• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Commerce Clause discussion

Rich2018 said:
He does that, on another "discussion" with him, he ignored all the references I gave him about the Constitution not allowing a state to secede.

He just kept saying that he wanted the clauses that specifically stated that in modern day English.

Finally I got him to admit he thinks he knows more about the Constitution than a Supreme Court Justice (who said the Constitution prohibited secession)


You can't argue with the "on no it isn't" pantomime style of contradiction.
Click to expand...

Not that I'd ever confuse the two, but I figure debating is like sex... it's only worth the effort if the other party at least attempts to hold up their side.
 
KtLaw said:
I wanted to see if anyone could help me get a better understanding of the commerce clause. In Wickard v. Filburn the supreme court ruled that Filburn growing his own wheat affected the commerce clause. Here are a list of questions I am unclear about when it comes to the commerce clause:

  1. Can the commerce clause be used to control what you can and cannot eat/buy?
  3. Can any building receiving natural gas be considered commerce?
  5. What limits did US v. Lopez really put on the commerce clause?
  7. US v. Jones the supreme court ruled a private dwelling doesn’t count as federal commerce, what if someone in the dwelling received federal aid like food stamps, health care, or low income housing/section 8?
  9. What was the original intent of the commerce when created by the founders?
  11. Did Obama-Care expand the commerce clause with its health care plan?
  13. What really counts as trade within the commerce clause?

I am looking for a variety of different interpretations of the commerce clause followed with a discussion from different viewpoints.
Click to expand...

Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency. Our Commerce Clause in particular implies a market based economy and Capitalism.
 
danielpalos said:
Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency. Our Commerce Clause in particular implies a market based economy and Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it KtLaw, danny has no idea what that means despite being asked to provide examples on multiple occasions.

It's as if he doesn't know what an example is.
 
Rich2018 said:
He does that, on another "discussion" with him, he ignored all the references I gave him about the Constitution not allowing a state to secede.

He just kept saying that he wanted the clauses that specifically stated that in modern day English.

Finally I got him to admit he thinks he knows more about the Constitution than a Supreme Court Justice (who said the Constitution prohibited secession)


You can't argue with the "on no it isn't" pantomime style of contradiction.
Click to expand...

And you never did actually cite the language prohibiting any state from leaving the union. Did you?
 
Samwise said:
And you never did actually cite the language prohibiting any state from leaving the union. Did you?
Click to expand...

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story did, and his comments were summarized for you (along with two other sources that said there is no legal right of secession in the Constitution as it is currently written)

You know the SC justice who spent his professional life in law and was, as a SC justice, tasked with interpreting the Constitution.

The man you state, with zero legal training and zero legal experience, is wrong.


I suppose next up you'll tell NASA how to get to Mars
Then maybe the CDC on how to cure the Corona-virus

I mean to guys like you, a lack of training and experience presents no barrier at all.
 
Rich2018 said:
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story did, and his comments were summarized for you (along with two other sources that said there is no legal right of secession in the Constitution as it is currently written)

You know the SC justice who spent his professional life in law and was, as a SC justice, tasked with interpreting the Constitution.

The man you state, with zero legal training and zero legal experience, is wrong.


I suppose next up you'll tell NASA how to get to Mars
Then maybe the CDC on how to cure the Corona-virus

I mean to guys like you, a lack of training and experience presents no barrier at all.
Click to expand...

You still haven't cited the language I claim doesn't exist and you claim does exist. Instead of talking about how you quote other people, why not just do the copy and paste thing. That would shut me right up.
 
Samwise said:
You still haven't cited the language I claim doesn't exist and you claim does exist. Instead of talking about how you quote other people, why not just do the copy and paste thing. That would shut me right up.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story did, and his comments were summarized for you (along with two other sources that said there is no legal right of secession in the Constitution as it is currently written)
The constitutional expert you say is wrong.

It's all listed in my post, I take no responsibility for refusal to read the posts and the cited constitutional language.


You know where to look.


Stay ignorant if you wish. You are wrong, all sources say you are wrong.
Since you like being smart, that is sources of constitutional scholars who agree with you. There are none. Just you.
 
Rich2018 said:
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story did, [...]
Click to expand...
Did he? What was the quote he cited that prohibits any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union?
 
Samwise said:
Did he? What was the quote he cited that prohibits any of the several sovereign states from leaving the union?
Click to expand...

They could secede; but, they would probably need to dissolve our current Union first. An unlikely event, in my opinion. The problem the South had was that they rebelled against the Union.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yeah the SC justice who you claim to know more about the Constitution than

Despite zero legal training and knowledge and a single source of anyone who agrees with you.
Click to expand...

And yet he can't cite the language in the constitution that says states are forbidden from leaving the treaty.
 
Rich2018 said:
In you legally uneducated, inexperienced mind. Nobody else's.

You opinion on the subject is worthless.
Click to expand...

You can't cite the language?
 
Samwise said:
You can't cite the language?
Click to expand...

Justice Joseph Story did - I will go with his citation

And you're just some legally ignorant guy off the internet who hasn't figured out how to use a search engine yet.
 
danielpalos said:
Yet, we had a Civil War over federal doctrine because the South rebelled.
Click to expand...

Rebellion implies that the act was prohibited. There is no such prohibition in the constitution, hence it can't properly be called rebellion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom