3 ms·

> What you have to understand as a baseline is that AEI is a partisan think-tank, so they're not telling truths or exploring the spectrum of interpretations, t

> What you have to understand as a baseline is that AEI is a partisan think-tank, so they're not telling truths or exploring the spectrum of interpretations, they're coming at any given issue with an ideologically driven mantra. And in this case, that mantra is that the commerce clause of the constitution, which states: First, AEI is not a partisan think-tank. They're ideologically conservative, but they are non-partisan. Secondly, it's hard to argue that advocating the Commerce Clause is an "ideological" or partisan viewpoint. A hundred years ago, it definitely would have been, but not in 2018. If anything, the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause is the antithesis of conservative ideology: it expands federal powers, limits the rights reserved by states, and (if you want to make things partisan) predominantly happened because a Democratic president nearly caused a Constitutional crisis when he tried to stack the courts in order to get court rulings in favor of his agenda. I'm an advocate of net neutrality, but I'm not going to say that the position being advocated here by AEI is a particularly partisan one. If anything, they're smart, by framing a Republican-sponsored policy within the context of case law that Democrats have consistently supported for a century.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dablya 9y ago
To sum up... AEI, an ideologically conservative, non-partisan think-tank is defending a Republican-sponsored policy by interpreting the Commerce Clause in a manner that is antithetical to conservative ideology. Am I missing something?
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > ... in a manner that is antithetical to conservative ideology. Am I missing something? Yes, you're missing the part where this isn't particularly antithetical to conservative ideology anymore (it would have been a century ago, but not recently). There's a common caricature of conservative ideology under which any use of federal powers to limit state powers is hypocritical. But that's not a particularly accurate depiction of conservative ideology, any more than the caricature that any use of state powers is somehow hypocritical under a liberal ideology. (If that were the case, then this push by New York and California could itself be characterized as similarly hypocritical). In this case, both the left and the right have agreed for the better part of the last century that the federal government has this sort of power, and they have both used that power for their own respective causes at many different points in the last century. People who believe that the federal government doesn't (or shouldn't) have this sort of power are in the minority and are not a dominant force in any political party. Again, this is a relatively new development in US Constitutional history; in 1818 or even 1918, the situation was very different; almost all the rulings that expanded the Commerce clause have happened in the last 100 years.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    If by "a century ago" you also mean "less than 2 years ago", then sure.
    - chimeracoder 9y ago
      > If by "a century ago" you also mean "less than 2 years ago", then sure. I probably shouldn't bother engaging with such a low-effort comment, but: no, there's plenty of precedent throughout the last 50-75 years for ideological conservatives leveraging and supporting this interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        > low-effort Well, I'll happily admit that I'm not guilty of doing ornate argmentative gymnastics to justify my position... I consider that a feature, not a bug, though ;-) AEI and other conservative think tanks were throwing fits about over-reaching interpretations of the commerce clause throughout Obama's entire presidency. AEI's current position on the commerce clause is motivated by their partisan preferences.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> First, AEI is not a partisan think-tank. They're ideologically conservative, but they are non-partisan. AEI, like many think tanks, is extremely partisan in practice and has deep connections with the Republican political establishment. (There are a number of think tanks on the Democratic side where this is true, as well.) Like basically all think tanks, it claims to be “nonpartisan” based on the lack of any formal or overt association with any political party, but that is as practically meaningful as Fox News’s old claim to be “Fair and Balanced”.
throwawayjava 9y ago
> First, AEI is not a partisan think-tank. They're ideologically conservative, but they are non-partisan... If anything, the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause is the antithesis of conservative ideology And yet, AEI is advocating for the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause because it empowers deregulation. You can bet your last horse that they'd be making the opposite argument and rambling about King George and unelected regulators if Democrats controlled the federal government. I can't help but feel that you've reinforced awinder's point... AEI reasons backwards from what it wants on a case-by-case basis to justify its policy preferences, which change depending on which party is in power. If that's not the definition of partisan, then your definition of partisanship is broken. > If anything, they're smart, by framing a Republican-sponsored policy within the context of case law that Democrats have consistently supported for a century. 1. Yes, exactly, their constitutional justification is an insincere post-facto justification for policy they like, and their policy preferences when it comes to the commerce clause largely depend on which political part is in control of the federal government. 2. But they're totally non-partisan, right? ;-)
apendleton 9y ago
I don't think the parent is saying the commerce clause is, in and of itself, conservative, but rather that the reading that the reading of the commerce clause to mean that regulating interstate commerce is exclusively the province of the federal government (which it doesn't explicitly say) is. And while you can get into semantic squabbling about small-c vs. big-c conservatism, etc., this particular position arguing that the states' desire to regulate a market is preempted by a federal deregulatory impetus is pretty clearly well aligned with modern American conservatism.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > that the reading that the reading of the commerce clause to mean that regulating interstate commerce is exclusively the province of the federal government (which it doesn't explicitly say) is. Again, that's not really a partisan position either. If anything, there's an argument to be made (as has been made elsewhere in the comments) that this would be more of an ideologically liberal position to take. AEI is being very strategic here: they've found a legal position that is wholeheartedly aligned with mainstream liberal and left-wing ideology and which is supported by a century of case law, and they're using that position to advocate their favored outcome. The outcome notwithstanding, the legal position itself is emphatically not a partisan one, nor is it one that is particularly conservative ideologically. Of course, that doesn't mean that AEI is correct, either legally or morally. They could still lose on other grounds. (Or, they could still win, despite you and me agreeing that their position is morally wrong).
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > AEI is being very strategic here: they've found a legal position that is wholeheartedly aligned with mainstream liberal and left-wing ideology Nope, liberal and left-wing ideology doesn't actually support the idea of federal regulatory agencies inventing preemption authority not granted to them by Congress.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    Ask yourself: would this argument make sense and remain consistent with AEI's overall ideological commitments if Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency? If the answer is "no" -- and, seriously, the answer is most definitely "no" -- then your "AEI isn't partisan" claim goes out the window.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dablya 9y ago

