National speed limit pushed as gas saver

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Chancellor The argument you so obviously misssed is that speed limits are the province of the states and not the federal government.

That's a conclusion, not an argument. Arguments have support, conclusions are merely stated.

Quote by: Chancellor Actually, I oppose the Patriot Act and related legislation. I oppose all unconstitutional legislation.

And did you vote for the administration that has imposed warrantless tapping and started an illegal war?

Quote by: Chancellor Actually, I have the Constitution to support my argument. The Constitution enumerates all of the powers granted to the federal government. The federal government has exactly and only those powers. There is no power for creating a national road system in the Constitution.

It's best not to repeat refuted arguments. Let me remind you that the federal government regulates interstate commerice, hence this interstate system of roads that promote such commerce.

Quote by: Chancellor People's rights are automatically assumed. They exist independent of the government. But, since we're talking specifically about GOVERNMENT, your statement about the people is irrelevant.

On matters that need to be regulated, taking the power away from the federal government splits it among the states, not their people. This serves to diminish the rights of those people who live in conservative states. More on this below.

Quote by: Chancellor I have no opinion one way or the other except to say that it is a decision for the individual states.

Perhaps it would be, if not for the fact that they wish to receive federal funding.

Quote by: Chancellor There was nothing mistaken about their intentions and all this "working around it" is unconstitutional. The only way to change what the founding fathers rightly gave us is to either AMEND the Constitution or REPLACE it with a different document.

Not merely mistaken but conflicted. If you remember, many Americans were irrationally terrified of a strong central government, so they created the first attempt at a United States of America, under the Articles of Confederation. This system had incredibly strong states' rights and was therefore a failure that had to be replaced. The Constitution we now work under is more federalist to begin with, and has moved further in that direction due to the simple fact that federalism is correct.

The classic argument for federalism can be found in the Federalist Papers #10, in which Madison, known later as the father of the constitution, discussed the problem of factions taking over local governments.

TC

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Actually, someone else did us the courtesy of explaining it, but the explanation is quite sound. The reason the federal government built the interstate system was to encourage the interstate commerce that is its mandate to regulate.

And this relates to speed limits on state roads exactly how?

If the federal government was proposing to limit speeds only on interstate highways paid for with federal funds you might have a point. That is not what is going on here.

This is simply false. Does the FBI enforce only local laws?

The FBI enforces mostly laws based on an extremely broad reading of the ICC, which under a strict constructionist view are unconstitutional.

Is treason a civil infraction?

Treason is a Constitutional infraction. While it is listed in the Constitution, it is the only federal "criminal" charge.

Is there such a thing as federal murder charges?

No. Not under the Constitution.

Think this through. You already know the federal government has criminal as well as civil laws.

And as I said, those criminal laws are not based on actual Constitutional authority, but on extremely broad readings of the ICC and 14th Amendment. By the plain text of the Constitution, the federal government does not enforce criminal statutes except those committed directly against the federal government (treason).

You first. You've been robbed blind.

Laughable. See this point, where you admit I'm correct:

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Yes, the Constitution is wrong on this matter, so we've worked around that limitation as best as we could

Here you admit that our current laws are in contravention to the Constitution, which is "wrong" (i.e. it disagrees with what you are saying). Therefore, you are making not a Constitutional argument but a (unlawful) policy argument.

No matter, apparently your Con Law consisted of reading a moveon.org blog about how we can stretch the federal government to meddle in the states, as per your above admission. I guess that certainly is better than mine, which took place, you know, in law school...

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: tivodan1116 And this relates to speed limits on state roads exactly how? If the federal government was proposing to limit speeds only on interstate highways paid for with federal funds you might have a point. That is not what is going on here.

This was, of course, explained a while back. The states are free to set whatever limits they like on local roads. However, the federal gov is free to penalize them for doing so.

'...no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences.' - Terry Pratchett

Quote by: tivodan1116 The FBI enforces mostly laws based on an extremely broad reading of the ICC, which under a strict constructionist view are unconstitutional.

Since we don't follow your strict constructivist views, this is irrelevant.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Treason is a Constitutional infraction. While it is listed in the Constitution, it is the only federal "criminal" charge. No. Not under the Constitution. And as I said, those criminal laws are not based on actual Constitutional authority, but on extremely broad readings of the ICC and 14th Amendment. By the plain text of the Constitution, the federal government does not enforce criminal statutes except those committed directly against the federal government (treason).

First you say there aren't any, then you admit there's one. Finally, you claim that your interpretation of the constitution, under strict constructivism, is worth more than a chuckle.

By plain text, there are federal murder charges. A quick google returns articles like: Huntsville Woman Faces Federal Murder Charge - Topix

Quote by: tivodan1116 Laughable. See this point, where you admit I'm correct: Here you admit that our current laws are in contravention to the Constitution, which is "wrong" (i.e. it disagrees with what you are saying). Therefore, you are making not a Constitutional argument but a (unlawful) policy argument. No matter, apparently your Con Law consisted of reading a moveon.org blog about how we can stretch the federal government to meddle in the states, as per your above admission. I guess that certainly is better than mine, which took place, you know, in law school...

This entire argument is based on the false premise of strict constructivism. The Constitution is a living document. We've amended it and we've interpreted it via case law. Some of the founding fathers wanted to repeat the error of the Articles of Confederacy, but I'm glad to say we're moving further away from that. Too bad you're stuck over 200 years in the past.

TC

[loser]

Yeah, and just think how the food shortage would just disappear if we killed off about one-third of the population. Who says war isn't good. By reducing traffic deaths we are just exacerbating the food shortage problem. A national speed limit will be detrimental to mankind. Just say no to that ignorance!

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: loser Yeah, and just think how the food shortage would just disappear if we killed off about one-third of the population. Who says war isn't good. By reducing traffic deaths we are just exacerbating the food shortage problem. A national speed limit will be detrimental to mankind. Just say no to that ignorance!

If population is such a problem tht you endorse killing off a third of everyone alive, why aren't you volunteering yourself? Lead from the front, I always say.

TC

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Yes, the Constitution is wrong on this matter, so we've worked around that limitation as best as we could. TC

Which is against the law, change it if you want.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Which is against the law, change it if you want.

Interpreting the Constitution is not "against the law". It's not even against the Constitution. In fact, it's the job of the SCOTUS.

The Constitution is, as I've pointed out, a living document. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We've created it, and then we amended it repeatedly and built up case law around the proper interpretations, with these shifting over time, just like the rest of our legal and political system.

When the Constitution is out of whack with the interests of the nation, we can change it outright, though not easily. Often we can get by without changing the actual words, simply by putting more or less emphasis on some sections and interpreting them more broadly or strictly. Consider such things as the elastic clause or the interstate commerce clause, which have expanded beyond their original shape.

And, yes, there is a political aspect to this process, with concomitant risks of partisanship. That's why "strict constructionism" is now merely a political code-word for judicial conservatism, usually through some form of textualism or originalism, but sometimes through simple bias.

Consider the federal DOMA, as yet untested in the court, which blatantly violates the full faith and credit clause. When McCain wins, he'll place a "strict constructionist" into the SCOTUS to make sure that atrocities such as the DOMA and the Patriot Act build up a solid precedent, undermining the Constitution in the long term.

TC

[Gods_Mercenary]

Explicit sentences cannot be simply de-emphasized, if you did the same with other laws you'd have chaos.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Explicit sentences cannot be simply de-emphasized, if you did the same with other laws you'd have chaos.

This two-liner did not begin to address all I wrote, so I won't bother addressing it.

TC

[Gods_Mercenary]

The entire post can be summed up as saying that the constitution can be interpreted to serve whatever purpose you want, my response was that that such an explicit sentence can only be ignored, not interpreted.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The entire post can be summed up as saying that the constitution can be interpreted to serve whatever purpose you want, my response was that that such an explicit sentence can only be ignored, not interpreted.

Which sentence?

TC

[ironeagle]

People also don't have the right to dine at a resturant, yet congress keeps adding more smoking bans which violate the owners rights. People should cut down their sped if it will help save energy and gas.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: ironeagle People also don't have the right to dine at a resturant, yet congress keeps adding more smoking bans which violate the owners rights. People should cut down their sped if it will help save energy and gas.

I can always count on libertarians to favor the property rights of a business owner over the human rights of people whose health is damaged by smoking. Thank you for failing to surprise me.

TC

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal That's a conclusion, not an argument. Arguments have support, conclusions are merely stated.

It is fact.

And did you vote for the administration that has imposed warrantless tapping and started an illegal war?

No, and I didn't vote for the Democrats either.

It's best not to repeat refuted arguments. Let me remind you that the federal government regulates interstate commerice, hence this interstate system of roads that promote such commerce.

You have not refuted anything and the "interstate commerce" clause does not give federal government the right to create an interstate road system that was, first and foremost, created for more easily transporting the military.

On matters that need to be regulated, taking the power away from the federal government splits it among the states, not their people. This serves to diminish the rights of those people who live in conservative states. More on this below.

It is not the role of the federal government to do these kinds of things though. The federal government has exactly and only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution (as amended).

Perhaps it would be, if not for the fact that they wish to receive federal funding.

So, you're saying they're prostitutes and the federal government is the john?

Not merely mistaken but conflicted. If you remember, many Americans were irrationally terrified of a strong central government, so they created the first attempt at a United States of America, under the Articles of Confederation. This system had incredibly strong states' rights and was therefore a failure that had to be replaced. The Constitution we now work under is more federalist to begin with, and has moved further in that direction due to the simple fact that federalism is correct.

Their being terrified of strong central government was quite rational. We do not work under the Constitution, we work under a bloated federal government that is further away from the Constitution than the nation was under the Articles of Confederation.

The classic argument for federalism can be found in the Federalist Papers #10, in which Madison, known later as the father of the constitution, discussed the problem of factions taking over local governments.

One should never read the Federalist Papers without also reading the Anti-Federalist Papers.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Interpreting the Constitution is not "against the law". It's not even against the Constitution. In fact, it's the job of the SCOTUS.

Where does Article III say that it's the job of the SCOTUS to "interpret" the Constitution (insert its own meaning into the Constitution in the place of the meaning of those who wrote and ratified it)?

The Constitution is, as I've pointed out, a living document. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We've created it, and then we amended it repeatedly and built up case law around the proper interpretations, with these shifting over time, just like the rest of our legal and political system.

Wrong damned answer! The Constitution means exactly and only what is actually written - AS THE AUTHOR AND RATIFIERS UNDERSTOOD IT!

When the Constitution is out of whack with the interests of the nation, we can change it outright, though not easily. Often we can get by without changing the actual words, simply by putting more or less emphasis on some sections and interpreting them more broadly or strictly. Consider such things as the elastic clause or the interstate commerce clause, which have expanded beyond their original shape.

Yes, we can CHANGE IT or REPLACE IT. There is no such thing, however, as an "elastic clause and the interstate commerce clause has nothing in it that allows for it to be expanded beyond the author's intent.

And, yes, there is a political aspect to this process, with concomitant risks of partisanship. That's why "strict constructionism" is now merely a political code-word for judicial conservatism, usually through some form of textualism or originalism, but sometimes through simple bias.

And "living document" is a political code-word for leftist judicial activism.

Consider the federal DOMA, as yet untested in the court, which blatantly violates the full faith and credit clause. When McCain wins, he'll place a "strict constructionist" into the SCOTUS to make sure that atrocities such as the DOMA and the Patriot Act build up a solid precedent, undermining the Constitution in the long term.

You would have to show that marriage is one of those things that fall under the category of "public acts." However, even the full faith and credit clause has within it an opening through which Congress can enter. I'd like to see government get out of the marriage business entirely but that's another thread. As for the Patriot Act, it is yet another example of the currently unconstitutional federal government further usurping for itself powers it does not have.

[ShadowFox]

Ok, this is going in a direction that may lead to insults and personal comments. Keep in mind, debates here must be civil.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Chancellor It is fact.

Great, if it's a fact then I'm sure you'll be able to prove it. Until you do, it's just an assertion.

Quote by: Chancellor No, and I didn't vote for the Democrats either.

Ah, another libertarian protest voter. Thank you!

Quote by: Chancellor You have not refuted anything and the "interstate commerce" clause does not give federal government the right to create an interstate road system that was, first and foremost, created for more easily transporting the military.

Uh-huh, and interstate commerce had nothing to do with the ugly mess that the Articles created, with states printing their own currency and placing tariffs at their borders? Ignorance of history is an ugly thing.

Quote by: Chancellor It is not the role of the federal government to do these kinds of things though. The federal government has exactly and only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution (as amended).

Yes, and it includes all of those clauses that have been rightfully stretched to accommodate the actual needs of the nation. I've named some of them.

Quote by: Chancellor So, you're saying they're prostitutes and the federal government is the john?

You're the one who's big on states, yet you call them prostitutes? Weird.

No, I think it's more a matter of economies of scale. An interstate system can only work when federally funded because it is necessary for some states to pay for roads through states that cannot afford it, else there is no end-to-end route. I know this interdependence rifles your libertarian feathers, but I can't change the economic facts.

Quote by: Chancellor Their being terrified of strong central government was quite rational. We do not work under the Constitution, we work under a bloated federal government that is further away from the Constitution than the nation was under the Articles of Confederation.

As the Fed Papers #10 so successfully argued, the only way to protect us from a strong local government is to accept a relatively strong federal government.

Quote by: Chancellor One should never read the Federalist Papers without also reading the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Reading bad arguments does not lead to agreement.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Chancellor Where does Article III say that it's the job of the SCOTUS to "interpret" the Constitution (insert its own meaning into the Constitution in the place of the meaning of those who wrote and ratified it)?

The courts interpret the laws, the highest court interprets the Constitution itself. Who else could do this job?

Quote by: Chancellor Wrong damned answer! The Constitution means exactly and only what is actually written - AS THE AUTHOR AND RATIFIERS UNDERSTOOD IT!

Yes, yes, that's what you believe, but I don't care what you believe, only what is true. Let me remind you that CAPITALIZATION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ARGUMENTATION. For that matter, it's bad writing to emphasize everything, since it goes against the whole point of emphasis. Also, it's rude.

Quote by: Chancellor Yes, we can CHANGE IT or REPLACE IT. There is no such thing, however, as an "elastic clause and the interstate commerce clause has nothing in it that allows for it to be expanded beyond the author's intent.

Once again, you fail to debate. Asserting blankly that the elastic clause doesn't exist has no effect on the existence of the elastic clause. I know you don't like the fact that such clauses exist, but your desires do not matter here.

Quote by: Chancellor And "living document" is a political code-word for leftist judicial activism.

It's a self-evident term for the rejection of strict constructionism. I also note that you did not dispute my statement, merely answered with a the tu quoque fallacy. Good job!

Quote by: Chancellor You would have to show that marriage is one of those things that fall under the category of "public acts." However, even the full faith and credit clause has within it an opening through which Congress can enter. I'd like to see government get out of the marriage business entirely but that's another thread. As for the Patriot Act, it is yet another example of the currently unconstitutional federal government further usurping for itself powers it does not have.

I'm well aware of the libertarian notion that marriage is a private contract. However, that's an idealistic pipe dream, and one based on a rather twisted ideal. Marriage is the public recognition of a particular relationship that gives the participants rights that they cannot grant to each other.

Let me remind you that this corrupt federal government that violates our constitutional and human rights was put in place by a party that is a coalition of conservatives and libertarians. Ironic.

TC

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal I can always count on libertarians to favor the property rights of a business owner over the human rights of people whose health is damaged by smoking. Thank you for failing to surprise me. TC

People that choose to be in the restaurant.

People that voluntarily ingest second hand smoke aren't having their rights violated - they're waving their rights to their body - specifically the right not to ingest second hand smoke.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal The Constitution we now work under is more federalist to begin with, and has moved further in that direction due to the simple fact that federalism is correct.

Just wanted to point out that in 2008, with 2 undeclared wars going on, thousands of violations of rights, both human and otherwise, being committed by the federal government, over 9 TRILLION dollars in federal debt, a dollar bordering on worthless, bankrupt federal retirement and healthcare systems, half of income lost to taxes, elected representatives with less than 30% approval ratings from both parties, and a general overall feeling by most people that our nation is on the wrong path, there are still people who somehow think that "federalism" as currently practiced by our government is "correct"...