Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

"Interstate," as someone who is allegedly living in an Ivory Tower academic life should know, means "between states." That's all well and proper, but Wicard v. Filburn redefined the very clear meaning of "interstate" to essentially mean any and all commerce. That is clearly not what was meant by the Constitution. If the insurance industry is any example (and it is), it's obvious that states still retain and exercise the right to regulate commerce within their borders.

I know this isn't a court of law, but where in the Constitution or any of the amendments does it say "federal law supercedes state law?"

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

If the absence of uniform standards is causing a flow of capital from one state to the other, or states are being pitted against each other, clearly it is no longer a question of what is happening "within their borders".

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Again, reading comprehension is something you need to spend some time working on, because, and this comes directly from the link you provided:

However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.



Marbury v. Madison didn't establish the right/power of the court to redefine simple terms. In fact, if you read (I know that's hard for you) further, you'll find, "So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

Redefining terms to which there is a clear meaning to get the result you're in favor of is as at least far from the standard of "the rule of law" Justice Marshall discusses repeatedly in the decision as Sol is from Uranus.



"Interstate Commerce" is an activity, not an outcome. Even if the measure of what constitutes interstate commerce were the nebulous principle you'd apply...why would we impose the regulations that discourage capital investment on every state and not the regulations that are attracting capital?

The states were not meant to be governed the same. What works in NY doesn't necessarily work in VA, and conversely, what works in VA doesn't necessarily work in NY. There are states that, despite the lessons learned from prohibition, still have 'dry' counties. One state has legal prostitution. That works for the people in those states (if it didn't, they'd have repealed those laws)...but it's not necessarily what people in other states would want. As the states are currently constituted, especially in a mobile society such as our own where the average person moves once every few years, a person could conceivably find a state whose laws reflect an ideal of governance in keeping with their personal preferences.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Then go have a court rule whatever spending you don't like unconstitutional. Good luck with that.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Courts are fallible, if for no other reason than that they're populated by people, which is why it's so important that we avoid decisions like Wickard v. Filburn or Kelo v. New London that take clearly understood language and muddle it to achieve some desired outcome. Doing so creates doubt in the law and the judiciary, because if clearly written and easily understood passages can be redefined to mean not only something different from but contrary to their actual meaning, what then do the less clear and harder to understand passages mean? Saying that the Constitution or a law isn't saying what it very clearly says in this way does injury to the rule of law because it diminishes people's trust in it. Oddly, the concept of stare decisis, which in general is a self-imposed restraint on the judiciary from correcting its own previous errors, such as those in Wickard v. Filburn, exists precisely because of the need for laws and their interpretation(s) to be consistent.

Oh, and...




Do you ever get tired of being oh-so-smart, yet still being shown up by someone who squandered his life away on forklifts, kitchens, and computers?

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

So why is your interpretation more credible?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

because you're not in school for economics, either.

Probably more the fact that I'm not such a cocksure buffoon that I post links that make the other guy's case for him because I fail at reading despite having spent the bulk of my life as a student.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

You didn't even know what the supremacy clause was or how Congress derives the power to legislate. Linking whatever you mine off Google doesn't matter if you don't understand the fundamentals.

If your starting point is your ideological position, and from there, you work backwards, you will run into some evidence that is convenient but other pieces of evidence that are not. Any resemblance of your overall argument to the truth, however, will be purely incidental, since it is your preformed views and not the evidence that are the starting point.

But back to my question: What makes your opinion on the meaning of the Constitution superior to that of the judiciary?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I was very well aware what the supremacy clause is, but unlike you, I knew it only gave the federal government supremacy in matters it was specifically empowered regulate. I didn't "mine" anything off Google (oh, and it's fun to see that, while you're flailing around trying to convince yourself you're not dumber than a Mexican Forklift Artiste, you're resurrecting our old friend, "NICE GOOGLE," from its grave), I pulled the quote directly off the wikipedia entry you linked. In fact, the relevant phrase I linked was in one of the top few paragraphs. In your rush to show everyone what a fucking genius you are, you didn't even bother to read what you were linking to make sure it said what you thought it said.



My conclusion is invalid, regardless of how correct is, because of the process by which I came to it, yet you argue many of these programs/regulations are necessary (and wonderful) because of the outcomes they are alleged to produce despite the process by which we come to them being just as corrupt as referencing only information that supports one's conclusion(s) and disregarding everything else that you describe? I thought I was morally and ethically flexible, but the circus contortions you're performing are truly amazing. The crux of the argument is: What is more important, the outcome, or the process. If you support corrupting the process for the benefit of the outcome (which is your position) as opposed to supporting the process regardless of the outcome, you can't complain that someone else is following your preferred principle in other areas.



I think that has been rather clearly stated, but knowing the trouble you have with English, allow me to reiterate:



The assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white. A system of law is, at least in part, humanity's attempt to define in non-contradictory terms what constitutes what is or is not acceptable in general or in a given situation. Your position is that we need not adhere to a single, clear meaning, but that the law should be fluid and the meaning of otherwise clearly defined and understood terms should be subject to change at a whim because of a given outcome. The utilitarian thinking this represents (the justification that it's acceptable because it produces "the greatest good for the greatest number") is the exact opposite of what the law should represent. To argue for this sort of a system, then complain that you believe someone is employing the rules of that system in their thinking...to say that makes you a moronically inconsistent jack-ass would be an understatement.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

So how are you less fallible than the people who claim something else?

Your premise is that the Constitution means something other than what it's generally interpreted to mean. What makes your viewpoint inherently more valid?

It's a moot point anyway since it's a "living document" - it's not like we're going to go back to 1780 and start over from there. If there's no chance that your interpretation will achieve widespread appeal and result in the retroactive reconception of American government as we know it, how is this question of interpretation even relevant to issues in the here and now?

And given that America has historically been successful - what's your basis for claiming that all that has been in spite of this interpretation and not because of it?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I'm not saying I'm less fallible, I'm pointing directly to a fault in past decisions.



That depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.



It's a "living document" not because we can change what it means on a whim because one or a handful of people say it can, but because it has in place a process by which it can be changed with the input of the federal and state governments and the people as a whole.

I am not concerned with the "appeal" of my "interpretation." Having a majority of people agreeing with me doesn't make my position any more correct than having no one agreeing with me makes it wrong.

If the process (the law) is either producing an undesired outcome or hindering a desired one, the law, even to the Constitution, can be changed. This might require amendments, which are (with good reason) difficult to pass and take time. There are mechanisms in place for this. Instead of following this route, our country has instead taken the low road of changing the meaning of the law instead of changing the law itself.



Genghis Khan was historically successful, too. Again, you are more concerned with outcome than you are with fundamental questions right, wrong, and adhering to the rules.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Circular logic.

"I cannot be faulty in perceiving a fault because it is the fault that is faulty."



Doesn't make your opinion correct, either, nor does it remove the burden of proof.



Brainwash brick wall.... time to move on.



Actually, no he wasn't, and for a reason that is very relevant to this thread, which is that he failed to create strong, enduring government institutions or reorganize society to ensure the viability of his empire in the long run.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

More like 'circular arguing.' I describe what the fault was and pointed to examples of it. If you're too thick to understand, it's not because I'm playing games of semantics and reasoning, it's because you are...or because you're dumb, either way it amounts to the same thing.



Burden of proof? There's two reasons that doesn't matter. First, you dismiss everything out of hand for highly questionable and clearly unrelated reasons, and secondly...



Perhaps if the rules didn't continually change to suit your purposes, we could take your calls for 'evidence' seriously, but we can't, so why bother? If you don't like what's been linked thus far, I don't think there's much I can do to satisfy you...especially when you're pulling the "nice google" card when I quote something that you linked.



Since you're stupid and obviously only semi-literate, I'll explain:

*You ask what makes my view of the Constitution inherently more valid.
*This has already been clearly explained (I don't change the clearly understood meanings of the words in it to suit my purposes, which is clearly what has been done in cited decisions to achieve a desired outcome).
*Knowing that you cannot understand what is clearly written, or perhaps are willfully misreading, there is no point to continue to restate previous information.
*Simpler just to treat your continued ignorance as the joke it is and answer with a snide remark highlighting the sort of chicanery involved with changing the meaning of terms to suit your own purposes.
*Sit satisfied that other people get the joke, yet you'll not understand and say something stupid regarding it.
*Smirk when I receive the anticipated reward.

Thank you for being utterly predictable.



If that's how you want to define success, that's fine, but it demonstrates the point: You have to define (or change the definition of) what constitutes 'success' in order to make your case.

Khan stomped all over everyone in the known world, which was a string of military successes. He plundered far and wide, an economic success built off his military success. He went where he wanted and did as he damned well pleased...but he didn't satisfy The Mighty Aestu, glowering back through the lens of the past to pass judgment on his betters. His greatest success, though, has to be that he's still so well remembered over a thousand years after his death that The Mighty Aestu has to attempt to downplay him in a pointless internet argument to feel less wrong and stupid than he really is.

By the measure you've chosen out of utility here just so you could say you aren't wrong, all the great societies and conquerors of the past are failures, because their nations haven't endured. Egypt is gone, Alexander's Greece is a memory, Rome has crumbled to dust...yet all were great successes by any measure but the one you've chosen just to save face. You're not only not that bright, my friend, you're a bit of a fool.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

The measures of relative merits of empires aren't merely my personal opinion, it's objective fact.

We still live with the legacy of everything the Greeks and Romans did. The Mongols disappeared so completely they might as well not even have existed. Go find a degree program in "Mongol Studies" or a good book written in Mongolian. Go find someone who counts in Mongol numbers or a country that uses the Mongol system of law. They don't exist because the Mongol legacy was almost non-existent. And no the Mongols did not conquer "the known world". They did not get past Poland. Most of their vast empire was empty space in Central Asia.

Again: you need to read some real books rather than just selectively Googling for random bits to corroborate your preformed views.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.