Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Election 2012 is Underway
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:34 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Leon wrote:

States rights is an accepted political term used by practically everyone, both in support of and otherwise, and as such I found it kind of funny that he objected to it. It is an unloaded term.

Of course it's a loaded term, and this has been common knowledge for well over a century. Were you actually unaware of this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/states-rights-elections-2012-ron-paul_n_1233323.html

Quote:

The evidence in regards to the Texas case was that it was a state law that was upheld, and it was overturned in Lawrence Vrs. Texas. 13 other states also had sodomy laws that were overturned by that ruling. In that case two gay men were having consensual sex when a Texas sheriff walked into their unlocked house with a gun drawn and arrested them. Obviously in that case you are factually wrong, just as you were before wrong in the matter of the case of Torasco Vrs. Watkins. In case you forgot what I previously mentioned to you in 1961 Maryland wouldn't let Roy Torcaso be a notary public for the state of Maryland because the state constitution required a religious test. 8 state constitutions have such a religious test. If we the people act were passed these laws would go back in effect, regardless of the first amendment. It would be unconstitutional, but without an enforcement body, such as the supreme court, it would stand.

This is the crux of the matter. Who says the Supreme Court is the enforcement body? It isn't. If a state passes unconstitutional legislation, then the federal government can trump it. This is exactly what I would expect from Ron Paul were he to become president, and if he let any unconstitutional laws stand, I would be the first to criticize him for it. But anything not expressly covered under the Constitution / Bill of Rights is up to the states to determine, not the Supreme Court. This seems pretty straightforward to me.

Paul himself uses the term state rights, so I wouldn't protest too much. It even has his quote in the link you gave above. It's not straight forward, the founders and writers of the constitution themselves decided the issue in their lifetime with Marbury Vrs. Madison.

How would Paul trump state law without an enforcement body, and how would he set the standard for what is and isn't constitutional. Would having a one man be better than 9? Would anything in his nature lead you to believe that Paul would overturn any state law. Do you think an anti-sodomy law or a religious test law is un constitutional, and furthermore if there is no supreme court, what federal body would stop that state from acting unconstitutionally?

comm

Joined: 22 Jun 2010

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:58 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

This is the first time I've ever heard of that term having that subtext. I, and people I know, have always just used the term in a neutral manner. If that is truly the case then do people really say state powers, because that sounds weird and I have never heard that used before.

I read about it a while back here. But I'm not surprised you've never seen that.
Also, I should amend my earlier statement. I should have said that the States have more powers than the Federal government, rather than more power. The 10th Amendment says that the States are entitled to all powers not given to the Federal government or denied to them by the Constitution. That goes far beyond the powers of the Federal government which are limited to those assigned directly by the Constitution.

Wikipedia wrote:

Since the 1940s, it [States' Rights] has often considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation.[1][2][3][4] In law, states' prerogatives are protected by the Tenth Amendment.

Despite the grammatical error there, Wikipedia gives a few good references backing up the idea that the phrase "States' Rights" is tied to racist segregationist policies.
As for Paul's position on the matter, you can find that conveniently pre-qued for you here. But it's pretty much everything I already said.

sirius black

Joined: 04 Jun 2010

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:38 pm Post subject:

I still maintain that it would be very difficult for pretty much any state, even a very 'Red' (conservative) state to have anything too onerous without getting an inordinate amount of flack. In this day and age and again, maybe I'm naive, I don't see it happening. There are many things on the books that are not enforced. Jaywalking is technically illegal in NYC but is rarely enforced to use a possibly crude example. Certain things like abortion I can see states skirting around. Things that are race/ethnic sensitive...hmmm....no way. In this day and age I don't see it. So, I think you could see somethings 'go backwards' so to speak but it would be something like abortion. Race related issues would be on the other end of the spectrum. Paul is a fiscally focused from what I understand. Yeah, he hates civil liberties impuned and would try to create an atmosphere, a legal atmosphere where we had them and that would include more power to the states to govern themselves but he would not be able to act in a vacuum. There is the Congress to consider and a Paul presidency would scare the hell out of them. There would be some Paul-ine congressmen getting elected in such a world where a Ron Paul would be President but not enough I imagine to change things considerably in Congress. I have a fear of regressive/repressive states as well. A real and genuine fear but I don't see us going back to 1950 either.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:20 am Post subject:

sirius black wrote:

I still maintain that it would be very difficult for pretty much any state, even a very 'Red' (conservative) state to have anything too onerous without getting an inordinate amount of flack. In this day and age and again, maybe I'm naive, I don't see it happening. There are many things on the books that are not enforced. Jaywalking is technically illegal in NYC but is rarely enforced to use a possibly crude example.

Certain things like abortion I can see states skirting around. Things that are race/ethnic sensitive...hmmm....no way. In this day and age I don't see it.

So, I think you could see somethings 'go backwards' so to speak but it would be something like abortion. Race related issues would be on the other end of the spectrum.

