why did they just not say: "States shall not have the power to tax, tariff or embargo interstate commerce?"
Because the Constitution is about dictating Federal, not State, powers, hence the 9th and 10th Amendments. And you're missing the point that in the time of the Framers, as dada has repeatedly stated (no pun intended), "regulate" had a different meaning than it does today.
Whatever happened to people being able to freely associate, or not, with whomever they want? If someone has a place to rent and they only want to rent to a particular group, or exclude a group, who is anyone else to tell them what they can do with their property?
Right, you've hit the problem on the head. Our use of language has changed a lot in 200+ years but the original meaning (spirit) of the Consitution has not. It is simply reinterpreted with modern language usage by those who want to expand state power.
The first line is entirely applicable because the ID and baggage check is only required to be checked on commercial flights. The vast majority of commercial flight itineraries cross state lines so a flight is interstate commerce.
This is what SCOTUS gets wrong too, ever since Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. The purpose of the commerce clause is not to give the Feds carte blanche to control everything, but to regulate, meaning "make regular", interstate commerce, meaning the prevention of states from enacting trade barriers against each other (for example).
This is valid because this is the exact purpose of the security checks.
The Federally mandated and executed security checks treat everyone a priori like criminals by searching them without probable cause, a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Is that power listed in the Constitution? No. Therefore the Feds do not have that power. As the 10th Amendment states: "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." So according to that, State governments could have such laws, but the Federal Government cannot.
If you disagree with my assessment that it's not in there, please cut-and-paste the relevant text here. Thanks.:)
I think there should be some mandatory remedial Civics classes that people need to attend from time to time.
Most people in this country are ignorant or misinformed of the Constitution because what they've been taught was in public schools, whose curriculum is defined by government bodies: school boards and State and Federal Education (sic) departments.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights to the people, it limits the powers of the Federal Government. This was the big complaint between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (whose names are backwards). By listing some of our "rights", that eventually came to be interpreted as the only rights we have and if its not listed, we don't have it. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit what the Feds can do. That has gotten turned around 180 degrees by the SCOTUS.
It is the purpose of the SCOTUS to evaluate the constitutionality of laws, not to reiterate the bogus mantra that if a right isn't defined that we don't have it.
It's not that people have or don't have a right to travel, no matter the means, but that nowhere in the Constitution is the power granted to any branch of the government to limit people's modes of travel.
Slashdot Mirror
Please elaborate or don't bother posting.
why did they just not say: "States shall not have the power to tax, tariff or embargo interstate commerce?"
Because the Constitution is about dictating Federal, not State, powers, hence the 9th and 10th Amendments. And you're missing the point that in the time of the Framers, as dada has repeatedly stated (no pun intended), "regulate" had a different meaning than it does today.
The request was to define porn, yet look at how many times you used the word probably.
You rant about how Capitalism is a disease and yet you are selling domains in your signature?
They'll lose the lawsuit, sure. But I'm sure their hits will go up due to the publicity.
The wording and the intent have not changed, only the interpretation has.
Not in the way you think. See my post regarding the Commerce Clause.
Well don't just leave us hanging, please explain how my original two questions conflict with each other, because I don't see it.
Whatever happened to people being able to freely associate, or not, with whomever they want? If someone has a place to rent and they only want to rent to a particular group, or exclude a group, who is anyone else to tell them what they can do with their property?
Right, you've hit the problem on the head. Our use of language has changed a lot in 200+ years but the original meaning (spirit) of the Consitution has not. It is simply reinterpreted with modern language usage by those who want to expand state power.
The first line is entirely applicable because the ID and baggage check is only required to be checked on commercial flights. The vast majority of commercial flight itineraries cross state lines so a flight is interstate commerce.
This is what SCOTUS gets wrong too, ever since Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. The purpose of the commerce clause is not to give the Feds carte blanche to control everything, but to regulate, meaning "make regular", interstate commerce, meaning the prevention of states from enacting trade barriers against each other (for example).
This is valid because this is the exact purpose of the security checks.
The Federally mandated and executed security checks treat everyone a priori like criminals by searching them without probable cause, a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Is that power listed in the Constitution? No. Therefore the Feds do not have that power. As the 10th Amendment states: "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." So according to that, State governments could have such laws, but the Federal Government cannot. If you disagree with my assessment that it's not in there, please cut-and-paste the relevant text here. Thanks. :)
I think there should be some mandatory remedial Civics classes that people need to attend from time to time.
Most people in this country are ignorant or misinformed of the Constitution because what they've been taught was in public schools, whose curriculum is defined by government bodies: school boards and State and Federal Education (sic) departments.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights to the people, it limits the powers of the Federal Government. This was the big complaint between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (whose names are backwards). By listing some of our "rights", that eventually came to be interpreted as the only rights we have and if its not listed, we don't have it. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit what the Feds can do. That has gotten turned around 180 degrees by the SCOTUS.
It is the purpose of the SCOTUS to evaluate the constitutionality of laws, not to reiterate the bogus mantra that if a right isn't defined that we don't have it.
It's not that people have or don't have a right to travel, no matter the means, but that nowhere in the Constitution is the power granted to any branch of the government to limit people's modes of travel.