Rallying Cry 2

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

A tax on just Alaskan oil would not be a violation of the uniformity clause because all oil that falls within the class Alaskan oil is treated the same. Does that make sense to you, do you believe that was the intention of the people who wrote the constitution?

Steve, we're all flattered that you want to know whether that makes sense to us -- like our opinions even count.

What counts, of course, is the decision rendered by the United States Supreme Court in the case to which you are undoubtedly referring: the unanimous decision in United States v. Ptasynski, 462 U.S. 74, 103 S. Ct. 2239, 83-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9386 (1983) (Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980 does not violate the requirement of geographical uniformity).

[SteveSy]

Under your absurd theory everything would fall under interstate commerce and therefore the clause is meaningless as it includes everything.

I can't explain your hallucinations, but my "absurd theory" is that a produce manufactured in one state and shipped to another is in interstate commerce and can be federally regulated.

Well of course Dan, but that's not what you were implying. A very bad attempt at a strawman.

You're talking about regulating people who buy those products. You're extending the word "in" to include events that happen well after it was "in" interstate commerce. Not only that but you want to then claim anyone associated with that event is "in" interstate commerce, a totally delusional effort on your part.

Meanwhile, you have yet to explain your absurd theory, which is that a business can be engaged in interstate commerce even though its employees are not.

Because a lot of businesses sell their product directly through interstate commerce. If they sell those products to a wholsealer within the state who then exports them then, for that paticular instance, no the business would not be engaing in interstate commerce. Not all or even a good portion of businesses are involved in interstate commerce. There is enough to muddy the argument though. I wish to stick with individuals who work becuase I'm positive 99.99% do not engage in direct interstate commerce.

You seem to believe that GM or Ford can assemble cars for nationwide distribution, and be therefore be engaged in interstate commerce, but that the workers who are actually assembling the cars are somehow not involved in interstate commerce.

Of course, because the employee isn't selling anything to commerce nor is he part of the transfer across state lines, he's simply putting together something in his state. I suppose you could make an argument concerning drivers who drive goods across state lines but that's about it.

Again, using your absurd logic a state should be able to regulate something sold, and the purchaser, in another state simply because it passed through the manufacturing state's commerce.

[Famspear]

U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8 (in part):

The Congress shall have Power [ . . . ] To regulate Commerce [ . . . ] among the several States [ . . . ]

Wow, isn't ALL commerce that happens to be located "within" the United States somehow "among" the several States? The Constitution itself doesn't even say "interstate." It just says "among." Yes. Yes. So, all we need is for some brilliant guy, like, say for example, ME, to interpret that for us. So, I say EVERYTHING in commerce is "among" the states. No exceptions! Even the little girl on the corner selling lemonade is "among" the states! REGULATE that little girl, Congress!

No, wait a minute, SteveSy might not like that. We probably could never agree on absolutely everything. Uh, OK let's let STEVESY interpret what that clause means. No, no wait, millions of other people wouldn't agree with either me or Steve.

Oh what'll we do, what'll we do? How do we find somebody to interpret that language for us? Wait, hold on -- maybe we should have a COURT SYSTEM with JUDGES who would interpret that kind of vague language for us, even though some of us will disagree with various court decisions from time to time! What do you think, Steve? Since you and I may not agree on some things, can we just agree that the authoritative answer should come from the courts in the forms of rulings in actual cases and controversies brought by real litigants? Is that asking too much?

[Dezcad]

Since you and I may not agree on some things, can we just agree that the authoritative answer should come from the courts in the forms of rulings in actual cases and controversies brought by real litigants? Is that asking too much?

It's asking too much of people with Narcissistic personality disorder since it violates the diagnostic criteria:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
4. requires excessive admiration
5. strong sense of entitlement
6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
9. arrogant affect.

[SteveSy]

U.S. Const., Art. I, sec. 8 (in part):

The Congress shall have Power [ . . . ] To regulate Commerce [ . . . ] among the several States [ . . . ]

Wow, isn't ALL commerce that happens to be located "within" the United States somehow "among" the several States? The Constitution itself doesn't even say "interstate." It just says "among." Yes. Yes. So, all we need is for some brilliant guy, like, say for example, ME, to interpret that for us. So, I say EVERYTHING in commerce is "among" the states. No exceptions! Even the little girl on the corner selling lemonade is "among" the states! REGULATE that little girl, Congress!

No, wait a minute, SteveSy might not like that. We probably could never agree on absolutely everything. Uh, OK let's let STEVESY interpret what that clause means. No, no wait, millions of other people wouldn't agree with either me or Steve.

Oh what'll we do, what'll we do? How do we find somebody to interpret that language for us? Wait, hold on -- maybe we should have a COURT SYSTEM with JUDGES who would interpret that kind of vague language for us, even though some of us will disagree with various court decisions from time to time! What do you think, Steve? Since you and I may not agree on some things, can we just agree that the authoritative answer should come from the courts in the forms of rulings in actual cases and controversies brought by real litigants? Is that asking too much?

Fine...so the courts do the interpretation on the interstate commerce clause. I'm going along with you all that I ask is that whatever logic they come up with to say something is affecting that rule then it is likewise applied the other way around. For instance if they say pot grown for personal use within a state violates the commerce clause because that pot might be sold across borders, then logically and justly a law by congress allowing the growing of pot on federal areas would also be a violation of the states right to regulate intrastate commerce because it might be sold directly within intrastate commerce. This is unless of course you want to pretend that words and logic can magically change on a whim without reason.

But you won't do that because you can't deal with logic and reason, you deal in fantasy land where all that goes out the window just because someone told you differently and that you are required to listen to them. In fact, I'm pretty sure you could be convinced that elections are optional if a majority, or just 5, of the federally appointed judges told you so.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

But you won't do that because you can't deal with logic and reason, you deal in fantasy land where all that goes out the window just because someone told you differently and that you are required to listen to them. In fact, I'm pretty sure you could be convinced that elections are optional if a majority of federally judges told you so.

Uh, what a judge rules in a court of law is binding on you and me, as far as the precedent established by the case. Stare decisis. That's not fantasy. I'm not required to "listen" to judges, but the constitutional law, statutory law, regulatory law, treaty law, case law, etc., etc., that applies to me is BINDING on me, whether I "listen" or not.

And it's not a matter of my being "convinced" that -- to use your example -- elections are really are optional in the event a majority of judges told me so. The judges are not there to "convince" me of anything, and I don't study the law to be "convinced" of anything in quite the sense you mean, Steve.

I study the law to obtain information on HOW TO ACCURATELY PREDICT THE FUTURE with respect to a narrow set of circumstances. For example, if my employer pays me one hundred thousand dollars to perform personal services for him and I refuse to report that one hundred thousand dollars as income and refuse to pay income tax on it -- and subsequently end up in a dispute with the government in court about whether I owe the tax (or maybe even whether I should go to jail), my interest is not in being "convinced" by the court about a point of law. My interest is in figuring out WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO ME. The study of law is in part the process of using certain objective rules of legal analysis (that means rules that someone ELSE set up, not rules that I made up, based on my own sense of logic) trying to predict what a court of law will do in the future.

[webhick]

Snickers...pot...donuts...gasoline.

Can't help but think that someone is trying to send encrypted messages to my office.

[Cpt Banjo]

For instance if they say pot grown for personal use within a state violates the commerce clause because that pot might be sold across borders, then logically and justly a law by congress allowing the growing of pot on federal areas would also be a violation of the states right to regulate intrastate commerce because it might be sold directly within intrastate commerce.

No, it's not that the pot use violates interstate commerce -- it's that (in the view of Congress and the USSC), such pot competes with pot sold in interstate commerce and may therefore be regulated by Congress.

But your premise is false -- the fact that Congress has the power to regulate things that affect interstate commerce doesn't mean that the States can exclusively regulate everything that affects intrastate commerce.

You need to read the Constitution's supremacy clause and then study the doctine of federal preemption. If you do, you should learn (a HUGE assumption on my part) that, for example, since Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over federal areas, it can do whatever it pleases within such areas, even if it affects intrastate commerce. In other words, a State's power to regulate intrastate commerce is subordinate to Congress' regulation of interstate commerce (or its exercise of any other enumerated power, such as that over federal areas) whenever the two conflict. And that's not illogic -- it's the Constitution's supremacy clause, so take it up with the Founders.

[LPC]

Under your absurd theory everything would fall under interstate commerce and therefore the clause is meaningless as it includes everything.

I can't explain your hallucinations, but my "absurd theory" is that a produce manufactured in one state and shipped to another is in interstate commerce and can be federally regulated.

Well of course Dan, but that's not what you were implying. A very bad attempt at a strawman.

You're talking about regulating people who buy those products.

Liar.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

I'm going along with you [on the point that the courts provide the authoritative rulings on the commerce clause;] all that I ask is that whatever logic they come up with to say something is affecting that rule then it is likewise applied the other way around.

OK, Steve, that might be a reasonable request in an ideal world. But the courts are not somehow "bound," either legally or morally, to respect your request. Maybe the courts SHOULD be so bound -- I don't know. What really occupies my time is trying to figure out how the courts actually WILL rule on a given fact pattern. I'm not gonna waste my own time and effort fretting and whining because a given court is not consistently following my own personal rules of logic -- or is not consistently following your rules of logic -- or even because the court is inconsistently using ITS OWN RULES of logic -- EXCEPT to the extent that I'm trying to predict how that court (or anther court) might rule in the future.

[SteveSy]

For instance if they say pot grown for personal use within a state violates the commerce clause because that pot might be sold across borders, then logically and justly a law by congress allowing the growing of pot on federal areas would also be a violation of the states right to regulate intrastate commerce because it might be sold directly within intrastate commerce.

No, it's not that the pot use violates interstate commerce -- it's that (in the view of Congress and the USSC), such pot competes with pot sold in interstate commerce and may therefore be regulated by Congress.

But your premise is false -- the fact that Congress has the power to regulate things that affect interstate commerce doesn't mean that the States can exclusively regulate everything that affects intrastate commerce.

You need to read the Constitution's supremacy clause and then study the doctine of federal preemption. If you do, you should learn (a HUGE assumption on my part) that, for example, since Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over federal areas, it can do whatever it pleases within such areas, even if it affects intrastate commerce. In other words, a State's power to regulate intrastate commerce is subordinate to Congress' regulation of interstate commerce (or its exercise of any other enumerated power, such as that over federal areas) whenever the two conflict. And that's not illogic -- it's the Constitution's supremacy clause, so take it up with the Founders.

No, the founders didn't decide that, you have no evidence of such either.

Again, using your delusional reasoning the interstate commerce clause would include everything and anything making the express power moot. It might as well say the United States has the power to regulate anything.

The 10th has FAR more power over things not explicitly delegated to congress.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

That means everything else except those few and defined powers given to the federal government. You want to turn that on its head and claim all powers not delegated to the federal government are considered in their realm unless explicitly provided that it's not. The power of supremacy does not extend to subjects beyond those defined in the constitution. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and ONLY interstate commerce. That does not mean they get to violate at will all the states and peoples rights that are reserved to them.

This is where we always end up, you interprit the constitution or accept that it can be, in such a way as to make the entire document amount to a single phrase, "congress has the power to do everything and anything it likes and anything else is a matter of legislative grace".

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

I'm going along with you [on the point that the courts provide the authoritative rulings on the commerce clause;] all that I ask is that whatever logic they come up with to say something is affecting that rule then it is likewise applied the other way around.

OK, Steve, that might be a reasonable request in an ideal world. But the courts are not somehow "bound," either legally or morally, to respect your request. Maybe the courts SHOULD be so bound -- I don't know. What really occupies my time is trying to figure out how the courts actually WILL rule on a given fact pattern. I'm not gonna waste my own time and effort fretting and whining because a given court is not consistently following my own personal rules of logic -- or is not consistently following your rules of logic -- or even because the court is inconsistently using ITS OWN RULES of logic -- EXCEPT to the extent that I'm trying to predict how that court (or anther court) might rule in the future.

You always avoid questions that require your opinion or require you to admit you have personal rights. There is a good reason for this because if you answered them truthfully we would soon discover you at some point would defy and ignore what a court says also. If not then we would see that you in fact would accept anything regardless if its right or not because your "rights" are whatever some person says they are including the right not to have a dictatorship. This would make your "opinion" useless to anyone who values their freedom and liberties.

For instance if the Supreme Court were to say elections were optional what would you do? Would you go along with this and keep with your position that what the courts say is law or what?

Please answer the question above, don't avoid it. Don't say they wouldn't do that. Prior to 1900 no one would have claimed or even thought the federal government would try or even have the power to regulate what an individual grows in his own backyard. Mind you it took an amendment to the constitution to stop the consumption of alcohol.

[Cpt Banjo]

Again, using your delusional reasoning the interstate commerce clause would include everything and anything making the express power moot. It might as well say the United States has the power to regulate anything.

The 10th has FAR more power over things not explicitly delegated to congress.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

That means everything else except those few and defined powers given to the federal government.

And we can now add illiteracy to utter stupidity and narcissicism as your primary character traits.

I gave two examples of explicitly-granted federal powers: to regulate interstate commerce and to regulate federal areas. If Congress exercises either of these powers, then the 10th Amendment is irrelevant, as is any impact on powers otherwise belonging to the States.

You want to turn that on its head and claim all powers not delegated to the federal government are considered in their realm unless explicitly provided that it's not.

Dan's right -- you're a pathological liar, for I never made any such claim.

[SteveSy]

I gave two examples of explicitly-granted federal powers: to regulate interstate commerce and to regulate federal areas. If Congress exercises either of these powers, then the 10th Amendment is irrelevant, as is any impact on powers otherwise belonging to the States.

Well since something will always come through the federal government's domain, that all people must use or face, then that means you beleive the federal government has total power over everything.

I honestly can not think of anything that would escape your absurd reasoning. Considering dollar bills are created in a federal area that means anything a dollar is used for or indirectly used for falls under the federal governments powers. Golly gee, that means even how a State government operates falls under it too, they use federal dollars to appropriate with. Oh and even if the creation of money doesn't do it, congress has the power to make laws. That means anything they make laws for overrides any power left to the States. So all they have to do is create a law and the federal government can do anything....they have the Supremacy clause to back them up!

Sometimes I honestly believe most of you think on a five year old level. I have the same problem trying to explain to my son why he shouldn’t play with the stove. I try and explain to him how he might burn the house down and he just can't get how turning a knob does anything more than make the fire appear on the stove. But thankfully like you, hey obeys authority without question, even if I tried to convince him that the reason he can't do it is because it would burn the moon out of the sky. Like you, there is little doubt he would also try and convince his peers that what he was told was the truth and get really aggrivated when someone disagreed with him. If that failed, he would, like you, come to authority and have them back up what he was saying.

Personally I learned to think on my own long ago, regardless of what authority might claim as truth or fact.

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy:

Statements like your statement that “The 10th [Amendment] has FAR more power over things not explicitly delegated to congress” are difficult to parse, because of your syntax. The 10th Amendment does not have “power” over anything. (More on this in a moment.)

Article VI, clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause):

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.

In other words, in a state court, where Federal law and state law are contrary, the rule of decision shall be the FEDERAL law.

The 10th Amendment states:

The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[emphasis added]

Steve, the power to regulate interstate commerce is not a power delegated to the states. Assuming arguendo that the power to regulate intrastate commerce is a state power (a fairly safe assumption), what should a state court do if asked to decide a case where Federal law and state law conflict? Answer: Supremacy clause: Follow Federal law. Does the Tenth Amendment reserve any power to a state where that power has been delegated to the United States? Answer: NO. Read the amendment. The Tenth Amendment refers only to powers NOT delegated to the United States.

SteveSy wrote:

You always avoid questions that require your opinion or require you to admit you have personal rights. There is a good reason for this because if you answered them truthfully we would soon discover you at some point would defy and ignore what a court says also.

Whaaatttt? What is this, the ninth grade, Steve? What are you talking about? Stop whining and make a lucid point. I have stated my opinions in Quatloos -- but when I do so, I try to make clear that it is indeed MY OPINION, and not a statement of "what the law is." You, by contrast, do not seem to be able to readily distinguish between YOUR OPINION about what the law SHOULD be and "what the law is." I have always gotten the distinct impression from you that you have pretty much believed, delusionally, that the two are one and the same. More recently you appear to be backing off from that just a bit, perhaps -- which is of course a good sign, Steve.

Steve, What is this about "personal rights"?? Something about me "admitting" something about "personal rights"? What are you trying to say? Steve, maybe it's just me, but sometimes I have a hard time following your thought process.

SteveSy wrote:

For instance if the Supreme Court were to say elections were optional what would you do? Would you go along with this and keep with your position that what the courts say is law or what?

Please answer the question above, don't avoid it. Don't say they wouldn't do that.

Steve, are you just deliberately not listening? Please answer the question? What do you mean, don’t avoid it??? How many times do you need to hear it? Under the U.S. legal system, in an actual case or controversy litigated in a court of law, THE LAW IS WHAT THE COURT RULES THE LAW IS, by definition. If a court were to rule that, as a matter of law, “elections were optional,” that would BE THE LAW. If a court were to rule that, as a matter of law, all citizens of Albany, New York were also citizens of the Planet Neptune, that would be the law, too. Do you want to compete with me over who can come up with the more ridiculous scenario?

[Paul]

You gotta love it when a "strict constructionist" like stevesy argues that the 5th amendment is somehow violated by having to file a tax return. The 5th amendment literally says you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself "in any criminal case." If the courts had taken a strict constructionist view of that amendment, they would let the police beat you until you told them where you buried the body and hid the murder weapon, then bring the indictment against you and present all the physical evidence necessary to hang you, while at the same time allowing you the invaluable right to not answer questions in court. It's only because the courts -- quite properly -- "expanded" the 5th amendment to give you rights even when there is not even a pending criminal case, much less a current one, you wouldn't have any argument at all against being compelled to be a witness against yourself in a civil matter such as filing your tax return.

And you also have to love his idea of a 16th amendment that works:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect a uniform direct tax on on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

How is that different from the existing 16th? All you did was add "uniform and direct". "Direct" adds absolutely nothing to the amendment. All the amendment does is state that the apportionment requirement does not apply to income taxes. Since the apportionment requirement only applies to direct taxes, any income tax that is not direct is already exempted from the requirement. Adding uniform doesn't do anything, either. That's not an expansion of Congress' power under the 16th, but instead it's a possible limitation. And, since the current income tax IS uniform throughout the states, it wouldn't prohibit the current tax.

[Famspear]

Steve, I'm getting the impression that you are straining to find the most preposterous example you can think of a court ruling -- in an effort to make the argument that because that court ruling is so preposterous, it could not possibly be a correct statement of the law, and that therefore courts are not the "real" authority on what the law is, and that therefore SteveSy is the real authority. This wouldn't have anything to do, would it, with your repeatedly demonstrated reluctance to accept that the rulings of courts of law are authoritative statements, under the U.S. legal system, of what the law is? Isn't this just another attempt by you to somehow justify in your own mind the narcissistic, delusional idea that YOU, STEVESY, are the ultimate judge of "what the law is"??

Let me guess; your train of "logic" goes something like this: (1) If it's possible for a court of law to rule that the most preposterous conclusion is the law, then the rule that "what the court says the law is IS THE LAW" must itself be preposterous, and therefore not really correct. (2) Therefore, SteveSy, and not the court system, must somehow hold the ultimate power to judge "what the law is."

Does anyone see a flaw in this argument?

Yes, the answer is that the argument is invalid because it proves TOO MUCH. You see, SteveSy could also theoretically come up with a silly ruling that says that "elections are optional" or "all residents of Albany are also citizens of Neptune." And, under SteveSy's version of "logic," that could not be the law because preposterous rulings cannot be "correct" rulings on the law.

So, if the courts are not the ultimate authority to decide what the law is in a court case, and SteveSy is not the authority either, who is the authority? Some guy in a gas station? Some gal in a grocery store? Or is there no ultimate authority -- with only the SteveSy's of the world coming up with their own non-binding beliefs about what the law is?

No, the mere fact that SteveSy can, in an idle discussion in a Quatloos internet forum, dream up a preposterous example of a "ruling" in a court case does not change, to even an iota of a degree, the rule that the LAW IS WHAT THE COURT RULES THE LAW IS.

[Famspear]

Paul wrote:

How is that different from the existing 16th? All you did was add "uniform and direct". "Direct" adds absolutely nothing to the amendment. All the amendment does is state that the apportionment requirement does not apply to income taxes. Since the apportionment requirement only applies to direct taxes, any income tax that is not direct is already exempted from the requirement. Adding uniform doesn't do anything, either. That's not an expansion of Congress' power under the 16th, but instead it's a possible limitation. And, since the current income tax IS uniform throughout the states, it wouldn't prohibit the current tax.

Paul has just nailed this one.

[Famspear]

Post-script: In my law school class on Logic of Legal Discourse, SteveSy's fallacy regarding the imaginary court ruling that "elections are optional" was referred to as the "hypothesis contrary to fact" fallacy -- or, the "imaginary horrible."

Applied to Steve's example, it might be something like this:

-----(1) "If a court were to some day rule that elections are optional, that would be outrageous and preposterous, and obviously contrary to everything the U.S. legal system is based on."

-----(2) "Outrageous and preposterous rulings like that cannot be the law."

-----(3) "Therefore, a court cannot be the ultimate judge of what the law is."

This is the extremely unlikely, "imaginary horrible."

[Cpt Banjo]

Considering dollar bills are created in a federal area that means anything a dollar is used for or indirectly used for falls under the federal governments powers.

No, that does not follow.

Oh and even if the creation of money doesn't do it, congress has the power to make laws. That means anything they make laws for overrides any power left to the States.

If the federal law is passed pursuant to one of Congress' constitutional powers, you bet it overrides any state law to the contrary. Can you be so dense as to not know this has been the law ever since the adoption of the Constitution? What in heaven's name do you think the supremacy clause means?

"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."

This is so simple an eighth grade civics student can understand it. Paraphrasing Groucho Marx, run out and find me an eighth grade civics student; Stevie can't make heads or tails out of it.