4 ms·

According to Amazon review here are his (Mark Levin, conservative talk radio person) proposals: 1. Term limits, including for justices. Sure, why not start ou

by Steko 13y ago

According to Amazon review here are his (Mark Levin, conservative talk radio person) proposals: 1. Term limits, including for justices. Sure, why not start out with the one everyone agrees with. 2. Repealing Amendment 17 and returning the election of senators to state legislatures Here's another meh one. At least everyone can agree with it. 3. A congressional supermajority to override Supreme Court decisions (overruling what could be a stacked court) This is where he starts to go off the rails into conservative uptopianism. This would be just awful. If you don't want a stacked court don't confirm the justices. 4. Spending limit based on GDP Awful idea. WWII wants it's financing back. 5. Taxation capped at 15% A worse idea than #4 if possible. 6. Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights Sigh... 7. Power of states to override a federal statute by a three-fifths vote. Hmm, I remember something else about states rights and "three fifths" in American history.

gizmo686 13y ago
>Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights For context, the commerce clause has been interpreted very broadly. The clause itself reads, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" One of the classic examples of the broad interperatation of this clause is Wickard v. Filburn [1]. There was a quota on how much wheat a farmer could produce, and Filburn exceeded his quota. The constitutional justification for this law is that wheat is interstate commerce. Filburn's defence was that he was not selling the wheat at all, let alone across state lines, but rather using it himself to feed his livestock. Filburn lost in the Supreme Court because it causes an indirect effect to interstate commerce in the sense that Filburn would have purchased wheat if he did not grow it himself. Not that it is directly relevant, but another fun example of loose interpretations of the constitution is roe v wade, where they managed to invoke the 3rd amendment to defend a woman's right to an abortion. If you are not familiar with the third amendment, don't worry; my constitutional law teacher took a moment to apologize when we got to this part because earlier in the coarse he had assured us that the 3rd amendment would never come up. It reads: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. [1]http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/ http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/
- Steko 13y ago
  "roe v wade, where they managed to invoke the 3rd amendment to defend a woman's right to an abortion..." This is gross caricature of the actual argument. Roe uses the 14th amendment as the basis of the right to privacy (and abortion). Additionally it had to comment on the lower courts ruling. The lower court had ruled to overturn the law (thus making abortion legal) but the basis had been the 9th amendment and "penumbral" privacy rights. It did not reject this argument but made it secondary to the 14th amendment.

by Steko 13y ago

gizmo686 13y ago

>Limiting the commerce clause, and strengthening private property rights For context, the commerce clause has been interpreted very broadly. The clause itself reads, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" One of the classic examples of the broad interperatation of this clause is Wickard v. Filburn [1]. There was a quota on how much wheat a farmer could produce, and Filburn exceeded his quota. The constitutional justification for this law is that wheat is interstate commerce. Filburn's defence was that he was not selling the wheat at all, let alone across state lines, but rather using it himself to feed his livestock. Filburn lost in the Supreme Court because it causes an indirect effect to interstate commerce in the sense that Filburn would have purchased wheat if he did not grow it himself. Not that it is directly relevant, but another fun example of loose interpretations of the constitution is roe v wade, where they managed to invoke the 3rd amendment to defend a woman's right to an abortion. If you are not familiar with the third amendment, don't worry; my constitutional law teacher took a moment to apologize when we got to this part because earlier in the coarse he had assured us that the 3rd amendment would never come up. It reads: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. [1]http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/ http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_59/

Steko 13y ago
"roe v wade, where they managed to invoke the 3rd amendment to defend a woman's right to an abortion..." This is gross caricature of the actual argument. Roe uses the 14th amendment as the basis of the right to privacy (and abortion). Additionally it had to comment on the lower courts ruling. The lower court had ruled to overturn the law (thus making abortion legal) but the basis had been the 9th amendment and "penumbral" privacy rights. It did not reject this argument but made it secondary to the 14th amendment.