Supreme Court's top judge issues chilling warning as Trump targets his own appointees

DrHuk&Duck said:
I think you could go back to 1803 with Marbury v Madison and argue that the SC did indeed make itself a policy maker of sorts. Anyway, I’m familiar with all of the cases you’re describing, but you asked my opinion relative to anti-federalism, which is nothing more than my opinion. So yes, I think marriage, abortion, and a host of other issues should be left to the states, not the federal government. The one topic I’d disagree on is voting for federal elections, which I think should be left to the national government, not to the states to decide on methodology.
Click to expand...
I understand your point but marriage abortion etc are not mentioned in the constitution while elections are. The election dates and terms of office are federal issues but the methodology of the voting is left to the states.
 
subllibrm said:
I understand your point but marriage abortion etc are not mentioned in the constitution while elections are. The election dates and terms of office are federal issues but the methodology of the voting is left to the states.
Click to expand...
Those are left to the states because of the 10th amendment. I just happen to believe when it comes to federal elections, the federal government should handle it. State governments should handle state elections. I won’t be surprised if a 28th Amendment is one day passed to see this through because it’s all over Trump’s radar: https://www.usnews.com/news/u-s-new...n-feds-take-over-elections-heres-what-to-know
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Those are left to the states because of the 10th amendment. I just happen to believe when it comes to federal elections, the federal government should handle it. State governments should handle state elections. I won’t be surprised if a 28th Amendment is one day passed to see this through because it’s all over Trump’s radar: https://www.usnews.com/news/u-s-new...n-feds-take-over-elections-heres-what-to-know
Click to expand...
And that's how it is supposed to work. Bring on the amendment process. In the meantime, Washington doesn't have the authority to regulate the election process in the several states.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
I think you could go back to 1803 with Marbury v Madison and argue that the SC did indeed make itself a policy maker of sorts. Anyway, I’m familiar with all of the cases you’re describing, but you asked my opinion relative to anti-federalism, which is nothing more than my opinion. So yes, I think marriage, abortion, and a host of other issues should be left to the states, not the federal government. The one topic I’d disagree on is voting for federal elections, which I think should be left to the national government, not to the states to decide on methodology.
Click to expand...
What I said is nothing more than my opinion either. If I find a better one, I will let you know. Now, let me ask you one question: if we draw the states/federal gov line regarding whether the issue has systemic consequences for the security of the whole republic (federal government) or doesn't (up to the states), given my conviction some things are better left to the states (local decision making is better sometimes, and it's the law), then what should be left to the states? One thing comes to mind: I think taxes can be solved at state level, FL doesn't have an income tax, other states seem to be doing fine with "high" capital gains taxes like CA and NY (CA can be higher than Spain in the EU, for example, which people consider a "high tax country") and people deciding on a local level how much taxation is ideal seems to be working fine. On principle, I see how gerrymandering can affect the whole republic negatively, so I will give you that...However, regarding social issues such as elective gestation interruption, same-sex marriage, MMJ I do think there's room for nuance so "up to the states until SCOTUS says otherwise" is something I can fathom, though the sc being wrong is something I'm totally open to. Makes me think of the debate regarding slavery and President Lincoln: some think honest Abe was a raging anti-state's rights phanatic who caused an unnecesary war and emotionally blackmailed the population with such a sensitive issue for mischevious ends, whereas others still think "it's up to the states" is an easy way out to perpetuate unfairness. So I sympathize with you. I believe in the virtues of President Madison's phrase which still rings true today: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. …"
 
subllibrm said:
What are your thoughts on the Federal Government regulating state election procedures which is charged to the responsibilities of the states?
Click to expand...
What about states who are openly subverting federal policies related to immigration and thus encroaching upon the rights of their own citizens as well as the law abiding citizens of other states? Do you believe that the Federal government should step in and keep such "rogue states" (Minnesota, California, New York, Etc.) in check? What about states who will issue a drivers license without proof of citizenship/legal residency and have automatic voter registration along with the issuance of a license? I believe the Federal Government has a duty to step in whenever it is a matter of national security.
 
Mario said:
What I said is nothing more than my opinion either. If I find a better one, I will let you know. Now, let me ask you one question: if we draw the states/federal gov line regarding whether the issue has systemic consequences for the security of the whole republic (federal government) or doesn't (up to the states), given my conviction some things are better left to the states (local decision making is better sometimes, and it's the law), then what should be left to the states? One thing comes to mind: I think taxes can be solved at state level, FL doesn't have an income tax, other states seem to be doing fine with "high" capital gains taxes like CA and NY (CA can be higher than Spain in the EU, for example, which people consider a "high tax country") and people deciding on a local level how much taxation is ideal seems to be working fine. On principle, I see how gerrymandering can affect the whole republic negatively, so I will give you that...However, regarding social issues such as elective gestation interruption, same-sex marriage, MMJ I do think there's room for nuance so "up to the states until SCOTUS says otherwise" is something I can fathom, though the sc being wrong is something I'm totally open to. Makes me think of the debate regarding slavery and President Lincoln: some think honest Abe was a raging anti-state's rights phanatic who caused an unnecesary war and emotionally blackmailed the population with such a sensitive issue for mischevious ends, whereas others still think "it's up to the states" is an easy way out to perpetuate unfairness. So I sympathize with you. I believe in the virtues of President Madison's phrase which still rings true today: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. …"
Click to expand...
It might be easier to put it like this: I’m a registered Republican who identifies ideologically as a Libertarian. Where I live, if someone isn’t registered as a Republican, you really have no say in government.

I believe the role of the federal government should be only as big as is necessary. Defense/military is an essential element. The ability to enforce our Bill of Rights is also essential. Much of what constitutes our modern federal government should be either eliminated or put on a major diet. The DOE is a great example of that happening right now.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
It might be easier to put it like this: I’m a registered Republican who identifies ideologically as a Libertarian. Where I live, if someone isn’t registered as a Republican, you really have no say in government.

I believe the role of the federal government should be only as big as is necessary. Defense/military is an essential element. The ability to enforce our Bill of Rights is also essential. Much of what constitutes our modern federal government should be either eliminated or put on a major diet. The DOE is a great example of that happening right now.
Click to expand...
I don't really identify as a Libertarian but I do love reading people like Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Hayek, Von Mises, Vargas Llosa, Rand and incorporate some of their thinking into my own. I agree that the government that governs best is the one that governs least for the goals democratically agreed by society as necessary. I will point out, though, that I do believe in collective rights, 3rd, 4th, and 5th (and so forth) generation rights, but I believe in the principle of national self-determination (which is something I draw inspiration from Madison for) so in the Dominican Republic and the EU healthcare is a right, but some Americans don't believe healthcare is a right and I believe imposing that notion is counterproductive...Which libertarian thinkers have influenced you the most, and why?
 
Mario said:
I don't really identify as a Libertarian but I do love reading people like Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Hayek, Von Mises, Vargas Llosa, Rand and incorporate some of their thinking into my own. I agree that the government that governs best is the one that governs least for the goals democratically agreed by society as necessary. I will point out, though, that I do believe in collective rights, 3rd, 4th, and 5th (and so forth) generation rights, but I believe in the principle of national self-determination (which is something I draw inspiration from Madison for) so in the Dominican Republic and the EU healthcare is a right, but some Americans don't believe healthcare is a right and I believe imposing that notion is counterproductive...Which libertarian thinkers have influenced you the most, and why?
Click to expand...
I’m not a pure libertarian, I just happen to believe a small central government is more beneficial to the citizenry than what has developed over the past decades. I was a fan of Ron Paul, though I never voted for him. I’ve read some of the writings of the authors you mentioned, but it’s been many years. One you didn’t mention is John Locke, who strongly influenced the founders of the Constitution, and was very libertarian in nature.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
What about states who are openly subverting federal policies related to immigration and thus encroaching upon the rights of their own citizens as well as the law abiding citizens of other states? Do you believe that the Federal government should step in and keep such "rogue states" (Minnesota, California, New York, Etc.) in check? What about states who will issue a drivers license without proof of citizenship/legal residency and have automatic voter registration along with the issuance of a license? I believe the Federal Government has a duty to step in whenever it is a matter of national security.
Click to expand...
States and municipalities sue the federal government all the time over these types of issues claiming federal overreach. Is the federal government unable to sue the states to comply when they are out of bounds? Take it to court and let the process work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top