Can one in good faith oppose the current scope of federal authority?

[jrfoxx]

I agree that the federal government has been grown WELL beyond what was intended by the founders, or what is necessary to protect the rights of everyone, maintain order, govern, etc.

Just because I believe this, and advocate a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced, and less intrusive federal government, and oppose a number of laws, policies, and government agencies and their actions, does not make me an anarchist, not is it me advocating revolution, armed resistance, or the trampling, or lessened protection, of other rights.

It isn't an "all or nothing" proposition with regards to the power and size of the federal government. One can VERY much advocate for less federal power, control, and intrusion and not be advocating anarchy, or anything close to it, just as someone else can support a larger, or more powerful federal government than I want, or even one larger and more powerful than what we already have, and not be a fascist, or advocating a police state.There is a LOT of room in between.

I think the feds have WAY overstepped their bounds, and need to be significantly reduced in power, size, and scope, but I certainly don't think revolution is the only, best, or even currently necessary way to achieve that. But, saying that it MAY be necessary someday is not advocating anarchy, trampling anyones rights, or me advocating revolution (in fact, I hope that something so extreme will never, ever, come even close to happening or being needed), it's just stating a simple fact, and not taking a VERY necessary option completely off the table, and an option that I feel the founders supported, and made VERY clear, was a legitimate option when all other reasonable ones have failed.

If the founders didn't support revolution when it was needed, then the U.S. wouldn't even exist, since revolution against their own government is EXACTLY what they did to found this country, and I think anyone who feels revolution is NEVER an option, or is not supported by the Constitution or the writing of the founders, as being a bit naive, or just not being honest.Also to say that revolution against a government perceived by the governed as tyrannical is not a "right", is foolish, without support, not honest, and is in fact advocating tyranny, and a total police state where no one has ANY rights, only whatever privileges the government may allow you to have, if any.

If one were to say that revolution was never an option, then what is supposed to happen if/when the government decides it can take away whatever rights it wants from the people? Some will say that it cant happen because we can vote. Well, a vote only counts if the government wants it too. Every single person in this country could vote for, say, a president to NOT get to be "leader for life" like he proposes, but if the leader controls the military, and simply ignores the vote, then your magical "we can change anything with votes and laws" is worthless. Laws and votes only count for something if the person with the owner allows it too.

But, all that doesnt mean you can form a militia and start and armed rebellion against the government because to think the war on drugs is tyranny, or that OSHA's activities are tyranny, or that "high toll road fees" are tyranny. Armed rebellion is for when all other options are exhausted, AND the government is horribly tramplimg peoples core rights en masse, which a beef about 1 or 2 agnecies, or taxes, certainly is not. Just like in law, he "reasonable man" thing come into play. Saying there is a right to armed rebellion doesnt mean its an individual right that anyone can act on for any reason they see fit. Obviously, it's something that needs to have an overwhelming majority support for, otherwise it isnt revolution, its just treason or murder, and it would be unsuccessful anyways. The right to armed rebellion doesnt mean crazy old Bob down the raod gets to go shoot up city hall over the "tyranny" of getting fined for the 30 rusted out junk cars in his front lawn, no matter how mu HE beleives its tyranny and trampling his rights.Again, when there is an overwhelming majority taking up arms, it's pretty clear that the cause is reasonable, whereas when its just a handful of people, it's pretty clear that it isnt reasonable to the vast majority, and those guys are off thier rocker, and can be dealt with as criminals, as thier right to rebellion isnt in play.

I think Stagger Lee knows this too, in spit of his comment:

The topic was that people have some right to organize and rise up against whatever they think "tyranny" is (high toll road fees?) and you cited those government agencies as examples of tyranny. I simply pointed out that the power to creat such agencies for the common good was in fact given to our government by the drafters of our constitution, and suddenly you're done. Game, set, match to me. But it was definitely related to the topic, especially the next anticipated exchange where I was getting set to ask you about your opinion regarding your "right" to pick up a gun and rebel against the Occupational Health and Safety Administration and when you planned to do it.

He was trying to shut the OP down with a ridiculous, extreme argument, knowing that no one would agree rebellion was legit in his scenario, and high toll fees isnt tyranny in all but a few serious kooks minds.

Or, maybe he really DOES think that there is NEVER a right to armed rebellion like he seems to imply a bit, no matter what the government does, or how much of the population is against them, and yet the government refuses to obey the peoples wishes and just ignores them and continues to do as it pleases.

 

[publius42]

Should a federal agency also prevent people from smoking? What about eating fatty foods? Or encountering stress at work?

Well, all of those thing affect interstate commerce. Try to name something that doesn't! (Indigenous California toads are already taken. )

13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell


For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

D'oh! Should have spelled that out a little more clearly at the time, James.

 

[Erik]

""Can one in good faith oppose the current scope of federal authority?"

"Define "oppose.""

"Strongly disagree with, would be my definition."

Then yes, absolutely, without any caveats.

 

[Dearhunter61]

Opposition of the current government?

I think that is what we are going to see come to pass in a couple of months. How will we see it? We will see it when we see the election returns.

jrfoxx, you present your views elegantly and I must agree with you.

I submit the following as a way to bring revolution to our country, that being change. I do not think the system we have in place is effective, it is not just one part but some of all, nor do I think it represents the people as it should. To have only a two party system, I know there will perhaps be a couple who will say we have more than two but we do not have more than two that truly have a say in each and every election, is simply not representitive of the people any longer. I know I vote Republican and have for the last 12 years but to say they really represent my views would be incorrect. They are simply the best of the worst.

I have spoke to a lot of people and almost all agree the two major parties today DO NOT represent them. So what do we need? A couple of more parties which would represent the country more effectively. I am not saying replace the two current parties...just add a couple of more. I know this is probably a pipedream but in this way we would have a better chance of our voice being heard. What is the main obstacles? First and foremost money and then the time to present the message/platform effectively over a 4-8 year period to build credibility with those around the country who share those views and then build the confidence in them so that they would vote for the candidates of the parties. The only way to make this happen is on the ground level at our local elections.

Would this create the type of government all want...not because someone will always be on the side that got defeated in the last election but it at least would provide a more representitive government that we have now. I believe one of the reasons we do not have a better turn out at our elections is the very thing I have stated above...neither party represents a lot of the people so they choose not to vote.

I realize that some will say that is the last thing we need but if you feel that way perhaps you can provide a solution minus an armed revolution?

 

[Crosshair]

If you were to ask me how I felt about OSHA making programmatic incursions into areas of historic liberty, I would have to say it felt pretty good. I have no desire to go through what my friends father went through.

My experience with OSHA has been one of incompetence.

Several people at my former job have complained to OSHA about a rolling rack that has been of its tracks for over 4 months and is a clear safety violation. OSHA has taken no action.

Two weeks ago I had to drive two hours to a site to cut some zip ties and rearrange cords because OSHA declared the the power strips to the computer equipment being zip tied to the rack made them a "permanent" installation and were therefore a safety hazard. However I could leave them laying on the floor and have them be a trip hazard since that would be considered a "temporary" installation. (Those power strip are probably going to be there "temporarily" for about 10-15 years.) Using zip ties to secure power strip is a common practice in server rooms. I've never heard of problems arising from them being zip tied vs just hanging. The OSHA agent felt like simply being an ass that day it seems.

Those are just the two most recent ones I can think up. I need to get to bed.

 

[CGSteve8718]

zukiphile, I think you are just wasting your time trying to have a reasonable discussion with Stagger.

I, like many others on here and in this thread who have served or are serving our country in some capacity recognize a normal healthy wariness of govt disagree fundementally with pretty much everything he says.

He doesn't even speak to me because I called one of his posts naive in another thread in which he stated a complete B&W view of how things are.

I even disassociate others that share opposing views from us such as TN Gent from Stagger.

 

[zukiphile]

I, like many others on here and in this thread who have served or are serving our country in some capacity recognize a normal healthy wariness of govt disagree fundementally with pretty much everything he says.

Steve, my experience is that most people within a system are conversant in the deficiencies of the systems and the oddities of the personalities involved. It is no mistake that lawyers tell the best lawyer jokes.

My friends in the LE community are very aware of the potential abuse of authority in calm dispassionate discussion or when defending a friend. They really only lapse into an "US v. Them" frame of mind at times when they have identified a party as a target or adversary. These men appeciate the value of limited government more than people whose contact with government power is infrequent or passing.

zukiphile, I think you are just wasting your time trying to have a reasonable discussion with Stagger.

You may be right. He was very anxious to discuss this very topic...

I didn't think you'd want to answer the question as I framed it so I understand why you're bailing out, but it's not really off-topic. The topic was that people have some right to organize and rise up against whatever they think "tyranny" is (high toll road fees?) and you cited those government agencies as examples of tyranny. I simply pointed out that the power to creat such agencies for the common good was in fact given to our government by the drafters of our constitution, and suddenly you're done. Game, set, match to me.

...but now that looks like callow bravado.

I even PMed him a link to this thread.

He doesn't even speak to me because I called one of his posts naive in another thread ...

This seems to be SOP for people insecure about discussing their thoughts.

 

[Al Norris]

Whatever anyone thinks about another, is a personal issue. As such, it is not a topic of open discussion. It will get this thread closed, among other possibilities.

I trust everyone understands this?

 

[zukiphile]

13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell


For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

D'oh! Should have spelled that out a little more clearly at the time, James.

