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.
Obama's policy in the bill of...
1. mandating federal policy upon states for powers that are inherently the states' purview by constitutional authority
2. collusion and bribery with a participant of the proposed plan, the unions
3. prejudicial treatment with a participant of the proposed plan, the unions
4. bribery of public officials giving prejudicial benefits to select states
5. prejudicial withholding of penalties to a participant of the proposed plan, the unions
6. assigning penaties for non-participation all work against him in this case in court. I can't see how it stands muster legally, Commerce Clause interpretation notwithstanding.
No doubt you'll want to bone up on the Commerce Clause, but you are apt to have much more difficulty from the General Welfare Clause. Keep in mind that the state could permanently confine the otherwise innocent Typhoid Mary simply because of the threat she posed to the general welfare. Keep in mind that though compelled by law to education, your children may be barred from attending public schools paid for by your tax dollars if they do not have any one of various state-required innoculations and immunizations. Keep in mind that the state may override a decision reached by you and your doctor as to the most appropriate form of medical treatment when the state for its own reasons disapproves of that decision. You might want to keep in mind also that none of your six claims above has any legal merit at all, but your case will never get far enough for them to be considered, so that won't really matter.
First of all, dicta are like footnotes and are found outside of the main text of the opinion. Dicta are not precedent, but everything in the opinion proper is precedent, save that (as in Bush v Gore) it is established not to be precedent.
Second of all, the nature of Texas at the time of the subject bond transactions is a central issue in the case, as only an actual state has standing to bring an action in the Supreme Court. The discussion in that matter is thus not some sort of unmeaningful side banter, but a pillar on which the remainder of the opinion must stand. Here is some of Chief Justice Chase's thinking on the matter...
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. On the contrary, it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
I don't think he left too many stones unturned, there...
I beg to differ..
The right to prevent secession is not “delegated” to the United States.On May 31, 1787, the Convention considered this very topic. It was rejected by Madison!
“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
Early in the Convention Mr. Madison said:
“a breach of any one article by any one party, leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention as dissolved.”
As Madison said in The third Virginia resolution of 1798:
“That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the Federal government as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in the compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their. respective limits the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”
Madison also said:
“Where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
It is strange how stubborn historical facts are quietly set aside and inferences and assumptions are used as postulates for huge governmental theories. Massachusetts,Rhode Island South Carolina, New Hampshire,Virginia,New York and Maryland reserved the right to reassume delegated powers.
New York said:
“That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it should become necessary to their happiness, that every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution.”
Wisconsin said:
Resolved, That the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all Unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy. [General Laws of Wisconsin, 1859, 247, 248.]
Texas v White, 1869
Let's take a look at the court's substitute for rational thought: By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. Texas v. White
Actually, it is NOT "difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by" the words "a more perfect Union" - the term "perpetual" could simply have been retained. The Framers were quite familiar with the term - it had been used repeatedly in the prior compact, and portions of the prior compact were, in fact, incorporated verbatim within the Constitution. Of course, the Framers would have found the term "perpetual" completely illogical, given that the new Union of States ratifying the Constitution included only those States (a minimum of nine) seceding from the self-proclaimed "perpetual union." There was no guarantee that all thirteen States would ever ratify the new Constitution, which is the reason the wording of the preamble was changed from the original: "We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachussetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity." Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: August 6
In any case, the fatally-flawed opinion in Texas v. White was quite obviously issued after the war. At the time the Southern States seceded, there was no such opinion suggesting that State secession was unconstitutional. But it's nice to see that you would apparently consider yourself to be a rutabaga, if the Supreme Court issued even a completely illogical and historically inaccurate opinion, declaring that you were one...
Perpetual means "into the indefinite future." It does not mean "eternal", "indissoluble", "indestructible", etc.
Actually, it does mean all those things even in common parlance, as resort to any competent dictionary would confirm. In legal terms, the meaning of perpetual is no less strong, ruling out any new form of contingency or limitation over time.
Yet they dissolved that Union at the Constitutional Convention...
No, the purpose of the Convention of 1787 was not to dissolve but to amend the disfunctional Articles of Confederation so as to define "a more perfect union", not a new union. You are a citizen (I assume) of the United States of America, an independent union that was declared on or about July 4, 1776, and formally defined and established on November 15, 1777.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo AGREED. I didn't suggest that "nullifiction" was a cut and dried issue, only that there IS constitutional provision for such.
You may SUGGEST that there is such, but upon examination, there is none. There is only a rather protracted logic that concludes in believing that defense of the Constitution may at some remote point imply a duty of nullification. There has been no establishment of that logic, however. It is not law, and never has been. (I love it when you boldly go where no cautious man would tread. So be it. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, in this context the pending federal health care legislation being reconciled behind closed doors now, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned. The several states have that constitutional right. It states so in Article I., Section 8. last paragraph in our fine US Constitution. I'll quote for your enlightenment, wherein it references... "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Nowhere prior to that in Section 8. does the Constitution grant enumerated powers as underlined in this reference to cover mandated health care law by the national (federal) government. On this basis the states have the full constitutional right to nullify said federal legislation under the Constitution. Moreover, they have the obligation to act in the sovereign state interest of their citizenry who foot the biil for their services. Need I remind you that taxation without proper representation is a consideration here? You may have heard of that concept.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo Applying a sarcastic spin is of course your right, but when you ONLY do THAT, you become ]obvious in your inability to frame an intellectual reference.
No intellectual reference was prompted. What you want to call modern 10th Amendment advocacy is literally a case of children playing with matches. The actors do not understand the nature or implications of what they are toying with, and in the end, nothing good can come of it. (I have thoroughly dismissed your argument and position out of hand in my first response. Repeating it here would be unnecessarily redundant. Here I would respectfully suggest you take a more circumspect read of OUR Constitution, it's amendments and respected legal opinion. OR do you know something that over a dozen states AJs fail to comprehend in their blind and wanton recklessness to legitimately represent the people they were elected to serve?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo To the point at hand. It currently is the legal option of some of the several states AJs to file legal actions on behalf of their sovereign interests as the "several states" and contest the authority, in the judicial system, for an overreaching of constitutional authority. That bunky..., is not an exercise of frustration as you so ineptly characterized it. You'd do better to pack up your peanut butter sandwiches and join padcrasher on another thread. He's apparently also looking to picnic in Alices's Wonderland. And don't forget to invite artichomesteader too. Have a Happy and wear hats. Kansas sun can be brutal!
You can file almost any half-baked case you want. Ask Orly Taitz. Whether you or these state AG's have any actual leg to stand on is an entirely different matter. The courts will not see fit to alter the implications of the law to accommodate your fantasies of them. (Please..., be merciful and do NOT enter the name of that dolt into this debate. You have, my friend, painted yourself into a deep corner. As this process matures and actions are filed and accepted I shall be returning to revisit you with reminders of why impertinent knee-jerk responses with no legal legitimacy to back them up are a bad practice in debate. The problem for most lay folks is that in the law the Devil is truly in the Detail and they lose patience and tolerance for the minutia of intercourse required to come to a best opinion based upon the facts at hand. The detail of two things. Interpretation and Application. You are about to undergo a learning experience, not by I, but by the courts and the system of juris prudence. Remember the portion of your comment just above, which I italicized should it come back to haumt you. Fantasies indeed!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo When you start to make sweeping references such as here... The ideal of negative government is 150 years dead. The rights of one end where the rights of another begin. ...you obfuscate the issue in debate which is a legitimate concern and clash over the rights and limitation of a national government to intrude upon the sovereignity of the states. Pitting the national against the states has nothing "negative" about it. It is a serious conflict, with legitimate contentions on BOTH sides in interpreting the Constitution and applicable public law that relates to the matter and may well wind up with SCOTUS.
