Here for your reference is a handy list of States admitted [the first time] with that 1824 precedence in place.
ArkansasComment Posted By Dwight On 8.05.2009 @ 08:55
BTW that "1830s" is not a typo...although it is incorrect. It was the 1820s. Here is the case.
If you don't bother reading the whole of it (I don't see a summation handy) here is an interesting excerpt regarding the Commerce Clause.
We are now arrived at the inquiry-What is this power?
It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.Comment Posted By Dwight On 8.05.2009 @ 08:21
I just looked it up. The first SCOTUS retirement under Roosevelt was after this ruling. Van Devanter, who dissented on the case incidentally, retired only after the end of that session.Comment Posted By Dwight On 8.05.2009 @ 07:47
1. There was a case in the 1830s where the Commerce Cause was found to apply to a company that had no operations outside of the borders of New York state. As well it found that the clause extended past the simple exchange of goods. The Carter v Carter Coal arguably strained precedent in it's logic.
The switch on the matter occurred a year prior to any Roosevelt appointments. Maybe the year of his first appointment? But it definitely required sitting judges to change their mind. Roosevelt appointed a lot of judges (although less per year than Hoover prior, 8 in 12 years vs 3 in 4 years). But he didn't appoint any till his second term.
P.S. Jim Crow isn't directly relevant. Unfortunately there are modern parallels, one specifically in niggers=homos.Comment Posted By Dwight On 8.05.2009 @ 07:05
Ex post facto provisions?Comment Posted By Dwight On 7.05.2009 @ 14:01
Michael, the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, on which much direct federal control is based dates back nearly two centuries. There was a lull in it's use for some time till it was nearly neutered by Carter v. Carter Coal Company in the early 30's. But a couple years later two of the judges switched from that extremely narrow interpretation and the pendulum swung hard the other way at SCOTUS.
It has little to do with whether or not the States, and indeed individuals, aren't pushing back. I would suggest that they constantly do. It is merely that:
1) they have taken their licks at the Supreme Court
2) the indirect influence, such as over the length of unemployment coverage, is NOT direct interference but merely political pressure that ultimately can only be brought to bear by the voters of the State
In the end the calls "what about the Tenth Amendment?", especially in the case of the later, are just another means of political saber rattling.Comment Posted By Dwight On 7.05.2009 @ 12:54
That should read:
"Doesn’t it seem clear that if the State’s Constitution..."Comment Posted By Dwight On 7.05.2009 @ 12:07
Re: Ronald Rotunda
"If state law does not give the state legislature the right to bypass the governor..."
Doesn't it seem clear that if the State's law does not provide for this that it wouldn't actually happen? It seems pretty clear to me that that provision was included for the states that do allow a 2/3 State House majority to be binding and have force of law.
So my gut reaction is "tempest in a tea pot". Offering money with certain strings on how it is to be spent is a very common means of federal influence in federations (republic or otherwise).
Now the Montana firearms situation is much more interesting. I suspect there are going to be certain qualifications that get applied to that by the courts. Specifically to do with certain types of arms due to the realities of personal mobility and the desire to keep that (i.e. not having motivation to set up border checkpoints around Montana).Comment Posted By Dwight On 7.05.2009 @ 12:01
I ended up in the wrong thread's comments and noticed this before I left, and figured I'd comment.
... but I easily admit that lack of expected plane debris at the Pentagon is . . . odd.
It's 'odd' because it's really rare for a commercial plane to hit the ground at full throttle. People don't have a lot of everyday experience with aluminum subjected to that sort of energy, so we think of metal as bending and deforming as opposed to shattering into tiny shards.
Same thing with the tiny, tiny bits that the WTC towers and their contents ended up in. It looked like everything in it was blown up because of the huge crushing energy of the 1/4 mile drop of ton and tons of material.
It evades "common sense" by virtue of being an uncommon event.Comment Posted By Dwight On 8.05.2009 @ 09:44
Oh, and that tie? In Idaho, of all places. Maybe that'll flip back in 2010, maybe not. But the GOP Tent has shrunk to 2-man pup tent, and the crazies are busy trying to burn that to the ground...to their own profit.Comment Posted By Dwight On 7.05.2009 @ 11:08