Do away with Federal Minimum wage

Originally posted by normbenign
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant i ...[text shortened]... take care of limited duties. King George was a master. The United States did not need another.

Your interpretation of the quote is ludicrously and laughably wrong.

The delegated authority is the Congress.

The delegating authority is the People.

The deputy is Congress.

The principal is the People.

The servant is Congress.

The master is the People.

Hamilton is saying the People created the Constitution and delegated certain powers to the Congress. The Congress may not go beyond those powers and it is the duty of the judiciary to declare any laws that do so void. This is Con Law 101.

Originally posted by normbenign
The power to regulate interstate commerce is not in doubt. It is the open ended power to define almost any activity as interstate commerce. Such open ended power renders the entire Constitution redundant, and the nation subject to tyranny.

The power is not open ended though some have made claims that would make it nearly so. It is up to the Courts to so restrict the meaning to the sphere of commercial/economic matters and the SCOTUS has done so sometimes and not so much other times.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
By design, the constitution is open-ended because it means whatever voters, through the indirectly elected Supreme Court "judges" (read: politicians), want it to mean.

That was certainly not the design nor has it been the result.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That was certainly not the design nor has it been the result.

It was perhaps not the intention, although it was the result.

Roe v. Wade in 1950. What would've been the result?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It was perhaps not the intention, although it was the result.

Roe v. Wade in 1950. What would've been the result?

SCOTUS rulings aren't solely based on majority feeling. In 1967, the Court found laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional; at the time according to the Gallup poll less than 20% approved of marriages between whites and nonwhites.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

Originally posted by no1marauder
SCOTUS rulings aren't solely based on majority feeling. In 1967, the Court found laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional; at the time according to the Gallup poll less than 20% approved of marriages between whites and nonwhites.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

How did you go from "indirectly elected" to "solely based on majority feeling"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How did you go from "indirectly elected" to "solely based on majority feeling"?

By not selectively quoting:

KN: By design, the constitution is open-ended because it means whatever voters, through the indirectly elected Supreme Court "judges" (read: politicians), want it to mean.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
By design, the constitution is open-ended because it means whatever voters, through the indirectly elected Supreme Court "judges" (read: politicians), want it to mean.

That is a view (living document) which makes the actual textual document meaningless, and useless. There are means to alter the Constitution, but not by the fiat of politicians.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your interpretation of the quote is ludicrously and laughably wrong.

The delegated authority is the Congress.

The delegating authority is the People.

The deputy is Congress.

The principal is the People.

The servant is Congress.

The master ...[text shortened]... rs and it is the duty of the judiciary to declare any laws that do so void. This is Con Law 101.

By some miracle of misunderstanding, we are saying the same thing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
By not selectively quoting:

KN: By design, the constitution is open-ended [b]because it means whatever voters, through the indirectly elected Supreme Court "judges" (read: politicians), want it to mean.[/b]

Democracy is always going to be determined by the will of the people, but that does not imply a majority opinion. Not even a direct referendum will, in general, reflect the majority opinion among the people. "What the voters want" thus indirectly determines SCOTUS decisions because SCOTUS judges are indirectly elected by the people. This does not imply that every SCOTUS decision will have a majority approval among the people at any given time. It does imply that whatever the people want the Constitution to mean will have a much larger influence than the actual writing or past interpretations of the Constitution.

Originally posted by normbenign
That is a view (living document) which makes the actual textual document meaningless, and useless. There are means to alter the Constitution, but not by the fiat of politicians.

So you disapprove of the way SCOTUS judges are appointed, then? Perhaps you would like to introduce a constitutional amendment to change the method by which they are appointed?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So you disapprove of the way SCOTUS judges are appointed, then? Perhaps you would like to introduce a constitutional amendment to change the method by which they are appointed?

One interesting idea would be to require a supermajority of the Senate to confirm SCOTUS judges; maybe even 2/3. That way, you're guaranteed Justices palatable to both parties and a bench full of swing votes; which makes more sense than making say, Anthony Kennedy arbitrator of Constitutional Law in close questions (the ACA case excepted, of course).

Originally posted by sh76
One interesting idea would be to require a supermajority of the Senate to confirm SCOTUS judges; maybe even 2/3. That way, you're guaranteed Justices palatable to both parties and a bench full of swing votes; which makes more sense than making say, Anthony Kennedy arbitrator of Constitutional Law in close questions (the ACA case excepted, of course).

Scalia was confirmed 98-0 and Ginsburg 96-3 so that logic really doesn't follow.http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/past-confirmation-votes.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Scalia was confirmed 98-0 and Ginsburg 96-3 so that logic really doesn't follow.http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/past-confirmation-votes.htm

As you have so often pointed out, times have changed since then.

Also, the mere fact that a nominee requires bipartisan support would moderate the nomination.

Originally posted by sh76
As you have so often pointed out, times have changed since then.

Also, the mere fact that a nominee requires bipartisan support would moderate the nomination.

More likely it would pretty much insure that no one could get confirmed.