With better foresight he might have, but to be fair to him, there is no language so clear that it cannot be intentionally misconstrued. We see this in 2d Am. discussions in which proponents of de facto repeal rarely choose to argue repeal, but a repeal by substitution of the meanings of the terms with their opposite.

As you correctly point out, the commerce clause was intended to give Congress authority over commerce between the states, sort of a free trade zone within the former colonies, but has developed into something very different.

It seems fair to observe that if enough people over a long enough time want a change, it will happen whether the text of our laws permit it or not. I think the 1st Am. is unambiguous, but enough people heard about the evils of lobbyists, money in politics and 527s, that they passed a law abridging free speech and it passed constitutional challenge.

Similarly, for nearly a half century americans often asked for and received more federal government, with the result in great expansion without formal COTUS amendment.

It also doesn't help the cause of limited government that most americans have a healthy skepticism of federal power when it comes in the shape of IRS or EEOC, but when a levy breaks we stand around and ask one another what FEMA is doing.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Zukiphile,

Just because I did not bother participating in your thread, do you *really* think that it demonstrated any maturity at all on your part to PM me and call me names because I chose to ignore it?

You really need to grow up. And mods, please feel free to close this thread. I won't waste my time on it, especially after [your] childish PM.

Oh--And CGSteve, I actually haven't spoken to you as of late because you haven't said anything worth responding to. You're pretty much just background noise...all static, no signal.

 

[zukiphile]

So good of you to join

I compliment you on your prudence in not defending your original implication.

You're not saying that you're the only one that has rights now, are you?

Not by a very long shot.

Don't your neighbors have a right to enjoy their property, including a right not to have you degrade their land by dumping toxins on your own? Are you saying that people don't have a right to apply for jobs, school admission or buy/rent homes without regard to their color, race or gender?

They may very well have each of those rights, but this does not lead to the conclusion that each of those rights is federally entrenched.

Property rights are traditionally very much a matter of state law, as the recent takings case heard by the SCOTUS showed.

You ask "Are you saying that people don't have a right to apply for jobs, school admission or buy/rent homes without regard to their color, race or gender?" which touch on specific amendments to the COTUS. Certainly without the 15th Am., the federal claim to authority to treat people differently according to race would be different.

Of course, the other side of your question is whether people should have a right to freely associate, only hire those they prefer, admit to schools those they see fit to admit, or rent homes from those they assess as good tenants. It certainly leaves room for people to make decision I would consider loathsome, but it is a liberty people for the most part possessed historically.

What many, myself included, find objectionable is to turn first to the federal government for the first, best and only answer to a problem with a neighbor's decision.

 

[publius42]

James Madison, Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.

Since EEOC and OSHA were mentioned...

Are Occupational Health and Safety or racial hiring quotas principally "external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" or are those things among "the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State?"

 

[publius42]

Did you know that loan sharking is interstate commerce? See PEREZ v. UNITED STATES , which was decided by a nearly unanimous Court. I found Justice Stewart's dissent flawless in its logic, and unusually short for a court opinion. Here it is:

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissenting.

Congress surely has power under the Commerce Clause to enact criminal laws to protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, to prohibit the misuse of the channels or facilities of interstate commerce, and to prohibit or regulate those intrastate activities that have a demonstrably substantial effect on interstate commerce. But under the statute before us a man can be convicted without any proof of interstate movement, of the use of the facilities of interstate commerce, or of facts showing that his conduct affected interstate commerce. I think the Framers of the Constitution never intended that the National Government might define as a crime and prosecute such wholly local activity through the enactment of federal criminal laws.

In order to sustain this law we would, in my view, have to be able at the least to say that Congress could rationally have concluded that loan sharking is an activity with interstate attributes that distinguish it in some substantial respect from other local crime. But it is not enough to say that loan sharking is a national problem, for all crime is a national problem. It is not enough to say that some loan sharking has interstate characteristics, for any crime may have an interstate setting. And the circumstance that loan sharking has an adverse impact on interstate business is not a distinguishing attribute, for interstate business suffers from [402 U.S. 146, 158] almost all criminal activity, be it shoplifting or violence in the streets.

Because I am unable to discern any rational distinction between loan sharking and other local crime, I cannot escape the conclusion that this statute was beyond the power of Congress to enact. The definition and prosecution of local, intrastate crime are reserved to the States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. [402 U.S. 146, 159]

He's right. Anything can be said to affect interstate commerce, so the feds seem to have a general police power over anything. If I'm wrong, name an exception, keeping in mind that indigenous California toads are already taken.

Justice Thomas couldn't...

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).

Is he right?

 

[publius42]

If the Congress decides to give some money to a lower government, and someone then bribes that lower government for private gain, should Congress be able to make that a federal crime? Under what authority?

I only ask the second question because most will answer "yes" to the first, so let's examine that authority. The Court did in Sabri v US. The obvious answer has to do with proper stewardship of the money Congress spends, and that was how the Court decided the case. HOWEVER, I have linked to Justice Thomas' concurring opinion because he has something interesting to say about that answer.

First, Thomas says that if loan sharking is interstate commerce, then so is bribery. Case over.

He then goes on to say that if the stewardship justification is examined, it appears far too broad to be constitutional under a rational reading of McCulloch v. Maryland. In that case, the Court set the standard for constitutionality:

“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

OK, so Congress has the legitimate aim of properly overseeing the money they hand out. We'll assume they're spending on something constitutional, so it's all within the scope. There is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits Congress from making bribery of lower government officials illegal, nor is that obviously inconsistent with the letter or spirit of the Constitution.

So we're left with examining whether the statute in question (Title 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2)) is "appropriate and plainly adapted" to the desired end of proper oversight. On that subject, Thomas said this:

All that is necessary for §666(a)(2) to apply is that the organization, government, or agency in question receives more than $10,000 in federal benefits of any kind, and that an agent of the entity is bribed regarding a substantial transaction of that entity. No connection whatsoever between the corrupt transaction and the federal benefits need be shown.

The Court does a not-wholly-unconvincing job of tying the broad scope of §666(a)(2) to a federal interest in federal funds and programs. See ante, at 5. But simply noting that “[m]oney is fungible,” ibid., for instance, does not explain how there could be any federal interest in “prosecut[ing] a bribe paid to a city’s meat inspector in connection with a substantial transaction just because the city’s parks department had received a federal grant of $10,000,” United States v. Santopietro, 166 F.3d 88, 93 (CA2 1999). It would be difficult to describe the chain of inferences and assumptions in which the Court would have to indulge to connect such a bribe to a federal interest in any federal funds or programs as being “plainly adapted” to their protection. And, this is just one example of many in which any federal interest in protecting federal funds is equally attenuated, and yet the bribe is covered by the expansive language of §666(a)(2).

 

[zukiphile]

He's right. Anything can be said to affect interstate commerce, so the feds seem to have a general police power over anything. If I'm wrong, name an exception, keeping in mind that indigenous California toads are already taken.

Justice Thomas couldn't...


Quote:
If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).

Is he right?

Publius, I assume you are asking this rhetorically.

One of Renquist's project was to put some teeth back into the CC. If you recall, the "gun-free school zones" law was invalidated on the ground that Congress hadn't shown the impact of a school on interstate commerce to a degree sufficient to justify federal regulation.

But, Zuk, that it so modest it should barely count!

I agree that it is a small step. But in a battle largely lost already, even a small step is progress.

 

[HKuser]

SL wrote:
You really need to grow up. And mods, please feel free to close this thread. I won't waste my time on it, especially after [your] childish PM.

Oh--And CGSteve, I actually haven't spoken to you as of late because you haven't said anything worth responding to. You're pretty much just background noise...all static, no signal.

Did you miss this:

Antipitas wrote:

Whatever anyone thinks about another, is a personal issue. As such, it is not a topic of open discussion.

 

[publius42]

If you recall, the "gun-free school zones" law was invalidated on the ground that Congress hadn't shown the impact of a school on interstate commerce to a degree sufficient to justify federal regulation.

That's not quite right. A Gun Free School Zones Act was invalidated, but the GFSZ Act is on the books today.

Related THR thread on that issue

Before the Lopez decision even came out, Congress rewrote the law to sidestep the decision, essentially declaring their own power by declaring that guns near schools affect interstate commerce. The NEW law has not been challenged, and remains on the books.

 

[zukiphile]

That's correct. The salient part of the observation is that there has been an effort to rehabilitate the CC, with the court staking out standards for federal authority under the CC.

I am not suggesting that the scope of federal authority is now restricted to a degree either of us or most others here would find optimal or correct. I am noting that asserting the CC to be a limit at all is progress.

 

[CGSteve8718]

No Stagger, I was specifically referring to the thread where you chose to back out of the conversation after you found that our views differ.

Anyway, I apologize Antipitas, as I was getting really close to letting personal feelings get into the way of mostly meaningful discussion. I'm outta here.

 

[SDC]

Absolutely, and you'd have to be wilfully blind to pretend otherwise; in an ideal world, any government is a servant to those people that it professes to serve, but power has this funny habit of putting its own interests above those whom they're supposed to serve. That's why budgets always go up, and never go down; that's why more restrictive laws are always passed, and are almost never rescinded; that's why powers that were at one time universally agreed to be left in the hands "of the people", are today the purview of the Ministry of Silly Walks. You see this in EVERY government, and in EVERY bureaucracy, and every one of them will claim that they provide a necessary (nay, INDISPENSABLE) "service", and they're all only too happy to leech 30% out of every dollar that passes through their hands to provide that "service" to you, whether you want it or not.