Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take your case to the Supreme Court. If you can convince them, then you're on solid ground. Otherwise, your opinion is simply not based on legal and economic reality. Maybe you've been listening to someone with an agenda who's gotten you all charged up.
I don't have the resources, or the self interest to take it to the supreme court.
Why would I want to take a matter to the Supreme Court that doesn't effect me?
I'm simply giving my opinion on the matter in question. If the matter came up for a vote in the federal legislature, I would simply write my congressmen and women, and tell them how I feel in the matter.
None of this debate is in reality, its not like its going away. I'm defending, in part, Rand Pauls position. That being that he isn't a bigot, or hates miners, or anything like that. He simply believes this is the way the Constitution is written, and I for one am with him.
I don't have the resources, or the self interest to take it to the supreme court.
Why would I want to take a matter to the Supreme Court that doesn't effect me?
I'm simply giving my opinion on the matter in question. If the matter came up for a vote in the federal legislature, I would simply write my congressmen and women, and tell them how I feel in the matter.
None of this debate is in reality, its not like its going away. I'm defending, in part, Rand Pauls position. That being that he isn't a bigot, or hates miners, or anything like that. He simply believes this is the way the Constitution is written, and I for one am with him.
Then neither of you have taken much time to understand it. In your case, that's no big deal. In Rand Paul's case, that's unforgivable. A guy running for the senate ought to have a grasp of the basics, at least. Including the legal precedence that's come down from the supreme court many times.
If he doesn't want the federal government involved in interstate commerce (a supremely loony position) then he should know that it would require a constitutional amendment. To just make flat statements like he has about mine safety not being a federal responsibility just frames him as a featherweight who can't be taken seriously.
And that seems to be the picture that's emerging. Isn't he a doctor? Maybe he's better at writing prescriptions for viagra.
Then neither of you have taken much time to understand it. In your case, that's no big deal. In Rand Paul's case, that's unforgivable. A guy running for the senate ought to have a grasp of the basics, at least. Including the legal precedence that's come down from the supreme court many times.
If he doesn't want the federal government involved in interstate commerce (a supremely loony position) then he should know that it would require a constitutional amendment. To just make flat statements like he has about mine safety not being a federal responsibility just frames him as a featherweight who can't be taken seriously.
And that seems to be the picture that's emerging. Isn't he a doctor? Maybe he's better at writing prescriptions for viagra.
How is a business in Kentucky interstate commerce.
Again, shipping is interstate commerce, the mine is not.
How is a business in Kentucky interstate commerce.
Again, shipping is interstate commerce, the mine is not.
I think this has been explained previously and it's not that difficult to understand.
If a mine in Kentucky sells its product in another state, that's interstate commerce. The trucks/railroads hauling the coal are subject to federal shipping regulations. The mine is subject to federal mining regulations.
Hey! I know! Maybe if the Kentucky mine didn't sell its coal, then it wouldn't be interstate commerce. Maybe they can give the coal to a "charity" who can then take it across state lines for "donations".
What is with child labor laws anyway? I think children should work at an early age for many reasons. It adds to family recourses, it teaches the children the puritan work ethic, it helps finance the lifestyle of the families who started the business in the first place. And above all we may be able to compete with China and India in short order.
And it keeps the kids off the streets where the can become victims or gang violence and drug use. It should be up to the parents to decide when their child is ready for the work force and what jobs they can do safely.
I think this has been explained previously and it's not that difficult to understand.
If a mine in Kentucky sells its product in another state, that's interstate commerce. The trucks/railroads hauling the coal are subject to federal shipping regulations. The mine is subject to federal mining regulations.
Hey! I know! Maybe if the Kentucky mine didn't sell its coal, then it wouldn't be interstate commerce. Maybe they can donate the coal to a "charity" who can then sell it across state lines.
Again, its shipping.
Shipping companies are different than mining companies. I'm sure some do both, others split the two operations into different companies.
Local laws are passed to protect their citizens from local threats. The federal government is for threats that are interstate, or threaten the nation as a whole. Thats the difference.
"We the people" is not a local issue. It is a people issue, to ensure common law for the welfare of the entire nation. And why stop at state? Let individual communities deal with local resources, right... like water, minerals and such.
The concept of state was promoted at a time when the population of the country was 3 million and that was the closest government entity to a logical group of people. Ultimate, this is about people, not about states. This is about getting the most protection to the people, not the least. If the federal government doesn't regulate something, states and local authorities can take control to add to that protection. As it is, we, the residents of Flower Mound TX, are looking up to federal government to step into a similar resource issue governed by a corrupt state government. Your idea is to give all power to the states and no outside help even if it is known that the state is not working for the people. My idea is that things be handled at federal level at the highest level, and local governance adds to it.
Our primary area of conflict happens to be polar opposite as well. I'm for additive effect of protection afforded to people, from federal to local levels. You're for subtractive effect, laying all your bets on local governance. And to top it off, resources that belong to the nation, but used by created entities called corporations.
It is federal government's responsibility to ensure general welfare of the United States, and the United States is its people. What is your idea of the general welfare?
And it keeps the kids off the streets where the can become victims or gang violence and drug use. It should be up to the parents to decide when their child is ready for the work force and what jobs they can do safely.
And can't the mines make good use of little kids underground? After all, they can crawl into tight places an adult would struggle to reach.
Shipping companies are different than mining companies. I'm sure some do both, others split the two operations into different companies.
Again, the shippers carry the mine's product. The shippers don't produce what they're hauling. So they're regulated according to shipping rules. The producers who want the shipper to carry their commodity to the buyer are regulated on the means of production. When the shipper, buyer, and producer exchange money, goods and services, that's commerce.
Shipping...
Mining...
Different businesses. But they sometimes work together. And when it's across a state line, it's called interstate.
"We the people" is not a local issue. It is a people issue, to ensure common law for the welfare of the entire nation. And why stop at state? Let individual communities deal with local resources, right... like water, minerals and such.
The concept of state was promoted at a time when the population of the country was 3 million and that was the closest government entity to a logical group of people. Ultimate, this is about people, not about states. This is about getting the most protection to the people, not the least. If the federal government doesn't regulate something, states and local authorities can take control to add to that protection. As it is, we, the residents of Flower Mound TX, are looking up to federal government to step into a similar resource issue governed by a corrupt state government. Your idea is to give all power to the states and no outside help even if it is known that the state is not working for the people. My idea is that things be handled at federal level at the highest level, and local governance adds to it.
Our primary area of conflict happens to be polar opposite as well. I'm for additive effect of protection afforded to people, from federal to local levels. You're for subtractive effect, laying all your bets on local governance. And to top it off, resources that belong to the nation, but used by created entities called corporations.
It is federal government's responsibility to ensure general welfare of the United States, and the United States is its people. What is your idea of the general welfare?
General means all, its a generic term. Not to be applied to any one specific group, unless their welfare benefits all Americans.
You keep saying "we the people" yes, the Constitution says that, but it doesn't mean we pass laws that are good for all Americans.
I'm sure sign companies took a hit when they had to quit printing "whites only" signs in the south. I guess we should pass a law for them.
States are perfectly capable of taking care of their own citizens welfare from corporations. If you don't like what your state is doing, move, or vote in someone you agree with.
And we've gone over this. I'm a states right, strict adherence to the Constitution type, and you're a interpretive federalist type. Thats fine, we just see it differently. No matter how much back and forth, its not going to change that.
Just remember, pot being illegal, gay rights, and things like that come from "interpretive" views, because the Constitution doesn't mention these things. Both views have their positives and negatives. I'd rather my state make rules for me, not the federal government. Because whats good for California, may not be good for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