As I have said above, absent discovery of some novel issue to couch the case in, it is doomed. The concept of negative government (STOP. Do not take up the obtuse Oba-babble of an illegitimate standard of 'negative powers' as a door-opener here. It is all too obvious that you wish to start suggesting the Constitution is a document of negative powers. The Constitution, much as Obama would like to misinterpret it, is a document of specific "enumerated" powers and "implied" powers for carrying out it's positive directives. He knows that, but did what he said for the public brainwashing of the Hope and Change naive.) meanwhile suggests resistance to all justifications for state action until such become an imperative(which it would appear you've bought into.). The notion that The government is best that governs least is related(NO. It's not related, it's applicable). As soon as the government was assigned an affirmative responsibility for the protection of individual rights, that notion died, and the pure(There is no such thing as a "pure" sovereignity when applied to the legitimacy of the states. They are either acknowledged as sovereign entities or not. There is no degree.) sovereignty of the states with it. Incorporation is a bytch. (Sorry to see that you're so totally deluded saganista. I'd hoped we could have a "reasonable" debate, but alas...such is not to be.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo By your sweeping aside attitude you dismiss such seminal legal precedent cases as the Slaughter-House Cases, not to mention Loan Association v. Topeka, among others which have direct application here.
The Slaughter House Cases are intriguing in that almost anyone can find both good and awful in them. You did for instance lose the liberty to take up the profession of your choosing, but you gained the confidence of knowing that government inspectors are on the job, regularly policing local restaurants to be sure that they are in full compliance with government-mandated food handling and storage regulations and requirements. You do take reassurance in that, don't you? (Please to revisit the ruling on said case. You've come away with a somewhat distorted impression.) Meanwhile, LA v Topeka will be useless to you in the present case in that it opened the door to taxation associated with any public purpose, which health care already is. (Oh did it now? Is that ALL that it did friend? I'm taking mercy on you here by not coming down hard with excerpted legal opinion in proper context. Sufficeth to say that you need to read and accurately comprehend opinion for these cases, before wading in too deeply.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo I have NO DESIRE to get into the legal minutia of detail and argue something that neither of us is qualified to do and would hurt the hair follicles of the readers in contemplating. Sufficeth to say that "nullification" is a justifiable concern and should be acted upon by the states as they have the legal right to do so. I trust that you can agree with that.
You'd need, I think, to speak more for yourself, and I think I succeeded rather well in skirting any risk of causing reader hair-follicle damage. Wild- and starry-eyed states may pursue whatever actions they choose. No constaints there at all. It is their prospects of enjoying any success that are so severely limited. (More irrelevant babble.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo What a genuinely inept response my friend. NOT your accusation of "delusional", but that you fail to make a case for such.
I'm sorry, but when the tracks are left to a degree sufficient to permit The resident evil Obama is on the march to a one-party, totalitarian control and MUST BE STOPPED., you've gone right round the bend. (WRONG! If you love America and don't number yourself as one of her haters then you are standing too close to the wall to read the writing. If you fail to see that his promise to "fundamentally remake America" and his totality of appointments of "inferior Officers" to the Executive Branch, almost all of whom are Communist, Marxist and/or socialist in belief or leanings then YOU are blinded by partisan loyalty and in denial. Bush, his moron predecessor, by opening the door to Open Borders and Shamnesty with his loyal ally McNasty set the stage and made it appear a smooth transition for Obama to continue the course of abdicating our national sovereignity. All his Chicago formative influences are known and documentable and ALL are rabble given to nothing but diminishing everything about this once great nation. In alliance they are ALL dedicated to what one might accurately call the peaceful overthrow of the government. All this is factual and performance-based verifiable and too much to detail for you each and every time you question it. The recent record of history is clear. This nation's days of continued existence as a democratically elected and maintained constitutional republic is under direct threat from Obama and his Oba-mafia in the White House. Never in the history of this nation has it been so polarized and November of this year, as I continue to state, will be the fork in the road where America has to make her choice. Should she veer left and not empty out congress sufficiently to disembowel the Oba-agenda, violence will commence and we will sink into anarchy. Free men will NEVER yield to tyrants in America.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo By such you reveal yourself for being at a loss of words to adequately respond. Although that's par for the debate course for most lefties I'd hoped for better from you. Would you like me to compose a new topic post wherein I make my case for just specifically this comment just above. I do not wish to stray "off-topic" here, but would relish engaging you and your pals on this specific issue. My only request is that you come prepared to counter FACT WITH FACT and not predictable liberal progressive ranting.
It's not so much being at any loss for words as that there isn't actually a need for any. You know the Democrats could have run both the stimulus bill and health care under reconciliation, then needing only 50 votes plus Biden to pass whatever they wanted. Why would a leader seeking one-party, totalitarian control have turned away from such a path? It would seem at least incongruous under the conditions you propose. (Why indeed! They know that they are in trouble with the vast cross-section of the public. very poll validates that. Unless absolutely pushed to the wall they do NOT want to use the 50 vote solution as they know it is the nuclear option that could push the public TOTALLY over the edge against them. Obama has one reality he cannot deal with by appointing his lackeys to subvert the Constitution. It's the power of the VOTE. The ace in the hole The Founding Fathers gave us that is sacrosanct and away from his tampering with. He's a lawyer. A law professor. Surrounded by other lawyers. HE KNOWS REALITY WHEN IT'S STARING HIM IN THE FACE! It's the reason he's pulling out ALL the stops to ram health care through now with the proper majority vote.)
This certainly is your right, though you might exercise it more judiciously. To wit...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
The right to prevent secession is not “delegated” to the United States.On May 31, 1787, the Convention considered this very topic. It was rejected by Madison!
The report of May 31 by Madison does not relate to secession at all. The subject of that debate was the power (agreed to without debate) of the Congress to negate state law that contravened the Constitution. At Madison's suggestion that an ultimate federal power of force against a delinquent state would prove impractical and counter-productive, consideration of the phrase conferring such power was postponed and the Convention then adjourned for the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
Early in the Convention Mr. Madison said:
“a breach of any one article by any one party, leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention as dissolved.”
Well, it was June 19, so not as early on as all that, and the quote is again taken too liberally out of context. The report is actually from the pleadings of Mr. Patterson of New Jersey concerning the nature and operation of various forms of compact and contract generally. It does not refer specifically to either the then existing Articles of Confederation or to the Constitution then in progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
As Madison said in The third Virginia resolution of 1798:
“That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the Federal government as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in the compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their. respective limits the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
Madison also said:
“Where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
These comments were discussed earlier in the thread, and they refer not to secession at all, but to the entirely separate matter of nullification, this in regard to passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
It is strange how stubborn historical facts are quietly set aside and inferences and assumptions are used as postulates for huge governmental theories.
This is hardly the only or chief purpose to which an ignoring of historical fact is lately put. See the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York and Maryland reserved the right to reassume delegated powers.
The New York quote is from its notice of ratification of the Constitution, by which it became the eleventh state to ratify. To an extent greater than any of the others, New York used the opportunity to set out a sort of "signing statement" in which it laid out a nearly entire Bill of Rights and other sorts of corrections and clarifications of the Constitution of which it encouraged and expected the earliest possible consideration from the new Congress. While important politically at the time, these pleadings had no weight at law then, and they have none now. Neither New York nor any other state has any special claim or reservation to powers that is not either tolerated or afforded by the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
Texas v White, 1869 -- Let's take a look at the court's substitute for rational thought:
By [the Articles of Confederation], the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words.
Actually, it is NOT "difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by" the words "a more perfect Union" - the term "perpetual" could simply have been retained. The Framers were quite familiar with the term - it had been used repeatedly in the prior compact, and portions of the prior compact were, in fact, incorporated verbatim within the Constitution. Of course, the Framers would have found the term "perpetual" completely illogical, given that the new Union of States ratifying the Constitution included only those States (a minimum of nine) seceding from the self-proclaimed "perpetual union."
You are inventing here motives and processes that never existed. The Convention of 1787 was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation that had proved unworkable as a means of governance of the perpetual union that it had established. That union was not dissolved by any stretch of the imagination. It's governing charter was merely updated, as it has been to lesser degree on various occasions since. The delegates to the Convention were both familiar and comfortable with the notion of "perpetual union" because they had been living and working in one for nearly a decade. No state accceded to the union by its ratification of the Constitution. All were already members of it, else they would not have had a vote to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog
In any case, the fatally-flawed opinion in Texas v. White was quite obviously issued after the war. At the time the Southern States seceded, there was no such opinion suggesting that State secession was unconstitutional. But it's nice to see that you would apparently consider yourself to be a rutabaga, if the Supreme Court issued even a completely illogical and historically inaccurate opinion, declaring that you were one...
Well, yes, the fact that it was decided in 1869 does place it after the Civil War, and prior to that time, there was no specific ruling on the issue of secession, though there had certainly been much despising and discouragement of the notion. Otherwise, I should recommend that you seek to construct arguments that do not depend upon an abandonment of the Rule of Law. You would do well to come to terms with the fact that you do not live in the antebellum republic. That era, like the era of earlier confederacy, proved unworkable, and the nature of the republic was therefore altered. You may seek to alter it again, but not through secession. There simply is no right of that.
No doubt you'll want to bone up on the Commerce Clause, but you are apt to have much more difficulty from the General Welfare Clause. Keep in mind that the state could permanently confine the otherwise innocent Typhoid Mary simply because of the threat she posed to the general welfare. Keep in mind that though compelled by law to education, your children may be barred from attending public schools paid for by your tax dollars if they do not have any one of various state-required innoculations and immunizations. Keep in mind that the state may override a decision reached by you and your doctor as to the most appropriate form of medical treatment when the state for its own reasons disapproves of that decision. You might want to keep in mind also that none of your six claims above has any legal merit at all, but your case will never get far enough for them to be considered, so that won't really matter.
You reference to the unfortunate Typhoid Mary incident, would lead the average reader to see it one-sided. A good review of the totality of the incident is given here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A24244544
Mary was given many chances and rejected authority concerned about her being a public health menace. She was treated harshy, but based upon her behavior deservedly. As always, the bottom line is that a personal right of an individual must yield to the collective rights of the group when said individual right, by it's free exercise, endangers and threatens directly the health and welfare of the group.
As to your three other "keep in mind" comments you should keep in mind that in this country one has the right of legal redress for perceived grievances. Sooo, what you suggest is not an 'automatic'.
Your final "keep in mind" requires you to demonstrate why none of those charges I made have legal merit. Your astute opinion carries NO legal weight for me. They do have merit and time will show that as the issues move forward in the court system.
Another observation. You, in your uniquely wizened capacity as an 'ordinary citizen' continue to be dismissive of the actions of knowledgeable and trained legal professionals; specifically, the states' AJs in this instance. You are redundant in that flawed strategy and invite humiliation should some legal professional observe what I do and come along and make a solid case against you. Just a friendly advice.
Let's revisit this discussion AFTER the "nullification" cases are in the courts and we have something substantial to debate upon.
I love it when you boldly go where no cautious man would tread. So be it.
Masochist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, in this context the pending federal health care legislation being reconciled behind closed doors now, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.
The only reason that Republicans are not presently included in health care negotiations is that they have abandoned the positions they were elected to in favor of becoming Glenn Beck types, dedicated only to propaganda and rabble-rousing. They have no interest in this legislation. Their only interest lies in creating the biggest media circus possible. They have forfeit any right to inclusion that they might once have had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
The several states have that constitutional right. It states so in Article I., Section 8. last paragraph in our fine US Constitution. I'll quote for your enlightenment, wherein it references... "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Nowhere prior to that in Section 8. does the Constitution grant enumerated powers to cover mandated health care law by the national (federal) government. On this basis the states have the full constitutional right to nullify said federal legislation under the Constitution.
You ignore for obvious reasons all precedents and previous evidences for how long and thoroughly public health has been included as a matter of the general welfare. Meanwhile, grounds for nullification have never been accepted into legal precedent. You have today only that same protracted notional logic that you had yesterday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
Moreover, they have the obligation to act in the sovereign state interest of their citizenry who foot the biil for their services. Need I remind you that taxation without proper representation is a consideration here? You may have heard of that concept.
Yes, I have heard of it, and I am aware that the residents of the District of Columbia are the only signficant group of Americans presently suffering that indignity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
I have thoroughly dismissed your argument and position out of hand in my first response. Repeating it here would be unnecessarily redundant.
"Unnecessarily redundant" is unnecessarily redundant (sic).
[quote=doctorhugo;12482148]
Here I would respectfully suggest you take a more circumspect read of OUR Constitution, it's amendments and respected legal opinion. OR do you know something that over a dozen states AJs fail to comprehend in their blind and wanton recklessness to legitimately represent the people they were elected to serve?
[/color]
Those would be AG's, I imagine, and they are as free to pander to the populace as any other politician. Those who have any actual belief that their threatened actions woulkd prove to be anything more than symbolic in nature are, however, thoroughly deluded in their expectations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
You have, my friend, painted yourself into a deep corner. As this process matures and actions are filed and accepted I shall be returning to revisit you with reminders of why impertinent knee-jerk responses with no legal legitimacy to back them up are a bad practice in debate.
Actually, I sit here and look out upon the vast expanse of the law as it actually is. You write from the cramped quarters of a law that you must make up as you go along. Neither you nor any of the others who profess to have found Constitutional grounds for secession or nullification has managed to post any durable legal argument or evidence for your position. The sturdiness of your case is revealed by your first resort to citations that I can sit here and pick off one-by-one with very close to no effort at all. You're off in the tall weeds. That's plainly a road to nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
The problem for most lay folks is that in the law the Devil is truly in the Detail and they lose patience and tolerance for the minutia of intercourse required to come to a best opinion based upon the facts at hand. The detail of two things. Interpretation and Application. You are about to undergo a learning experience, not by I, but by the courts and the system of juris prudence. Remember the portion of your comment just above, which I italicized should it come back to haumt you. Fantasies indeed!
That should be "not by me", and "jurisprudence" is all one word. Meanwhile, the only learning experience that I expect to have is one associated with the degrees of self-deception that partisans loosed from all sense of rationality might actually go to in seeking to vent their frustrations and defend their cherished imaginations. Otherwise, this is shaping up as quite the fallow field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
There is no such thing as a "pure" sovereignity when applied to the legitimacy of the states. They are either acknowledged as sovereign entities or not. There is no degree.
"Pure" may not have been the perfect choice of words, but degrees of sovereignty quite clearly exist, just as do degrees of liberty. The states held greater degrees of sovereignty before they joined in perpetual union than after. They became less sovereign again in ratifying the Constotution, and certainly yet again as provisions of the Bill of Rights were incorporated upon them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
I'm taking mercy on you here by not coming down hard with excerpted legal opinion in proper context. Sufficeth to say that you need to read and accurately comprehend opinion for these cases, before wading in too deeply.
You may spare me also the tales of how you are sparing me. If you had any honest rejoinder at your disposal, you should have posted it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
WRONG! If you love America and don't number yourself as one of her haters then you are standing too close to the wall to read the writing. If you fail to see that his promise to "fundamentally remake America" and his totality of appointments of "inferior Officers" to the Executive Branch, almost all of whom are Communist, Marxist and/or socialist in belief or leanings then YOU are blinded by partisan loyalty and in denial....
Reality can be a persistent foe. You must have had a good divorce lawyer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
Why indeed! They know that they are in trouble with the vast cross-section of the public. very poll validates that. Unless absolutely pushed to the wall they do NOT want to use the 50 vote solution as they know it is the nuclear option that could push the public TOTALLY over the edge against them.
I don't know. Bush put both his tax cut bills through reconciliation. What happened after that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo I love it when you boldly go where no cautious man would tread. So be it.
Masochist.
Not really as there is no sexual satisfaction, only giddiness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, in this context the pending federal health care legislation being reconciled behind closed doors now, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.
The only reason that Republicans are not presently included in health care negotiations is that they have abandoned the positions they were elected to in favor of becoming Glenn Beck types, dedicated only to propaganda and rabble-rousing. They have no interest in this legislation. Their only interest lies in creating the biggest media circus possible. They have forfeit any right to inclusion that they might once have had.
Let's be frank. The only reason Repubs weren't included is they saw that Obama had an agenda to demonize the private health industry and the current Medicare/Medicaid system and an excuse so he could gain control, once again, of a large segment of the American economy. Proof is within the legislation in the form of the MAB(MedicalAdvisoryBoard) and the HCC(HealthChoicesCommissioner), both unilateral 'control' vehicles for additional FUTURE 'improvements, meaning more stringent requirements and controls. He's fooled noone, except maybe you and your kind. There is no justification for what he's set about doing unless it's part of a grander, master plan of totalling and "fundamentally remaking America". Sound familiar? He could have easily announced a bi-partisan effort to reform all health care coverage and contain cost, but THAT wouldn't have served the control freakazoid's interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo The several states have that constitutional right. It states so in Article I., Section 8. last paragraph in our fine US Constitution. I'll quote for your enlightenment, wherein it references... "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Nowhere prior to that in Section 8. does the Constitution grant enumerated powers to cover mandated health care law by the national (federal) government. On this basis the states have the full constitutional right to nullify said federal legislation under the Constitution.