Paul is a fiscally focused from what I understand. Yeah, he hates civil liberties impuned and would try to create an atmosphere, a legal atmosphere where we had them and that would include more power to the states to govern themselves but he would not be able to act in a vacuum. There is the Congress to consider and a Paul presidency would scare the hell out of them. There would be some Paul-ine congressmen getting elected in such a world where a Ron Paul would be President but not enough I imagine to change things considerably in Congress.

I have a fear of regressive/repressive states as well. A real and genuine fear but I don't see us going back to 1950 either.

Maybe you've just never been to some of these states, but in some places evangelicals and the like have tremendous power. Also some of the things are very recent, such as putting in place voting laws that make it harder for minorities and the poor to vote. Texas was enforcing the anti-sodomy law up until 2003 when the supreme court made it stop. The Arizona law was actually pretty popular, and Sheriff Joe in Arizona is famous for violating hispanics civil rights and being re-elected for it. Paul wants, basically, to take away the supreme courts ability to rule on these types of laws.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:06 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

Paul wants, basically, to take away the supreme courts ability to rule on these types of laws.

Based on the text of the 'We the People Act,' it seems that he does.

Quote:

Texas was enforcing the anti-sodomy law up until 2003 when the supreme court made it stop.

Federalism in action. The Supreme Court of the US sets the floor for civil liberties and States (and in some cases localities) erect the cieling. For example, the US Constitution allows informants to videotape conversations under the 4th Amendment. But some states have barred such tactics under their own protection of privacy provisions of State Constitutions.

Federalism is the best system we have to protect Civil Liberties.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:23 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

How would Paul trump state law without an enforcement body, and how would he set the standard for what is and isn't constitutional. Would having a one man be better than 9? Would anything in his nature lead you to believe that Paul would overturn any state law. Do you think an anti-sodomy law or a religious test law is un constitutional, and furthermore if there is no supreme court, what federal body would stop that state from acting unconstitutionally?

The Executive branch of government is the enforcement body. The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to enforce anything.

I think if the president didn't act against blatantly unconstitutional legislation in the states, he could be voted out or impeached or whatever. The same cannot be said about Supreme Court judges.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:59 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Federalism is the best system we have to protect Civil Liberties.

Dred Scott Decision? Korematsu v. US? Bowers v. Hardwick? NSA warrantless surveillance? SCOTUS declaring that medicinal marijuana usage in California is a criminal offense?

Anyway, I suppose it may seem like the 'best' as long as you happen to agree with the decision... But whether it is actually constitutional or not is another matter. Nowhere in the constitution is the power granted to Supreme Court to decide on all these matters as the final word. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:10 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Federalism is the best system we have to protect Civil Liberties.

Dred Scott Decision? Korematsu vs. US? Bowers v. Hardwick? NSA warrantless surveillance? SCOTUS declaring that medicinal marijuana usage in California is a criminal offense?

Anyway, I suppose it may seem like the 'best' as long as you happen to agree with the decision... But whether it is actually constitutional or not is another matter. Nowhere in the constitution is the power granted to Supreme Court to decide on all these matters as the final word. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Best is a relative term. Our system is better than most counterparts in the world. We have a concise, written Constitution. Yes, it needs to be interpreted and applied to controversies. The Supreme Court interprets and applies. Occasionally, it makes wrong decisions.

But as I said, if the Supreme Court makes the wrong call, in the vast majority of cases, State courts have the opportunity to make the right ones. Such a thing happened after the infamous 2005 Kelo v. New London decision. The Supreme Court decided that New London could exercise eminent domain in the name of economic development, reasoning that such a thing was a "public use." Horrified, State legislatures codified protections in their Constitutions and State courts erected greater protections. The floor was set very low, but the States rose to the challenge to protect our property rights.

Likewise, the Supreme Court can intervene when States go too far. Witness Jim Crow. The Supreme Court issued desegregation decrees and began to protect African-Americans' civil rights under the Civil Rights Acts. In that case, the US Congress enacted laws which the Supreme Court read broadly.

It is a balanced system where civil rights rise to the top. You can see the same dynamic at play with recent State court decisions in MA and IA protecting homosexual marriage and civil unions, even as the Federal power has (unconstitutionally) passed the Defense of Marriage Act.

There are blips and imperfections and even substantial injustices to be sure. But there are no perfect governments partly because the world also lacks flawless populations or blemishless leaders.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:25 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Likewise, the Supreme Court can intervene when States go too far. Witness Jim Crow. The Supreme Court issued desegregation decrees and began to protect African-Americans' civil rights under the Civil Rights Acts. In that case, the US Congress enacted laws which the Supreme Court read broadly.

Not really disagreeing, but why is the Supreme Court even needed in clear cut cases like Jim Crow laws? When peoples' personal liberties are being blatantly violated, then the Executive should be able to just be able to force states to comply with the constitution. Things like slavery, or even outlawing sodomy among consenting adults etc. should not need to be "interpreted", since it's obviously an infringement on peoples' liberties.

