
I think that the Lopez and Morrison cases are fascinating. I don't expect much to come of any of that, though.
Here's a thought to consider: How many of our conservative justices do you think will claim that it's beyond the power of Congress to limit medical malpractice awards in state courts? ;-)
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.