That is not true. That is the whole point of the 10th amendment and enumerated powers of Congress. States are sovereign and have right to exercise all powers not delegated to the Federal government. It can not override state criminal law.
The case you cite deals specifically with traffic law and can't be generalized to all situations, but let's look at it anyway.
That a Federal employee is not immune from arrest for noncompliance with State traffic regulation where performance of his duties did not necessitate such noncompliance is well illustrated by the following excerpt from the opinion of the court in Oklahoma v. Willingham, 143 F.Supp. 445 (E.D.Okla., 1956, (p. 448):
The State of Oklahoma has not only the right hut the responsibility to regulate travel upon its highways. The power of the state to regulate such travel has not been surrendered to the Federal Government. An employee of the Federal Government must obey the traffic laws of the state although he may be traveling in the ordinary course of his employment. No law of the United States authorizes a rural mail carrier, while engaged in delivering mail on his route, to violate the provisions of the state those who use the highways.
Guilt or innocence is not involved, but there is involved a question of whether or not the prosecution is based on an official act of the defendant. There is nothing official about how or when the defendant re-entered the lane of traffic on the highway. There is no official connection between the acts complained of and the official duties of the mail carrier. The mere fact that the defendant was on duty and delivering mail along his route does not present any federal question and administration of the work of the Post Office Department does not require a carrier, while delivering mail, to drive his car from a stopped position into the path of an approaching automobile. When he is charged with doing so, his defense is under state law and is not different from that of any other citizen.
Where, on the other hand, the Federal employee could not discharge his duties without violating State or local traffic regulations, it has been that he is immune from any liability under State or local law for such noncompliance.
(emphasis mine)
Basically, the whole case boils down to this: Federal agents cannot violate state laws and are not immune to prosecution normally. However, when there is no other choice, then the agent is held immune for a particular act. In the case it mentions a Federal agent in pursuit of a suspect that broke traffic laws and ended up hitting someone with his vehicle. He is held immune to that, the same way a cop or fire engine would be held immune for speeding and running lights on their way to a scene.
None of this has anything to do with the discussion of the TSA. Try again.
That is only so because so many people accept that. I think a more sane interpretation (one that the Supreme Court, itself, used to follow before FDR) does not give Congress powers as broad as they are claiming. It is still possible to reverse that interpretation, and while I don't really expect it to happen, I will continue to advocate for it.
That doesn't give the TSA the right to assault people. If a TSA agent punches someone in the stomach, that is obviously assault and that agent will be arrested and prosecuted under state law. If the state defines assault in a way that makes their pat downs assault (or some other crime), they can legally do that to protect their citizens.
Treaties are a loophole. They don't need to have a delegated power behind them. I parse the clause this way: The Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.
There was a Supreme Court case that dealt with this. Congress passed a law that regulated some migratory birds in some way (gave them certain protections or whatever). A state objected and took it to the Supreme Court and had the law overturned as unconstitutional because the Federal government doesn't have that power (they even tried to argue that the birds crossing state borders constituted interstate commerce, ha!) In response, they made a treaty (with Canada maybe? I can't quite remember) that made the same protections for the birds. The state objected again, but the court said, nope, sorry that is now the supreme law of the land.
I don't really like that, because it bypasses the House of Representatives completely and it makes it much easier to essentially amend the Constitution by treaty. This is what makes things like ACTA so fracking dangerous!
In order for Federal Law to trump state law, it has to be made in pursuance of its Constitutionally delegated powers. If Congress passes a law which they are not granted the power to do as part of their enumerated powers, then it does not trump state laws. That is why there is no federal drinking age, speed limit, etc. Those powers are not granted to it, so instead they simply bribe the states into passing laws to their intended effect by threatening to withhold transportation money.
Powers that are not enumerated to the Federal government belong to the states to begin with, and therefore cannot be trumped by Federal law. Laws concerning criminal activity such as assault, cannot be trumped by Congress. Therefore, if a state passes a law that classifies what the TSA is doing as assault, it definitely is within their power. That is why the feds have to resort to threatening to shut down their airspace if the law is passed rather than challenge the law in court.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." (Article VI, Clause 2)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment)
In addition to the national income tax, most states have their own state income tax. In addition to that most, have property taxes, school taxes (also paid by property owners). Counties, towns, and other localities can also levy their own property taxes and sales taxes.
The national income tax goes directly to the federal government (which they then use to bribe the states into passing laws they can't pass nationally), everything else is local to the state and/or municipalities.
When you add everything up, I'm not sure it is so certain that our taxes are lower than anywhere else, but I have not looked at the numbers closely.
Money wouldn't even have the same real value today compared to a hundred years ago without inflation, since it would experience deflation.
You're right, it wouldn't be worth the same. Deflation would cause it be worth more.
Even an entirely gold-based economy would experience inflation.
It would only experience inflation if the amount of gold being mined and added to the money supply substantially outpaces the addition of new labor into the workforce.
We are entering an era where individuals have unprecedented access to information and have a much greater ability to innovate. However, go ahead and try to do that and see how far you get.
As soon as you start to make any kind of money with something, the IRS will consider your little venture to be a business and you will have to pay self-employment taxes (that is, all the taxes you would normally pay if you worked for someone else PLUS the employer-paid portions). If, despite that and all the hoops you have to jump through to make your business legal, you still manage to grow successfully, you will have to hire employees (paying more taxes, more regulations, etc).
If you STILL have the gall to be successful, why we'll show you! We'll just raise your taxes! Anyone making over $250k a year (that's enough for a business to hire, what, one or two employees?) is rich and needs to pay more!
Ok, ok. I'm a little frustrated at how hard it is to start a business. I guess it doesn't help that I live in New York state.
He is not necessarily advocating anarchy, but liberty.
Government's main role is to protect the people's rights, but the philosophy of liberty says that people cannot delegate authority to another agent that they don't have to begin with. So, if you don't have the right to use violence against others to take away their possessions, neither can you delegate that ability to the government.
In your example, the person raping and pillaging the countryside does not have the right to use violence against others. However, the victims of his actions do have the right to defend themselves, using force if necessary. Therefore, those individuals can delegate the task of protecting them to the government, who can use force and the law to prosecute that individual.
Jesus wouldn't say "For millions of years" because he believes his father only made us 4,000 years ago.
Actually, no place in the Bible comes right out and says what the age of the Earth is. The 6000 year figure comes from some people's (weak) interpretation of some verses.
But the changes happen very quickly. Natural selection happens over a very long period of time.
I don't think the changing beak sizes are due to natural selection. I think the capability for the range of beak sizes is already present in their DNA (and maybe they evolved that way). But the changes are too fast to say that natural selection is causing the variance. If it were true, wouldn't there be a lot of dead finches? (Maybe there are, but I haven't heard any mention of it)
Being a seeker of the truth, if something I say is incorrect, I will gladly accept correction. Name-calling is totally unnecessary and inappropriate.
My understanding is that Darwin attributed the changes in the finches' beak sizes to natural selection; that they were evolving to new species as a result of a separation of different populations of finches on the islands.
He was only observing them for a short time, so he would not have noticed that the beak sizes actually revert back to their previous size once the environmental conditions favor it. Because it happens in far less time than would be required if natural selection were the mechanism of change, it would seem that Darwin's theory does not explain the changing beak sizes in the finches.
I have not read any books on Darwin's Finches, so if I am mistaken on anything I said, please feel free to enlighten me.
Nothing I said should be construed to suggest that I don't believe evolution is a real phenomenon.
Of course, the article simply blames it on human interactions rather than admit there might be a flaw in Darwin's Theory, but there it is.
I have read in other sources that the finches beaks actually oscillate in size depending on environmental factors (they get longer or shorter depending on how wet or dry it is).
The whole idea of a healthcare insurance is to spread the risk between people... therefore it's pretty much necessary that healthy and unhealthy people pay the same.
That's not how car insurance works. People with a higher risk of accidents pay more. That's why your premiums go up after a speeding ticket, and go down when you get married / have kids. Your premiums change with your statistical level of risk.
I don't know how other forms of insurance work, so maybe someone can enlighten me, but I assume they also charge based on risk.
The end of the clause, which reads "or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms" would make it apply to those other people. I would agree with you that without that bit at the end it would be problematic, but I think that is enough to make it okay.
I know of a California law that requires you to provide ID when stopped by the police that was struck down by the Supreme Court. That would make all other such laws invalid as well.
I would be curious what a nation would look like with most of it's power deliberated at the State level (or province, as I'm in Canada).
That is exactly the form of government that was created by the US Constitution. Over time, the Federal government has continually grabbed more and more power such that it is less true today, but some States are starting to assert their sovereignty a little more.
With the ratification of the Constitution, the States delegated certain specific powers to the general government, they retained any and all remaining powers.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank heavens that Senators are no longer susceptible to corruption!
That is not true. That is the whole point of the 10th amendment and enumerated powers of Congress. States are sovereign and have right to exercise all powers not delegated to the Federal government. It can not override state criminal law.
The case you cite deals specifically with traffic law and can't be generalized to all situations, but let's look at it anyway.
That a Federal employee is not immune from arrest for noncompliance with State traffic regulation where performance of his duties did not necessitate such noncompliance is well illustrated by the following excerpt from the opinion of the court in Oklahoma v. Willingham, 143 F.Supp. 445 (E.D.Okla., 1956, (p. 448):
The State of Oklahoma has not only the right hut the responsibility to regulate travel upon its highways. The power of the state to regulate such travel has not been surrendered to the Federal Government. An employee of the Federal Government must obey the traffic laws of the state although he may be traveling in the ordinary course of his employment. No law of the United States authorizes a rural mail carrier, while engaged in delivering mail on his route, to violate the provisions of the state those who use the highways.
Guilt or innocence is not involved, but there is involved a question of whether or not the prosecution is based on an official act of the defendant. There is nothing official about how or when the defendant re-entered the lane of traffic on the highway. There is no official connection between the acts complained of and the official duties of the mail carrier. The mere fact that the defendant was on duty and delivering mail along his route does not present any federal question and administration of the work of the Post Office Department does not require a carrier, while delivering mail, to drive his car from a stopped position into the path of an approaching automobile. When he is charged with doing so, his defense is under state law and is not different from that of any other citizen.
Where, on the other hand, the Federal employee could not discharge his duties without violating State or local traffic regulations, it has been that he is immune from any liability under State or local law for such noncompliance.
(emphasis mine)
Basically, the whole case boils down to this: Federal agents cannot violate state laws and are not immune to prosecution normally. However, when there is no other choice, then the agent is held immune for a particular act. In the case it mentions a Federal agent in pursuit of a suspect that broke traffic laws and ended up hitting someone with his vehicle. He is held immune to that, the same way a cop or fire engine would be held immune for speeding and running lights on their way to a scene.
None of this has anything to do with the discussion of the TSA. Try again.
That is only so because so many people accept that. I think a more sane interpretation (one that the Supreme Court, itself, used to follow before FDR) does not give Congress powers as broad as they are claiming. It is still possible to reverse that interpretation, and while I don't really expect it to happen, I will continue to advocate for it.
That doesn't give the TSA the right to assault people. If a TSA agent punches someone in the stomach, that is obviously assault and that agent will be arrested and prosecuted under state law. If the state defines assault in a way that makes their pat downs assault (or some other crime), they can legally do that to protect their citizens.
Treaties are a loophole. They don't need to have a delegated power behind them. I parse the clause this way: The Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.
There was a Supreme Court case that dealt with this. Congress passed a law that regulated some migratory birds in some way (gave them certain protections or whatever). A state objected and took it to the Supreme Court and had the law overturned as unconstitutional because the Federal government doesn't have that power (they even tried to argue that the birds crossing state borders constituted interstate commerce, ha!) In response, they made a treaty (with Canada maybe? I can't quite remember) that made the same protections for the birds. The state objected again, but the court said, nope, sorry that is now the supreme law of the land.
I don't really like that, because it bypasses the House of Representatives completely and it makes it much easier to essentially amend the Constitution by treaty. This is what makes things like ACTA so fracking dangerous!
Yes, but the states are not trying to regulate the planes. They are trying to regulate the TSA searches.
In order for Federal Law to trump state law, it has to be made in pursuance of its Constitutionally delegated powers. If Congress passes a law which they are not granted the power to do as part of their enumerated powers, then it does not trump state laws. That is why there is no federal drinking age, speed limit, etc. Those powers are not granted to it, so instead they simply bribe the states into passing laws to their intended effect by threatening to withhold transportation money.
Powers that are not enumerated to the Federal government belong to the states to begin with, and therefore cannot be trumped by Federal law. Laws concerning criminal activity such as assault, cannot be trumped by Congress. Therefore, if a state passes a law that classifies what the TSA is doing as assault, it definitely is within their power. That is why the feds have to resort to threatening to shut down their airspace if the law is passed rather than challenge the law in court.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." (Article VI, Clause 2)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment)
Some of the essential programs of the departments being cut get moved to other departments under his plan.
In addition to the national income tax, most states have their own state income tax. In addition to that most, have property taxes, school taxes (also paid by property owners). Counties, towns, and other localities can also levy their own property taxes and sales taxes.
The national income tax goes directly to the federal government (which they then use to bribe the states into passing laws they can't pass nationally), everything else is local to the state and/or municipalities.
When you add everything up, I'm not sure it is so certain that our taxes are lower than anywhere else, but I have not looked at the numbers closely.
Money wouldn't even have the same real value today compared to a hundred years ago without inflation, since it would experience deflation.
You're right, it wouldn't be worth the same. Deflation would cause it be worth more.
Even an entirely gold-based economy would experience inflation.
It would only experience inflation if the amount of gold being mined and added to the money supply substantially outpaces the addition of new labor into the workforce.
I think you are absolutely right.
We are entering an era where individuals have unprecedented access to information and have a much greater ability to innovate. However, go ahead and try to do that and see how far you get.
As soon as you start to make any kind of money with something, the IRS will consider your little venture to be a business and you will have to pay self-employment taxes (that is, all the taxes you would normally pay if you worked for someone else PLUS the employer-paid portions). If, despite that and all the hoops you have to jump through to make your business legal, you still manage to grow successfully, you will have to hire employees (paying more taxes, more regulations, etc).
If you STILL have the gall to be successful, why we'll show you! We'll just raise your taxes! Anyone making over $250k a year (that's enough for a business to hire, what, one or two employees?) is rich and needs to pay more!
Ok, ok. I'm a little frustrated at how hard it is to start a business. I guess it doesn't help that I live in New York state.
He is not necessarily advocating anarchy, but liberty.
Government's main role is to protect the people's rights, but the philosophy of liberty says that people cannot delegate authority to another agent that they don't have to begin with. So, if you don't have the right to use violence against others to take away their possessions, neither can you delegate that ability to the government.
In your example, the person raping and pillaging the countryside does not have the right to use violence against others. However, the victims of his actions do have the right to defend themselves, using force if necessary. Therefore, those individuals can delegate the task of protecting them to the government, who can use force and the law to prosecute that individual.
Jesus wouldn't say "For millions of years" because he believes his father only made us 4,000 years ago.
Actually, no place in the Bible comes right out and says what the age of the Earth is. The 6000 year figure comes from some people's (weak) interpretation of some verses.
But the changes happen very quickly. Natural selection happens over a very long period of time.
I don't think the changing beak sizes are due to natural selection. I think the capability for the range of beak sizes is already present in their DNA (and maybe they evolved that way). But the changes are too fast to say that natural selection is causing the variance. If it were true, wouldn't there be a lot of dead finches? (Maybe there are, but I haven't heard any mention of it)
Being a seeker of the truth, if something I say is incorrect, I will gladly accept correction. Name-calling is totally unnecessary and inappropriate.
My understanding is that Darwin attributed the changes in the finches' beak sizes to natural selection; that they were evolving to new species as a result of a separation of different populations of finches on the islands.
He was only observing them for a short time, so he would not have noticed that the beak sizes actually revert back to their previous size once the environmental conditions favor it. Because it happens in far less time than would be required if natural selection were the mechanism of change, it would seem that Darwin's theory does not explain the changing beak sizes in the finches.
I have not read any books on Darwin's Finches, so if I am mistaken on anything I said, please feel free to enlighten me.
Nothing I said should be construed to suggest that I don't believe evolution is a real phenomenon.
He did not suggest they would revert back, though.
http://www.modernghana.com/news/98775/1/darwins-finches-revert-to-type.html
Of course, the article simply blames it on human interactions rather than admit there might be a flaw in Darwin's Theory, but there it is.
I have read in other sources that the finches beaks actually oscillate in size depending on environmental factors (they get longer or shorter depending on how wet or dry it is).
The whole idea of a healthcare insurance is to spread the risk between people... therefore it's pretty much necessary that healthy and unhealthy people pay the same.
That's not how car insurance works. People with a higher risk of accidents pay more. That's why your premiums go up after a speeding ticket, and go down when you get married / have kids. Your premiums change with your statistical level of risk.
I don't know how other forms of insurance work, so maybe someone can enlighten me, but I assume they also charge based on risk.
So, why would health insurance be different?
The end of the clause, which reads "or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms" would make it apply to those other people. I would agree with you that without that bit at the end it would be problematic, but I think that is enough to make it okay.
"We can name it later!"
In what way does it violate the Constitution? Are you talking about the U.S. Constitution, or the Texas Constitution?
I know of a California law that requires you to provide ID when stopped by the police that was struck down by the Supreme Court. That would make all other such laws invalid as well.
I would be curious what a nation would look like with most of it's power deliberated at the State level (or province, as I'm in Canada).
That is exactly the form of government that was created by the US Constitution. Over time, the Federal government has continually grabbed more and more power such that it is less true today, but some States are starting to assert their sovereignty a little more.
With the ratification of the Constitution, the States delegated certain specific powers to the general government, they retained any and all remaining powers.