I mean if it gets to the point where a bunch of lawyers and bureaucrats are using sophistry to come up with legal justifications for treating blacks as "non-humans" or whatever, then the system is broken (anything could be justified in that case). Otherwise, the Bill of Rights seems pretty straightforward, and coupled with the 14th Amendment should be more than enough to safeguard people from regressive state legislation some people here are afraid of, in the event that something like the We the People Act were passed.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:39 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Kuros wrote:

The thing is that the president doesn't really have the kind of power that I think that you think it does. Also can you imagine the political problems that would arise if you had a one man decision making body in regards to constitutionality. Not every president is Ron Paul. What if Bush, or Obama, had these powers you want Paul to have. In a sense the supreme court is a safer method in that the justices do not have to worry about election and taking the short view to ensure popularity.

As to Presidents being voted out or impeached if they didn't act against blatantly unconstitutional acts that is clearly false as, like I said the rulings on sodomy are less than 10 years old and no one was ever voted out over it, as well as things like religious tests which are from the last decade, as well as other things. I agree with Kuros and his analyze of the supreme court setting the floor and the states the ceiling.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:57 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

The thing is that the president doesn't really have the kind of power that I think that you think it does.

Actually I think he does. The Executive doesn't make laws, but enforces ones that exist. This is certainly not the role of the Supreme Court.

Quote:

Also can you imagine the political problems that would arise if you had a one man decision making body in regards to constitutionality. Not every president is Ron Paul. What if Bush, or Obama, had these powers you want Paul to have. In a sense the supreme court is a safer method in that the justices do not have to worry about election and taking the short view to ensure popularity.

And yet because they don't have to worry about popularity or getting elected, they can act as a rubber stamp for a president like Bush and not be held accountable. At least Bush could be voted out (even though he wasn't, because the public can be quite naive/stupid at times).

I'm also not saying the president can just act like a dictator and interpret things however he wants. I'm saying that in matters that clearly violate the constitution he should have the power to overturn it. If it's something controversial or ambiguous (not directly covered under the constitution or bill of rights) then that goes to the states. In fact, that's not even my opinion, it's actually what is written in the constitution. Nowhere does it state that the Supreme Court is the final word.

Quote:

As to Presidents being voted out or impeached if they didn't act against blatantly unconstitutional acts that is clearly false as, like I said the rulings on sodomy are less than 10 years old and no one was ever voted out over it, as well as things like religious tests which are from the last decade, as well as other things.

Yeah well, what can I say except that we have a thoroughly corrupt government. If people cared enough then those politicians would be voted out of office (and they should be, since they're basically a bunch of crooks). But nevertheless, I've also shown clearly that SCOTUS rulings can be blatantly unconstitutional as well. If your system is so great, then I wonder why the US is basically turning into a police state? If the Supreme Court is such a noble institution then why do they not rule against the PATRIOT Act / warrantless surveillance, TSA body scanners (and groping people), Obama being able to kill US citizens abroad extrajudicially, or the NDAA?

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:23 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Leon wrote:

The thing is that the president doesn't really have the kind of power that I think that you think it does.

Actually I think he does. The Executive doesn't make laws, but enforces ones that exist. This is certainly not the role of the Supreme Court.

Quote:

I think it's because they can not just choose what cases to try, in most cases at least, and have to wait for the case to work its way up from the state courts. So for those things to come up there would have to be a case for them to try first, at least that's how I understand it. Of course it is not perfect, but like Kuros said it's because people aren't perfect that we don't have a perfect system. Some rulings of the court I hate, but I believe it is the best possible system so far.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:56 pm Post subject:

Leon wrote:

Yeah well, I totally disagree. As much as I think things like racism and gay rights etc. are important issues, I think they pale in comparison to the police state the federal government is building up around us (which threatens us all, regardless of race/gender/sexual orientation etc.), and states rights are probably the single most powerful tool we have to legally counter the power of out of control federal government.

Anyway, we can agree to have different personal opinions on the matter; but on the question of constitutionality, I am correct in pointing out that the Supreme Court does not have to authority to act as the last word. Nowhere in the constitution is it granted this power, whereas the states are explicitly granted power. So while you are entitled to your position, since you are unable to provide concrete constitutional authority to back it up, it would be nice at least to hear you admit that it is based on shaky constitutional ground (I won't hold my breath though)...

comm

Joined: 22 Jun 2010

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:02 pm Post subject:

The U.S. Constitution wrote:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

- Article III, Section 2

Interesting. I hadn't realized it, but it seems that the Congress CAN stop the Supreme Court from having appellate authority over any case that doesn't directly involve a State. I'm not sure I'm happy with that, but it does seem to be the case.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:36 pm Post subject:

comm wrote:

The U.S. Constitution wrote:

Its pretty theoretical. Its unlikely such a law would be found constitutional, and there are several valid obstacles to it. For example, its arguably a denial of due process of law, and thus a denial of procedural rights. Its very possible that Congress could restrict Supreme Court appellate review provided it left open the lower courts.

Ex Parte McCardle (1868) tackles this problem, and its been revisited in the Gitmo detention cases.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 Next
Page 34 of 37

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe