Oklahoma

[Cerebus]

First of, I am one of those fools who throws his vote away on Libertarian candidates, and generally thinks the less government involved the better, but there is no denying the laws of the land. For better or worse, John Marshall was a huge federalist, and a proponent of federal primacy and expansion, and was able to totally shape the law of the land by serving as Chief Justice for 35 years during the most critical phase in our legal history.

But I disagree that Marshall's intent was to expand the scope of the implied powers beyond those that enable Congress to execute its enumerated powers.

Marshall believed that that Congress had incredible scope, well beyond what most anti-federalists at the time believed. Marshall gave congress a large leeway as to how to define what is considered N&P.

His entire point is that without implied powers it would be impossible for congress to exercise its enumerated powers.

". . . Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word "bank" or "incorporation," we find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies . . . But it may with great reason be contended, that a government, entrusted with such ample powers . . . must also be entrusted with ample means for their execution. The power being given, it is the interest of the nation to facilitate its execution. . . . "

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.

If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.

There is no way to know what to really know which, if any, of those spending program Marshall would have found constitutional. But make no mistake he was for expanded federal power and federal primacy. His whole case history screams it. I would bet he would probably consider most if not all of those program constitutional. Remember he said it was a question of legislative discretion. God help us all.

I think he would consider the real answer to be that most people need to ignore American Idol and spend alot more time keeping watch on that legislature.

Courts since then have consistently backed this case and the large scope of congressional power.

For example the Stone court had Wickard v. Filburn, the Warren court in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States further defined the scope of congressional power, and no court has or ever likely will receded that power greatly.

[FirefightnRick]

Maryland v. McCulloch?

Wow, how is it that 92 of the 95 Oklahoma state represenatives overlooked this?

Rick

Edited June 18, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[Cerebus]

Wow, how is it that 92 of the 95 Oklahoma state represenatives overlooked this?

Rick

It's Oklahoma, they probably can't read.

[CaribbeanGreen]

Wow, how is it that 92 of the 95 Oklahoma state represenatives overlooked this?

Rick

What's your opinion on how McCulloch doesn't apply here? This is actually a productive, non-partisan thread (for once) with intelligent comments from both sides of the argument, I'm curious as to your take as well.

I'm not remotely familiar with this particular issue -- my mention of McCulloch was just in response to Flyer's (who has made good observations as well) mention of the 10th amendment regarding state's rights, not specific to this issue. No need for eye rolling.

Edited June 18, 2008 by CaribbeanGreen

[FirefightnRick]

What's your opinion on how McCulloch doesn't apply here? This is actually a productive, non-partisan thread (for once) with intelligent comments from both sides of the argument, I'm curious as to your take as well.

I'm not remotely familiar with this particular issue -- my mention of McCulloch was just in response to Flyer's (who has made good observations as well) mention of the 10th amendment regarding state's rights, not specific to this issue. No need for eye rolling.

Flyer was simply agreeing for the reason for the stance the represenatives of Oklahoma took, and that they took it today, not in 18whatever? Today illegal immagration is costing us, and by my drowning thread I showed and shared a personal, RECENT experience as to how it is costing us which is in many ways impossible to put a dollar to. The stance of others supporting the M vs M case in order to argue against 1804 to me is saying that the Okc reps, with all of their assumed educated doesn't know any better. I would think they had this in mind when argueing the points? Just sounds like to me that some of you think you know better than the state reps of Okc who voted so unaminously? Excuse me if I'm reading this incorrectly.

Rick

Edited June 18, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[Cerebus]

Rick, those legislators held this vote for one simple reason: Grand Standing.

They are glad handling some people to try and get votes, plain and simple.

I can't imagine any of them are dumb enough not to understand how constitutional law actually works. Of course, this is Oklahoma, so who knows.

Flyer has an opinion but it is not one shared by the vast majority of jurists. At least not the ones I have read about or spoken to.

If people want Constitutional law to change they can either pass an amendment or elect presidents who will appoint judges that will pursue that course and a congress that will approve that selection. Either way is a long slow process, designed and created that way to insulate from the passions of the electorate. Much like the electoral college.

Those founding fathers where a little gun shy of the masses.

[FirefightnRick]

And what about Farmers Branch and Irving Texas stance on illegal immigration? Doesn't sound like grandstanding to me?

Rick

[Cerebus]

And what about Farmers Branch and Irving Texas stance on illegal immigration? Doesn't sound like grandstanding to me?

Rick

I haven't kept up with those cases actually, I've been really busy at work for the last couple months.

But, if I remember correctly, didn't they both run into problems with courts because the federal gov't considers both those threats to its primacy?

If so, and like I said I could be wrong, those people then either need to either 1) rewrite the laws so the federal gov't doesn't object to it 2) get an amendment passed 3) get enough presidents elected to select enough SC judges to change the federal interpretation of the law or 4) secede.

Of course, it may be impossible for them to do 1, it will take alot of time and effort to for 2, and it probably wouldn't fly in enough states, 3 is going to take a while and 4 didn't work out so well the last time.

But, one of the options isn't to ignore the federal primacy, the last time that happened the national guard showed up and escorted those kids to school anyway.

[CaribbeanGreen]

what's the status on the FB immigration policy? I know it's not being enforced... hasn't it been declared unconstitutional a couple of times now?

Last I heard the judge said essentially "don't bother drafting the same ordinance a different way" but FB was making noise about doing just that... any news there?

[Baby Arm!]

The proof of political grandstanding?... It was a resolution not a bill

From Wikipedia: In a house of a legislature, the term non-binding resolution refers to measures that do not become laws. This is used to differentiate those measures from a bill, which is also a resolution in the technical sense. The resolution is often used to express the body's approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation's troops in battle, which carries no legal weight, but is adopted for moral support.

So whats the purpose of voting/passing this resolution??? Grandstanding.

[GoMeanGreen1999]

And what about Farmers Branch and Irving Texas stance on illegal immigration? Doesn't sound like grandstanding to me?

Rick

I could be wrong, but I believe the Farmers Branch deal has stood up in courts.

[Cerebus]

I could be wrong, but I believe the Farmers Branch deal has stood up in courts.

I did some reading on it since I was ignorant in the matter and it seems that the resolution was passed by the voters in 2007, several apartment and leasing companies complained, the wording was re-drafted in January and a federal district court judge struck it down last month.

[Censored by Laurie]

Flyer was simply agreeing for the reason for the stance the represenatives of Oklahoma took, and that they took it today, not in 18whatever? Today illegal immagration is costing us, and by my drowning thread I showed and shared a personal, RECENT experience as to how it is costing us which is in many ways impossible to put a dollar to. The stance of others supporting the M vs M case in order to argue against 1804 to me is saying that the Okc reps, with all of their assumed educated doesn't know any better. I would think they had this in mind when argueing the points? Just sounds like to me that some of you think you know better than the state reps of Okc who voted so unaminously? Excuse me if I'm reading this incorrectly.

Rick

I've read all the articles I could find with a quick google search of "drowning in the trinity river" and I can't find any mention of these men being illegal immigrants. Just wondering where you got that information from?

[Eagle1855]

I've read all the articles I could find with a quick google search of "drowning in the trinity river" and I can't find any mention of these men being illegal immigrants. Just wondering where you got that information from?

cuz they look differnt and talk differnt, duh. I think it is safe to say that if they WERE illegals, they would already know how to safely cross a river.

Anyways, back to Oklahoma... home of NOODLING!