You ignore for obvious reasons all precedents and previous evidences for how long and thoroughly public health has been included as a matter of the general welfare.
Such is opinion "dicta", if you will, offered in public debate and meaning nothing until a court makes a ruling based upon the Constitution, codified law and precedential reference application. I choose to NOT accept your wide pronouncements that you offer in the spirit of being 'settled law', because it is NOT that by a long shot.
Meanwhile, grounds for nullification have never been accepted into legal precedent. You have today only that same protracted notional logic that you had yesterday.
I told you previously that we should revisit this once the cases are filed and there is some substantial action to debate about. I care not to go around and around with you on rehashing our same old disagreements without resolution. It's a waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo Moreover, they have the obligation to act in the sovereign state interest of their citizenry who foot the biil for their services. Need I remind you that taxation without proper representation is a consideration here? You may have heard of that concept.
Yes, I have heard of it, and I am aware that the residents of the District of Columbia are the only signficant group of Americans presently suffering that indignity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo I have thoroughly dismissed your argument and position out of hand in my first response. Repeating it here would be unnecessarily redundant.
"Unnecessarily redundant" is unnecessarily redundant (sic).
Not quite. It could actually be 'necessarily rebundant' as in trying repeatedly to make the same point with some hardhead who had too closed a mind to listen the first time. (sic sic)
[quote=doctorhugo;12482148]
Here I would respectfully suggest you take a more circumspect read of OUR Constitution, it's amendments and respected legal opinion. OR do you know something that over a dozen states AJs fail to comprehend in their blind and wanton recklessness to legitimately represent the people they were elected to serve?
[/color]
Those would be AG's(correct, my error), I imagine, and they are as free to pander to the populace as any other politician. Those who have any actual belief that their threatened actions woulkd prove to be anything more than symbolic in nature are, however, thoroughly deluded in their expectations.
One man's opinion, nothing more and valid as such only until disputed by fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo You have, my friend, painted yourself into a deep corner. As this process matures and actions are filed and accepted I shall be returning to revisit you with reminders of why impertinent knee-jerk responses with no legal legitimacy to back them up are a bad practice in debate.
Actually, I sit here and look out upon the vast expanse of the law as it actually is. You write from the cramped quarters of a law that you must make up as you go along. Neither you nor any of the others who profess to have found Constitutional grounds for secession or nullification has managed to post any durable legal argument or evidence for your position.
WRONG, albeit consistent, and conveniently dismissive of my previous response to you from which I'm herein "necessarily redundant":
"[I'll quote for your enlightenment, wherein it references... "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Nowhere prior to that in Section 8. does the Constitution grant enumerated powers as underlined in this reference to cover mandated health care law by the national (federal) government. On this basis the states have the full constitutional right to nullify said federal legislation under the Constitution.]" The sturdiness of your case is revealed by your first resort to citations that I can sit here and pick off one-by-one with very close to no effort at all.
Also previously addressed, wherein I cautioned you about opining from a weak position and wading in over your head. You extrapolate from legal cases that which is convenient to your position, but not accurately.
You're off in the tall weeds. That's plainly a road to nowhere.
At least I haven't stumbled out into the deep water unknowingly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo The problem for most lay folks is that in the law the Devil is truly in the Detail and they lose patience and tolerance for the minutia of intercourse required to come to a best opinion based upon the facts at hand. The detail of two things. Interpretation and Application. You are about to undergo a learning experience, not by I, but by the courts and the system of juris prudence. Remember the portion of your comment just above, which I italicized should it come back to haumt you. Fantasies indeed!
That should be "not by me", and "jurisprudence" is all one word. Meanwhile, the only learning experience that I expect to have is one associated with the degrees of self-deception that partisans loosed from all sense of rationality might actually go to in seeking to vent their frustrations and defend their cherished imaginations. Otherwise, this is shaping up as quite the fallow field.
Muddle about as you wish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo There is no such thing as a "pure" sovereignity when applied to the legitimacy of the states. They are either acknowledged as sovereign entities or not. There is no degree.
"Pure" may not have been the perfect choice of words, but degrees of sovereignty quite clearly exist, just as do degrees of liberty. The states held greater degrees of sovereignty before they joined in perpetual union than after.
Excuse me , but that's irrelevant. We are talking about sovereignity after the union of the states. Anything else is extraneous to the topic at hand, which is sovereignity as it applies to the several states of the union.
They became less sovereign again in ratifying the Constotution, and certainly yet again as provisions of the Bill of Rights were incorporated upon them.
It could be said, and fairly so, that for the betterment of the union they were all willing to yield that amount of sovereignity that would strengthen their national integrity. In doing so it was understood that that did not relinquisdh every states' individual sovereign rights. The original intent was for the national governemnt to be one of necessity for the common defense and other very limited authorities. What it has become now is much different, but still subject to change and reversal by legal decision and new precedent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo I'm taking mercy on you here by not coming down hard with excerpted legal opinion in proper context. Sufficeth to say that you need to read and accurately comprehend opinion for these cases, before wading in too deeply.
You may spare me also the tales of how you are sparing me. If you had any honest rejoinder at your disposal, you should have posted it. Why? I prefer to let you dig your hole a little deeper first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo WRONG! If you love America and don't number yourself as one of her haters then you are standing too close to the wall to read the writing. If you fail to see that his promise to "fundamentally remake America" and his totality of appointments of "inferior Officers" to the Executive Branch, almost all of whom are Communist, Marxist and/or socialist in belief or leanings then YOU are blinded by partisan loyalty and in denial....
Reality can be a persistent foe. You must have had a good divorce lawyer.
Never been divorced bunky, but since you voluntarily confirm a predisposition to being a negativist I understand how you step forth into open holes with your blind assumptions. Congratulations again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo Why indeed! They know that they are in trouble with the vast cross-section of the public. very poll validates that. Unless absolutely pushed to the wall they do NOT want to use the 50 vote solution as they know it is the nuclear option that could push the public TOTALLY over the edge against them.
I don't know. Bush put both his tax cut bills through reconciliation. What happened after that?
He did, did he! Well I'll be... Could have fooled me! I must look into that. Problem is more irrelevancy. We're talking here about law to take control of peoples' lives out of their hands and turn it over to the government quite literally, NOT about a tax cut. Get real.
First of all, dicta are like footnotes and are found outside of the main text of the opinion. Dicta are not precedent, but everything in the opinion proper is precedent, save that (as in Bush v Gore) it is established not to be precedent.
Second of all, the nature of Texas at the time of the subject bond transactions is a central issue in the case, as only an actual state has standing to bring an action in the Supreme Court. The discussion in that matter is thus not some sort of unmeaningful side banter, but a pillar on which the remainder of the opinion must stand. Here is some of Chief Justice Chase's thinking on the matter...
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. On the contrary, it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States and the maintenance of their governments are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
I don't think he left too many stones unturned, there...
Points all duly noted. However, in the final analysis it was still dicta and of no binding consequence on the question of the constitutionality of secession. Which is my main point.
No, Chase didn't leave many stones unturned. However, the dicta presented was flawed in itself (IMHO)...as pertains to the true concept of Union (which is voluntary). It was more or less his own treatise...and even necessary to justify (in a corollary way) the North's invasion of the South. And as RedShadowz pointed out, it was a close call, anyway...
Really, those of us on both sides can present tortuous legal arguments all the live-long day, but (again, IMHO) it makes no historical sense whatsover that the states (which as you know, were originally referred to as "these" united states) would have entered into a compact they could never get out of. Chase's logic almost seems to be a deliberate distortion...
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.
saganista
to legitimately represent the people they were elected to serve?)
. Would you like me to compose a new topic post wherein I make my case for just specifically this comment just above. I do not wish to stray "off-topic" here, but would relish engaging you and your pals on this specific issue. My only request is that you come prepared to counter FACT WITH FACT and not predictable liberal progressive ranting.
