I cant even follow your line of reasoning anymore. Based on your last couple posts it now sounds like you believe anyone should be able to own anything...
To me your initial premise sounded like "I should be able to traverse through a space without my current state being regulated by the laws of that space". So if you are currently in the state of possessing pot, you should be able to traverse through a space that does not allow possession of pot, without your possession being legally accountable.
This happens all the time though and for very good reason. Another example being border patrol that prevents bringing perishable goods into the US. And yes this happens state to state. If you have a flight directly from Hawaii to California you still have to go through customs or whatever it is to get your bags checked for perishable foods and animals. This is done for good reason. Now it's possible for Dole to bring Pineapples into California... but they do so by going through a heck of a lot more hassle than just flying in and carrying it in their bag.
Furthermore - as I said earlier - I didn't want to get into nation-state border issues if I can help it.
I'd like to focus on interstate commerce, which is really where these controls come into play on a domestic level. We're all part of the USA. each state, and each county, UNITED.It's not like a Mexican is driving something from Mexico to Canada (which actually happens)
We're talking about US citizen using a public road to drive from one part of the USA to another part of the USA without having to dispose or destroy his otherwise legal property, just to avoid becoming a TEMPORARY criminal.
The Supreme Court has found similar reasoning to generally disfavor laws which would penalize or criminal the right to interstate travel.
JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966): "The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.
". . . The right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution." In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C. C. E. D. Pa. 1825) the right to travel interstate was grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2. In concurring opinions in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, reliance was placed on the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Edwards v. California and the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283 (1849), a Commerce Clause approach was employed. See also Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500(1964); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965), where the freedom of Americans to travel outside the country was grounded upon the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Shapiro v. Thompson.
As a general rule, states have the right to pass laws which regulate the course of products, goods, servces, hazmats, etc, which would travel through their jurisdiction. But the right of the state as sovereign to pass rules to regulate its interior is not absolute.
Three major sources of Law support limitation on the ability of states to penalize or burden interstate travel:
1) The Due process clause of the 14th amendment. (fundamental rights)
2) The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.
3) The Dormant Commerce Clause, which is basically the Commerce Clause.
I already discussed the first two, so I'll discuss the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Suppose the state of Iowa restricts the length of trucks to 55 feet. Can they do that?
Surely the Iowa government can regulate trucking within its state. Does that mean that all trucks greater than 55 feet must be penalized
and fined if they pass through Iowa?
(the period is part of the hyperlink. it keeps getting deleted by the MTGS script)
[The district court] then determined that the state law impermissibly burdened interstate commerce, holding that the relatively slight benefit of the law in improving safety and reducing casualties was outweighed by the federal interest in promoting commerce between the States. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, noting that the only apparent safety benefit to Iowa was that resulting from forcing large trucks to detour around the State, thereby reducing overall truck traffic on Iowa's highways. The Court of Appeals noted that this was not a constitutionally permissible interest. It also commented that the several statutory exemptions identified above, such as those applicable to border cities and the shipment of livestock, suggested that the law in effect benefited Iowa residents at the expense of interstate traffic.
Isn't that pretty much what we do though, for like, hundreds of thousands of things?
Honestly, a plane could crash anywhere along it's flight, spiraling into a jet fueled fireball of horror, kill dozens of people, and destroy homes on the ground.
Yet we assume this risk, with the promise that we can sue for compensation.
Every house next to a busy street could have a car lose control and plow through it's living room. Possibly killing people, but at least causing severe structural damages.
Everyone who lives next door to a gun owner who doesn't use proper safety cleaning his gun, shooting through the walls and killing his neighbors.
We do it, every minute of every day, for countless things, it's not absurd.
I'm pretty sure most people ignore the dangers in those either because the dangers are statistically insignificant, or people are unaware of the statistics behind them.
Driving toxic wastes through neighborhoods probably don't have much of a chance of causing anything though. But "awareness" (false, I suppose?) that horrible things "can" happen is what prevents people from allowing this.
But, like you said, there is always a chance of a plane dropping from the sky into a residential area and destroying countless homes.
To everyone railing on IceCreamMan80, I'd like to say caution. At least some of his examples are likely to be held up in court.
He has thrown a ton of example scenarios into the mix: abortions, marijuana, Gay marriage, hazmats, radios, flying with dangerous materials, etc.
A state does not have an absolute right to make laws controlling what can come in and out of the state. Their legislative authority is limited by the Constitution and federal law, where federal law preempts state law.
In particular, the Dormant Commerce Clause forbids economic protectionism by states. So can a state pass a (valid) law preventing all hazardous materials from entering its jurisdiction? My guess is probably not. New Jersey tried to pass a law forbidding out of state trash from entering its jurisdiction and the law was found violating the dormant commerce clause. Concluding that "trash" was commerce, the court concluded that new jersey's law discriminated against out of state commerce and was invalid.
The marijuana example wouldn't be upheld in court because it's still illegal everywhere. Colorado passing a law legalizing pot DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL. Federal law trumps state law. Colorado has no authority to override federal law, even within Colorado. Marijuana is only "legal" in the sense that there is a refusal by the executive to enforce such laws.
As for the radio example, I think IceCreamMan80 could win on this one. If another state banned all radios from coming into its state, that would almost certainly be seen as discriminatory of the articles of commerce of other states. The dormant commerce clause would not allow this. Moreover, the fact that many trucks and police cars come equipped with radios would likely also raise the issue that the fundamental right to travel would be burdened.
What about the gay marriage analogy? Does a state banning gay marriage have to recognize the marriage of a gay couple married in a gay marriage legal state?
Up in the air. Possibly. Check out the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. This issue is currently in great transition at the moment.
From Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause "In August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma to issue a revised birth certificate showing both adoptive parents of a child born in Oklahoma who had been adopted by a same-sex couple married in another state.[20] Another federal appeals court held differently in April 2011 in a Louisiana case, Adar v. Smith.[21]
In 2013, two gay men successfully sued to get their out-of-state marriage recognized in Ohio despite a state ban and they are at the forefront of what supporters and experts believe will be a rush of similar lawsuits seeking to enforce this constitutional right. John Arthur of Cincinnati, who was dying of Lou Gehrig's disease, won the right to be listed as married on his death certificate and to have his partner of more than 20 years listed as his surviving spouse. The couple were originally married in Maryland, with federal district Judge Timothy Black ruling their marriage legal in the state of Ohio.[22]"
Anywayz, I dont think IceCreamMan80 has articulated himself all that well in the debate, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong.
Like I said, at least a few of his examples would probably be upheld in court where the state law regulating its own jurisdiction would likely be overturned.
In other words: If I were IceCreamMan80 and I said, I have a car radio and I'm driving from California towards Washington State. I need to pass through Oregon, but Oregon has banned all radios in cars! It ought not to be the case that I have to throw out my radio before I pass through the state!
To which everyone has said: But you must throw out the radio! Surely Oregon has the right to dictate the activities of its own jurisdiction!
To which IceCreamMan80 has said: But it ought not to be that way!
To which a court might say: ON WHAT GROUNDS??!! (assuming IceCreamMan80 then travels and violates the law and is challenging his penalty in court)
To which a lawyer defending IceCreamMan80 might argue: Your honor, on the grounds that the law barring radios in cars violates 1) the privileges and immunities Clause under Article IV of the US constitution, 2) violates the right to travel which has been held as a fundamental right, and 3) violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by burdening interstate commerce and discrimining against the articles of commerce of the several states.
To which a Court might say: Let us deliberate upon this at length before coming to a conclusion then, arguing whether the facts of the situation meet the legal tests for violations of those rights.
Historical Note: So if I own a slave and take that slave...let's call him..Dred Scott...and take him to a free state where slavery is outlawed. Now suppose I return to my own state, is Dred Scott a free man, or is he still a slave?
Yes, this issue has been debated for sometime. Most of the time, the famous dred scott case is taught from the perspective of teaching about slavery. It is also a case used however to teach the early beginnings of the issue of conflicting state laws and commerce.
First is what states can and can't do regarding restricting goods from being brought through them. IceCreamMan and a few others have been debating this at length and I don't have anything to add to it.
