Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Actually, they could. Simply because they can regulate what happens in their own borders... as long as it doesn't unfairly discriminate against out of staters who are in the state.

You can't have it both ways, Imran. You can't say your stay at a hotel falls under interstate commerce which is Congress' domain then argue states can charge a sales tax on people from out of state because they have the power to regulate what happens inside their borders. You argued Congress can regulate hotels because some consumers come from other states, but now you say the states have the power to regulate business within their border. Btw, NYC has a special tax on hotel rooms which happen to be used disproportionately by tourists.

Now, why can a state charge visitors a sales tax on their use of hotels when, according to you, these visitors and hotels fall under interstate commerce?

[David Floyd]

Imran,

I acknowledge and agree that Intent is tough to prove - that's why I think that Intent should run the other way. When something questionable comes up - such as the extent to which the ICC is being (ab)used, the federal government should have to show clear intent that the text actually means what they say it means. I think that fits better with the whole scope of the Constitution - if the Founders wanted limited federal powers, then they certainly didn't intend for the ICC to be used as it has been used, and no one can really claim the Founders (as a group) wanted unlimited federal powers, or even federal powers to the extent the current interpretation (and even worse, the interpretation of 30+) years of the ICC.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can't say your stay at a hotel falls under interstate commerce which is Congress' domain then argue states can charge a sales tax on people from out of state because they have the power to regulate what happens inside their borders.

Why not? If we use your example of internet commerce from another state, that is definetly, according to you, interstate commerce, BUT you can also be charged sales tax from the state you reside in. It is interstate commerce and is subject to sales tax... from the same transaction. Hotels that cater to out of staters engage in interstate commerce and that activity (like every economic activity) ultimately begins in one state.

why can a state charge visitors a sales tax on their use of hotels when, according to you, these visitors and hotels fall under interstate commerce?

Does the Constitution say that the states can't touch interstate commerce in any way? Seeing as how state regulations on business affect interstate commerce, at least minimally, I don't think so.

And as I've pointed out you can be charged sales tax for buying from Amazon.com, which is headquartered somewhere else. That is interstate commerce with sales tax.

they certainly didn't intend for the ICC to be used as it has been used

Well, the founders did want the Constitution to be a 'living document', at least Madison did, at any rate.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Why not? If we use your example of internet commerce from another state, that is definetly, according to you, interstate commerce, BUT you can also be charged sales tax from the state you reside in.

Not true, no state can charge a sales tax on internet/interstate commerce. That's why some of the states - those losing business to states with large mail and internet exporters like Maine (LL Bean) are lobbying Congress to allow them to impose sales taxes on interstate commerce. So far the lobbying hasn't worked...

It is interstate commerce and is subject to sales tax... from the same transaction.

Not true...

Hotels that cater to out of staters engage in interstate commerce and that activity (like every economic activity) ultimately begins in one state.

Then states would need congressional permission to charge a sales tax on hotel receipts. Not only do they not need permission, some states/cities do discriminate against people like the NYC example I cited.

Does the Constitution say that the states can't touch interstate commerce in any way? Seeing as how state regulations on business affect interstate commerce, at least minimally, I don't think so.

The 10th Amendment says those powers not given to the feds belong to the states and the power to regulate interstate commerce resides with Congress alone, and there is nothing in the Constitution about activities that "affect" interstate commerce. The notion that the ICC refers to whatever "affects" interstate commerce is a recent fabrication created by Congress seeking to avoid it's constitutional limits, so obviously there would be no mention of activities that "affect" interstate commerce mentioned in the Constitution, just interstate commerce.

And as I've pointed out you can be charged sales tax for buying from Amazon.com, which is headquartered somewhere else. That is interstate commerce with sales tax.

The feds can charge a sales tax, not the states. As of now, I know of no federal sales tax on ICC. I can order from LL Bean and Amazon without a sales tax from the states and the feds.

[Berzerker]

Well, the founders did want the Constitution to be a 'living document', at least Madison did, at any rate.

Where did you find this (or his intent) in the Constitution? They wouldn't have written the amendment process into the Constitution if they had meant for it to be a "living" document.

[Drake Tungsten]

Besides, what the **** does James Madison know about the Constitution?

[Berzerker]

Certainly less than George Bush and Bill Clinton.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not true, no state can charge a sales tax on internet/interstate commerce.

Not true, there are sites which charge sales tax based on certain states you are in. The way the states justify it is because there happens to be a warehouse or something in that state, EVEN IF your good comes from California, if there is a warehouse in your state you get the sales tax. That is sales tax on interstate commerce.

some states/cities do discriminate against people like the NYC example I cited.

