3 ms·

Almost nobody alive today remembers America before the New Deal. We've lost the institutional memory of what works and doesn't work in that environment. It is v

Almost nobody alive today remembers America before the New Deal. We've lost the institutional memory of what works and doesn't work in that environment. It is very much a radical position to undo the New Deal consensus.

yieldcrv 3y ago
yes, but if you study US history its like a distortion field has been pulled up, where the President that got the New Deal passed is heralded in all history books for every action he ever did, while in reality most of his New Deal got struck down by the courts and he threatened to pack the court with his people. Like... what? And everything that's left over has been used to control all facets of life, subjugate all states with an interpretation of all commerce being interstate commerce, with any state level autonomy being a gift from Congress if they remembered to include an intrastate exemption Its a "federal government" by name alone as there is no federalism left. Federalism could be interesting. It will have redundancies, wild differences. But that's the actual country we herald in our history books while we've done something else for the last 100 years. The court has even expressed interest in going back further: revisiting the insular cases - the status of many of our territories and whether we should possess them at all - for reasons I find extremely universally agreeable, nowadays. If you read the SCOTUS decisions from 1901 they are super racist reasons why we have our territories. The only reason people would disagree is because they either haven't read them or they want to avoid the inconvenience. The constitution doesn't say "if its inconvenient ignore these articles, amendments and don't interpret me". Self determination is decided by the people of the territory in coordination with Congress. so our radical court is going to undo racist rulings and disrupt an American colonizer streak? bring the cases, the challenge to a territory's status will probably even come from the left once people catch on with the most productive way to operate with this court I get it, its a paradoxical standard, yes, its radical to do something we're all unfamiliar with. yes, a political entity with the adjective radical is a radical political entity. but are we using this in the colloquial way of illegitimate? no, not at all.
- MasterYoda900 3y ago
  I don’t understand what you’re saying. What’s wrong with the current interpretation of interstate commerce? What is that interpretation? Are you arguing for the dismantling of Social Security? Medicare? Are you arguing for Congress letting go of US territories to become their own sovereign countries? What if they want to remain part of the U.S.?
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    a narrower interpretation of the interstate commerce clause would disable many aspects of the federal governments agency system and require a different legal rationale from Congress if the people want to continue them, I don’t know how those specific examples you mention fall into that and it isn’t an argument for anything specific except an interpretation more congruent with federalism I’m arguing for more durable consensus. Look at the accession process of Texas versus a territory with Hispanics, Pacific Islanders or Asians, and see how many steps were done in the former versus how many were skipped in the latter. Do those steps and accept any outcome. I’m not arguing for any specific outcome of an areas status.

yieldcrv 3y ago

yes, but if you study US history its like a distortion field has been pulled up, where the President that got the New Deal passed is heralded in all history books for every action he ever did, while in reality most of his New Deal got struck down by the courts and he threatened to pack the court with his people. Like... what? And everything that's left over has been used to control all facets of life, subjugate all states with an interpretation of all commerce being interstate commerce, with any state level autonomy being a gift from Congress if they remembered to include an intrastate exemption Its a "federal government" by name alone as there is no federalism left. Federalism could be interesting. It will have redundancies, wild differences. But that's the actual country we herald in our history books while we've done something else for the last 100 years. The court has even expressed interest in going back further: revisiting the insular cases - the status of many of our territories and whether we should possess them at all - for reasons I find extremely universally agreeable, nowadays. If you read the SCOTUS decisions from 1901 they are super racist reasons why we have our territories. The only reason people would disagree is because they either haven't read them or they want to avoid the inconvenience. The constitution doesn't say "if its inconvenient ignore these articles, amendments and don't interpret me". Self determination is decided by the people of the territory in coordination with Congress. so our radical court is going to undo racist rulings and disrupt an American colonizer streak? bring the cases, the challenge to a territory's status will probably even come from the left once people catch on with the most productive way to operate with this court I get it, its a paradoxical standard, yes, its radical to do something we're all unfamiliar with. yes, a political entity with the adjective radical is a radical political entity. but are we using this in the colloquial way of illegitimate? no, not at all.

MasterYoda900 3y ago
I don’t understand what you’re saying. What’s wrong with the current interpretation of interstate commerce? What is that interpretation? Are you arguing for the dismantling of Social Security? Medicare? Are you arguing for Congress letting go of US territories to become their own sovereign countries? What if they want to remain part of the U.S.?
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  a narrower interpretation of the interstate commerce clause would disable many aspects of the federal governments agency system and require a different legal rationale from Congress if the people want to continue them, I don’t know how those specific examples you mention fall into that and it isn’t an argument for anything specific except an interpretation more congruent with federalism I’m arguing for more durable consensus. Look at the accession process of Texas versus a territory with Hispanics, Pacific Islanders or Asians, and see how many steps were done in the former versus how many were skipped in the latter. Do those steps and accept any outcome. I’m not arguing for any specific outcome of an areas status.