To sum up... AEI, an ideologically conservative, non-partisan think-tank is defending a Republican-sponsored policy by interpreting the Commerce Clause in a manner that is antithetical to conservative ideology. Am I missing something?

chimeracoder 9y ago
> ... in a manner that is antithetical to conservative ideology. Am I missing something? Yes, you're missing the part where this isn't particularly antithetical to conservative ideology anymore (it would have been a century ago, but not recently). There's a common caricature of conservative ideology under which any use of federal powers to limit state powers is hypocritical. But that's not a particularly accurate depiction of conservative ideology, any more than the caricature that any use of state powers is somehow hypocritical under a liberal ideology. (If that were the case, then this push by New York and California could itself be characterized as similarly hypocritical). In this case, both the left and the right have agreed for the better part of the last century that the federal government has this sort of power, and they have both used that power for their own respective causes at many different points in the last century. People who believe that the federal government doesn't (or shouldn't) have this sort of power are in the minority and are not a dominant force in any political party. Again, this is a relatively new development in US Constitutional history; in 1818 or even 1918, the situation was very different; almost all the rulings that expanded the Commerce clause have happened in the last 100 years.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  If by "a century ago" you also mean "less than 2 years ago", then sure.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > If by "a century ago" you also mean "less than 2 years ago", then sure. I probably shouldn't bother engaging with such a low-effort comment, but: no, there's plenty of precedent throughout the last 50-75 years for ideological conservatives leveraging and supporting this interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > low-effort Well, I'll happily admit that I'm not guilty of doing ornate argmentative gymnastics to justify my position... I consider that a feature, not a bug, though ;-) AEI and other conservative think tanks were throwing fits about over-reaching interpretations of the commerce clause throughout Obama's entire presidency. AEI's current position on the commerce clause is motivated by their partisan preferences.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> First, AEI is not a partisan think-tank. They're ideologically conservative, but they are non-partisan. AEI, like many think tanks, is extremely partisan in practice and has deep connections with the Republican political establishment. (There are a number of think tanks on the Democratic side where this is true, as well.) Like basically all think tanks, it claims to be “nonpartisan” based on the lack of any formal or overt association with any political party, but that is as practically meaningful as Fox News’s old claim to be “Fair and Balanced”.

throwawayjava 9y ago

> First, AEI is not a partisan think-tank. They're ideologically conservative, but they are non-partisan... If anything, the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause is the antithesis of conservative ideology And yet, AEI is advocating for the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause because it empowers deregulation. You can bet your last horse that they'd be making the opposite argument and rambling about King George and unelected regulators if Democrats controlled the federal government. I can't help but feel that you've reinforced awinder's point... AEI reasons backwards from what it wants on a case-by-case basis to justify its policy preferences, which change depending on which party is in power. If that's not the definition of partisan, then your definition of partisanship is broken. > If anything, they're smart, by framing a Republican-sponsored policy within the context of case law that Democrats have consistently supported for a century. 1. Yes, exactly, their constitutional justification is an insincere post-facto justification for policy they like, and their policy preferences when it comes to the commerce clause largely depend on which political part is in control of the federal government. 2. But they're totally non-partisan, right? ;-)

apendleton 9y ago

I don't think the parent is saying the commerce clause is, in and of itself, conservative, but rather that the reading that the reading of the commerce clause to mean that regulating interstate commerce is exclusively the province of the federal government (which it doesn't explicitly say) is. And while you can get into semantic squabbling about small-c vs. big-c conservatism, etc., this particular position arguing that the states' desire to regulate a market is preempted by a federal deregulatory impetus is pretty clearly well aligned with modern American conservatism.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> that the reading that the reading of the commerce clause to mean that regulating interstate commerce is exclusively the province of the federal government (which it doesn't explicitly say) is. Again, that's not really a partisan position either. If anything, there's an argument to be made (as has been made elsewhere in the comments) that this would be more of an ideologically liberal position to take. AEI is being very strategic here: they've found a legal position that is wholeheartedly aligned with mainstream liberal and left-wing ideology and which is supported by a century of case law, and they're using that position to advocate their favored outcome. The outcome notwithstanding, the legal position itself is emphatically not a partisan one, nor is it one that is particularly conservative ideologically. Of course, that doesn't mean that AEI is correct, either legally or morally. They could still lose on other grounds. (Or, they could still win, despite you and me agreeing that their position is morally wrong).
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > AEI is being very strategic here: they've found a legal position that is wholeheartedly aligned with mainstream liberal and left-wing ideology Nope, liberal and left-wing ideology doesn't actually support the idea of federal regulatory agencies inventing preemption authority not granted to them by Congress.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  Ask yourself: would this argument make sense and remain consistent with AEI's overall ideological commitments if Democrats controlled Congress and the presidency? If the answer is "no" -- and, seriously, the answer is most definitely "no" -- then your "AEI isn't partisan" claim goes out the window.