Second is whether the federal government has the right to make drugs broadly illegal, and then if they do, how that intersects with state rights. This seems fairly open-and-shut to me: the federal government has been ruled repeatedly to have this right under the Constitution, and thus it trumps state legislation on the same subject. If the federal government says, "Sorry, Washington and Colorado, but we're overruling you", they win. There are some fringe issues (if they do this, anyone who has been supplying marijuana in those states is likely to be charged with drug trafficking in federal court even though they acted in good faith according to the laws of their respective states and the stance of the fed), but it's pretty clear what will happen.
Third is whether the federal government should do it: I'd say no on the grounds that it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, but that's the whole "should marijuana be legal" debate and unless the rules have changed we're not supposed to get into it on this forum. If the interests that have led the federal government to make it illegal are legit, then they probably should overrule the states.
Fourth is more specifically whether the Republicans in the House should do it. Seems crazy to me: Colorado is a critical swing state and Washington is a state that could conceivably go red in any election where the Republicans are winning the presidency with any strong mandate (though it will be blue unless the election is a substantial landslide). Telling Washington and especially Colorado that the Republican Party is hostile to efforts they are taking at the state level seems like a losing strategy. There's also a hypocrisy element in passing a bill instructing the federal government to override a state bill, but I don't think that's a big deal; the Republican Party is ideologically diverse (libertarian, religious right, neoconservative, etc) and I don't think the states rights true believers are the ones behind this bill.
I'd say no on the grounds that it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, but that's the whole "should marijuana be legal" debate and unless the rules have changed we're not supposed to get into it on this forum.
The rules have changed. It's fine. A big issue like that might take over the thread, though, so I recommend starting a new one if anybody wants to talk about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Marijuana now, later you will have heroine and pedophilia legalized.
That's like saying that if gay marriage becomes legal, polygamy will be legalized. There isn't much connection between the two.
Why do you need a connection? The gay marriage was forbidden back in the days, and what can we see now?
It all starts simple, but people can't even imagine, how far can it get...
Warning issued for off-topic spam. - Blinking Spirit
First is what states can and can't do regarding restricting goods from being brought through them. IceCreamMan and a few others have been debating this at length and I don't have anything to add to it.
Second is whether the federal government has the right to make drugs broadly illegal, and then if they do, how that intersects with state rights. This seems fairly open-and-shut to me: the federal government has been ruled repeatedly to have this right under the Constitution, and thus it trumps state legislation on the same subject. If the federal government says, "Sorry, Washington and Colorado, but we're overruling you", they win. There are some fringe issues (if they do this, anyone who has been supplying marijuana in those states is likely to be charged with drug trafficking in federal court even though they acted in good faith according to the laws of their respective states and the stance of the fed), but it's pretty clear what will happen.
Third is whether the federal government should do it: I'd say no on the grounds that it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, but that's the whole "should marijuana be legal" debate and unless the rules have changed we're not supposed to get into it on this forum. If the interests that have led the federal government to make it illegal are legit, then they probably should overrule the states.
Fourth is more specifically whether the Republicans in the House should do it. Seems crazy to me: Colorado is a critical swing state and Washington is a state that could conceivably go red in any election where the Republicans are winning the presidency with any strong mandate (though it will be blue unless the election is a substantial landslide). Telling Washington and especially Colorado that the Republican Party is hostile to efforts they are taking at the state level seems like a losing strategy. There's also a hypocrisy element in passing a bill instructing the federal government to override a state bill, but I don't think that's a big deal; the Republican Party is ideologically diverse (libertarian, religious right, neoconservative, etc) and I don't think the states rights true believers are the ones behind this bill.
I'll add a fifth issue, because I was wondering about it yesterday. The fifth issue is can the Republicans actually do what they are seeking to do?
If the bill will allow house republicans to sue Obama for not fully and faithfully executing the laws of the lands and the constitution, it looks to me that such an action would violate the separation of powers. I don't think Congress has the power to grant themselves the authority to regulate the executive.
Marijuana now, later you will have heroine and pedophilia legalized.
That's like saying that if gay marriage becomes legal, polygamy will be legalized. There isn't much connection between the two.
Why do you need a connection? The gay marriage was forbidden back in the days, and what can we see now?
It all starts simple, but people can't even imagine, how far can it get...
Pedophilia has nothing to do with marijuana at all, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.
