Another great opportunity for unintended consequences
As much as I am loathe to admit it, I actually support California in taking on the Trump administration in this one. Not because they are right on the policy, but because it is an overreach of Federal Government authority to impose EPA standards on products like automobiles in the first place. I actually want this one to go to the Supreme Court and for the Feds to lose on the basis that they have no authority to set the standards in the first place. It would be a huge step in challenging the alphabet soup that is the Federal Bureaucracy and dismantling them.
Anyway...no matter how it goes it will upset somebody's apple cart of power.
Precisely.
Like Blarman, I would like to see an increased disparity between the States of the US. I think that CA should be able to choose a totally bonkers leftest enviro-nazi social system if the people who live there want that society.
This has two downsides: (a) the car manufacturers either build to CA standards or have a 'CA packet' that is added to cars sold in that state, (b) I live in CA and may need to depart.
Jan
My contention is that both are in the wrong: California for dictating terms to the rest of the nation and Trump for this overreach. But if the court system declares it an overreach, they also severely undermine the use of the Commerce Clause Federal bureaucracies derive much of their power from.
He thinks that challenging the country's laws by setting the extremes for California makes him a tough boy. All it makes him is a flake who with a little luck will disappear from the scene soon.
Since making their whole lines more expensive with choice 1 for a limited market could hurt their national market, the companies will be likely to go with limiting the models available to California buyers. No big SUVs, no pickups, no big luxury models other than the Tesla model S. Will California buyers be happy with a state-approved set of autos limited to subcompacts, hybrid compacts, and electric vehicles? In fact, the Obama-era mileage goal of over 54 mpg fleet average may force out anything but hybrids and electrics, and if the Trump administration drops the tax credit for electric vehicles, even those models will become too expensive for middle class buyers. Would that be the final straw that drives a change in California politics?
Why are states different from the Federal government?
Most important, states are all fictions so how can they compete?
The state is never the answer but the problem. Only living beings are involved in fair trade. Government by its very nature is violence. For government to give to one, they must first take from another.
Here is an older copy of a senate document dealing with rights that is given to new senators. There is a newer version available with a little search effort in the government site.
http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc...
Competition is the mother of invention and is the only real friend of the consumer in areas of the economy. Why would not competition work the same wonders in government?
Would there be something like the Articles of Confederation that would insure mutual protection from outside forces?
I would say that has been tried and here we are.
Throughout history things have always ended the same way. The Romans, the Greeks and all those other republics have had the same result.
Those traitors that performed a coup knew this very well, in fact so well they wrote it into the preamble of the constitution. "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
They knew their prosperity was assured (in more ways than one) and the future could look after itself. As Thomas Jefferson so elegantly stated, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Guess the time has arisen and it will be our blood. The price is estimated in the 100's of millions,
May help a little with this gorilla in the room~http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Can't imagine any state tolerating dirty air, dirty water in this day and time.
Yeah, that above statement doesn't count in regard to human feces that litter Kalifornia big city streets.
Erin Brocovich turned out to be a great movie.
Gave it all the max limit of five stars after I mailed it back to Netflix.
Courts fixing bad things that happen happens every day too.
.
We objectivists can only dream of such an outcome as the Federal Government does not have the authority to set EPA mileage standards. They don't, of course, but the idea that they do is so ingrained that it is a pipe dream to hope for a ruling stating that anything limits the Federal Governments powers.
CA can set whatever standards they are allowed by the CA voters. States rights over federal meddling. It may require secession to achieve.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Automobiles are items of Interstate Commerce and by the opinions of those 9 mystical beings in black robes are controlled by that clause.
Article VI, Clause 2:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
As opinionated by that great fraud, John Marshall, in Marbury v Madison, the constitution is supreme to the state endorsed by their application to become a state.
And I do believe it was John Marshall in that same famous case also that stated intent was to be the opinion of those mystical beings in black robes.
I will also dispute that there was never any intent at all to define anything or have you not noticed all the whole in that four parchment document referred to as "the Constitution".
As my hero, Lysander Spooner, states so clearly, in fact repetitively, in his book "No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority". The title says it all. I wholly subscribe to his philosophy and live it as well.
