A moral obligation to impeach

[JimZipCode]

I think most "conservative minded" people think this. It is easy to get stuck in the weeds with Democrats and arguing over nonsense that we wouldn't even be arguing over if the Federal Government was just doing what they are supposed to be doing. Gay Marriage, Abortion, ... Race, Crime, Policing.... those things shouldn't even be coming out of a POTUS's mouth during campaign. They should be talking about our foreign policy, trade, immigration, military strategy.
...
Your school system sucks? Why is the federal government involved in trying to improve it?
We have high national statistics in hate crimes? Why is the federal government involved in this?
Abortion? Why is the Federal Government involved in this?
Pro or against gay marriage? Why are they involved in this?
Is unemployment up? What can the federal government POSSIBLY do to INCREASE employment through action? Build muh roads?? Outside of the Interstate System, your state controls bridges, roads, and intrastate highways.

By giving up more and more rights to our Federal Government, we, as voters give up more of our say in what happens to us on a personal level. If your governor sucks, you can run for governor, or state legislature, or call them up, or meet them at a local event. If you state becomes SUPER liberal or SUPER Conservative – move a couple hundred miles to a better situation. Voting for ANY candidate on the federal level that wants to give you MORE takes away more of your liberty.

I think you've articulated the classic Anti-Federalist viewpoint – not the Conservative viewpoint; nor really the Republican viewpoint. But the party is a coalition, so of course it's silly to speak of a "pure" Republican viewpoint.

There's a strong Classic Federalist response to that viewpoint; but since you want to frame that as "conservative", I'll stick to what I think is the "Liberal" half of that viewpoint. It revolves around (a) local violations of civil rights, (b) environmental-type stuff that can only be addressed nationally rather than locally, and (c) structural / "rule-setting" functions that effect the national economy.

So for example:

(a)

In the 1950s and early 1960s, black citizens in the former Confederate states were de facto denied rights that they de jure held. Redlining and predatory lending continued at least into the late 1970s in places like Chicago. Local jurisdictions either did not give a shit, or actively participated in these oppressions. Federal intervention was necessary to restore rights; the federal govt had that authority under the 14th & 15th amendments. Targeted disenfranchisement is still an issue in the modern day, as for example the fun experiments conducted in that laboratory of democracy based in Raleigh, N Carolina these past 5-10 years.

Most of you don't agree with me that anti-Choice is precisely equivalent to slavery. But that would be why the fed would be involved in those laws: preserving rights Constitutionally guaranteed to citizens (13th amendment in my view; Roe v Wade othersise), but that many state legislatures want to deny to their residents.

Similar for gay marriage. The full faith & credit clause is in Article IV, and marriage was identified by the Supreme Court as one of the "basic civil rights of man" at least as far back as 1942 (Skinner v. Oklahoma). But some jurisdictions want to deny that right to (soime of) their residents.

(b)

Lots of pollution-related stuff requires federal-level intervention. A manufacturer in Minneapolis-St Paul can dump waste into the Mississippi, residents in New Orleans can feel the impact. Smoke-stacks in Cincinnati or Chicago are going to impact residents in the next state. And so forth. Local municipalities simple cannot handle issues like that, if they devolve into disputes. Those issues are inherently federal, due to their inter-state nature.

(c)

By "structural" or rule-setting, I'm referring to things like commodities trading and reporting requirements for publicly-traded companies. Not areas where I can really speak knowledgeably/confidently: but it's not a state-level arena.


Stuff involving air travel and trans-con railways has always been too self-evidently inter-state for there to be any "other side" when it comes to arguing federal govt involvement.



“Taking away more of your liberty” – well.

We always give up a portion of our liberty, in order to live in a community. I gave up my freedom to have sex with waitresses, when I got married. You might have given up your freedom to practice on your drum kit after 10pm when you moved into an apartment. Of course, those are quips, not the substantive types of things you're referencing. But I mention them to invoke the concept of tradeoff.

Ever read the cover letter that George Washington wrote, when the Philadelphia Convention sent the Consitution to Congress? Not the "letter of transmittal", which was a resolution by unanimous order of the Convention. This one is in the form of a personal letter to the president of Congress. Did you ever see it? It's a remarkable document, I think. Not often referenced; it seems to be little known. Short & sweet.

Here's the middle half:

Washington's Letter
https://www.usconstitution.net/prespres.html

It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all — Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible.

