Erring on the side of the constitution?

Big Government Dems, led by Markey Mouse of MA, want to "close the loophole" and put the Feds in charge of stationary amusement parks. A long line of victims are expected to appear on a boob tube near you in order to create bigger federal government.

Problem is, what constitutional basis do they have? Mobile fairs and rides are regulated by the feds, as they cross state lines and are therefore subject to the interstate trade provision of the constitution (the commerce clause). There is no such authority in the constitution for local and state stationary parks. That so-called "loophole" is the constitution.

Besides, ask yourself if you've ever been to a fair, where do you feel safer? Traveling fairs or local amusement parks? Which is safer? So why exactly do Big Government Dems insist on ever expanding the Federal Government?

I believe it is the inherent desire to control others.

Mark 

Ted/Mark, most of the left looks only at the "rights" (some very much invented) provided by our Constitution (and only some of those, considering their antipithy towards the Second Amendment).  The left pretty much ignores anything else.  As long as the government has no control over people's sex lives, control of their economic lives can be just about total as far as the left is concerned.

The whole comcept of "federalism" is considered entirely outmoded to the left, which feels that state and local governments should pretty much be mere lower level appendages of the federal government, responsible to it.  The past 70 years have already seen the federal government assume roles that would have been absolutely UNTHINKABLE to those who wrote our Constitution - and doing so without, in most cases, the Constitution being formally amended.

Perhaps in the distant (thanks to George W. Bush, it will be relatifvely far distant) future, the Supreme Court may eventually simply acquise in a Democrat congress wiping away the last vestages of federalism on the grounds that the changing nature of our society has evolved to the point that such quaint and outmoded Constitutional limitations are simply no longer valid.

MWL

MWL,

I suppose I am blind to the notion of power vested into the hands of politicians. I don't believe anyone born in the last 20 years has any notion of true freedom, and the further we go down this road, the more true "rights" we give up to the federal government. Young people in our current school system are like frogs being boiled. They simply don't know and may never know.  

Mark 

I believe it is the inherent desire to control others.

Mark 

[/quote] That nasty desire to control was for:

1) funding of abstinence only education over comprehensive sex education

2) elimination of women's right to choose

3) forbidding same sex marriage

4) stopping ALL new lines of stem cell research 

In times past that passion to control was violently against all birth control and abortion under any and all circumstances (no exceptions) and even decreed what sexual acts couldn't be privately performed by consenting adults.

Myra 

I believe it is the inherent desire to control others.

Mark 

[/quote] That nasty desire to control was for:

1) funding of abstinence only education over comprehensive sex education

2) elimination of women's right to choose

3) forbidding same sex marriage

4) stopping ALL new lines of stem cell research 

In times past that passion to control was violently against all birth control and abortion under any and all circumstances (no exceptions) and even decreed what sexual acts couldn't be privately performed by consenting adults.

Myra 

[/quote]

It's an insult on the Founders, the constitution, and our heritage to mention same sex marriage as a right or that somehow the mean old Republicans have violated the constitution by prohibiting same sex marriages. Look around, it's the overwhelming, vast majority of Dems, Independents, and Republicans who are voting against same sex marriages.

Don't be factitious. 

As far as abortions, that's a state matter, as the constitution leaves everything outside of the ascribed powers of the Feds in the hands of the people and the states. 

As far as abstinence, I agree, it's not the Feds business, it is, however the power of your state to decide what to teach and how to teach. The Feds have overstepped their powers with "No Child Left Behind", and indeed, even having a Department of Education. 

And stem cells? Don't make me laugh. Where in the constitution does it authorize the Feds to do medical research? Section and article, please.

I anxiously wait your response. 

Mark, from Article One, Section Eight:

[Congress shall have the power ]  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

This combines with the"necessary and proper" clause. 

FYI, I wrote about control freaks, not Constitutional authorization or political party. Control freaks don't care what level of government, they only want control: witness the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Myra 

The government we have now should be taken out behind the BARN and shot for dis-obeying the US Constitution.

Like I said, it's like frogs being boiled.

Mark 

I believe it is the inherent desire to control others.

Mark 

[/quote] That nasty desire to control was for:

1) funding of abstinence only education over comprehensive sex education

2) elimination of women's right to choose

3) forbidding same sex marriage

4) stopping ALL new lines of stem cell research 

In times past that passion to control was violently against all birth control and abortion under any and all circumstances (no exceptions) and even decreed what sexual acts couldn't be privately performed by consenting adults.

Myra 

[/quote]

It's an insult on the Founders, the constitution, and our heritage to mention same sex marriage as a right or that somehow the mean old Republicans have violated the constitution by prohibiting same sex marriages. Look around, it's the overwhelming, vast majority of Dems, Independents, and Republicans who are voting against same sex marriages.

Don't be factitious. 

As far as abortions, that's a state matter, as the constitution leaves everything outside of the ascribed powers of the Feds in the hands of the people and the states. 

