-->
@Greyparrot
How do you know people are okay with it - by Democrats coming into power?
Americans not only divided but baffled by their opponents
Posts
Total:
102
-->
@Danielle
Why is it not socialism for Congress to use tax and spending powers to help provide utilities and paved roads to red states that can't afford it then?!
I'm all for the government taking from the majority with brutal force and giving it to minorities as long as the majority is OKAY with that.
You ignored every single one of those examples because duh, what could you possibly say in response...
Government should enforce contracts so yes there needs to be federal oversight for that. But please don't praise the government for doing bad things just because the good things supposedly cancel it out...c'mon man.
how interstate issues would be resolved without the commerce clause.
Name me some modern examples. We can go from there.
It's weird that you would come at me from a tone of condescension when you constantly have to dodge my points because you don't know how to respond to them. Very ballsy.
I was just trying to blend in :O
Why is it not socialism for Congress to use tax and spending powers to help provide utilities and paved roads to red states that can't afford it then?! Is it only socialism when the money goes to healthcare? Explain.
It depends on how they do it. I am very wary about all the string pulling and influence peddling that seems to always accompany the kinds of projects that are supposedly to help the "little guy"
My point was that FEMA wouldn't exist if we eliminated federal agencies but I guess you are okay with them after all.
Well let's take a cold, hard look at the alternative. If Rural areas saw no benefit for being in a Union, (and vice versa for Urban areas), then we now have the ground laid for a 2nd secession. Is that really worth saving a few bucks in the budget?
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm all for the government taking from the majority with brutal force and giving it to minorities as long as the majority is OKAY with that.
How do you know people are okay with it though - by Democrats coming into power?
Government should enforce contracts so yes there needs to be federal oversight for that.
And what exactly do you think empowers that federal oversight - which aspect of the constitution?
But please don't praise the government for doing bad things just because the good things supposedly cancel it out...c'mon man.
I didn't praise the government for doing "bad things" which is why I criticized some applications of the commerce clause, but you can't disregard the entire principle just because it's been weaponized or misused. That's like saying we should abolish the military because of the military industrial complex and how many times we've engaged in unjustifiable wars.
Name me some modern examples. We can go from there.
Again? There are so many real world examples you can Google in addition to the ones I've already presented to you.
Here's a made up example of something that could happen without the commerce clause: Florida could say to its people that they're only allowed to sell oranges to fellow Floridians, and if they sell to anyone outside the state they will have to pay a tariff.
Another example: One million people commute to NY from neighboring states to work. Without the commerce clause, New York could pass a law that says only New Yorkers could work in New York.
And how would you investigate and prosecute crimes across state lines? That is a HUGE aspect of the commerce clause that will continue to be extremely significant despite how many times you ignore it.
It depends on how they do it.
It it not socialism to provide healthcare or welfare if it's done a certain way? What way is that?
Well let's take a cold, hard look at the alternative. If Rural areas saw no benefit for being in a Union, (and vice versa for Urban areas), then we now have the ground laid for a 2nd secession. Is that really worth saving a few bucks in the budget?
So "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs." I see.
City-folk trade with rural areas for mutual gain. Meanwhile rural areas continue to shit all over wealthy urbanites who subsidize their way of life, and then vote against civil rights that liberals care about to add insult to injury. Doesn't exactly seem like a fair trade.
by Democrats coming into power?
Why that party?
-->
@Danielle
Doesn't exactly seem like a fair trade.
So when is the planned Urban secession?
That is a HUGE aspect of the commerce clause that will continue to be extremely significant despite how many times you ignore it.
All of these transgressions against free Americans could be solved immediately if the clause were reworded (or if need be, translated via SCOTUS) to give the power to deregulate (destroy) state barriers to the free market instead of regulating (creating) barriers. Clear and precise language is necessary.
-->
@Danielle
I'm not surprised that there are liberals that support the Bill Gates kill everybody plan wait till it's their turn. He's already started in third world countries.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Absolutely! He's part of the Illuminati and wants to kill as many people as possible. Liberals are totally on board. Stay woke.
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps I do need a vacation to the Donbass.
-->
@Greyparrot
Why that party?
Because I was asking you about financing social programs which have historically been supported by Democrats.
Now let's get back to my question (not the one about how we would investigate or prosecute interstate crimes ~ that's a different question that went unanswered). You said "I'm all for the government taking from the majority with brutal force and giving it to minorities as long as the majority is OKAY with that." I asked how you would know if the majority were okay with it. Also if the people are okay with it then why does it require BRUTAL FORCE?
All of these transgressions against free Americans could be solved immediately if the clause were reworded (or if need be, translated via SCOTUS) to give the power to deregulate (destroy) state barriers to the free market instead of regulating (creating) barriers. Clear and precise language is necessary.
The constitution is specifically what outlines the power that government has to do certain things. I asked you how the feds would have the authority for federal oversight of interstate state commerce disputes without the commerce clause in the constitution. It looks like you acknowledge that there needs to be a clause in the constitution which gives the feds that power, so now you're okay with the commerce clause but want to reword it. Fine. How so? If clear and precise language is necessary then specify what you think it should say.
Suppose Mississippi wants to start sending toxic pollutants downstream to another state. Who regulates that? Because every individual state is going to want to regulate in a way that benefits and protects their state the most.
which have historically been supported by Democrats
Exclusively?
why does it require BRUTAL FORCE?
In case people get second thoughts :)
Suppose Mississippi wants to start sending toxic pollutants downstream to another state.
Like bussing illegal invaders to DC? I don't think the founding fathers thought for all contingencies :D
But apparently, the commerce clause doesn't apply to human traffiking. Even if the DC mayor screams for the government to fix it.
We actually don't have to wait for the EPA to do something either.
-->
@Danielle
I don't know about the Illuminati but he certainly a rich piece of s*** that likes to kill people and talk about how we're all cattle consuming his goods. Funny how certain rich white guys are okay. Guess it all depends on how much Danielle agrees with you.
-->
@Greyparrot
To re-cap: you think brutal force is warranted if the majority agrees to succumb to brutal force, which just sounds like you're explaining how government works.
You think clear and precise language is required to legitimize the Commerce Clause, but either don't know what the language should be or refuse to answer what the language should be (I'll point out the constitution is not exactly known for very explicit directives -- just look at the 2A).
And despite using the term "illegal invaders" to describe illegal immigrants (so edgy), you didn't answer my question about how feds would go about prosecuting interstate crimes generally; you only pointed out that states can sue each other in regard to certain land and water disputes.
All in all not a very fruitful conversation on my end but we can agree to disagree. The Court has scaled back congressional power significantly in the last few decades re: the Commerce Clause so it's heading in the right direction.
It's weird to me that you would consider the Commerce Clause more problematic than either the General Welfare Clause or the Tax and Spending Clause of the constitution. Plus I'll never get over you thinking it's more egregious to be told politicians can dictate someone's wheat farming than politicians dictating someone's sexual privacy, medical care or bodily integrity. There is no logical explanation for that. Body > Property in every aspect of law but whatevs. We've digressed pretty far from the OP.
We actually don't have to wait for the EPA to do something either.
I'm pretty sure the court has still not issued a ruling in that case, 17 years later.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm not hostile to rich white guys! The only one I hate is Bill Gates because he SLAUGHTERS PEOPLE. I completely agree with you. He's murdering right out in the open... have you seen what's happening in Africa? The "life saving vaccines" he's giving to people? Please. Liberals remain complicit in this mass genocide and won't open their eyes until it's too late. I've already went to my job's HR department to ask if we can uninstall Microsoft Office Suite before Bill Gates starts invading our brains and harvesting memories through Microsoft Word. People think it's an innocent little program to draft documents and spreadsheets. Oh no. It's part of his next strategy to kill everyone on the planet. I'm on your side.
-->
@Danielle
but either don't know what the language should be or refuse to answer what the language should be
Why would you say this.
Did you even read post 66?
It's weird to me that you would consider the Commerce Clause more problematic than either the General Welfare Clause or the Tax and Spending Clause of the constitution.
Because it was the genesis of the authority granted to the government to tell you what you had to do with your property or body for the good of the "State."
Why do you not see that as a problem of the highest order?
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes and in post 70 I asked you what the clear and precise language should be.
Yes and in post 70 I asked you what the clear and precise language should be.
What part of post 66 was confusing to you?
-->
@Greyparrot
Because it was the genesis of the authority granted to the government to tell you what you had to do with your property or body for the good of the "State."
How is that different than the justification of the Tax and Spending Clause or General Welfare Clause? It's the same principle behind all three. As far as which is the most problematic I think they're at least on equal footing. The government's size and scope is so massive as a direct result of those clauses. And I don't see what "body" had to do with the Commerce Clause specifically.
-->
@Danielle
I'm not hostile to rich white guys! The only one I hate is Bill Gates because he SLAUGHTERS PEOPLE. I completely agree with you. He's murdering right out in the open... have you seen what's happening in Africa? The "life saving vaccines" he's giving to people? Please. Liberals remain complicit in this mass genocide and won't open their eyes until it's too late. I've already went to my job's HR department to ask if we can uninstall Microsoft Office Suite before Bill Gates starts invading our brains and harvesting memories through Microsoft Word. People think it's an innocent little program to draft documents and spreadsheets. Oh no. It's part of his next strategy to kill everyone on the planet. I'm on your side.
zoiks
-->
@Danielle
Good point.
-->
@Danielle
We're not on any kind of side together.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Ouch! Hope ya don't put a spell on me.
-->
@Greyparrot
You said you wanted the clause reworded "to give the power to deregulate (destroy) state barriers to the free market instead of regulating (creating) barriers."
I understand exactly what that means. I'm asking you how you would like to word that ideology. I'm asking you to specify the exact terminology you would use to convey this ideation of solely destroying barriers and not creating them. What part of my question is confusing to you? Write the text you would like to see the clause changed to. I'm not sure how I could be any more direct with what I'm asking, sorry :/ Do you know what an "example" means?
-->
@Danielle
Congress shall make no law to impede or restrict commerce between the states,
Congress shall have the power to remove state restrictions on commerce provided it removes from all states.
-->
@Greyparrot
What about foreign trade?
-->
@Danielle
What about it? that's not between states.
-->
@Greyparrot
I know that. The commerce clause has several facets including the empowerment of the feds to influence trade with foreign governments. I'm asking how/if that would be included in the revision.
-->
@Greyparrot
Congress shall have the power to remove state restrictions on commerce provided it removes from all states.
this seems to be a violation of "states rights"
-->
@Danielle
Constitution is specifically a Federal can't do list, or can do with specific conditions or restrictions, not a comprehensive can do list.