Bush signs "gay rights" bill

[Matt Collins]

Seriously who gives a flying fuck, this is Bush we're talking about. Considering what he did to the constitution beforehand, this little bill is like forcing the Constitution to shower after raping her repeatedly.

Any violation of the Constitution is just as illegal as another.

 

[Matt Collins]

And, as far as following your heart leading you to break the law, as I said if you believe it to be right, law doesn't matter anyway, does it? Right is right to you.

No. The President (and Congress) must uphold the Constitution. This has nothing to do with their feelings, or if they think they are doing the right thing. Bush might think he was doing the right thing by freeing Iraqis from Saddam. However he wasn't following the Constitution. Thus he should've stuck to that, not doing whatever he happened to think "was the right thing".

 

[Mesogen]

Have you ever read the damn constitution?!?!?

The President is NOT AUTHORIZED (nor is the Congress) to pass legislation about marriage, workplace laws, pensions, retirement accounts, etc..

sheesh... you need to read a few things on here before you spout off ignorant opinions.




​

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce ... among the several States

I don't like them doing it, and that wasn't the original intent of the commerce clause, but several supreme court cases and decades of precedent in doing it says that shit like this is constitutional.

 

[torchbearer]

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce ... among the several States

I don't like them doing it, and that wasn't the original intent of the commerce clause, but several supreme court cases and decades of precedent in doing it says that shit like this is constitutional.

yeah, the interstate commerce clause was written to prevent states from taxing each other and such.
It was to insure the free flow of trade between the states.
The federal government has been doing the opposite and on top of that.. they use the clause as a means to police 90% of everything we do.
Did I mention the constitution grants no federal policing powers?

 

[Matt Collins]

but several supreme court cases and decades of precedent in doing it says that shit like this is constitutional.

Well they are WRONG.

Language evolves over time which is one reason why the document should not be interpreted. The only way to truly determine is what the words meant when they were written down.. this is called original meaning, as opposed to original intent.

The word "regulate" means a lot of different things in the current lexicon than it did in 1778. So, you have to go to study the language of the time to determine what was meant when it was written down.

See this post for how the word "regulate" is warped when applied the the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1891138&postcount=136




.

 

[Mesogen]

Here are Chuck Schumers questions for Judge Roberts when he was being screened by the Senate:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163039,00.html

3. Commerce Clause:
Beginning in 1937, when it upheld the National Labor Relations Act, the Supreme Court has granted Congress great latitude in passing laws under the Commerce Clause. The Court has upheld a wide range of federal laws, including those that regulate labor standards, personal consumption of produce, racial discrimination in public accommodations, and crime. In the last ten years, however, the Supreme Court has shifted course, doing something it had not done in sixty years: striking down acts of Congress on Commerce Clause grounds.
- Do you think the trend towards striking down laws on this basis is desirable?
- What do you believe is the extent of Congress’s authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause?
- Can Congress regulate local trade in a product that is used nationally?
- Can Congress regulate labor standards for states and cities under its Commerce Clause power?
- How closely connected must the regulated action be to interstate commerce for Congress to have the authority to legislate?
- Where would you look for evidence that Congress is properly legislating under its Commerce Clause authority? Do you rely exclusively on the text of the legislation? Do you look at the legislative history? Do you consider the nature of the regulated activity?
- What is the extent of the limitations imposed on state regulation by the Commerce Clause?
Specifically:
- Do you agree that it is the Commerce Clause that allows Congress to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations, as the Court held in Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. United States (1964)?
- Do you agree with the Court’s decision in United States v. Lopez (1995), which struck down the Gun-Free School Zone Act because education is traditionally local? Is there any circumstance under which Congress could regulate activities in schools using its Commerce Clause authority?

I wonder what Bill O'Reilly would say. The same Schumer asked O'Reilly how he would interpret the commerce clause. O'Reilly said he didn't know anything about it. I'd say that's true for 99% of all Americans who assume that if Congress passes a law and the president signs it, that's it. It's law and it's constitutional.

But if you were Judge Roberts, how would you answer these questions?


Here's me, if I were a judge and answering honestly.

- Do you think the trend towards striking down laws on this basis is desirable?

Depends on what the laws are, obviously.

- What do you believe is the extent of Congress’s authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

If there is actual commerce between states, then congress has the constitutional authority to enact legislation that may regulate it.

- Can Congress regulate local trade in a product that is used nationally?

If the product is used nationally as a result of interstate commerce, then technically congress can regulate that commerce that occurred between states, but the trade taking place locally is out of the jurisdiction of Congress.

- Can Congress regulate labor standards for states and cities under its Commerce Clause power?

Obviously not. State and city employees are almost always residents of the states or municipalities for whom they work and therefore when the trade that occurs by their working for the city or state does not cross state lines.

- How closely connected must the regulated action be to interstate commerce for Congress to have the authority to legislate?

Intimately. It is absurd that former supreme court decisions have determined that certain actions may have some cursory and indirect effect on other actions that may or may not affect interstate commerce and should therefore be regulated by congress.

- Where would you look for evidence that Congress is properly legislating under its Commerce Clause authority? Do you rely exclusively on the text of the legislation? Do you look at the legislative history? Do you consider the nature of the regulated activity?

Maybe we should start looking at the constitution and what it actually says.

- What is the extent of the limitations imposed on state regulation by the Commerce Clause?
Specifically:
- Do you agree that it is the Commerce Clause that allows Congress to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations, as the Court held in Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. United States (1964)?

If it can be proven that the hotel regularly admits out-of-state tenants, then perhaps a rationale could be developed that allows the Congress to regulate this commerce under the commerce clause of the constitution, although it would be quite a stretch.

- Do you agree with the Court’s decision in United States v. Lopez (1995), which struck down the Gun-Free School Zone Act because education is traditionally local? Is there any circumstance under which Congress could regulate activities in schools using its Commerce Clause authority?

Yes. It is obvious that neighborhood public schools are not part of interstate commerce and therefore not subject to regulation by congress under the commerce clause. This would make the entire Department of Education unconstitutional.

The only instance I could envision where Congress had the authority to regulate a school is if the school participated in interstate commerce, which schools typically do not. It's pretty simple.

You're trying to make me find loopholes for you. You want me to tell you that you can regulate every damn thing you want, but I'm not going to let you. Thanks. Have a nice day.

 

[nickcoons]

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To regulate Commerce ... among the several States

Right, among the states, not among the citizens. I am not a state, therefore the Commerce Clause gives Congress no authority to regulate my commerce, even if that commerce crosses state lines.

 

[Mesogen]

Right, among the states, not among the citizens. I am not a state, therefore the Commerce Clause gives Congress no authority to regulate my commerce, even if that commerce crosses state lines.

Take it up with the Supreme Court.



No, but really. Just now, I actually read what the law is all about. It's a modification to the Pension Protection Act of 2006. It eliminates the tax penalty that would have come when a non-married person transfers their 401(k) to another person.

So I think this has much less to do with regulating commerce than it does with the taxing power of Congress. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes.

The tax law is constitutional and so is the new modification to it.