The Goat Pen

The "state" has tremendous Federalized "power" that the Fed does NOT HAVE thanks to the 10th Amendment. A "state" sets it's own drinking age. A "state" sets its own state speed limit. A "state" sets it's own driving age. A "state" determines whether or not weed can be used medicinally.

No. This is absolutely incorrect. This is a total misreading of the Constitution. The state has the power to anything unless preempted by the federal government. If the feds would like to set a national speed limit, it can as it is within one of it's powers and the state would have to follow it. (Remember, Carter did this). Just because the feds haven't done something doesn't mean that they can't do something.

Owlman wrote:The "state" has tremendous Federalized "power" that the Fed does NOT HAVE thanks to the 10th Amendment. A "state" sets it's own drinking age. A "state" sets its own state speed limit. A "state" sets it's own driving age. A "state" determines whether or not weed can be used medicinally.

No. This is absolutely incorrect. This is a total misreading of the Constitution. The state has the power to anything unless preempted by the federal government. If the feds would like to set a national speed limit, it can as it is within one of it's powers and the state would have to follow it. (Remember, Carter did this).

It was Richard Nixon in response to the first of two OPEC Oil Crisis's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

And in 1981, 33 of the 50 states started investigations on legal proceedings to challenge this horseshit law. Before this could get the trial, Congress raised the speed limit to 65 mph in 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Tr ... stance_Act

The Fed had to "bribe" states, with highway funds, to keep the speed limit at something the Fed wanted.

And the Fed's involvement in speed limits officially ended officially in 1995.

Nixon and Congress were dead wrong in 1974. It never should have been created (by the Fed) and it could never be created, again. The Fed over-stepped its Constitutional power.

The Fed realized this in 1984 when they wanted a national drinking age. The Fed does not have the power to do that. That is the "state" power. All they can do is take away "state" money. So....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_M ... ng_Age_Act

Actually the feds used their spending power to get the states to enact a national drinking age. And the national speed limit would be upheld even today by the justices as a channel of interstate commerce. There is no question about this.

Owlman wrote:Actually the feds used their spending power to get the states to enact a national drinking age. And the national speed limit would be upheld even today by the justices as a channel of interstate commerce. There is no question about this.

Really? I am questioning it.

In order for the Fed to set a National "speed limit" they need an amendment to the Constitution (much like the 25th Amendment for voting rights.)

No. And it was Carter who passed a nationalized speed limit (1977).

Your argument that 1984 was not enough time to bring and litigate the speed limit???? 7 years???? Really??

Owlman wrote:No. And it was Carter who passed a nationalized speed limit (1977).

Your argument that 1984 was not enough time to bring and litigate the speed limit???? 7 years???? Really??

It was 1981 before the states started questioning whether or not the Fed over-stepped its bounds of power. And it was enacted in 1974, not 1977 with Carter. Read the wiki.

wiki wrote:The uniform speed limit was signed into law by President Nixon on January 2, 1974 and became effective 60 days later

This was about OPEC.

And if the Fed has the power to set these laws, why (in 1984) did the Fed only have the power to take highway funds away from states that didn't have a 21 years of age minimum for the purchase of alcohol? Why stop there?

The Fed stopped there because that was all they could do, take money AWAY from States that didn't do as they asked. Read the wikis I post....

easiest way to do it.

Again, not enough time?? Really?

Owlman wrote:easiest way to do it.

Again, not enough time?? Really?

Really.

The Fed is not all powerful.

You seem to be stuck on the fact that the Fed has much more power than it does. Lets try this a little differently, McCain-Feingold act (campaign finance reform) was signed into law and was thought of as a good Federal law by both parties. Why did the Supreme Court throw that law out? There is only ONE CORRECT ANSWER for this question.

Nope, I actually just speak to Constitutional law in the United States, as it is, not as laymen like to talk about it or assume it will be.

McCain-Feingold was the law of the land until the Supreme Court decided it wasn't under a different understanding of the First Amendment. Now that it has been decided, it will hold precedence until changed. That's the way our Constitution works. You are trying to anticipate what they will say not based on what the Court has said previously but based on what you want it to be. Not the correct way.

Owlman wrote:McCain-Feingold was the law of the land until the Supreme Court decided it wasn't under a different understanding of the First Amendment. Now that it has been decided, it will hold precedence until changed. That's the way our Constitution works. You are trying to anticipate what they will say not based on what the Court has said previously but based on what you want it to be. Not the correct way.

But that is the whole point of the Supreme Court. I'm betting that if the states actually took this 1974 Speed Limit Act to the Supreme's, the national speed limit law would have been overturned on the grounds of it being Unconstitutional.

By 1984, Reagan and Congress were smart enough not to try that shit again, so they had to "bribe" each state by taking away money if they didn't raise drinking ages on their own accord.

When Obamacare gets to the Supreme's (and 20 states are bringing it there right now) you and I both know, its going down faster than McCain-Fiengold.

