Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Drake Tungsten]

Nothing, he's dead.

He's not dead; he lives on in every decision Antonin Scalia makes.

[chequita guevara]

Did you ever beat her up?

[CharlesBHoff]

Cont. Half of the police department like me and the other half
didnot like me. I was eating in a restant at least 10 miles away from her home, I never drove than car. I was shareing than table with than local policeman an talking to him for 30 minutes while eating. He got than call saying to go to my wife home as I was beating her up for ther last hour, he remember my name and phyiscal appearion. He went there have her swear out than compliant under oath. He told highter up about this than they told him she is comiteeing prejury as I cannot be in two different place at the same time. The new DA refuse to believe the police about her falsely assueing me of than major crime. What turn the DA around was her sister wrote to Ann Lander that her sister was banging her face on the kitchen table to make it look like I was beating her an in my 10 year of marriage she never saw me strike her or hit her phyical, Ann Lander told her to write to the local DA that she saw her sister brang her face on the table to make it look like I breat her up. At least he was than DA who take his job sercious unlike some DA today
he ask the court to appoint 3 special masters to go to her house. When they got to her house , by looking thought the window they saw her brang her face on the table. The DA have to recall the grand jury she commitee prejury to , to have then undo they finding that I breat her up everyday. Her lawyer ask the court to reopen the case as they where ready to rule against me in a civil case she comittee prejury to her own lawyer. She was asking for 2500 dollar amonth in support for her. The judge was piss at her for commiting prejury in front of him . In his degree he said I donot own her one cent in support payment for the injustice we try to do to me an for commiting prejury.
He did have the divorced paper say I try to kill her and breat her up everyday but no writ of protection was issue which show the Court didnot believe that. All legal action of than state is under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution that by tinking with it we might allow than judge in than other state change the legal decision of the judge.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

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.

You've shown nothing, you've asserted I pay a sales tax if I buy something from LL Bean and they have a warehouse here in Kansas. Where's your proof and where's your proof this was done in opposition to Congress' will? How does my state collect a sales tax on money I send to Maine? If I suscribe to Playboy thru the mail, I pay no sales tax. If I go to my local bookstore and buy it, I pay my state's sales tax. What's the difference? In the first scenario I'm sending my money to Playboy which is based in another state, i.e., the transaction crosses state lines. In the second scenario, the transaction takes place at my local bookstore. If Playboy is based in Illinois and I live in that state, then it doesn't matter if go to my local bookstore or if I suscribe thru the mail, I still pay the Illinois sales tax because both parties are "residents" of Illinois. You're confusing inter-state commerce with intra-state commerce...

Bull. Of course they are engaged in interstate commerce, and no they don't need Congressional permission.

Then explain why the states are lobbying Congress to allow them - permission - to charge sales taxes for products sold thru the internet across state lines. You keep avoiding that...

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.

They can't regulate safety standards on goods imported from other states without congressional permission. Congress has allowed the states to require certain products meet environmental standards above and beyond those required by Congress, e.g., cars sold in California but made elsewhere.

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

They need permission from Congress.

The Congress have always tried to expand the ICC. The SCOTUS decided to change it because of economic reality.

At least you're admitting the Constitution was "changed" and not amended.

Read some of the decisions that expanded the ICC. It shows and references an understanding of economics that commerce is interconnected.

You don't think the Founders understood the nature of commerce? It was a power grab, nothing more, and nothing less. You've already argued Congress has long sought to expand it's power under the ICC, although this is more a recent phenomenon, not SOP throughout US history. The main expansion of the ICC began under FDR and his court packing scheme, that was the "economic" reality recognised by the court.

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:

That's funny coming from someone who claims I've finally agreed with your argument when the reality is you merely repeated an argument I've been making all along.

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

Why not? You're claiming that the ICC now means Congress can regulate intra-state commerce and that states can regulate inter-state commerce - that's contrary to what the Constitution says.

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.

And what did I say? That the N&P clause allows Congress to pass laws deemed "necessary and proper" to exercise the enumerated powers, not pass laws to exercise powers that aren't enumerated. You haven't shown that I'm wrong...

Nice how you contain it so .

The N&P clause is confined to enumerated powers so what's the problem? Does that mean you don't see "vagueness" in the enumerated powers?

The Commerce Clause for one.

Your confusion or my ignorance doesn't equal vagueness, I've repeatedly explained what it means.

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.

You made the contract in one state, not two. Congress can regulate the use of such waterways, but not prohibit the state where the contract was made from charging a tax.

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?

You'll find the answer in "Art 1, Sec 9". Which body's powers are defined in that section of the Constitution? Congress? C'mon Imran...

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

Before answering, did you read this Section? Look at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph, it begins with the words, "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any Imposts or duties on imports or exports...etc..." Now, what have I been telling you? That the states need permission from Congress to interfere with interstate commerce? Here is an example of what I've been saying. As for what is "absolutely necessary", that means the states are allowed to levy taxes to pay for it's inspection costs, the language is quite clear, not vague.

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?

What does it say? The President shall be CiC when the various services are called into the actual service of the US. If you want to read what the CiC powers are, read them yourself.

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.

Original jurisdiction when a state is a party in the case, so obviously the state cannot have jurisdiction over such a case. In other cases, the SCOTUS is the ultimate end of the appeals (appellate) process where the states may have prior 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?

1) You want a list again? 2) One of those P&I would be the freedom of movement.

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

1) I'll quote Jefferson, ""It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens." 2) Sure, why not? But the Constitution would have to be amended for proportional representation.

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

Were these issues vague to the Framers? No Imran, this "vagueness" you claim exists is a product of those who want to "re-interpret" the Constitution to satisfy their ideologies. If they want us to believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't really guarantee a right to keep and bear arms, then they'll argue the amendment is "vague" and that the only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is actually negated by the word "militia".

I'll repeat my request again: explain why the states can charge a sales tax on hotel receipts when you claimed hotels are engaged in ICC.

[Ned]

Charles, that was quite a story. Might even be book material. But, AFAIK, the Defense of Marriage Act does not affect the court rulings in NY from having an effect in Texas. If you are divorced in NY, you are a free man in Texas.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Charles, that was quite a story. Might even be book material. But, AFAIK, the Defense of Marriage Act does not affect the court rulings in NY from having an effect in Texas. If you are divorced in NY, you are a free man in Texas.

Well when they start changeing old estrate legal princril people get nerserous. My ex-wife thought NOW try pretty hard to change it as the Judge wrote in the body of the ruleing why he make that decesion. All of the appeal court of NY said simple they willnot change it as the woman comittee prejury plain and simple. The Federal court Judge said no way
he going to overrule the state court. NOW under President Bill Clinton in a Execute Order state in a dicorve case the woman get automatic what she want which is total unfair as it remove the court power to decide case on their medrit.

[Ned]

Well, Charles, we all know of Bill Clinton's respect for state courts in family matters: NONE. I reference the Elian Gonzalez case where Janet Reno ordered her Gestapo storm troopers to break into the Miami home of Elians relavatives, assault rifles pointing, and sieze poor, frightened Elian even while state court custody proceedings were pending.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If I suscribe to Playboy thru the mail, I pay no sales tax. If I go to my local bookstore and buy it, I pay my state's sales tax. What's the difference? In the first scenario I'm sending my money to Playboy which is based in another state, i.e., the transaction crosses state lines. In the second scenario, the transaction takes place at my local bookstore.

I hope you can finally see the ludicriousness of your argument now. You buy the EXACT same thing, which originates from the exact same place, but in one transaction you pay sales tax and in the other you don't. What is the difference? There isn't any, except who you get the good from. A store that sells magazines from other states is engaging in interstate commerce. After all, where do they get the goods from?

Then explain why the states are lobbying Congress to allow them - permission - to charge sales taxes for products sold thru the internet across state lines.

edit: I have my Land's End catalog open to the ordering page. They have Group 1 state sales tax and Group 2 states sales tax. Group 1 are states that have sales tax added before shipping and handling. Group 2 are those that have it added afterwards. This is what it says:

Group 1 States: AL, AZ, CA, ID, IL, IA, KY, LA, MD, MA, ME, NJ, OH, OK, WV, VT. Group 2 States: all others, except AK, DC District of Columbia, DE, MT, NH, and OR.

Can you explain to me why Land's End asks you to include sales tax for EVERY state, except those that don't have one? Wouldn't that be illegal under your formulation?

Furthermore, I just paid Georgia sales tax on a sweater I just purchased, even though the UPS tracking said it came from a warehouse in Kentucky and crossed over Tennessee and will soon go into Georgia. Oh, the company is based in Wisconsin.

How are they able to do this if you say states can't charge sales tax on 'interstate commerce'?

They need permission from Congress.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Where does it say that the states have given up all rights to regulate certain acts of interstate commerce. As stated, by you (thanks for making my point again), the only restriction on states on interstate commerce are 'imposts or duties on imports or exports...', simply because Congress is given the power to regulate interstate commerce doesn't mean the states have all their rights taken away, only those specifically taken away by the Constitution.

You don't think the Founders understood the nature of commerce?

No... they didn't have the benefit of Keynes.

The N&P clause is confined to enumerated powers so what's the problem?

I've already shown this to be false... again:

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.

Read the "ALL other powers..." part. It goes well beyond the enumerated powers (ie, foregoing powers).

Original jurisdiction when a state is a party in the case, so obviously the state cannot have jurisdiction over such a case.

Why not? Who says the federal judiciary ONLY has original jurisdiction? Why can't states have concurrent original jurisdiction over those items? The states and federal government have concurrent original jurisdiction over many matters.

That is one of your major problems, when the Constitution gives a power to Congress you assume that means it takes it away from the states, even though the document does not say it is taking it away from the states (especially since it doesn't say Congress has SOLE power... or has SOLE original jurisdiction).

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Charles, we all know of Bill Clinton's respect for state courts in family matters: NONE. I reference the Elian Gonzalez case where Janet Reno ordered her Gestapo storm troopers to break into the Miami home of Elians relavatives, assault rifles pointing, and sieze poor, frightened Elian even while state court custody proceedings were pending.

I believe that Elian Gonzalez belong with his father an the court her heading that way. Janet Reno gestapo like tactic where uncalled for and plus the real Gestapo never use her tactic at all. First the real Gestapo was alway potice to everyone even to those they arrest, my mother and grandmother live under the Germany Gestapo.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

I hope you can finally see the ludicriousness of your argument now. You buy the EXACT same thing, which originates from the exact same place, but in one transaction you pay sales tax and in the other you don't. What is the difference?

I've repeatedly explained what the difference is. Where the transaction took place is the difference, the transaction crossing state lines is called interstate commerce and the transaction occuring in the same state is called intrastate commerce. If I suscribe to Playboy the transaction crosses state lines. If I buy Playboy from my local bookstore, the transaction takes place in my home state at my local bookstore.

A store that sells magazines from other states is engaging in interstate commerce.

Correct, that's why stores don't pay a sales tax on these magazines. That's why consumers who but the magazines at these local stores do pay a sales tax. If you want to avoid your state's sales tax, get a subscription.

Because they labor under the idea that they are not allowed to, because of things the Supreme Court has said. Specifically, the Dormant Commerce Clause, which isn't in the document itself, but made by the courts.

The Interstate Commerce clause is not in the Constitution? Let's see, "to regulate commerce with foreing nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" (Art 1, Sec 8)

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Where does it say that the states have given up all rights to regulate certain acts of interstate commerce.

*sigh* The 10th Amendment re-states the obvious, that those powers not given to Congress belong to the states. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, therefore the states do not have that power. That was the whole point of the ICC! Under the Art of Conf, some of the states engaged in trade wars and the Constitution sought to prevent that by giving Congress a power that belonged to the states under the AoC.

As stated, by you (thanks for making my point again), the only restriction on states on interstate commerce are 'imposts or duties on imports or exports...', simply because Congress is given the power to regulate interstate commerce doesn't mean the states have all their rights taken away, only those specifically taken away by the Constitution.

I made your point again? The last time you said I was making your point I showed that all you did was repeat an argument I had been making all along. The state power to lay imposts and duties to pay for inspection costs is not a restriction, it's a power to do something. The restriction is that the states cannot tax/regulate interstate commerce beyond paying the costs for inspection without Congress' permission. Now, where does it say Congress can give the states permission to tax interstate commerce? Didn't you read the articles and sections when posing your questions? Art 1 Sect 10, "No state shall, without the consent of Congress...etc..." Nuff said...I hope...

No... they didn't have the benefit of Keynes.

They didn't have the benefit of Imran either.

I've already shown this to be false... again:

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.

Read the "ALL other powers..." part. It goes well beyond the enumerated powers (ie, foregoing powers).

No Imran, "foregoing powers" refers to those enumerated powers already mentioned. That does not mean there aren't other enumerated powers nor does it mean there are unenumerated powers (an oxymoron). The N&P appears at the end of Congress' powers because Congress writes the laws, but the other branches have enumerated powers too, they just don't have the power to write laws.

Why not? Who says the federal judiciary ONLY has original jurisdiction?

The Framers said so.

Why can't states have concurrent original jurisdiction over those items? The states and federal government have concurrent original jurisdiction over many matters.

Because those items involve federal officers or cases where the state is a party. You obviously don't understand what the "separation of powers" means...

That is one of your major problems, when the Constitution gives a power to Congress you assume that means it takes it away from the states, even though the document does not say it is taking it away from the states (especially since it doesn't say Congress has SOLE power... or has SOLE original jurisdiction).

Imran, read the 10th Amendment.

"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."

The Constitution delegates certain powers to the US government and what's left over are reserved to the states (unless prohibited). It does not say these powers are shared, it separates powers into federal and state jurisdiction. Here's an example: the Constitution says the Senate has the power to advise and consent on SCOTUS nominees. According to your argument, the states and people have that power too. So when have the states and the people ever voted to confirm SCOTUS nominees? You're in law school? Ask your professors what the 10th Amendment means...

[Ned]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff

I believe that Elian Gonzalez belong with his father an the court her heading that way. Janet Reno gestapo like tactic where uncalled for and plus the real Gestapo never use her tactic at all. First the real Gestapo was alway potice to everyone even to those they arrest, my mother and grandmother live under the Germany Gestapo.

Charles, your history is getting more interesting every post.

On Elian, since the guardianship case was pending, the court might have granted the father custody and they may not have as well. But the problem with Janet Reno was that her actions essentially decided the matter before the court had a chance to rule. That, IMO, was outrageous.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Interstate Commerce clause is not in the Constitution? Let's see, "to regulate commerce with foreing nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

Yes, and where does that say that the states don't have the power to make laws that regulate commerce between themselves and another state? That is something that was read into the provision by the SC.

Under the Art of Conf, some of the states engaged in trade wars and the Constitution sought to prevent that

Yes, and they did so under Art 1, Sec 10, Cl 2:

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports

If the ICC meant to prevent that, why include this provision?

The state power to lay imposts and duties to pay for inspection costs is not a restriction, it's a power to do something.

The states are restricted from laying imposts and duties unless to pay for inspection. It isn't a power, its an exception to a restriction.

That does not mean there aren't other enumerated powers nor does it mean there are unenumerated powers (an oxymoron).

'Enumerated powers' is a term that refers to Art 1, Sec 9.

You obviously don't understand what the "separation of powers" means...

Actually it is you who doesn't understand that term. Seperation of Powers refers to different powers of federal branches. Differences between the federal government and state government is called 'Federalism'.

The Constitution delegates certain powers to the US government and what's left over are reserved to the states (unless prohibited). It does not say these powers are shared

Since it does not prohibit the states from excersizing that power, doesn't that mean they have it?

the Constitution says the Senate has the power to advise and consent on SCOTUS nominees. According to your argument, the states and people have that power too.

I know you like twisting around your opponents arguments, but no. The states don't have power OVER federal branches. They have do have soveriegn power over their own borders unless the Constitution specifically prohibits them from doing so. This is because the states were soveriegn states before the Constitution.

Under the idea of Federalism, the federal government and state government have overlapping powers. Since you like intent so much, you probably know that the Framers were very big on state rights and since the beginning state and federal courts shared original jurisdiction

You're in law school? Ask your professors what the 10th Amendment means...

I've already taken Constitutional Law. The 10th is 'catch-all' provision. Funny how you ask me to ask my law professors when you totally disagree on what they say the 9th Amendment means .

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Yes, and where does that say that the states don't have the power to make laws that regulate commerce between themselves and another state? That is something that was read into the provision by the SC.

I just told you, Imran. Congress has the power to regulate trade among the states. It wasn't read into the Constitution, it's right there in black and white. If Congress has that power, then the states dont...

Yes, and they did so under Art 1, Sec 10, Cl 2:

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports

If the ICC meant to prevent that, why include this provision?

The ICC prevents the states from setting trade policies with other nations and the other states, this provision merely allows the states to ask Congress for permission to infringe upon free trade. You see a contradiction there? I don't, under the AoC they didn't need permission and they engaged in trade wars. Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate interstate trade but the states can still ask for exemptions.

The states are restricted from laying imposts and duties unless to pay for inspection. It isn't a power, its an exception to a restriction.

An exception to a restriction is not a restriction.

'Enumerated powers' is a term that refers to Art 1, Sec 9.

Enumerated powers are enumerated powers regardless of where they're found in the Constitution, the President has enumerated powers too which are found in a different part of the Constitution. And the N&P clause is at the end of section 8, not 9.

Actually it is you who doesn't understand that term.

I'm not the one claiming Congress' enumerated powers are shared by the states.

Seperation of Powers refers to different powers of federal branches. Differences between the federal government and state government is called 'Federalism'.

And "federalism" is a separation of powers doctrine.

Since it does not prohibit the states from excersizing that power, doesn't that mean they have it?

No Imran, it doesn't. It's called "the separation of powers" and the states don't have a power if Congress has it unless the Constitution specifically says otherwise.

I know you like twisting around your opponents arguments, but no. The states don't have power OVER federal branches.

You just said the states "share" the enumerated powers with those branches, so why don't the states share the power to advise and consent on SCOTUS nominees? Btw, I'm not twisting anything you said. Nor did I say the states had power OVER the federal branches (that's you "twisting" what I said, oh the irony), I asked why the states can't vote on the confirmation of SCOTUS nominees if they share powers with Congress. So what's your answer? Why don't the states share that power? Why don't the states share the power to affirm treaties, ambassadors, declare war, etc......?

They have do have soveriegn power over their own borders unless the Constitution specifically prohibits them from doing so.

But not other states wrt trade. My state lacks the power to tax trade coming from your state except to cover the costs of inspections. My state needs permission from those who have that power, and that would be Congress.

This is because the states were soveriegn states before the Constitution.

And the Framers and the states agreed that Congress should have the power to regulate trade among the states, hence that enumerated power found in the Constitution.

Under the idea of Federalism, the federal government and state government have overlapping powers.

Where did you find this "sharing" of powers? Federalism is not about shared powers, it's about the separation of powers with the feds having their powers and the states having what is left over.

Since you like intent so much, you probably know that the Framers were very big on state rights and since the beginning state and federal courts shared original jurisdiction

The fact the Framers believed in states "rights" is irrelevant to what the Constitution says. Did the Framers say a state could declare war on another state? How about a state declaring war on England? Did the Framers say a state could negotiate it's own trade treaty with England? No, no, and no, but these are states "rights", true? So obviously their belief in states rights didn't mean Congress had no control over the states. As for shared original jurisdiction, it wasn't shared. The SCOTUS has it's original jurisdiction as defined in the Constitution and the SCOTUS served as the highest appellate (appeals) court when the state judiciaries have original jurisdiction.

I've already taken Constitutional Law.

And passed? Holy sh!t! I've never had a course in this stuff and I'm whooping your a@@.

The 10th is 'catch-all' provision. Funny how you ask me to ask my law professors when you totally disagree on what they say the 9th Amendment means .

I don't know what they say it means, they aren't posting here. But if they have email addresses I'd love to send them a few questions if they think the 10th Amendment says the states share the enumerated powers granted Congress in the Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't doubt that the SCOTUS has interpreted the ICC to mean that states can't impose restrictions on interstate commerce (though how far is a question.. read the Land's End example below), but that was because they had to invent their own judicially created doctrine of 'Dormant Commerce Clause'. There would be NO NEED for the DCC if the ICC obviously meant that the states couldn't regulate interstate commerce.

That's the point. The wording of the Constitution doesn't cut out the states... judicially created (maybe rightly) DCC does. It's judicial activism you like, basically .

Congress has the power to regulate trade among the states.

Once again, why does this preclude the states from regulating parts of interstate trade?

My state lacks the power to tax trade coming from your state except to cover the costs of inspections.

I'll post again:

I have my Land's End catalog open to the ordering page. They have Group 1 state sales tax and Group 2 states sales tax. Group 1 are states that have sales tax added before shipping and handling. Group 2 are those that have it added afterwards. This is what it says:

Group 1 States: AL, AZ, CA, ID, IL, IA, KY, LA, MD, MA, ME, NJ, OH, OK, WV, VT. Group 2 States: all others, except AK, DC District of Columbia, DE, MT, NH, and OR.

Can you explain to me why Land's End asks you to include sales tax for EVERY state, except those that don't have one? Wouldn't that be illegal under your formulation?

Furthermore, I just paid Georgia sales tax on a sweater I just purchased, even though the UPS tracking said it came from a warehouse in Kentucky and crossed over Tennessee and will soon go into Georgia. Oh, the company is based in Wisconsin.

How are they able to do this if you say states can't charge sales tax on 'interstate commerce'?

An exception to a restriction is not a restriction.

No, but at least you admit the clause is primarily a restriction . If the ICC foreclosed all restriction by states on interstate commerce, then why have that restriction on tariffs against other states?

You just said the states "share" the enumerated powers with those branches, so why don't the states share the power to advise and consent on SCOTUS nominees?

Because that would be power over the federal government. They don't have power over the federal superstructure, but they do have soveriegn power over anything that enters their borders, except where specifically closed off to them (and not by inference).

The States get their power from a vastly different source than the Federal government. The States are soveriegn over everything. They can do whatever they want except where the Constitution specificially says they can't. The Federal Government can only do what the Constitution says.

The SCOTUS has it's original jurisdiction as defined in the Constitution

Once again, why does this preclude the state courts from excersizing jurisdiction over those cases as well? Where does it say the SCOTUS only has original jurisdiction over those cases?

And passed?

Got an A .

I've never had a course in this stuff and I'm whooping your a@@.

Or rather, getting your ass whupped . You are trying to argue that states can't regulate interstate commerce without the Dormant Commerce Clause, and as the SCOTUS found out, you can't do that, at least not well.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned


Charles, your history is getting more interesting every post.

On Elian, since the guardianship case was pending, the court might have granted the father custody and they may not have as well. But the problem with Janet Reno was that her actions essentially decided the matter before the court had a chance to rule. That, IMO, was outrageous.

After WWII the America, Britian, France and USSR reach than
understanding there where million of small childern that where displace. The understand was childern under 8 year of
age went where they parent where other 8 year old they where ask where they want to go. It would have being impossible to hold legal hearing to decide what to do, no court is able to decide on many million of case in 1 year time.

The Gestpol as than law enforcement agentany have to be polite even when pick somebody us as he might not be the person they want or even be inorent.

Than French General estape from than POW camp and my Uncle look alot like him, the first time the Gestpol pick him up they took his fingerprint they didnot match the french general so they let go. He was pick afew more time that day and was let go. It he was mistreat by the Gestpol he the right to take legal action against even throught he was
than refuge from Estonia USSR.

Non USSR POW who where Jewish where not put into death camp as Germany was than signer of the Genva Cont while USSR didnot sign it untril after WWII. One SS Officer who inoge this by shooting than America Jewish POW was execute by the SS for murder and disobey than standing order.