The only remarkable statement during the 1887 period was Patrick Henry when he declared, "I smell a rat."
"(The language of that clause is hideously vague and has been used to destroy liberty and free trade for 150 years.)"
It wasn't so originally, but just like many other Amendments (like the Fourteenth) it has been construed by those with an agenda to undermine and reverse original intent.
Throw into that the opinion by those mystical beings in black robes whereas a farmer was held to be in interstate for growing his own wheat because if he hadn't grow the wheat he would of purchased wheat that could involve interstate commerce.
Automobiles are produced, sold and utilized among the several states. A rational reading would indicate that California must defer to the US Congress laws, wise or foolish.
All the southern states where required to rewrite their constitutions and have approved by congress before being allowed to have their seats back and elect their own governors.
By the Declaration of Independence each of the existing colonies became independent countries in 1776.
Supposedly, it was they that formed this thing called the united States. So if they formed, why could they not unform?
But it was not secession that was the problem, that happened before 1860. That was not the cause of the war.
If secession happened before 1860 that supports my point that states rights existed prior to 1860 and such states rights made the states stronger and the federal government weaker as the founders intended. There has not been any secession or serious threat of secession since 1860. That "states right" was about the only remaining response for states to a federal government that was not complying in 1860 with the spirit of the defining agreement between states, the US Constitution. The federal government had imposed heavy taxation upon some southern states to benefit manufacturers of northern states who had given support to Lincoln and his new whig replacement party, the GOP in the 1860 elections. This high tariff had been tried about 30 years earlier and had nearly caused some states to secede at that time. Lincoln knew what the result of the high tariffs would be and he would not negotiate with southern representatives to avert war. Lincoln wanted a war against the southern states to increase federal power and his own power.
For a well researched discussion on the causes of the war I recommend reading The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo.
Repeating the same thing over and over does not make true what was not true before being repeated. You keep grouping the states together when in 1860 there was two different context of states. There was those with the constitution and those without the constitution. In 1868 you again had two different contexts of states, those with the constitution and those in defeat.
What you had in 1860 was the Repugnantcons of the North that are now the Dumbocraps and the Dumbocraps of the South that are the Repugnantcons. You are also remiss in dismissing another material fact that the states still had their suffrage in the Senate until Amendment XVII in 1913, more than five decades after your claim.
You are trying to make an Amendment XIV argument where Amendment XIV doesn't apply.
Now you have stumbled on the real reason for the controversy, taxation. The north with all the large cities had posed huge tariffs that destroyed the prosperity of the south and they refused to pay. Lincoln started the war over the taxes, not slavery which was done anyway.
Thomas DiLorenzo is one of my favorites and I catch his lectures at Mises Institute. As my research was well advanced by the time I found him, all I got from that endeavor was validation of my research. I have not read his book as it would add nothing to what I have already discovered and there is so much to read and so little time. Also, DiLorenzo is a statist therefore has a slant on his material that somewhat distracts from his fine work.
Final word on Lincoln, he was a tyrant with a penchant for cruelty. He also was extremely ignorant and but for a meeting in New York in 1856 were he surrendered his soul to the money crowd for support in getting elected. Otherwise Lincoln couldn't be elected as dogcatcher.
I am not making a 14th amendment argument. I am observing the results of the civil war. States Rights ceased to be a significant factor in restricting the federal government after the states were shown that military force would be used if they strayed from the path dictated by the feds. There is no evidence of any serious consideration of secession after 1860 by any state. That the southern states were denied the very limited rights remaining to other states after the end of the war is not relevant as none of the states retained the "states rights" that were observed before the war, and that again supports my point.
The federal government showed all the states in the war that might makes right, and then they wrote the history of the period to portray themselves as saints and the states who fought to preserve their states rights as evil beyond reason.
I didn't "stumble" on anything. I researched it as you probably have, too.
I suspect we agree on many issues including the traitor Lincoln.
"To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia." (Emphasis mine) - Articles of Confederation. They have never been repealed just usurped.
You keep referring to 1860 and trying to instill some argument around Amendment 14, Section 1 where the states somehow lost something not really lost until Amendment 17 in 1913.
The only argument based on 1860 was the secession of the southern states which regained their suffrage in 1868 until the removal in 1913.
Why you are trying to imply is pure conjecture not fact. You confuse the mental illness of Lincoln compared to the mental illness of any other that has held that office before or since, In today's world the executive would have sicced the IRS on them, oh wait, Odumbo did that.
Yes stumbled. I have no problem admitting that I had many clues about the real cause but it wasn't until I was involved a common law lecture that the presenter made a statement he has actually seen and touched the actual document stating the cause. It was a part of a private collection probably never to be seen by the public ever again. I stumbled on the proof needed to now have fact rather than theory.
I have no doubt we have many things in common same as I have no doubt we will lock horns many times here.
The Articles of Confederation were completely superceded following the ratification and adoption of the Constitution. One can not in good faith argue that the ratification of the Constitution was a usurpation of power either, since that ratification was by vote held in the separate States according to their several ratification procedures.
That being said, I absolutely agree that much of the State sovereignty which was intended by the Founders has been lost in the 200+ years since, but I attribute much of that to the Seventeenth Amendment and the gross misinterpretation by the Courts of the Commerce Clause.
Or to punish, they let the charter remain and just cut them off from sources of federal tax dollars. Just messing with Medicaid would be devastating to that broke government.
This should be one heck of a circus come November.
No doubt you are trying to imply those 9 mystical beings in black robes that any five can control those little sheeple commonly referred to as citizens.
Them and the district courts now have the power to control the president. How do you rectify this in light of Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
The clause John Marshall used in Marbury v Madison to declare the legislature erred as to his power which he redefined by the above clause and as punishment declared the court the supreme arbitrator as to the constitutionality of things. It has been all downhill from there.
Guess you don't "gotme".
I was trying to understand your rationale for defending the use of the Commerce Clause to create Federal Bureaucracies with broad rule-making power and authority. Yes, those black-robed, mystical beings issued an opinion that since has been treated as law because those in power like power, but that reasoning is not supported by statements issued by the Founders - who wrote the clauses in question.
"Them and the district courts now have the power to control the president. "
The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government are co-equal with checks and balances on each other. The way the district courts have been used in the past couple of years to block executive actions taken by President Trump has been politically - not morally - motivated. That would include not only the erroneously-named "Muslim Ban" but also the decision to end DACA (which was never authorized by Congress in the first place and so was illegal from the get-go).
I didn't defend it, I stated a fact, please follow context. I find all this very amusing as the good little citizens scurry around like roaches when the lights come on trying to keep from facing harsh reality.
The separation of powers is an illusion and was never really meant to be. If you want to read a book of lies then I highly suggest "The Federalist Papers".
The real story as we know it today is they are all one and the same. The real separation of powers was based on the state as well as the people. The states was to be represented by the Senators where all had equal standing with 2 each. But that was inconvenient for the bankers. One needs to question matters when the states ratified that.
Another usurpation was during the period of abject socialism with the ratification of Amendment XX in 1933 that finished the destruction of the executive started in 1804 with Amendment XII which gave us the party system.
The final blow came when the people where eliminated and the executive and judicial claimed ownership of the process of a grand jury which for clarification I would suggest article 66 of the Magna Carta.
"that finished the destruction of the executive started in 1804 with Amendment XII which gave us the party system."
I completely agree with that analysis. The move mandating that both President and Vice President be of the same party severely undermined the threat of Impeachment and Conviction in my mind because it eliminates any real change of power. It also effectively limits third parties in Presidential races.
I also submit that the Seventeenth Amendment was the blow which completely undermined States rights by removing State Legislatures from the position of selecting Senators. Reversing both the Twelfth and Seventeenth Amendments in my mind would be a huge move in the right direction.
The Magna Carta is seen by most as the foundation of freedom when in reality it is the foundation of slavery. Freedom would have been to lop the head off the king but then that would have exposed the barons as fakes and they would have lost their power.
It is not a matter of reading things but to read and incorporate by epistemology into rational thinking using cognitive abilities.
Amendment XII did not say that, it stated one would vote for a president and a vice president. That was the cause. The effect the acceptance by the unwashed masses of the political party system. By the words of the amendment there is no party system expressed.
I would suggest you spend time studying the history of Rome and Greece before you make statements you cannot justify. There is no going back, time moves on. What you get is what you have asked for.
This is especially true with government. What you get depends on the morality of the populace. A republic always has and always will have a lifespan of between 240 to 250 years. The end is always tragic and involves mass genocide which goes a long way in curing the problem. It then depends on the strength of the tyrant compared to the weakness of the masses as to how long their will be a move in the right direction.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." - Declaration of Independence
Jefferson has a point, men would rather suffer than initiate change. His big mistake was:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."
He should have stopped at "abolish it" but then he knew what I know due to his ample knowledge of history. Freedom never lasts more than a couple of generations before the unwashed masses fall for the illusion of government protecting rights. Those mystical beings in black robes have offered many opinions in the past the government has no duty for protection.
Stop for a minute. Put away your emotional angst and return to rationality. -1
It might really help if you separate in your communications what parts you want others to read as sarcastic, because after re-reading several of your posts, if you were stating things sarcastically, it would change much of the tenor and argument you make. I would also caution against treating people on this forum like those in a common internet chat site: for the most part those here are well-read and well-studied and we value honest debate. But we draw the line at personal attacks and belittlement.
I have read each and every of the documents you have cited thus far. I have studied ancient civilizations and government as well as modern ones and I thought it was well-outlined in the notes on the Constitutional Convention that the Founders had similarly studied and debated the virtues of many civilizations including but not limited to Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, Carthage, Great Britain, and even Switzerland. I have read and taught the Declaration of Independence and Constitution - as well as its amendments, so while I value others insights into them, I am no stranger to them or their history. The majority of those on this forum are similarly scholars of history.
We're not enemies. We're both looking for solutions. But we can certainly do so in a respectful manner.
As I do not know you I only have your words to go by as to your integrity. You say you have read something and as I can not disprove then I must accept you for your word. However, my what you post it is easy to determine your comprehension skills are based on what you want to be true.
I asked if you had ever rectified what was implied by Hamilton, Madison and Jay against reality but you reply back with some emotional triad about my reality.
During the first term, Hamilton convinced that idiot Washington that he could charter a central bank. Rectify that with the Federalist papers and the constitution.
As to the judiciary, let's start with Hamilton again in Federalist 78:
"Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
And then comes Marshall that usurps the constitution and declares the court the arbitrator of all things constitutional.
And your implication that the crooks that devised the constitution are the founders is plainly absurd, The founders are those that signed the Declaration of Independence freeing this land from the tyranny of a king, not those that stole the country with an action they were not appointed to do.
As to the constitution, the only state that put that jewel to a vote of the people was Rhode Island and it failed miserably. It was only a state convention appointed by government that overrode the population and did it anyway.
The elitist gathered in Philadelphia was after but one thing, power. For the most part they were all well educated and well read and knew exactly what they were doing. Of the delegates, more than half were lawyers so explain why the document reads as it does.
From what I have seen thus far, if the majority here as history scholars, then history does not fare too well.
What does friends or enemies have to do with anything? This is a forum, a venue for debate where facts rule and rhetoric and innuendo are exposed.
As in the infamous words of John Galt, I live my life for no man nor ask any other to live his life for me. I am not looking for solutions, I have resolved what I need.
Respectful, define what you mean by respectful as your use does not comply with it's root meaning, respicere.
Your whole argument is based on what you want to be true not reality.
I take you are a grown individual so who am I to tell you to do or not do something.
Please show me where the Articles of Confederation have been repealed. I suppose by your supposition that the Northwest Ordinance which was part of the Articles of Confederation is not valid either.
What you agree with does not seem to carry much weight as you have shown a propensity to ignore facts casting a cloud on judgement.
Being you do not "believe" in the Articles of Confederation, then let's move on to the Constitution. I take that you have perused it, but have you read it? I mean really read it?
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...
It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."
If this is not what you are referring to then please let me know. Otherwise I will pay closer attention in the wording I use to challenge an argument.