Possible, but not likely. It will be hard for the Court to rule this as unconstitutional without also saying that medicare is also unconstitutional. They'd have to either rule that health care is an area that traditionally belongs to the States and that the necessary and proper clause is significantly limited by the 10th amendment. That will be a tremendous leap by the court and most court watchers doubt that Kennedy and at least 4 others would want to go that far.

Hedge, what value do you add to this earth? Do you add any?

You certainly add no value to this forum as you don't have anything to say other than personal insults. I mean seriously, what good are you? If, God forbid, anything terrible should happen to you, would you be missed by anyone?

hedge add value? what? are you into the boone's farm apple again?

bluetick wrote:::sigh::

States force people to buy insurance all the time. My state makes me buy liability insurance, and it also makes me buy workers compensation for my employees. And as of March 1st of this year, it was mandated that I had to buy WC for myself as well. (thanks be to you, our new "less-government" Republican legislature)

Your state does NOT force you to buy liability insurance... There is no law which says you MUST have a drivers liscense and use an automobile.

After reading the solid discussion about what the federal government can and cannot do, what the Constitution permits, and what SCOTUS upholds, the sobering truth is this: the federal government today can do pretty much whatever it damn well pleases. Sadly, the 10th Amendment exists only on paper. The commerce clause has become infinitely malleable in modern jurisprudence. The feds can overreach, overstep, and trample upon individual freedoms, and some lawyers will successfully justify it, and SCOTUS will enshrine it.

Professor Tiger wrote:After reading the solid discussion about what the federal government can and cannot do, what the Constitution permits, and what SCOTUS upholds, the sobering truth is this: the federal government today can do pretty much whatever it damn well pleases. Sadly, the 10th Amendment exists only on paper. The commerce clause has become infinitely malleable in modern jurisprudence. The feds can overreach, overstep, and trample upon individual freedoms, and some lawyers will successfully justify it, and SCOTUS will enshrine it.

As George Will said, "This Administration believes in a Constitution that does NOT Constitute."

GBJs wrote:

bluetick wrote:::sigh::

States force people to buy insurance all the time. My state makes me buy liability insurance, and it also makes me buy workers compensation for my employees. And as of March 1st of this year, it was mandated that I had to buy WC for myself as well. (thanks be to you, our new "less-government" Republican legislature)

Your state does NOT force you to buy liability insurance... There is no law which says you MUST have a drivers liscense and use an automobile.

And there is no law that says the moment you have a drivers license, you must buy auto insurance. You only need that by owning/leasing/renting a car.

Professor Tiger wrote:After reading the solid discussion about what the federal government can and cannot do, what the Constitution permits, and what SCOTUS upholds, the sobering truth is this: the federal government today can do pretty much whatever it damn well pleases. Sadly, the 10th Amendment exists only on paper. The commerce clause has become infinitely malleable in modern jurisprudence. The feds can overreach, overstep, and trample upon individual freedoms, and some lawyers will successfully justify it, and SCOTUS will enshrine it.

The federal govt is quite powerful and can do a lot more than it has. It is of course limited by what the founders intended, by politics. The Commerce clause is not as expansive as conservatives think it is nor as narrow as liberals think it is or stated another way, the Commerce clause is broader than conservatives want it to be but narrower than liberals want it to be. There also is a fundamental misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment. Many bring up the 10th amendment whenever the feds are doing something they don't like. That's not how it works. Since 1996 and Lopez and reiterated in Morrison, the 10th Amendment basically stands for the federal govt not being able to mandate states to uphold federal law and for those areas that have been traditionally primarily belonging to the states (these areas are very narrow and are somewhere within the states police powers). Other than that, those things economic or commercial in nature or that are part of a channel or an instrumentality of interstate commerce are covered by the commerce clause.

NOTE: 1996, not 1984. Any challenge to the Commerce clause would have been upheld in 1984.

innocentbystander wrote:

GBJs wrote:

bluetick wrote:::sigh::

States force people to buy insurance all the time. My state makes me buy liability insurance, and it also makes me buy workers compensation for my employees. And as of March 1st of this year, it was mandated that I had to buy WC for myself as well. (thanks be to you, our new "less-government" Republican legislature)

Your state does NOT force you to buy liability insurance... There is no law which says you MUST have a drivers liscense and use an automobile.

And there is no law that says the moment you have a drivers license, you must buy auto insurance. You only need that by owning/leasing/renting a car.

Incorrect - but consistent with your outlook on insurance in general. Most states have financial responsibility laws that require licensed drivers to either have private liability insurance or file a FR bond with that particular state. For that very reason insurance companies offer non-owner liability coverage to the public, since posting a bond is a much bigger pain. Most state DMVs will not issue a driver's license without proof of one or the other....most states now won't even register a car without one or the other.

And you make my point, GBJ. You can avoid all mandates basically by living in a lean-to down by the river. If that's the way you want to roll.