As far as abstinence, I agree, it's not the Feds business, it is, however the power of your state to decide what to teach and how to teach. The Feds have overstepped their powers with "No Child Left Behind", and indeed, even having a Department of Education. 

And stem cells? Don't make me laugh. Where in the constitution does it authorize the Feds to do medical research? Section and article, please.

I anxiously wait your response. 

[/quote]

 2) elimination of women's right to choose

and other liberal fiction.

I personally believe that a woman should be able to choose, BUT I do not find that right in law.  

"I personally believe that a woman should be able to choose, BUT I do not find that right in law"

You can't find it in the law, because a law was never passed. It was never debated in the Legislature and voted on. It is not in the Constitution, unless of course you go through a tortuous path to get there, as the Court did. Stem cell research is not illegal, and it is not in the Constitution that we have to spend the taxpayers money on it. Our personal beliefs have no place in interpreting what the Constitution says. If a document can mean anything you want it to mean, it is a meaningless document.

Mark 

Mark, from Article One, Section Eight:

[Congress shall have the power ]  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

This combines with the"necessary and proper" clause. 

FYI, I wrote about control freaks, not Constitutional authorization or political party. Control freaks don't care what level of government, they only want control: witness the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Myra 

[/quote]

LOL I assume this is in response to my post.

My name is Ted, my son's middle name is Earl. I do have a cousin named Mark. I don't think he is Mark49, however, as he's only 39 or so.

Patent and copyright protection has nothing to do with federal research, they are granted for private research. Why is that so hard to understand?

BTW, I give you credit for at least looking at the constitution to justify your opinion of what the constitution should say. Most on your side of the aisle never even crack it open. 

"I personally believe that a woman should be able to choose, BUT I do not find that right in law"

You can't find it in the law, because a law was never passed. It was never debated in the Legislature and voted on. It is not in the Constitution, unless of course you go through a tortuous path to get there, as the Court did. Stem cell research is not illegal, and it is not in the Constitution that we have to spend the taxpayers money on it. Our personal beliefs have no place in interpreting what the Constitution says. If a document can mean anything you want it to mean, it is a meaningless document.

Mark 

[/quote]

Our personal beliefs have no place in interpreting what the Constitution says. If a document can mean anything you want it to mean, it is a meaningless document.

Mark,

you are correct. And I will not work for or against a law for something I believe is a personal choice. BUT if it something is illegal

I will OBEY the law regardless of my persoal opinion, unlike liberals who would run to the nearest liberal judge.   

"BUT if it something is illegalI will OBEY the law regardless of my persoal opinion, unlike liberals who would run to the nearest liberal judge." 

SC, that's because you think rationally and have your head screwed on straight.

Mark 

Mark, from Article One, Section Eight:

[Congress shall have the power ]  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

This combines with the"necessary and proper" clause. 

FYI, I wrote about control freaks, not Constitutional authorization or political party. Control freaks don't care what level of government, they only want control: witness the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Myra 

[/quote]

LOL I assume this is in response to my post.

My name is Ted, my son's middle name is Earl. I do have a cousin named Mark. I don't think he is Mark49, however, as he's only 39 or so.

Patent and copyright protection has nothing to do with federal research, they are granted for private research. Why is that so hard to understand?

BTW, I give you credit for at least looking at the constitution to justify your opinion of what the constitution should say. Most on your side of the aisle never even crack it open. 

[/quote] Please don't demean me with your comments.

I'm sorry I called you by the wrong name.

As I said before my focus is on control freaks, not wider issues. 

I also combined the Constitutional "to promote the progress of science" with the necessary & proper clause as the probable justification for scientific research. Such research is going on whether Constitutional or not & there are control issues over it.

Education is not mentioned either, but federal involvement goes on with resulting control issues.

I refer frequently to the two copies of the Constitution in my nightstand.

Myra 

Obviously, you've got your special interest agenda.

Obviously, you've got your special interest agenda. Not defending the constitution, merely assaulting any perception of traditional values.

Obviously, you've got your special interest agenda. Not defending the constitution, merely assaulting any perception of traditional values.

[/quote]Ted, I don't appreciate gratuitous attacks.

Having demonstrated that the right is driven by lust to control others at least as much as the left, I return to your original post.

If your outline is complete and correct, the DEMs have no leg to stand on. The "interstate commerce" clause clearly wouldn't apply. However, I sympathize with the safety concern, particularly in view of a horrible disaster a few years ago.

At your leisure, I'd like an insult-free Constitutional discussion with you, particularly of the 9th & 10th Amendments. Be aware that my time is limited.

In the meantime, how are you "defending the Constitution?" What cases have you filed?

What speeches have you given? What groups do you belong to? Is there anything other than clobbering people on message boards?

Myra 

Ted, the best cure for that is NOT to give a reply-- especially an involved one.

Myra