3 ms·

> you're not in power, and that scares you. > Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do. Let's compare and cont

by bmelton 13y ago

> you're not in power, and that scares you. > Considering I don't know anything about you, that'd literally be impossible for me to do. Let's compare and contrast those, for a moment, shall we? > The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional. The Interstate Commerce Clause has a definition, and whatever its definitions where, judicial precedence precludes it from trumping a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action. > people have been bitching about what you're complaining about here (abuse of these two clauses) since the dawn of the US, and yet somehow the US is still here today. False. There is document stare decisis on record indicating a massive shift in these interpretations under FDR's reign. While I can't factually defend against the assertion that I'm rehashing old business (which I'll agree that I am), I can factually assert that it has not in fact 'always been this way', which falsifies your argument. > It's no longer an ad hominem to say you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about, as I've demonstrated that fact. It's merely a conclusion based on observation, at this point. You haven't actually illustrated any points that are supported by fact. You've levied accusations, which you've supported with more accusations, none of which are provable. In short, I shouldn't have responded to this post, but for some odd reason, I took poorly to being referred to as "full of shit" on a subject I've studied a good portion of my life by someone who is literally countering factual arguments with untruth. This is the last topic I'll post on the matter, and I apologize to you and everyone else on HN for not having quit some time ago.

diminoten 13y ago
> Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action. > While I can't factually defend against the assertion that I'm rehashing old business (which I'll agree that I am), I can factually assert that it has not in fact 'always been this way', which falsifies your argument. > You've levied accusations, which you've supported with more accusations, none of which are provable. > I took poorly to being referred to as "full of shit" on a subject I've studied a good portion of my life by someone who is literally countering factual arguments with untruth. The first quote is in response to me saying, "The Constitution is, by definition, constitutional." The second quote is you saying, "I could prove this but I won't." It reminds me of the schoolyard habit of claiming to know what a big word means, but then saying, "I'm not telling you!" The third quote is exactly the kind of thing you've been railing against in our correspondence - that is, the focus on self rather than content. The fourth quote is functionally an appeal to authority ("I've studied this for a long time, therefore I must know what I'm talking about!"). In reality, you may just a) suck at studying, or b) have caught yourself up in a feedback loop where your confirmation bias prevents you from actually learning anything. Are you proud of yourself here? Have you presented the best form of your argument? What do you think I believe, at this point? I know your argument, but what is mine? I just don't understand how a human being who thinks as much as you apparently do on this topic can write so little about it when asked explicitly to elaborate.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Fine. You win, because I can't let this go on as being seen as possibly true. > The first quote is in response to me saying, "The Constitution is, by definition, constitutional." False equivalency. What you said was, in fact: > The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional. Because today is repeal day... The 18th amendment is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional, right? Clearly, wrong. Judicial precedence supersedes it. The 18th amendment, and resultant Volstead act, was repealed by the 21st amendment. Per your assertion, the 18th amendment still holds Constitutional weight because it is part of the Constitution, despite the notion that it was expressly repealed. Whether or not the 18th had been expressly repealed, it wouldn't even necessarily matter. If the 21st amendment did not expressly repeal the 18th, but instead stated less explicitly that "the sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors is not prohibited", then it would still supersede the provisions of the 18th amendment on the grounds of judicial precedence. Judicial precedence applies to amendments, contracts, compacts, stare decisis and other forms of precedent. As such, the 21st amendment would, with that pithy statement, _de_ _facto_ have repealed the 18th amendment on grounds of simply being newer. The newer law, where contradictory to the older law, takes precedence. The Commerce Clause, on those grounds, cannot infringe either states' rights or any of the amendments enumerated within the Bill of Rights, as each were ratified into the Constitution ex post facto which, under judicial precedence, prohibits its effect being interpreted as you've stated. Beyond that, I also stated this: > Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action. In the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court, under much political pressure, having recently denied Constitutional rewrites to FDR, who threatened to replace the whole lot, had to bend language to make the written word match the intent. "Regulate", which had always been interpreted to mean "make regular" was now being interpreted as "to prohibit", despite almost 150 years of precedent to the contrary. "Commerce", which had previously been interpreted in the same way one might interpret "trade", as in bulk transactions, had to be construed into a far broader term, indicating "any possible economic transaction", and "among", as in "among the several states" had to be construed to mean "within any state", despite, again, ~100+ years of contrary guidance, much of which is also codified by founder intent. Common Sense, the Federalist Papers and even Hamilton's (the more expansionist founder of the day) papers all collect to codify the intent of the day that trade regulatory authority should be non-interventionist, and act as a bulwark against trade exploitation -- you see, in the day, the common maliase of organized trade was the lack of a central authority to settle extra-state disputes. I could order a truckload of ale from a manufacturer in Virginia, have it shipped to Maryland, and then simply refuse to pay. The state courts of Maryland would be beholden to me, as a local business, so the Virginian would not get a fair trial in Maryland, and vice versa. The power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States" was expressly solicited as protection from mass exploitation in commerce. > I just don't understand how a human being who thinks as much as you apparently do on this topic can write so little about it when asked explicitly to elaborate. For the same reason I won't expound further on the other points, because I believe you're intractable on the subject. I haven't made attempts to impugn your character, or called you names, and it genuinely confuses me that you think resorting to such tactics improves _your_ position. Because I believe you are unswayable, I only correct this point here in the event that some unfortunate reader might stumble upon your points, and actually believe that the Commerce clause has the intent that you suggest. It doesn't frankly, and your assertion that it does exposes more than a single fault in your logic, rather, it exposes the very foundation upon which your logic is predicated. You've illustrated an ignorance of several of the core legal principles upon which the Constitution relies, and dismissed them in favor of false equivalency and name-calling, while accusing me of failing to make the best form of the argument. Now, with that out of the way, I may later return to respond to the other points on which you're factually incorrect, but I will not engage you further in any other regard. Again, My sincere apologies to anyone on HN who might be reading this tripe.

by bmelton 13y ago

diminoten 13y ago

> Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action. > While I can't factually defend against the assertion that I'm rehashing old business (which I'll agree that I am), I can factually assert that it has not in fact 'always been this way', which falsifies your argument. > You've levied accusations, which you've supported with more accusations, none of which are provable. > I took poorly to being referred to as "full of shit" on a subject I've studied a good portion of my life by someone who is literally countering factual arguments with untruth. The first quote is in response to me saying, "The Constitution is, by definition, constitutional." The second quote is you saying, "I could prove this but I won't." It reminds me of the schoolyard habit of claiming to know what a big word means, but then saying, "I'm not telling you!" The third quote is exactly the kind of thing you've been railing against in our correspondence - that is, the focus on self rather than content. The fourth quote is functionally an appeal to authority ("I've studied this for a long time, therefore I must know what I'm talking about!"). In reality, you may just a) suck at studying, or b) have caught yourself up in a feedback loop where your confirmation bias prevents you from actually learning anything. Are you proud of yourself here? Have you presented the best form of your argument? What do you think I believe, at this point? I know your argument, but what is mine? I just don't understand how a human being who thinks as much as you apparently do on this topic can write so little about it when asked explicitly to elaborate.

bmelton 13y ago
Fine. You win, because I can't let this go on as being seen as possibly true. > The first quote is in response to me saying, "The Constitution is, by definition, constitutional." False equivalency. What you said was, in fact: > The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional. Because today is repeal day... The 18th amendment is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional, right? Clearly, wrong. Judicial precedence supersedes it. The 18th amendment, and resultant Volstead act, was repealed by the 21st amendment. Per your assertion, the 18th amendment still holds Constitutional weight because it is part of the Constitution, despite the notion that it was expressly repealed. Whether or not the 18th had been expressly repealed, it wouldn't even necessarily matter. If the 21st amendment did not expressly repeal the 18th, but instead stated less explicitly that "the sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors is not prohibited", then it would still supersede the provisions of the 18th amendment on the grounds of judicial precedence. Judicial precedence applies to amendments, contracts, compacts, stare decisis and other forms of precedent. As such, the 21st amendment would, with that pithy statement, _de_ _facto_ have repealed the 18th amendment on grounds of simply being newer. The newer law, where contradictory to the older law, takes precedence. The Commerce Clause, on those grounds, cannot infringe either states' rights or any of the amendments enumerated within the Bill of Rights, as each were ratified into the Constitution ex post facto which, under judicial precedence, prohibits its effect being interpreted as you've stated. Beyond that, I also stated this: > Also, just because something is "in" the Constitution does not mean that one can apply any contrived definition of its terms as justification for an action. In the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court, under much political pressure, having recently denied Constitutional rewrites to FDR, who threatened to replace the whole lot, had to bend language to make the written word match the intent. "Regulate", which had always been interpreted to mean "make regular" was now being interpreted as "to prohibit", despite almost 150 years of precedent to the contrary. "Commerce", which had previously been interpreted in the same way one might interpret "trade", as in bulk transactions, had to be construed into a far broader term, indicating "any possible economic transaction", and "among", as in "among the several states" had to be construed to mean "within any state", despite, again, ~100+ years of contrary guidance, much of which is also codified by founder intent. Common Sense, the Federalist Papers and even Hamilton's (the more expansionist founder of the day) papers all collect to codify the intent of the day that trade regulatory authority should be non-interventionist, and act as a bulwark against trade exploitation -- you see, in the day, the common maliase of organized trade was the lack of a central authority to settle extra-state disputes. I could order a truckload of ale from a manufacturer in Virginia, have it shipped to Maryland, and then simply refuse to pay. The state courts of Maryland would be beholden to me, as a local business, so the Virginian would not get a fair trial in Maryland, and vice versa. The power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States" was expressly solicited as protection from mass exploitation in commerce. > I just don't understand how a human being who thinks as much as you apparently do on this topic can write so little about it when asked explicitly to elaborate. For the same reason I won't expound further on the other points, because I believe you're intractable on the subject. I haven't made attempts to impugn your character, or called you names, and it genuinely confuses me that you think resorting to such tactics improves _your_ position. Because I believe you are unswayable, I only correct this point here in the event that some unfortunate reader might stumble upon your points, and actually believe that the Commerce clause has the intent that you suggest. It doesn't frankly, and your assertion that it does exposes more than a single fault in your logic, rather, it exposes the very foundation upon which your logic is predicated. You've illustrated an ignorance of several of the core legal principles upon which the Constitution relies, and dismissed them in favor of false equivalency and name-calling, while accusing me of failing to make the best form of the argument. Now, with that out of the way, I may later return to respond to the other points on which you're factually incorrect, but I will not engage you further in any other regard. Again, My sincere apologies to anyone on HN who might be reading this tripe.