[blah3]

Classic lib thinking. Gay marriage is protected in the constitution but the life of an unborn is not.
Oh and that nice letter from Washington was soooo convincing that the bill of rights got added to protect people from govt, you know at the behest of those anti-federalists

[DitkasSausage]

I think you've articulated the classic Anti-Federalist viewpoint – not the Conservative viewpoint; nor really the Republican viewpoint. But the party is a coalition, so of course it's silly to speak of a "pure" Republican viewpoint.

There's a strong Classic Federalist response to that viewpoint; but since you want to frame that as "conservative", I'll stick to what I think is the "Liberal" half of that viewpoint. It revolves around (a) local violations of civil rights, (b) environmental-type stuff that can only be addressed nationally rather than locally, and (c) structural / "rule-setting" functions that effect the national economy.

So for example:

(a)

In the 1950s and early 1960s, black citizens in the former Confederate states were de facto denied rights that they de jure held. Redlining and predatory lending continued at least into the late 1970s in places like Chicago. Local jurisdictions either did not give a shit, or actively participated in these oppressions. Federal intervention was necessary to restore rights; the federal govt had that authority under the 14th & 15th amendments. Targeted disenfranchisement is still an issue in the modern day, as for example the fun experiments conducted in that laboratory of democracy based in Raleigh, N Carolina these past 5-10 years.

Most of you don't agree with me that anti-Choice is precisely equivalent to slavery. But that would be why the fed would be involved in those laws: preserving rights Constitutionally guaranteed to citizens (13th amendment in my view; Roe v Wade othersise), but that many state legislatures want to deny to their residents.

Similar for gay marriage. The full faith & credit clause is in Article IV, and marriage was identified by the Supreme Court as one of the "basic civil rights of man" at least as far back as 1942 (Skinner v. Oklahoma). But some jurisdictions want to deny that right to (soime of) their residents.

(b)

Lots of pollution-related stuff requires federal-level intervention. A manufacturer in Minneapolis-St Paul can dump waste into the Mississippi, residents in New Orleans can feel the impact. Smoke-stacks in Cincinnati or Chicago are going to impact residents in the next state. And so forth. Local municipalities simple cannot handle issues like that, if they devolve into disputes. Those issues are inherently federal, due to their inter-state nature.

(c)

By "structural" or rule-setting, I'm referring to things like commodities trading and reporting requirements for publicly-traded companies. Not areas where I can really speak knowledgeably/confidently: but it's not a state-level arena.


Stuff involving air travel and trans-con railways has always been too self-evidently inter-state for there to be any "other side" when it comes to arguing federal govt involvement.



“Taking away more of your liberty” – well.

We always give up a portion of our liberty, in order to live in a community. I gave up my freedom to have sex with waitresses, when I got married. You might have given up your freedom to practice on your drum kit after 10pm when you moved into an apartment. Of course, those are quips, not the substantive types of things you're referencing. But I mention them to invoke the concept of tradeoff.

Ever read the cover letter that George Washington wrote, when the Philadelphia Convention sent the Consitution to Congress? Not the "letter of transmittal", which was a resolution by unanimous order of the Convention. This one is in the form of a personal letter to the president of Congress. Did you ever see it? It's a remarkable document, I think. Not often referenced; it seems to be little known. Short & sweet.

Here's the middle half:

Washington's Letter
https://www.usconstitution.net/prespres.html

That's the thing... The federal government breaks the amendments all the time. In each of your arguments it was a State doing something illegal. Instead of letting the legislative branch stay in its lane and allow the judicial branch to do IT'S job, congress decided to go WAY out of its way to create departments and agencies that literally do nothing.

Your Race Argument: First of all you spoke of Predatory Lending and other racial injustices... The 14th and 15th amendments limit the government from putting VOTING regulations on certain ages, races, and genders. Chicago, due to internal pressures, changed their practices and adopted their own civil rights due to those pressures internally... well before the Federal Government got involved. In other words, local people voted to change racial inequality. Truly, the south was actually starting to feel internal pressure to abolish slavery (which technically was illegal to begin with). Their economy was struggling, people were leaving the south for jobs in the north, and it was totally trade imbalanced to the north. They were making almost no diversity of agrarian products, and were an enormous agricultural part of the country... yet had to have food shipped from the north... that is how bad it was. The midwest was just starting to boom for food production, and it would have economically destroyed the south unless it made changes. A VERY quickly growing population in the South was swelling against slavery and plantation economics.

Environmental: This is exactly what the judicial branch is for. Here is the federal governments role, label pollutants as legal damage. Done. If your state is getting the runoff from another state, you handle that through the legal system, and penalize the company doing it. You don't start a trillion dollar agency to watch it. My brother and I both work in environmental services in the private sector, and literally EVERY SINGLE TIME the EPA gets involved, it costs ridiculous amounts of money to make a situation worse for the environment. It is almost like their entire mandate is to make everything worse really. It is an agency run by green-peace morons and gets 95% of its information from Grad-Student papers... they are the dumbest people in government (obvious personal bias noted).

Corporate: Once again... judiciary. self regulating. Good example of the Fed destroying a corporate entity... television and radio. We had massive growth in both markets up until the FCC REALLY started to get involved in both. They are really trying to regulate and eventually hurt the internet via the "net neurtrality act" which is absurd. It is the government trying to regulate a problem that does not exist. Currently, there are zero cases of throttling service.

Air Travel - Transportation: I'd perfectly accept the legislative branch putting in requirements for private air-travel companies to have minimum standards for radar and communication between other operations between states. Also, interstate highways: Two governors can work together to agree on border crossing roads.
*Sidenote - Government has fully controlled (through proxy, regulation, and other methods) our rail system for a LONG time now, and it is probably the worst way to travel for us. Why? Because we don't build new lanes, there is no competition, and regulations have made it virtually impossible to maintain current equipment - Federal Government has actually HINDERED most mass travel*



I have a meeting... TBC

[Ortizer]

That's the thing... The federal government breaks the amendments all the time. In each of your arguments it was a State doing something illegal. Instead of letting the legislative branch stay in its lane and allow the judicial branch to do IT'S job, congress decided to go WAY out of its way to create departments and agencies that literally do nothing.

Your Race Argument: First of all you spoke of Predatory Lending and other racial injustices... The 14th and 15th amendments limit the government from putting VOTING regulations on certain ages, races, and genders. Chicago, due to internal pressures, changed their practices and adopted their own civil rights due to those pressures internally... well before the Federal Government got involved. In other words, local people voted to change racial inequality. Truly, the south was actually starting to feel internal pressure to abolish slavery (which technically was illegal to begin with). Their economy was struggling, people were leaving the south for jobs in the north, and it was totally trade imbalanced to the north. They were making almost no diversity of agrarian products, and were an enormous agricultural part of the country... yet had to have food shipped from the north... that is how bad it was. The midwest was just starting to boom for food production, and it would have economically destroyed the south unless it made changes. A VERY quickly growing population in the South was swelling against slavery and plantation economics.

Environmental: This is exactly what the judicial branch is for. Here is the federal governments role, label pollutants as legal damage. Done. If your state is getting the runoff from another state, you handle that through the legal system, and penalize the company doing it. You don't start a trillion dollar agency to watch it. My brother and I both work in environmental services in the private sector, and literally EVERY SINGLE TIME the EPA gets involved, it costs ridiculous amounts of money to make a situation worse for the environment. It is almost like their entire mandate is to make everything worse really. It is an agency run by green-peace morons and gets 95% of its information from Grad-Student papers... they are the dumbest people in government (obvious personal bias noted).

Corporate: Once again... judiciary. self regulating. Good example of the Fed destroying a corporate entity... television and radio. We had massive growth in both markets up until the FCC REALLY started to get involved in both. They are really trying to regulate and eventually hurt the internet via the "net neurtrality act" which is absurd. It is the government trying to regulate a problem that does not exist. Currently, there are zero cases of throttling service.

Air Travel - Transportation: I'd perfectly accept the legislative branch putting in requirements for private air-travel companies to have minimum standards for radar and communication between other operations between states. Also, interstate highways: Two governors can work together to agree on border crossing roads.
*Sidenote - Government has fully controlled (through proxy, regulation, and other methods) our rail system for a LONG time now, and it is probably the worst way to travel for us. Why? Because we don't build new lanes, there is no competition, and regulations have made it virtually impossible to maintain current equipment - Federal Government has actually HINDERED most mass travel*



I have a meeting... TBC

Interstate highways support interstate trade, so while two governors can agree on roads, it is in the fed swim lane per the constitution.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[DitkasSausage]

Interstate highways support interstate trade, so while two governors can agree on roads, it is in the fed swim lane per the constitution.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Two states can't trade willingly? That isn't true at all, and it isn't a luxury that the Fed "allows". In fact, the only interstate trade the government has a say in is industries that it regulates... trade that involves finances and licencing... like Insurance and Real Estate. The Fed's job is more about restricting free trade between states. Name an instance where the Fed pushes more trade between states... and it cannot be via the removal of a previous fed restriction. I'm really curious to see all of the amazing deals the Fed has negotiated in the last 40 years of interstate trade as it pertains to over the road commodities....

[Ortizer]

Two states can't trade willingly? That isn't true at all, and it isn't a luxury that the Fed "allows". In fact, the only interstate trade the government has a say in is industries that it regulates... trade that involves finances and licencing... like Insurance and Real Estate. The Fed's job is more about restricting free trade between states. Name an instance where the Fed pushes more trade between states... and it cannot be via the removal of a previous fed restriction. I'm really curious to see all of the amazing deals the Fed has negotiated in the last 40 years of interstate trade as it pertains to over the road commodities....

I haven't checked the constitution in awhile, but can you point to where the federal highway system would run afoul? I'm pretty sure the federal government is granted broad powers around anything at play with interstate commerce.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[DitkasSausage]

I haven't checked the constitution in awhile, but can you point to where the federal highway system would run afoul? I'm pretty sure the federal government is granted broad powers around anything at play with interstate commerce.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

They have the power to regulate trade.... do interstate highways "regulate" trade of commodities? Regulations are another way of saying restrictions... the federal government, pre-civil war era, used that power as a broad and sweeping measure because they were restricting the south and their agricultural trade within the states. Since 1986, the governmental control was much more limited under the commerce clause... still, under NO definition do roads fall under trade regulation. By your definition, there is nothing stopping the Federal Government to set up Federal audit checkpoints at state lines and Tax intrastate trade via the highways... which they cannot do and it is why tolls are run by states and are per axle (states are a-holes and that was the easiest way around taxing intrastate commerce)... so no... the Federal government, under the Commerce Clause, is not given broad powers "around anything at play" with commerce. They are allowed to create regulations, not encourage deal-making via transit....

Would you really WANT a Federal Government that put regulations on ALL intrastate trade? Just because they can, you are both coming across like you think more regulations from the Fed are somehow beneficial... they aren't... which is why Health Insurance sucks, and why selling your house and buying one in another state sucks too.

[Ortizer]

They have the power to regulate trade.... do interstate highways "regulate" trade of commodities? Regulations are another way of saying restrictions... the federal government, pre-civil war era, used that power as a broad and sweeping measure because they were restricting the south and their agricultural trade within the states. Since 1986, the governmental control was much more limited under the commerce clause... still, under NO definition do roads fall under trade regulation. By your definition, there is nothing stopping the Federal Government to set up Federal audit checkpoints at state lines and Tax intrastate trade via the highways... which they cannot do and it is why tolls are run by states and are per axle (states are a-holes and that was the easiest way around taxing intrastate commerce)... so no... the Federal government, under the Commerce Clause, is not given broad powers "around anything at play" with commerce. They are allowed to create regulations, not encourage deal-making via transit....

Would you really WANT a Federal Government that put regulations on ALL intrastate trade? Just because they can, you are both coming across like you think more regulations from the Fed are somehow beneficial... they aren't... which is why Health Insurance sucks, and why selling your house and buying one in another state sucks too.

When did I say anything about what I want? We simply stating that I thought the federal government had that power.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[Ortizer]

When did I say anything about what I want? We simply stating that I thought the federal government had that power.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Which the Supreme Court ruled they did in 1907 incidentally.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[bacchys]

Classic lib thinking. Gay marriage is protected in the constitution but the life of an unborn is not.
Oh and that nice letter from Washington was soooo convincing that the bill of rights got added to protect people from govt, you know at the behest of those anti-federalists

I think the Court erred in mandating same sex marriage (not "gay marriage"). They articulated a principle they didn't really believe in, and the dismissal of other marital arrangements like incestuous and polyamorous unions in the several court decisions legalizing same sex marriage show it. There's no going back at this point, however.

Current abortion jurisprudence tracks with the historical common law approach, with the main exception being that it's no crime at all under Roe v. Wade whereas Blackstone could accurately say it was "a great misprision but no murder."

[bacchys]

Interstate highways support interstate trade, so while two governors can agree on roads, it is in the fed swim lane per the constitution.

The Constitutional basis for the Interstate Highway System are common defense and post roads, not regulating trade.

[Ortizer]

The Constitutional basis for the Interstate Highway System are common defense and post roads, not regulating trade.

The Supreme Court has actually ruled all 3 are constitutional basis for the federal government to build highways.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk