Why I will vote for Kerry

[HarryKeogh]

Kinda neat but it doesn't really tell you anything.

agreed. sort of like Cliffs Notes

 

[BKITU]

Ok, so are you saying that all federal law is worthless? (except for things declared in the bill of rights)

That would mean I would only have to pay state taxes. It would mean i could go to California and grow weed for medical use and the feds couldn't touch me.

Wow, that's quite a leap in logic. That would be like you saying, "Law X is unjust" and me replying "OK, so are you saying that all laws are unjust?" Read what was written; I meant it literally.

I'm in no way saying that all federal law is worthless except for things declared the bill of rights. My point was that the Tenth Amendment is very specific about who gets what power. Quoting: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

However, the Constitution makes provisions for shifts in power by the form of Amendment. The entirety of Article V of the main document covers this.

Following your example, the Sixteenth Amendment states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." This granted the federal government the power to levy income taxes.

This is how changes in the nature of "who gets what power" are supposed to be addressed. My follow-up statement about "Of course, this hasn't stopped them from usurping state powers on countless other occasions" addresses your comment about weed by itself. There has been no Amendment granting the federal government authority over drug matters, but that doesn't mean they won't come and get you if you try something they don't like.

 

[merphie]

Wow, that's quite a leap in logic. That would be like you saying, "Law X is unjust" and me replying "OK, so are you saying that all laws are unjust?" Read what was written; I meant it literally.

I'm in no way saying that all federal law is worthless except for things declared the bill of rights. My point was that the Tenth Amendment is very specific about who gets what power. Quoting: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

However, the Constitution makes provisions for shifts in power by the form of Amendment. The entirety of Article V of the main document covers this.

Following your example, the Sixteenth Amendment states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." This granted the federal government the power to levy income taxes.

This is how changes in the nature of "who gets what power" are supposed to be addressed. My follow-up statement about "Of course, this hasn't stopped them from usurping state powers on countless other occasions" addresses your comment about weed by itself. There has been no Amendment granting the federal government authority over drug matters, but that doesn't mean they won't come and get you if you try something they don't like.

I agree. I don't have a reference here at the momment to look at. It seems like drug laws. They make the law and it is followed.

 

[davefoc]

Brown wrote:

Take a look at Justice Thomas's opinion in the Pledge case,....These writings call into question whether either of these two men is qualified to sit on the bench.

I scanned through that opinion especially the section where Thomas concurs in judgment, and didn't see anything so untoward as to make me think that Thomas is not qualified to sit on the bench. Could you be more specific?

I have felt for awhile that there is a kind of mantra out there that is not sustained by actual analysis that Thomas is not that smart or that Thomas isn't qualified to be a judge. I have an open mind about this since it gets said so often, but whenever I read what Thomas actually writes I am impressed. Even in situations where I might not agree I find his writing to be clear and well thought out.

 

[Brown]

I scanned through that opinion especially the section where Thomas concurs in judgment, and didn't see anything so untoward as to make me think that Thomas is not qualified to sit on the bench. Could you be more specific?

Justice Thomas cited and discussed a string of Supreme Court decisions, developed over many years. How would these precedents affect Dr. Newdow's case? Why, according to Justice Thomas, Dr. Newdow should win!

I conclude that, as a matter of our precedent, the Pledge policy is unconstitutional.

And yet, Justice Thomas opined that this extensive line of precedent was all wrongly decided, and therefore Dr. Newdow should lose. The Supreme Court has long held that rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights must, by the Fourteenth Amendment, be respected by the states. In Justice Thomas's view, however, the Establishment Clause did not need to be respected by the states.

Because what is at issue is a state action, the question becomes whether the Pledge policy implicates a religious liberty right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
...
The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments. Thus, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, which does protect an individual right, it makes little sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.
...
The Establishment Clause does not purport to protect individual rights. By contrast, the Free Exercise Clause plainly protects individuals against congressional interference with the right to exercise their religion, and the remaining Clauses within the First Amendment expressly disable Congress from “abridging [particular] freedom."

In other words, smack in the middle of a bunch of individual rights and liberties in the First Amendment is a state's right. It is, presumably, the only state's right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Justice Thomas recognizes that an argument can be made that the Establishment Clause "protected an individual right, enforceable against the Federal Government, to be free from coercive federal establishments." If the Establishment Clause created an individual liberty, then the states ought to respect it under the Fourteenth Amendment. But Justice Thomas concludes that there is no individual liberty at stake.

According to Justice Thomas, individual states could, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, declare themselves to be officially Baptist or Catholic or Mormon, and citizens have no constitutionally protected right to challenge such action. States would literally have the constitutional right to discriminate against--if not overtly oppress--their citizens on religious grounds.

But Justice Thomas still would see no personal right or liberty interest at stake.

This opinion might have held some sway prior to the Civil War (had it been considered), but in light of the expansion of the religious diversity and the developments of the law over the past 150 years, this opinion borders on the bizarre.