NYC must have another good reason or else that would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, which yes, is a judicial creation, but something you seem to be arguing for.

The 10th Amendment says those powers not given to the feds belong to the states and the power to regulate interstate commerce resides with Congress alone, and there is nothing in the Constitution about activities that "affect" interstate commerce.

Therefore activities that 'affect' interstate commerce would powers that belong to the states under the 10th Amendment, since the Constitution does not talk about state activities that affect interstate commerce.

Thanks for making my point for me .

The notion that the ICC refers to whatever "affects" interstate commerce

Who said it did? The federal government is simply 'regulating' interstate commerce, the SCOTUS has just expanded what is interstate commerce to fit into economic reality.

Where did you find this (or his intent) in the Constitution?

The 'necessary and proper clause' seems to indicate a living document. As do some of the vague clauses, which granted were compromise clauses.

They wouldn't have written the amendment process into the Constitution if they had meant for it to be a "living" document.

Why not? A living document doesn't mean you can totally run contrary to the text. At some point if you don't like the text, you should have the power to change it. That doesn't mean that the text there cannot be interpreted in a myriad of ways.

If the founders did NOT want a living document they wouldn't have made parts of it so vague.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Not true, there are sites which charge sales tax based on certain states you are in. The way the states justify it is because there happens to be a warehouse or something in that state, EVEN IF your good comes from California, if there is a warehouse in your state you get the sales tax. That is sales tax on interstate commerce.

Based on what Imran, the proposition that because a warehouse exists in your state you aren't really engaging in interstate commerce because the product and the purchaser reside in the same state? Well, I'm not arguing that my state cannot charge me a sales tax on products I buy here in Kansas. I'm arguing my state cannot charge me a sales tax on products from other states. Now, are hotels and states prohibited from imposing a sales tax on tourists? No...

NYC must have another good reason or else that would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, which yes, is a judicial creation, but something you seem to be arguing for.

It doesn't violate the ICC because hotels are not engaged in ICC. If they were, the states would need congressional permission to levy a sales tax. And sure NYC has a "good" reason, they wanted to increase revenue and found a way to tax people who don't live in NYC. But NYC did not ask or get permission from Congress to do this, and that's the point...

Therefore activities that 'affect' interstate commerce would powers that belong to the states under the 10th Amendment, since the Constitution does not talk about state activities that affect interstate commerce.

Thanks for making my point for me .

Imran, where did I say commerce that "affects" interstate commerce falls under federal jurisdiction? You've finally agreed with me on a point I've been making and you think I'm making your point?

Who said it did? The federal government is simply 'regulating' interstate commerce, the SCOTUS has just expanded what is interstate commerce to fit into economic reality.

No, the Congress expanded the ICC, the SCOTUS which is confirmed by the Senate, only agreed to allow Congress to expand the ICC. And it wasn't to fit economic reality, it was to bypass state laws that were conflicting with federal desires to centralise power.

The 'necessary and proper clause' seems to indicate a living document. As do some of the vague clauses, which granted were compromise clauses.

The N&P clause does not "seem to indicate" a living document, that power was to facilitate exercising the enumerated powers.
That's why I would not argue that the draft is unconstitutional, because Congress has the enumerated power to raise armies. If Congress cannot draft people, it's power to raise armies may be null and void. So the draft qualifies as a power deemed "necessary and proper" to exercise the stated power of raising armies. Again, why give us an amendment process in the Constitution if it's a "living" document?

Why not? A living document doesn't mean you can totally run contrary to the text. At some point if you don't like the text, you should have the power to change it. That doesn't mean that the text there cannot be interpreted in a myriad of ways.

But why offer us an amendment process in the Constitution if you can change it via interpretations? If it's a "living" document, then it changes to meet our needs and desires.

If the founders did NOT want a living document they wouldn't have made parts of it so vague.

If they wanted a "living" document, they would have said so. Now, of the enumerated powers, which are so "vague" as to cause you confusion? I'll bet your confusion can be cleared up by reading what the Framers wrote about the Constitution during the convention and other sources like the Federalist Papers if not by observing how they put those powers into practice.

Imran, explain why the states can charge a sales tax on hotel receipts when you claimed hotels are engaged in ICC.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Besides, what the **** does James Madison know about the Constitution?

Nothing, he's dead.

[DinoDoc]

My work seems to be done here and a more interesting discussion is taking place.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Nothing, he's dead.

he's dead now?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm arguing my state cannot charge me a sales tax on products from other states.

And I've shown it to be wrong. If there is a warehouse in your state, you can be charged sales tax, EVEN THOUGH your good may come from California. Simply because there is a warehouse in Kansas, which has no bearing on the transaction whatsoever, you get sales taxed.

It doesn't violate the ICC because hotels are not engaged in ICC. If they were, the states would need congressional permission to levy a sales tax.

Bull. Of course they are engaged in interstate commerce, and no they don't need Congressional permission. For example, states can regulate safety standards for goods, which is a regulation on interstate commerce, if some products from other states are blocked from being sold in your state because of that regulation. That is regulation of interstate commerce, because it is a blocking of certain goods, that doesn't need Congressional approval.

Simply because Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce that does not mean the states have NO power whatsoever to regulate that commerce.

The Congress expanded the ICC, the SCOTUS which is confirmed by the Senate, only agreed to allow Congress to expand the ICC. And it wasn't to fit economic reality, it was to bypass state laws that were conflicting with federal desires to centralise power.

The Congress have always tried to expand the ICC. The SCOTUS decided to change it because of economic reality. Read some of the decisions that expanded the ICC. It shows and references an understanding of economics that commerce is interconnected.

But why offer us an amendment process in the Constitution if you can change it via interpretations? If it's a "living" document, then it changes to meet our needs and desires.

Do you even read what other people say? Or do you just like to see your words in text? I guess I'll have to quote myself again:

A living document doesn't mean you can totally run contrary to the text.

The N&P clause does not "seem to indicate" a living document, that power was to facilitate exercising the enumerated powers.

The text seems to disagree with that confined view:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

now, of the enumerated powers, which are so "vague" as to cause you confusion

Nice how you contain it so . The Commerce Clause for one. To regulate commerce among the several states? If you pay for a boat ride that goes from one state to another, is that commerce among the several states? Arguments can be made both ways.

Let's look beyond that.

Art 1, Sec 9, Cl 1: Who decides when the public safety requires it? It doesn't say Congress decides by law, can a President do so?

Art 1, Sec 10, Cl 2: What is 'absolutely necessary' for inspection mean? How much inspection is ok? How much is too much?

Art 2, Sec 2, Cl 1: What are the powers of being commander-in-chief? Is only commander in chief of the Army and Navy when they are called into actual service or is he CIC all the time?

Art 3, Sec 2, Cl 2: By having original jurisdiction does that preclude states having jurisdiction over those cases or does that mean that they have co-equal original jurisdiction.

Art 4, Sec 2, Cl 2: What are the exact priviledges and immunities as the citizens in the state have? Can states have requirements to enter the state? Would that violate P&I?

Art 4, Sec 4: What exactly qualifies as a republican form of government? Is proportional representation 'republican'?

etc, etc.

All these issues have had to be resolved by the Courts and they struggled over the questions posed here.

I'll bet your confusion can be cleared up by reading what the Framers wrote about the Constitution during the convention and other sources like the Federalist Papers if not by observing how they put those powers into practice.

Why should I care about what a few Framers and the three people writing the Federalist Papers wrote? There were more then 3-5 people who voted for the Constitution, and there were a Hell of lot of people in the states who voted to ratify it, perhaps for other reasons. Why do I care what a few of the Framers thought about the clause? Am I simply to ignore the other voters there, simply because they didn't feel like musing about issues?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nothing, he's dead.

Exactly... but to the 'intent' folks its a nice thorn in the side.

[CharlesBHoff]

Let me say the Texas Constitution is the worst one I ever hear of comeing from NY State. First they put in thing which would be laws into the Constitution. I know afew time they ask the voter to change some parts of the Constitution which in most State the legurator can do without asking the voter to change the Constitution. In all of my time in NY State they only ask the voter to add Amendment to the NY State Constitution 4 time I was than voter there for 22 year. I live than Texas for 11 year an very electon they ask for than average of 8 changed to their constitution They have voter change they Constitution than average of very year.

One Amendment of the body of the NY Constitution dealth with change the legal age of voteing from 21 to 18 to make it comprate with the Federal Constitution which make sence in a way.

What worry me is my ex-wife charge me with breating her up everyday which wasnot true. When I sent to see the best lawyer on Long Island who handle as his climet member of the Mafic, corrupt government official, drug deals, rock star arrest for have drugs, the ltwo country police department. He ask me did I ever try to kill her and did I ever beat her up everyday I said no he told me the DA want to sent me up the river for 30 year and there was than arrest warrent out for me for the last 6 month which the police didnot carryout.