> 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.
> 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.
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.
Alright, Jesus. It's like you took a vocabulary word-jumble and decided to throw meaning to the wind. Here we go down the rabbit hole:
> False equivalency. What you said was, in fact:
That's not a false equivalency, it's an actual equivalency. In your example, you go on to mention the 18th amendment, which is part of the constitution, and is therefore constitutional. And it is. But so is the 21st amendment.
> blah blah blah judicial precedence (you say it a bunch)
You missed this concept entirely. In no way does judicial precedence rewrite the Constitution whatsoever. It provides an interpretation of the Constitution, as that's the formal function of the judicial branch - to judge the laws of the land. Crazy, I know, but you don't say "judicial precedence has repealed law x y and z". That's not how the term is used, and so no, judicial precedence has not repealed the 18th amendment. No one says that, as that's not how the term is used.
Furthermore, you go on to mention the time in which a law was passed. That has absolutely nothing to do with judicial precedence whatsoever. Judicial precedence is when a judge sets a standard for how a law is interpreted. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the novelty of the law. So, this is not true:
> 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.
It's actually kind of laughable that you think this is true, because of your massive beef with the PATRIOT act. Weren't you just saying how unconstitutional the PATRIOT act is, and how it steps on all kinds of other laws?
You're not even internally consistent.
> For the same reason I won't expound further on the other points, because I believe you're intractable on the subject.
It's fairly ironic you say that, given how similarly I feel towards you. I'm fairly certain you've built up a bubble of ignorance, and anyone who challenges that bubble is, well, treated as you've been treating me. You pretend like I've been insulting your character (I don't know you character, so that's literally impossible). The little I've been able to discern about you has been based on my observations of what you've been writing, and how offended you get when I've challenged your opinion.
It will be readily apparent to any poor soul who decides to read your text how little you know of the topic at hand, and this is not what you call an "insult". It's an observation. You think the commerce clause has been rendered moot by other constitutional amendments, you think the Federalist Papers are worth reading beyond their historical significance, you think "judicial precedence" is when new laws supersede (the word I suspect you're looking for in the first place) old, and you get super offended on the Internet over what amounts to normal conversation.
But please, we'll continue this until you tire, because I'm going to break your bubble of ignorance - I'm determined to. I want you to have to come to terms with the fact that you don't actually know very much on this topic, and to admit that you aren't nearly educated enough to say what's wrong with this country.
We'll start simple - what is it exactly you think I'm intractable on? I suspect you haven't the faintest idea anymore, if you ever actually did understand my viewpoint (again, this is an observation and not an insult - I can't believe I have to label these things for you).
To keep things simple, I'll again refute the factual errors alone.
> That's not a false equivalency, it's an actual equivalency.
Wrong again. "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution" != "The Constitution is Constitutional". It isn't true generally, it isn't true practically, and it definitely is not true in this instance. Beyond that, the deliberate misconstruing of its meaning, a meaning for which we have clear precedent and case law, is simply farcical. You are wrong here, I've explained why, and your refusal to accept that isn't a rebuttal.
> In no way does judicial precedence rewrite the Constitution whatsoever.
Yes, it does. Ratifications to the Constitution, and in fact any contract, defer in authority to the more recent amendment wherever terms are equally asserted. The term for it is "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant", which states, as I asserted, that subsequent laws repeal predecessors that disagree with them. The recency of precedent matters, whether you care to accede that it does or not.
> It's actually kind of laughable that you think this is true, because of your massive beef with the PATRIOT act. Weren't you just saying how unconstitutional the PATRIOT act is, and how it steps on all kinds of other laws?
I assume the point you're making here is that I'm being inconsistent by asserting that recency reigns supreme, so the PATRIOT act, being newer than the Constitution, should be most current legal interpretation? Because that is easily falsifiable.
16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 states the following:
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law
cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute
runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Since the passage of the 21st amendment, Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the sale or transport of intoxicating liquors, because it would be unconstitutional. The most recent stance, in the Constitution, states that the sale and/or transport of liquor is allowed, so if Congress were to pass a law prohibiting that, it would be void. It would not, under Constitution scrutiny, _even be a law at all_, despite it being on the books and in the Congressional register. No citizen would be obligated to uphold it, no police bound to uphold it, no courts, etc.
For this reason, where the PATRIOT act infringes the Constitution, it is null, void. The language comprising the PATRIOT act, specifically as referring to the 'secret lists' that lack oversight have been found unconstitutional on no less than two occasions, and predecessors to the PATRIOT act were struck down on grounds of unconstitutionality. Regardless, Congress passed it again, with minor tweaks to confuse the issue, which was found unconstitutional as well, for which the mitigation was the insertion of the FISA court, to provide oversight, which is currently what's being challenged in various places as well.
If the PATRIOT act wishes to supersede portions of the Constitution, there's a Constitutionally prescribed process for that, and it's ratification. The process of ratification is not the same as simply "passing a new law" through Congress, but I'll leave the procedure as an exercise for you to Google, as it isn't terribly relevant to this discussion.
> You pretend like I've been insulting your character
> you're not in power, and that scares you.
> you're full of shit and don't know what you're talking about
> I might just have to accept people like you exist, but are in no way capable of impacting me
> you come up with these crackpot, "The US government is out of control!" theories to help sleep at night
> it's just sad that someone like you can have even an infinitesimally small sway in how this country is run
Those are character evaluations, that you claim not to be doing. Well, actually, they're character judgements, and one of them is a self-affirmation of your own intractability, which is something you're apparently trying to push onto me.
> I want you to have to come to terms with the fact that you don't actually know very much on this topic
You have no idea how much I know on the subject. As every counter you've offered is literally riddled with falsifiability, I don't know how you can continue to make the assertion that I'm under informed here. Regardless, I don't wish to impugn your character as baselessly as you have mine, so I demur, but saying things like "[when a law was enacted] has absolutely nothing to do with judicial precedence whatsoever" and then expect one to take you seriously as you insult their intelligence... it's a bit of a tough sell.
> and how offended you get when I've challenged your opinion.
I'm not offended that you've challenged my opinions. You really haven't. To suggest that you've challenged my opinions is to suggest that by asserting that 2+2=42, you've challenged math.
As for answering your questions, I confess, I really don't desire to continue this conversation any further, and haven't for some time. This thread is a disgrace to HN, as has been both of our conduct. I've tried, and failed, to conduct the argument civilly. I'll concede that if you're trolling, as I suspect, you've won. I've been trolled into violating my own stop-loss on three separate occasions, but of course, there's an XKCD for that, and I'm as human as the next guy who argues on the internet.
You do this thing, when you write, where you take what you're trying to argue, and presuppose it as correct. You've done this in a number of places.
First, you start by presupposing I even said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution", which isn't actually what I said at all. Had I actually written something like that, you'd be correct, but I didn't. The disagreement we're having revolves around that fact, but instead of actually arguing the point, you simply assumed it to be what you said, and then continued to draw conclusions. Every conclusion you've made on that topic after you presupposed what I said as something I didn't actually say is therefore incorrect. If you want to argue, then the point you'd be arguing is whether or not I said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution". The rest of your argument hinges on it, and I don't believe I said that at all.
Then, you begin talking about "judicial precedence". I don't think you know what this phrase means, because you keep using it interchangeably with the word "law". A judicial precedence is, as far as these [0][1][2][3][4] sources tell me, is more or less when a judge hands down a ruling on a section of law that stands as a guideline for future judges to rule against that law. This is not, as you keep saying, a "rewriting" of any kind of law - constitutional or otherwise. This topic has nothing whatsoever to do with the ratification of constitutional amendments. A ruling may interpret a particular part of a law or the Constitution in a certain way, but it doesn't literally or figuratively "rewrite" said law. Furthermore, judicial precedence can change over time, or be superseded by a higher court's ruling. THIS is where time matters, not in the laws as written themselves.
Which brings me to my third point, your misunderstanding of how laws are written. There aren't "revisions" of laws, where you have to know which law was passed when. There is one set of laws. This set of laws gets changed over time - rewritten, modified, redacted, etc. There is, at any given time, only one body of text that constitutes federal law[5], and one body of text that constitutes state law[6]. Again, when a law is appended to these bodies of text, this has nothing to do with how or when rulings on these laws are passed down. When a law is passed, and when it's first ruled on (setting precedence, as in judicial precedence), are completely irrelevant.
Then you start getting confused, and go on a bit of a rant. You're in the middle of talking about judicial precedence, and you seem to kind of mold that in with Jurisprudence, which deals with the constitutionality of laws. It seems to me you think they're related? They're not, just to be clear. You also don't seem clear on what happens to a law when it's found unconstitutional. You say, "It would not even be a law at all" which isn't true. It'd be a law. Just an unconstitutional one, at least until a higher court rules, or another court of equal level rules differently.
And then we get to the part of the comment where you act like my observations are without cause or justification.
Here's the thing - you seem to believe, with a high (very high) level of certainty, that you're educated on this topic. It's that very certainty that undermines your credibility, however. People who are actually educated on the topic of constitutional law don't have your confidence. It's not a very consensus-oriented topic, even among experts. I think you know where I'm going with this, but in case you don't, here are some links: [7][8][9]. Suffice it to say, you share all the hallmarks of a fanatic. And I know you think this is a personal attack, and not relevant, but I just urge you to do more than you usually do for this specific belief.
Edit: I can't reply any further (no 'reply' message appears), but it genuinely frightens me that you've written laws. I'm going to live on the assumption that you've just lied about that.
> you start by presupposing I even said "This interpretation of this part of the Constitution", which isn't actually what I said at all.
> The Interstate Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution, so any usage of it is by definition constitutional.
The second quoted statement there is an interpretation of a part of the Constitution. "Any usage" of a part of the Constitution is not necessarily Constitutional. The Commerce Clause has a meaning, but we should be able to agree that "any usage" of the text is not necessarily valid. I could use the text to suggest that the federal government, for example, has authority over interstate that are not in the United States. I could apply the law to apply to any solid state hard drives that happen to be on an interstate by contorting the statement "among the several states."
So, am I wrong in suggesting that your interpretation is an interpretation? Am I wrong in suggesting that the Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution?
That you later change the statement to the broader "The Constitution is Constitutional" is a false dichotomy. The narrower does not agree with the broad, despite your suggestion that they are equal. They are not.
> I don't think you know what this phrase means, because you keep using it interchangeably with the word "law"
No, I'm not. I am admittedly watering it down for your benefit though.
> A judicial precedence is, as far as these \sources tell me, is more or less when a judge hands down a ruling on a section of law that stands as a guideline for future judges to rule against that law.
That is correct, but far from complete.
> This is not, as you keep saying, a "rewriting" of any kind of law - constitutional or otherwise.
That is incorrect, and I've already explained how, but I'll expound. The federal register lists every law on the books, whether valid or invalid, constitutional or unconstitutional. The register, as a result, has many contradictory laws, and statutory interpretation must be used to divine which has bearing over which ones do not. A first principal of statutory interpretation is leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant, which uses recency as the proverbial 'tie-breaker' against otherwise co-equal provisions. The newer law invalidates the older one. I'll concede that it does not in fact rewrite it, in the sense that the original law is not physically altered, but for all practical purposes, it loses any gravity in lieu of the newer, and is considered all but re-written, invalidated, nulled, or whatever way you'd like to put it that doesn't require further arguing of semantics.
> This topic has nothing whatsoever to do with the ratification of constitutional amendments.
The applicability of the Commerce Clause toward the constraint of the Bill of Rights has everything to do with the ratification of Constitutional amendments. On what grounds do you suggest that they do not?
> Furthermore, judicial precedence can change over time, or be superseded by a higher court's ruling.
This is correct.
> THIS is where time matters, not in the laws as written themselves.
This is incorrect. If a law is passed on Tuesday that allows for the theft of sandwiches, and a law is passed on Wednesday that prohibits the theft of sandwiches, the theft of sandwiches is illegal. I don't know why this concept is so baffling to you, but this is established law. The latter may not specifically repeal the former, though it does supersede it. The result is that there would be two laws in the register, one allowing for the theft of sandwiches, and the other disallowing the theft of sandwiches. Only one of those laws has any teeth. I'll leave is as an exercise to the reader over which one it is.
> Which brings me to my third point, your misunderstanding of how laws are written.
While not attempting to invoke deference, I have authored or co-authored parts of laws and amendments that have been enacted within the state of Maryland, and have been involved (though as more of a support role than active) in research and construction of legal arguments successfully employed in the MD circuit courts, the MD Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject, but this really isn't as complicated as you're making it out to be. That I've had to explain the concept of implied repeal no less than three times tells me that you're not arguing from a solid foundation. Saying it doesn't exist doesn't mean that it doesn't.
> Here's the thing - you seem to believe, with a high (very high) level of certainty, that you're educated on this topic.
Well, by comparison, I can speak with a high (very high) degree of certainty that you are wrong.
You say things like 'time has no bearing on precedent', which is patently, provably false. You say things like 'there aren't "revisions" of laws' as easily as saying that trees don't have leaves. You go on to say that because those statements are true, that they have no bearing on the ratification of the Constitution, which is, again, provably false; That exact argument has been made before the Supreme Court, and won. In short, if I'm wrong, then so is every judge and justice.
You assert that Congress can pass a law that supersedes the Constitution, and while, as a practical matter, I concede that in practice they often do, and then you misconstrue the timeliness of judicial preference to assert that any law that Congress passes supersedes the Constitution because it's more recent.
That really, really isn't how it works, and despite how well-written and confidently stated your arguments are, they are built upon a foundation of exactly nothing. It's like we're writing an application here but refusing to accept that 'scope' exists, or that it has any bearing on whether a variable is available within a given method.
You go on to assert that I'm intractable, despite a demonstrable history of acknowledging when I'm wrong. You go on to assert that you're not intractable, despite having previously admitted to being so. This argument is entirely fruitless, and I honestly can't imagine how continuing it isn't just feeding the trolls, so if your intent is to keep dragging me back in, which I admit that I'm vulnerable to, you'll have to try quite a bit harder next time.
> 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.