I'll add a fifth issue, because I was wondering about it yesterday. The fifth issue is can the Republicans actually do what they are seeking to do?
If the bill will allow house republicans to sue Obama for not fully and faithfully executing the laws of the lands and the constitution, it looks to me that such an action would violate the separation of powers. I don't think Congress has the power to grant themselves the authority to regulate the executive.
My assumption is that Obama is currently authorized to do X and will now be mandated to do X, but you know, I don't really know the legality of either what Obama is doing or of the Republicans passing such a bill.
When arguing about the issues over transportation, we have to only look at two trailer trucks versus single trailer trucks. Some states ban two trailer trucks for deliveries, but only if those are owned in state and yet when you drive through states that allow for those kinds of trucks they're able to drive through and still make deliveries.
No no, I totally understand that, and I get B_S's point. That's how it currently works.
I also understand that just because Obama isn't enforcing the law, doesn't mean you aren't breaking it.
I also understand that just because I can carry where I live, doesn't mean I could carry in NYC.
But I'm talking about what SHOULD BE, and not what IS.
I think the GOP is wrong here, not as a matter of current law (because they're technically right), but as a matter of principle.
It shouldn't be illegal to use, possess, or even to grow and produce the stuff.
I am not a user, or producer, I am for more freedoms. This being a personal freedom issue for me, and not one of morality or whatever.
Well, you could just simply use precedence. SCOTUS once made a ruling and then Jackson decided to state to SCOTUS to tell them if they want it enforced to do it themselves, and nothing came of that ruling. There's also the issue of separation of powers, by telling the executive that they have to enforce the laws. If you look at the structure of Obamacare and his view on drug enforcement, he seems to have a sort of state's rights agenda and reallocating some power back to states over time. I find that conservatives in a way are really miss on some of Obama's tactics when he approaches reforms. Ultimately, it's a tactic Nixon used long ago.
First, a house passed measure like this one has zero chance of passing in the senate.
Second assuming it passes in the senate, why would Obama sign into a law a bill that allowed republicans to sue him to execute marijuana laws.
Third, even if the law came into being, the law would likely exceed congressional authority via the constitution and the law would be overturned in the Supreme Court.
Fourth, if the law was found valid by the Supreme Court, who is going to execute it? It's not like Obama is going to faithfully execute the law to punish himself. It's not like we have another executive that oversees the current executive.
Or to quote Andrew Jackson after the Supreme Court made its ruling: "John Marshall has made his decision, now lets see him enforce it"
If it's political posturing, it's very odd political posturing. It's an attack on one of the main swing states in the country and on a blue state that could plausibly go red if a Republican presidential candidate puts any kind of mandate together.
Whether its a beneficial political manuever is another matter altogether. I certainly can't explain the Republican's strategic political choices these past few years.
I do find it interesting though that if you know ahead of time your measures will never have any actual legal force, you can pass whatever the hell you want.
Law allowing congress to sue obama for not faithfully executing laws? Sure. Legal effect none.
Law legalizing marijuana? Sure. Legal effect none.
.
But at least you can get your message heard, and the practical political impact may result in some actual transition as Colorado's marijuana measures has done.
Passing laws that won't be enforced, while on one hand might be a good way to get heard in the political land fill. It can backfire. They can also be enforced badly, and then what good intentions were there are repealed as swiftly as the harm.
Babies, bathwater, and all that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Whether its a beneficial political manuever is another matter altogether. I certainly can't explain the Republican's strategic political choices these past few years.
I do find it interesting though that if you know ahead of time your measures will never have any actual legal force, you can pass whatever the hell you want.
Law allowing congress to sue obama for not faithfully executing laws? Sure. Legal effect none.
Law legalizing marijuana? Sure. Legal effect none.
.
But at least you can get your message heard, and the practical political impact may result in some actual transition as Colorado's marijuana measures has done.
The problem is that the gateway drug myth is finally backfiring and people are saying, "It's more like alcohol." And people are actually studying the effects of the drug in young people and on older patients and under what circumstances certain usages are to be understood. Once we begin to comprehend what the effects actually are, we can make better decisions through science and market based mechanisms to make better informed laws. I hate drug, but there comes a time in a society where you have to just say government get out of the way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Dunno if this has been posted yet, but isn't this legislation as relevant to forcing Obama to enforce the crappy and unpopular bits of his healthcare legislation?
I think that forcing the president to enforce non-selectively is a good thing - it forces him to deal with the consequences of bad deals he has made, and would force him to push for better legislation in the future. Besides, what incentive to republicans have to negotiate with Obama if he can later go back and choose not to enforce the provisions they bargained for?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I cant even follow your line of reasoning anymore. Based on your last couple posts it now sounds like you believe anyone should be able to own anything...
To me your initial premise sounded like "I should be able to traverse through a space without my current state being regulated by the laws of that space". So if you are currently in the state of possessing pot, you should be able to traverse through a space that does not allow possession of pot, without your possession being legally accountable.
This happens all the time though and for very good reason. Another example being border patrol that prevents bringing perishable goods into the US. And yes this happens state to state. If you have a flight directly from Hawaii to California you still have to go through customs or whatever it is to get your bags checked for perishable foods and animals. This is done for good reason. Now it's possible for Dole to bring Pineapples into California... but they do so by going through a heck of a lot more hassle than just flying in and carrying it in their bag.
Furthermore - as I said earlier - I didn't want to get into nation-state border issues if I can help it.
I'd like to focus on interstate commerce, which is really where these controls come into play on a domestic level.
We're all part of the USA. each state, and each county, UNITED.It's not like a Mexican is driving something from Mexico to Canada (which actually happens)
We're talking about US citizen using a public road to drive from one part of the USA to another part of the USA without having to dispose or destroy his otherwise legal property, just to avoid becoming a TEMPORARY criminal.
The Supreme Court has found similar reasoning to generally disfavor laws which would penalize or criminal the right to interstate travel.
JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966): "The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.
". . . The right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution." In Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546 (C. C. E. D. Pa. 1825) the right to travel interstate was grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2. In concurring opinions in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, reliance was placed on the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Edwards v. California and the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283 (1849), a Commerce Clause approach was employed. See also Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500(1964); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965), where the freedom of Americans to travel outside the country was grounded upon the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Shapiro v. Thompson.
As a general rule, states have the right to pass laws which regulate the course of products, goods, servces, hazmats, etc, which would travel through their jurisdiction. But the right of the state as sovereign to pass rules to regulate its interior is not absolute.
Three major sources of Law support limitation on the ability of states to penalize or burden interstate travel:
1) The Due process clause of the 14th amendment. (fundamental rights)
2) The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.
3) The Dormant Commerce Clause, which is basically the Commerce Clause.
I already discussed the first two, so I'll discuss the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Suppose the state of Iowa restricts the length of trucks to 55 feet. Can they do that?
Surely the Iowa government can regulate trucking within its state. Does that mean that all trucks greater than 55 feet must be penalized
and fined if they pass through Iowa?
Answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassel_v._Consolidated_Freightways_Corp.
(the period is part of the hyperlink. it keeps getting deleted by the MTGS script)
[The district court] then determined that the state law impermissibly burdened interstate commerce, holding that the relatively slight benefit of the law in improving safety and reducing casualties was outweighed by the federal interest in promoting commerce between the States. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, noting that the only apparent safety benefit to Iowa was that resulting from forcing large trucks to detour around the State, thereby reducing overall truck traffic on Iowa's highways. The Court of Appeals noted that this was not a constitutionally permissible interest. It also commented that the several statutory exemptions identified above, such as those applicable to border cities and the shipment of livestock, suggested that the law in effect benefited Iowa residents at the expense of interstate traffic.
I'm pretty sure most people ignore the dangers in those either because the dangers are statistically insignificant, or people are unaware of the statistics behind them.
Driving toxic wastes through neighborhoods probably don't have much of a chance of causing anything though. But "awareness" (false, I suppose?) that horrible things "can" happen is what prevents people from allowing this.
But, like you said, there is always a chance of a plane dropping from the sky into a residential area and destroying countless homes.
Suing has nothing to do with it though.
He has thrown a ton of example scenarios into the mix: abortions, marijuana, Gay marriage, hazmats, radios, flying with dangerous materials, etc.
A state does not have an absolute right to make laws controlling what can come in and out of the state. Their legislative authority is limited by the Constitution and federal law, where federal law preempts state law.
In particular, the Dormant Commerce Clause forbids economic protectionism by states. So can a state pass a (valid) law preventing all hazardous materials from entering its jurisdiction? My guess is probably not. New Jersey tried to pass a law forbidding out of state trash from entering its jurisdiction and the law was found violating the dormant commerce clause. Concluding that "trash" was commerce, the court concluded that new jersey's law discriminated against out of state commerce and was invalid.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Philadelphia_v._New_Jersey
The marijuana example wouldn't be upheld in court because it's still illegal everywhere. Colorado passing a law legalizing pot DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL. Federal law trumps state law. Colorado has no authority to override federal law, even within Colorado. Marijuana is only "legal" in the sense that there is a refusal by the executive to enforce such laws.
As for the radio example, I think IceCreamMan80 could win on this one. If another state banned all radios from coming into its state, that would almost certainly be seen as discriminatory of the articles of commerce of other states. The dormant commerce clause would not allow this. Moreover, the fact that many trucks and police cars come equipped with radios would likely also raise the issue that the fundamental right to travel would be burdened.
What about the gay marriage analogy? Does a state banning gay marriage have to recognize the marriage of a gay couple married in a gay marriage legal state?
Up in the air. Possibly. Check out the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. This issue is currently in great transition at the moment.
From Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause
"In August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma to issue a revised birth certificate showing both adoptive parents of a child born in Oklahoma who had been adopted by a same-sex couple married in another state.[20] Another federal appeals court held differently in April 2011 in a Louisiana case, Adar v. Smith.[21]
In 2013, two gay men successfully sued to get their out-of-state marriage recognized in Ohio despite a state ban and they are at the forefront of what supporters and experts believe will be a rush of similar lawsuits seeking to enforce this constitutional right. John Arthur of Cincinnati, who was dying of Lou Gehrig's disease, won the right to be listed as married on his death certificate and to have his partner of more than 20 years listed as his surviving spouse. The couple were originally married in Maryland, with federal district Judge Timothy Black ruling their marriage legal in the state of Ohio.[22]"
Anywayz, I dont think IceCreamMan80 has articulated himself all that well in the debate, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong.
Like I said, at least a few of his examples would probably be upheld in court where the state law regulating its own jurisdiction would likely be overturned.
In other words: If I were IceCreamMan80 and I said, I have a car radio and I'm driving from California towards Washington State. I need to pass through Oregon, but Oregon has banned all radios in cars! It ought not to be the case that I have to throw out my radio before I pass through the state!
To which everyone has said: But you must throw out the radio! Surely Oregon has the right to dictate the activities of its own jurisdiction!
To which IceCreamMan80 has said: But it ought not to be that way!
To which a court might say: ON WHAT GROUNDS??!! (assuming IceCreamMan80 then travels and violates the law and is challenging his penalty in court)
To which a lawyer defending IceCreamMan80 might argue: Your honor, on the grounds that the law barring radios in cars violates 1) the privileges and immunities Clause under Article IV of the US constitution, 2) violates the right to travel which has been held as a fundamental right, and 3) violates the Dormant Commerce Clause by burdening interstate commerce and discrimining against the articles of commerce of the several states.
To which a Court might say: Let us deliberate upon this at length before coming to a conclusion then, arguing whether the facts of the situation meet the legal tests for violations of those rights.
Historical Note: So if I own a slave and take that slave...let's call him..Dred Scott...and take him to a free state where slavery is outlawed. Now suppose I return to my own state, is Dred Scott a free man, or is he still a slave?
Yes, this issue has been debated for sometime. Most of the time, the famous dred scott case is taught from the perspective of teaching about slavery. It is also a case used however to teach the early beginnings of the issue of conflicting state laws and commerce.
First is what states can and can't do regarding restricting goods from being brought through them. IceCreamMan and a few others have been debating this at length and I don't have anything to add to it.
Second is whether the federal government has the right to make drugs broadly illegal, and then if they do, how that intersects with state rights. This seems fairly open-and-shut to me: the federal government has been ruled repeatedly to have this right under the Constitution, and thus it trumps state legislation on the same subject. If the federal government says, "Sorry, Washington and Colorado, but we're overruling you", they win. There are some fringe issues (if they do this, anyone who has been supplying marijuana in those states is likely to be charged with drug trafficking in federal court even though they acted in good faith according to the laws of their respective states and the stance of the fed), but it's pretty clear what will happen.
Third is whether the federal government should do it: I'd say no on the grounds that it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, but that's the whole "should marijuana be legal" debate and unless the rules have changed we're not supposed to get into it on this forum. If the interests that have led the federal government to make it illegal are legit, then they probably should overrule the states.
Fourth is more specifically whether the Republicans in the House should do it. Seems crazy to me: Colorado is a critical swing state and Washington is a state that could conceivably go red in any election where the Republicans are winning the presidency with any strong mandate (though it will be blue unless the election is a substantial landslide). Telling Washington and especially Colorado that the Republican Party is hostile to efforts they are taking at the state level seems like a losing strategy. There's also a hypocrisy element in passing a bill instructing the federal government to override a state bill, but I don't think that's a big deal; the Republican Party is ideologically diverse (libertarian, religious right, neoconservative, etc) and I don't think the states rights true believers are the ones behind this bill.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's like saying that if gay marriage becomes legal, polygamy will be legalized. There isn't much connection between the two.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Why do you need a connection? The gay marriage was forbidden back in the days, and what can we see now?
It all starts simple, but people can't even imagine, how far can it get...
Warning issued for off-topic spam. - Blinking Spirit
I'll add a fifth issue, because I was wondering about it yesterday. The fifth issue is can the Republicans actually do what they are seeking to do?
If the bill will allow house republicans to sue Obama for not fully and faithfully executing the laws of the lands and the constitution, it looks to me that such an action would violate the separation of powers. I don't think Congress has the power to grant themselves the authority to regulate the executive.
Pedophilia has nothing to do with marijuana at all, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
My assumption is that Obama is currently authorized to do X and will now be mandated to do X, but you know, I don't really know the legality of either what Obama is doing or of the Republicans passing such a bill.
Well, you could just simply use precedence. SCOTUS once made a ruling and then Jackson decided to state to SCOTUS to tell them if they want it enforced to do it themselves, and nothing came of that ruling. There's also the issue of separation of powers, by telling the executive that they have to enforce the laws. If you look at the structure of Obamacare and his view on drug enforcement, he seems to have a sort of state's rights agenda and reallocating some power back to states over time. I find that conservatives in a way are really miss on some of Obama's tactics when he approaches reforms. Ultimately, it's a tactic Nixon used long ago.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
First, a house passed measure like this one has zero chance of passing in the senate.
Second assuming it passes in the senate, why would Obama sign into a law a bill that allowed republicans to sue him to execute marijuana laws.
Third, even if the law came into being, the law would likely exceed congressional authority via the constitution and the law would be overturned in the Supreme Court.
Fourth, if the law was found valid by the Supreme Court, who is going to execute it? It's not like Obama is going to faithfully execute the law to punish himself. It's not like we have another executive that oversees the current executive.
Or to quote Andrew Jackson after the Supreme Court made its ruling: "John Marshall has made his decision, now lets see him enforce it"
I do find it interesting though that if you know ahead of time your measures will never have any actual legal force, you can pass whatever the hell you want.
Law allowing congress to sue obama for not faithfully executing laws? Sure. Legal effect none.
Law legalizing marijuana? Sure. Legal effect none.
.
But at least you can get your message heard, and the practical political impact may result in some actual transition as Colorado's marijuana measures has done.
Babies, bathwater, and all that.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The problem is that the gateway drug myth is finally backfiring and people are saying, "It's more like alcohol." And people are actually studying the effects of the drug in young people and on older patients and under what circumstances certain usages are to be understood. Once we begin to comprehend what the effects actually are, we can make better decisions through science and market based mechanisms to make better informed laws. I hate drug, but there comes a time in a society where you have to just say government get out of the way.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I think that forcing the president to enforce non-selectively is a good thing - it forces him to deal with the consequences of bad deals he has made, and would force him to push for better legislation in the future. Besides, what incentive to republicans have to negotiate with Obama if he can later go back and choose not to enforce the provisions they bargained for?
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo