Police attacking the left across Midwest

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even in theory it's hardly unique.

I wasn't aware of another Western European country where the federal government has such limited soveriegnty (ie, can only do things especially granted to them) in theory.

But that doesn't mean they don't exist . Which countries have the same structure? Does Austria? Hmmm... I guess Switzerland might with its 11 cantons (IIRC). Unfortuently, I'm American , my knowledge of the governments of other countries is sorely lacking.

Well there is a lot of natural law thinking behind your constitution, but if you consider the quite obvious intent of the framers not to touch slavery, that's not classic natural law thinking.

Never said it was. Just that because of the Constitution, natural law (at least on the right) has a TOTALLY different meaning.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think she'd like a dinner and a movie first. America doesn't strike me as that kind of girl.

America's a top.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And isn't positi(v)sm basically textualism, more or less?

No. Textualism, and positivism can line up, but not necessarily.

Positivism is the theory that law is purely a man-made construction and that there is no natural law to which it refers.

Textualism is the view that statutory interpretation should be confined to the actual text of the statute - and not a balancing of equities, reference to legislative history etc.

They can line up because a textualist might argue that natural law is irrelevant to textual interpretation.

However, and Siddi will likely disagree with me here, Clarence Thomas is a Natural Law textualist - he interprets the text within a natural law framework.

Lawyers often have a hard time wrapping their minds around the implications of Textualism. Scalia, for instance, sees textualism as a method for reading statutes as a "reasonable speaker of English would". Of course, this notion of meaning has been dead since Frege and the Vienna Circle stole our "semantic innocence". Thomas is just more forthright about the interpretive "lens" through which he is reading the text. Scalia is doing the same thing - which is why texts always seem to go as ideologically conservative as their language will bear when Scalia is reading them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only problem I have with calling Thomas a natural law textualist, is I don't see how someone who looks at the intent of the framers can really be called a textualist, unless you expand the notion of textualism greatly. Scalia, at the very least, rails against the idea of legislative history and the 'beliefs' of the authors of legislation.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Kidicious

This is usually done in depressed neighborhoods where more jobs are needed. Also, Home Depot does provide a service to the community. I shop there myself

Home Depot is a notorious union buster - the poor don't need these sorts of favors. Home Depot pays lightly better than a McJob - but not much. They also rely heavily on part time labor so they don't have to provide benefits.

Yeah, all they care about is profit. Home Depot will bring profit, but in this case I have to say that it will also benefit the community.

How? By ruining local business and taking away homes so that we can buy more lumber to improve our homes, that Home Depot will then take away?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The only problem I have with calling Thomas a natural law textualist, is I don't see how someone who looks at the intent of the framers can really be called a textualist, unless you expand the notion of textualism greatly. Scalia, at the very least, rails against the idea of legislative history and the 'beliefs' of the authors of legislation.

The problem with Scalia is that he is operating under a 19th Century view of language and meaning. This would be like designing satellites using only Newtonian physics. Now I will agree that Thomas does strecth the traditional meaning of textualists, but the traditional definition relys too much on the text without fleshing out methods of interpretation (or textualism is a suppression of explict examination of interpretive methods - this is an interseting question in itself).

Thomas generally stays within the text (not balancing equities) but uses Natural Law and original intent to flesh out the meaning of the text. Perhaps Thomas is best understood as somewhere between original intent and textualism (I can see how he does not fit neatly into either).

At any rate, the fact that Thomas likes original intent cracks me up because the original intent of the founders was to make him (Thomas) 3/5 of a person.

[Imran Siddiqui]

(As you may be able to tell, I have no use for original intent people )

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


(As you may be able to tell, I have no use for original intent people )

I got that impression. Neither do I.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, then some advice... watch out for some of the extreme Libertarians (bezerker, David Floyd, sometimes Wraith)0. Not only are they original intent, but like to have arguments that deal with parsing every statement... They may have posts that have 100 quotes (all with sentances in your posts). It gets absolutely maddening to reply to .

[HershOstropoler]

Imran:

"I wasn't aware of another Western European country where the federal government has such limited soveriegnty (ie, can only do things especially granted to them) in theory."

Austria, Germany, Switzerland. Spain has a mixed System, Belgium may have joined the classic federal club with the last revisions - would have to check it. And it's also included in another federal system, the European Union.

Austria is a bit odd in that regard. We have Art 15:

"(1) In so far as a matter is not expressly assigned by the Federal Constitution to the Federation for legislation or also execution, it remains within the States' autonomous sphere of competence."

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/au00000_.html

Just that a ****load of powers is "expressly assigned" to the federation.

But if you want to study a unique model of federalism, where eg federal laws don't take precedence over state laws, but the states have no courts, I suggest Austria.

In Switzerland and Germany the federation is a lot more limited. And not just in theory.

"I guess Switzerland might with its 11 cantons (IIRC)."

Well it's 23 or 26, depending on how you count the half-cantons.

"Never said it was. Just that because of the Constitution, natural law (at least on the right) has a TOTALLY different meaning."

Haven't encountered that meaning in reading some US doctrine, probably it's realy more on the right wing out.

[Ned]

Templar, I must say you are really tangled in irrelevancies. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed that Congress should be able authorize a suit by citizens against their own state under federal causes of action -- even though this would undermine fundamental principles of law and renderer the 11th Amendment toothless.

I would politely suggest to you that you have a major problem with legal concepts and have no right to criticize any judge or justice. Your brand of judicial reasoning can be summed up mathematically as "multiply by zero and add in the answer you want." The judiciary with the likes of you as judge and jury would reduce to tyranny.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Roland: Ah, thanks... maybe I'll take a look.

Ned: What?

[chequita guevara]

Hersh is Roland???

[HershOstropoler]

Belgium has switched too, Art 35.

"(1) The federal authority only has power in the matters that are formally attributed to it by the Constitution and the laws carried in pursuance of the Constitution itself."

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ned
Templar, I must say you are really tangled in irrelevancies. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed that Congress should be able authorize a suit by citizens against their own state under federal causes of action -- even though this would undermine fundamental principles of law and renderer the 11th Amendment toothless.

Slow down your reading speed. If you read the 11th Amend, the text only prohibits suits by citezens of one state against another - not citizens against a state in which they are a citizen (granted, state citizenship is weird in its own way). I said the court in Hans extended 11th Amendment jurisprudence benyond what the 11th Amend. text would bear. Ergo, the precedent is bad. And since when is "soverign immunity" a fundamental principle of law? It isn't even mentioned in the constitution. It's purely a hobgoblin of common law - based on a bad precedent. Go back and reread my earlier posts slowly.

I would politely suggest to you that you have a major problem with legal concepts and have no right to criticize any judge or justice. Your brand of judicial reasoning can be summed up mathematically as "multiply by zero and add in the answer you want." The judiciary with the likes of you as judge and jury would reduce to tyranny.

Which legal concepts would those be? Precedent? I understand that concept well enough to know a bad one. The 11th Amend.? Apparently, you didn't even read the text or you would see that I'm right. Overturning precedent? I understand that concept fairly well given that I read Erie, Brown v. Board, Flood v. Kuhn, etc. Eire and Brown show how it is done, and Flood shows why it is dangerous.

I would politely suggest that next time you shoot off your mouth you actually reap my posts, take the time to comprehend them, and come with some good arguments instead of ad hominem screeds (which you don't do well anyway). You are dismissed.