Berkely to treat Military recruit-stations like Pornstores

[Kuciwalker]

In the case you mentioned the court said, "the power to tax is the power to destroy" as in destroy the bank. You are saying that the power of to zone is the power to destroy, as in destroy the military or at least it's ability to recruit in Berkeley. Knock off the crap!

Actually, it's the Supreme Court that's held that position, for nearly two centuries.

[Kuciwalker]

Okay guys, let's leave Kid alone in his own universe now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In the case you mentioned the court said, "the power to tax is the power to destroy" as in destroy the bank.

Do you really think that the Court believe Maryland's taxing of the Bank would have literally destroyed it? Or, rather, was it a general statement asserting actions that show supremacy?

Or are you being deliberately dense?

You want us to believe (1) that the states have no powers whatsoever and (2) that this case has alread been decided.

(1) is another strawman
(2) - yes, it has already been decided. No question.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In the case you mentioned the court said, "the power to tax is the power to destroy" as in destroy the bank.

Do you really think that the Court believe Maryland's taxing of the Bank would have literally destroyed it? Or, rather, was it a general statement asserting actions that show supremacy?

Since you can actually tax something out of existance, yes I believe that that's exactly what they meant. I'm also sure that that would have happened, so action from the court was needed to save the bank. But then I know something of the history of Banking in the United States. There was quite a conflict between the federal govt and the states over banking. Perhaps you didn't know that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since you can actually tax something out of existance, yes I believe that that's exactly what they meant.

So... is this ultra-literalism something you do every day? Or just when you want an argument to go your way?

But then I know something of the history of Banking in the United States. There was quite a conflict between the federal govt and the states over banking. Perhaps you didn't know that.

I'm quite sure I know far, far, far more about the early history of the Republic than you do. I also know far, far, far more than you do about law.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Since you can actually tax something out of existance, yes I believe that that's exactly what they meant.

So... is this ultra-literalism something you do every day? Or just when you want an argument to go your way?

But then I know something of the history of Banking in the United States. There was quite a conflict between the federal govt and the states over banking. Perhaps you didn't know that.

I'm quite sure I know far, far, far more about the early history of the Republic than you do. I also know far, far, far more than you do about law.

Obviously you should take a Economic History of the United States course if you don't understand the motivation of a state bank to tax the federal bank out of existance. You do that and I will take a law class, deal?

Seriously, I don't think you understand the context of the case.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Obviously you should take a Economic History of the United States course if you don't understand the motivation of a state bank to tax the federal bank out of existance. You do that and I will take a law class, deal?

Seriously, I don't think you understand the context of the case.

I know perfectly well the context of the case, but you are off your gourd if you think that the case was decided on the narrow area of simply taxing a bank.

It's like stating that Marbury v. Madison is solely constrained to instances of public officials not recieving their writs of mandamus.

Hint: Marshall wasn't taking the case because he really liked the Bank (though he probably did agree with the creation of it), just as he didn't take Marbury because he thought that ole Marbury shouldn't have been granted his commission.

[David Floyd]

And I don't think you understand his argument. He isn't debating whether or not Maryland had an INTEREST in taxing the federal bank out of existence, his point is that the Supreme Court said they couldn't!

Kid, going way back then, what if the tax was only .1%, and it was written into ironclad law that the tax could never be raised? Since that clearly wouldn't have destroyed the bank, do you think that the case law would read differently?

I've been telling you over and over and over and over, that Supremacy doesn't deal with the scope of the constraint the local/state government puts on the federal government in the discharge of it's (the federal government's) legitimate powers. Scope doesn't matter. It's the simple fact that there is a constraint. Taxing the federal bank is a constraint. Telling the USPS they can't deliver mail on Wednesday in the state of Nebraska is a constraint. And applying porn-store zoning laws to recruitment posts is CERTAINLY a constraint.

You make the point that EVEN IF every city passed a law like this, it wouldn't be a constraint because people could still find the army if they wanted to.

Well, then. Surely you won't mind if we also apply the same zoning laws to family planning clinics, right? I mean, if you want abortion or counseling,you can still get it, you just have to look harder, right? And while we're at it, let's make sure that we zone all voting areas pretty far off the beaten path, and certainly off of bus routes, and basically restrict voting to those with both reliable personal transportation and the wherewithal to take an hour off of work - I mean, surely the Courts won't strike down the virtual disenfranchisement of minorities, the elderly, and the poor. That would just simply be an infringement on the right of MY community to do whatever it damn well pleases, wouldn't it?

Oh, I forgot. We have a right to vote, and we have equal access rights when it comes to health-care, too. Except that the federal government also has certain rights, one of those being to raise and maintain an army, and cities and states can no more infringe upon those rights than they can my right to vote or your girlfriend's right to get an abortion. Berkeley can no more constrain the federal government - even a LITTLE bit - in the exercise of its rights and discharge of it's powers - than a city in Kansas could, even a little bit, restrict the right to vote.

I know, I know. Now you're going to start screaming about how voting rights aren't the same thing as zoning requirements for recruitment centers. But before you start that, just think about the underlying argument. It actually is largely the same thing.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I know perfectly well the context of the case, but you are off your gourd if you think that the case was decided on the narrow area of simply taxing a bank.

The banking conflict was the center of it, but of course it was about federal vs state power. But where is the power? In the banks son. It was about federal banks vs. state banks, and it was also about federal power vs. state power.

And it was most certainly about the tax imposed on the federal bank. A similar tax was not levied on the state chartered banks. Does that mean anything to you? It should.

It's like stating that Marbury v. Madison is solely constrained to instances of public officials not reviewing their writs of mandamus.

Hint: Marshall wasn't taking the case because he really liked the Bank (though he probably did agree with the creation of it), just as he didn't take Marbury because he thought that ole Marbury shouldn't have been granted his commission.

What does that matter? The fact is that the Maryland was imposing a tax on the federal bank that it did not impose on the state banks, clearly endangering the survival of the federal bank. And of course Marshall stated in explicit language that the state can not destroy the bank, and that's exactly what they could do by taxing it.

So it doesn't follow at all that the same conclusion will be reach in this case that we are discussing since there is no issue of preventing the federal government to carry out it's implied duties.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The banking conflict was the center of it, but of course it was about federal vs state power. But where is the power? In the banks son. It was about federal banks vs. state banks, and it was also about federal power vs. state power.

And it was most certainly about the tax imposed on the federal bank. A similar tax was not levied on the state chartered banks. Does that mean anything to you? It should.


What does that matter? The fact is that the Maryland was imposing a tax on the federal bank that it did not impose on the state banks, clearly endangering the survival of the federal bank. And of course Marshall stated in explicit language that the state can not destroy the bank, and that's exactly what they could do by taxing it.

So it doesn't follow at all that the same conclusion will be reach in this case that we are discussing since there is no issue of preventing the federal government to carry out it's implied duties.

You really don't get it. The point of the case wasn't that the Bank of the US was getting taxed by Maryland. It was that a federal institution was being constrained in its constitutional actions by a state law/action.

The Supreme Court doesn't usually decide cases on narrow grounds. They are looking at the broader picture. That's why get get a writ of certiorari so they can pick the cases they want to play with.

Marshall's decision wasn't about a state taxing a federal bank, it was about a state interfering with the federal government in the exercise of its constitutionally allowed powers, regardless of how much... kind of (actually, EXACTLY) like in this instance with the recruitment centers.

Btw, even if Maryland charged the tax on Maryland banks, it still would have been struck down with respect to the Bank of the US. The states can't assert supremacy over the federal government... at all.

[Berzerker]

Berkely to treat Military recruit-stations like Pornstores

Thats a good idea, should solve the recruitment shortfall

[David Floyd]

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And I don't think you understand his argument. He isn't debating whether or not Maryland had an INTEREST in taxing the federal bank out of existence, his point is that the Supreme Court said they couldn't!

Yes, I know, but the context of the case can not be ignored. The fact of the matter is that Maryland was not the only entity at odds with the 2nd Bank of the US. There was political struggle envolved. That can't be ignored when you have Marshall talking about protecting the bank from destructon.

Kid, going way back then, what if the tax was only .1%, and it was written into ironclad law that the tax could never be raised? Since that clearly wouldn't have destroyed the bank, do you think that the case law would read differently?

The issue was taht the 2nd Bank of US was taxed and the state banks were not. That's why the issue went to court. You are suggesting a hypothetical situation that I don't see as relevent. Whatever I say doesn't really matter the way I see it.

I've been telling you over and over and over and over, that Supremacy doesn't deal with the scope of the constraint the local/state government puts on the federal government in the discharge of it's (the federal government's) legitimate powers. Scope doesn't matter. It's the simple fact that there is a constraint. Taxing the federal bank is a constraint. Telling the USPS they can't deliver mail on Wednesday in the state of Nebraska is a constraint. And applying porn-store zoning laws to recruitment posts is CERTAINLY a constraint.

Taxing the bank was a contraint, but it was part of an overall struggle for power between powers that wanted a strong federal bank and powers that did not. So the issue wasn't whether contraints could be placed on the feds or not, but it was that the state govt could not prevent the federal government to complete it's lawfull duties.

The difference between those two things is important in the case of recruitment centers.

You make the point that EVEN IF every city passed a law like this, it wouldn't be a constraint because people could still find the army if they wanted to.

Well, then. Surely you won't mind if we also apply the same zoning laws to family planning clinics, right? I mean, if you want abortion or counseling,you can still get it, you just have to look harder, right?

I thought family planning clinics were already zoned. I don't see any problem with that if that's what the community votes for. Seriously, I mean that.

And while we're at it, let's make sure that we zone all voting areas pretty far off the beaten path, and certainly off of bus routes, and basically restrict voting to those with both reliable personal transportation and the wherewithal to take an hour off of work - I mean, surely the Courts won't strike down the virtual disenfranchisement of minorities, the elderly, and the poor. That would just simply be an infringement on the right of MY community to do whatever it damn well pleases, wouldn't it?

Oh, I forgot. We have a right to vote, and we have equal access rights when it comes to health-care, too. Except that the federal government also has certain rights, one of those being to raise and maintain an army, and cities and states can no more infringe upon those rights than they can my right to vote or your girlfriend's right to get an abortion. Berkeley can no more constrain the federal government - even a LITTLE bit - in the exercise of its rights and discharge of it's powers - than a city in Kansas could, even a little bit, restrict the right to vote.

I know, I know. Now you're going to start screaming about how voting rights aren't the same thing as zoning requirements for recruitment centers. But before you start that, just think about the underlying argument. It actually is largely the same thing.

I understand your argument, but you said it yourself, restricting voting rights is much different. I think you see that. And I don't agree with you that allowing that State of California the right to zone recruitment centers will create an environment where voting rights could be endangered. It is not necessary or beneficial to give the federal govt absolute power and take everything away from the states. Our founding fathers realized that (at least the good ones).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You really don't get it. The point of the case wasn't that the Bank of the US was getting taxed by Maryland. It was that a federal institution was being constrained in its constitutional actions by a state law/action.

The Supreme Court doesn't usually decide cases on narrow grounds. They are looking at the broader picture. That's why get get a writ of certiorari so they can pick the cases they want to play with.

Of couse they were looking at the bigger picture. The bigger picture involved the survival of the federal bank. Trust me. That was a huge issue. So yes it had everything to do with the states control over the bank. You may not realize that in the 21st century, but try to put yourself in their place, in their time.

Marshall's decision wasn't about a state taxing a federal bank, it was about a state interfering with the federal government in the exercise of its constitutionally allowed powers, regardless of how much... kind of (actually, EXACTLY) like in this instance with the recruitment centers.

Btw, even if Maryland charged the tax on Maryland banks, it still would have been struck down with respect to the Bank of the US. The states can't assert supremacy over the federal government... at all.

You are talking about what was established in that case as if it had already been established. I'm not arguing that history would be different. I firmly agree with the tendency over time for the federal govt to gain power at the expense of the state.

And the state can not assert supremacy over the feds, but the Court can decide that the fed govt has no supremacty regarding the case.

[David Floyd]

Yes, I know, but the context of the case can not be ignored. The fact of the matter is that Maryland was not the only entity at odds with the 2nd Bank of the US. There was political struggle envolved. That can't be ignored when you have Marshall talking about protecting the bank from destructon.

Already addressed by Imran. I'll just add that the Supreme Court of Marshall was much less "political" than the Supreme Court of the past 75 years or so. They took that case, ruled on the merits (correctly, I might add), and saying that "political struggle" was involved in the decision isn't true. Yes, Marshall did talk about the destruction of the bank, but that was precisely the specific legal issue at hand. What the case established, though, was a PRECEDENT. The precedent was not that "states can't tax the US Bank". While certainly true, the precedent that was set was much broader - no inferior government can restrict or constrain the federal government in the exercise of its rights or performance of it's duties.

The issue was taht the 2nd Bank of US was taxed and the state banks were not. That's why the issue went to court. You are suggesting a hypothetical situation that I don't see as relevent. Whatever I say doesn't really matter the way I see it.

What you say IS relevant, because it's precisely the question I asked earlier. I'll restate it: Are you continuing to debate because you disagree with the outcome of McCulloch vs. Maryland? A simple yes or no will be fine, followed by as much explanation as you like.

So the issue wasn't whether contraints could be placed on the feds or not, but it was that the state govt could not prevent the federal government to complete it's lawfull duties.

The two are one and the same. Placing a constraint on the federal government is the same as preventing the federal government from carrying out it's lawful duties. The constraint may not be 100% - or even 1% - effective in preventing the federal government from doing it's job, but the fact remains that the constraint itself is still unconstitutional.

I thought family planning clinics were already zoned. I don't see any problem with that if that's what the community votes for. Seriously, I mean that.

Well, that's fine. I'm just pointing out the logical extension of your argument. In this case, the extension is that in a HUGE number of cities, and even states, abortion could be de facto banned simply through zoning it out of existence. And the fact remains that you can't do an end-run around a Supreme Court decision in this manner - you'll get sued, and the case won't make it anywhere NEAR the Supreme Court no matter how much you appeal.

I understand your argument, but you said it yourself, restricting voting rights is much different.

Well, it's different in that we are talking about the rights of the people on one hand, and the expressly granted power of the federal government on the other. But it's not different from the standpoint that just as you can't take an overt action specifically aimed at reducing voter turnout by even as low as 1% in your city, you also can't take an overt action specifically aimed at reducing military recruitment by even as low as 1% in your city.

It is not necessary or beneficial to give the federal govt absolute power and take everything away from the states. Our founding fathers realized that (at least the good ones).

I agree! Wholeheartedly! Just because Imran and I agree on this, you'll find that we are lightyears apart on the issue of the overall scope of federal power granted by the US Constitution, for example. However, when it comes to powers expressly granted to the federal government, even I agree that inferior governments can't interfere.