Posted on 09/24/2007 6:31:31 AM PDT by presidio9
IN 1995, the U.S. Su preme Court over turned a federal law that banned gun possession near schools. For the first time since the New Deal, the court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
A year later, Congress passed the same law again, this time specifying that a defendant can be found guilty of carrying a gun in a school zone only if the weapon "has moved in" or "otherwise affects" interstate or foreign commerce. While 72 of his fellow senators pretended to believe this requirement rendered the law constitutional, Fred Thompson voted against the transparent ruse.
It wasn't the only time Thompson, now a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, found himself on the losing end of a lopsided vote to assert authority Congress doesn't have. With some notable exceptions, the Tennessee Republican's Senate record suggests he may be that D.C. rarity: a politician who means what he says, at least when it comes to the division of powers between the federal government and the states.
-SNIP-
The biggest challenge to Thompson's federalism probably has been the temptation to support socially conservative measures that exceed congressional authority.
Thompson backed a federal ban on human cloning and voted to prohibit "partial birth" abortion, under the same absurd pretext he rejected in the Gun-Free School Zones Act: that the abortion law applies to abortions "in or affecting" interstate commerce.
Regarding gay marriage, Thompson has stuck closer to his principles, opposing a federal ban and saying the matter should be decided by state legislatures. But he recently muddied the waters by
-SNIP-
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I think these federalism arguments are actually to hurt Thompson.
Being opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendement is a dealbreaker litmus test for other issues.
Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.
The (FDR) Supreme Court’s decision
The intended rationale of the Agricultural Adjustment Act is to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Filburn the Court unanimously reasoned that the power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce.
Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This affected interstate commerce, and was therefor subject to regulation by the Federal Government.
Nice, eh?
He has a proven track record of forcing down acceptance of gays and abortion onto the states, private companies, and people, along with grabbing guns and restricting Christian speech (on abortion, gays, and Islam, for example).
He’s a fine Democrat, but a Democrat nonetheless.
Seeing as who Rudy never held higher office than Mayor, I'd be curious to se if you could think of examples where Rudy ever forced down acceptance of gays and abortion onto the states, private companies, and people. On the other hand, he DID go to war with the Brooklyn Museum for displaying a portrait of the Virgin Mary decked out in elephant feces and photos of vaginas cut from porn magazines.
The only way I'd ever vote for Rudy is when its him or Hillary, but it still amazes me the way people on this website reflexively atttack him without knowing what they are talking about. There's plenty not to like about Giuliani if you just do your research.
Incidently, that is EXACTLY what Rooty is saying when he supports gay marriage and abortion. It sould also be noted that it is exactly why libertarianism doesn't work. Human nature says that if you set out to leave people alone as long as they don't hurt eachother, someone will inevitibly get hurt.
IN 1995, the U.S. Su preme Court over turned a federal law that banned gun possession near schools. For the first time since the New Deal, the court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
(he-he-he) That was Di-Fi's little law. But 1995? wow, I thought it was more recent. Last years Di-Fi STILL had a screed on her senate web-page about 'her law' being struck down. In her rant she basically said 'so what if it was unconstitutional, it was for the children'. She also went on about the 'Rehnquist Court' striking down more of those 'commerce clause' over reaches. (How dare they!)
And for those who missed it, the Commerce Clause was HUGH issue when Roberts and Alito were being grilled, oops testifying. The RATS (Durbin and Boxer IIRC) wanted to know how far they could go without a problem from SCOTUS.
The Commerce Clause is their golden goose. Take that away and they pretty much can't pass any laws (and that would be very very very good). Heck without it they'd need to convene only three weeks a year./s
The "dance police" is one of my favorites. Busting bars when "three or more people are swaying rhythmically to music". Yea, this guy is rally in favor of personal freedom.
Not my post, but I had the controling stake in a company that was nominally based in NYC in 1998-2002, but with most of its employees in Houston and on the Gulf Coast (public company).
Rudy signed a domestic partnership law that NYC then attempted to use to force the company to give domestic benefits to all our employees -— regardless of where they lived.
It was an overstep, legally, and got resolved, but it soured me on Rudy and NYC.
The various gun lawsuits are similar attempts at forcing NYC “values” on the rest of the country.
And tell me what is "Federalist" about the international laws and treaties that are pushed by the Council on Foreign Relations, that infringe upon the sovereignty of our nation and the several states?
And why doesn't he support the Federal Marriage Amendment like the Republican Party Platform does? The purpose of the Amendment is to limit federal judges from overturning individual state laws that ban gay marriage. Sounds pretty Federalist to me. It isn't a law that is being passed, but an Amendment to the Constitution. There is a Constitutional process for such things. One would think that a "Federalist" would know that and support it.
Similarly, Thompson does not support the Human Life Amendment which was put into the Republican Party Platform due to the efforts of Ronald Reagan.
Nothing against Fred Thompson, of course. He's a good man. He'd probably make a good president just as some of the other Republican candidates would. But this myth that has arisen around him is kind of silly. His claims to "Federalism" seem to me to be an excuse he conveniently pulls out every time he needs one to explain why he holds a position counter to the Republican Party Platform or the Constitution itself.
Try posting again when you're not high or when you've takes you meds (not sure which, but you're seriously out of balance if you think this)
Oops! Bloomberg is so awful he makes Ruity look good.
Also, being a Federalist, Thompson would have vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban as well...a difficult position for him.
And since I prefaced my libertarian comment with "excapt when it comes to guns," I'm really not sure why people keep bringing it up.
Try RTFT, avoiding unwarranted personal attacks, and, above all proof-reading, before posting. Some day, you might even be taken seriously.
“In Rudy’s world, not giving gay couples the same benefits as married couples is discrimination, the same as refusing to hire a black or handicapped applicant.”
Which is not a libertarian position.
A libertarian would say “company, do as you will and let the market decide” (if people want to buy your goods or work for you).
Here, Rudy imposes his beliefs regarding gays on others.
The imposition is not libertarian, it’s LIBERTINE.
The law protecting married couples was already in place. As mayor, Giuliani was not in position to protect the companies. As a libertarian mayor, he was in position to protect gay couples. Again, I am not agreeing with him, I am just telling you how a libertarian thinks: Since gays are just like everyone else, if the government does not protect them equally, we are imposing our beliefs on them. This is no different from telling a pro-drug minority that they can't have pot.
Not a personal attack, simply an observation about the bizarre nature of your post - One can only conclude some sort of mental aberration on your part to confuse a fascist for a libertarian unless you are totally cluless about what a libertarian is.
Guliani signed the law in 1998.
Perhaps you need to be from NYC to understand the thought process that has brought Giuliani is where he is politically. Maybe you just need a brain. In any case, here in NYC it is generally the liberals who accuse Giuliani of facism.
The rights to life, liberty and private property have nothing to do with “federalism” in the sense that too many of these candidates are claiming. No state or individual has a right to alienate these God-given rights. Man didn’t give them, man can’t rightfully take them away.
Too many in the Republican Party today are such shallow thinkers that they can’t discern the difference between Enumerated Powers, (which have of course been far exceeded by the U.S. government), and unalienable rights.
So, I’ll find Fred’s “federalism” credible when he does two things:
1) Admits that none of the several states has a right to take away unalienable rights.
And,
2) Begins to openly call for the dismantlement of every federal program that isn’t clearly enumerated in our Constitution.
He can start with the Department of Education.
I'm not sure what your point is. As I said, married couples were already afforded protection. As a libertarian, Giuliani signed a bill into law that afforded domestic partners the same protection, because he didn't believe that government had a right to make a distinction between the two. Protecting one, but not the other would be discrimination.
Is there anything you are disputing here, or are you just wasting our time?
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.