13 Jun 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo I disapprove of the way that judges exercise jurisprudence. They have become virtual partisan hacks, holding views almost entirely on the party that nominated them. Actually, although I find Robert's unique finding on the ACA wrong, I can respect his lack of partisanship, and his inventiveness.
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?
It is almost inconceivable to me that 9 men versed in the law, can always disagree 5-4 on matters of law. Is it that so many laws are written poorly, with such ambiguity that even scholars without biases disagree? Or more likely, I think it is that the law is part and parcel of virtually every facet of life today in the United States. The law becomes more and more invasive, and increasing numbers of people look for the government to settle issues in their favor.
I found Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" riveting. In the early days of this Republic, he found lots of disagreements, but most government happening at the local level.
Franklin, and others thought it would be hard, perhaps impossible to maintain a limited government republic in the face of Democracy.
14 Jun 14
Originally posted by sh76I think it's academic; there's not going to be a Constitutional amendment changing the way SCOTUS judges are confirmed. And quite frankly, I don't see it as that much of a problem - the court has been ideologically divided many times in the past and survived.
I know the political environment is toxic, but do you really think we can never get bipartisan support for anything substantial again?
14 Jun 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThey are nominated by a President, who is a member of a party. Party positions on a few issues have tended to shape American politics, especially since the FDR administration which openly sought to stack the Court to do its bidding. More recently hearings to confirm justices have been dominated by positions on a few contested issues.
Isn't that what you would expect if they are nominated by a party?
I believe that in earlier times, justices were nominated by Presidents more on thier judicial qualifications than on positions on single issues.
14 Jun 14
Originally posted by normbenignIf you believe that, you are misinformed. Presidents have always tried to place justices on the court who agreed with their ideological positions.
They are nominated by a President, who is a member of a party. Party positions on a few issues have tended to shape American politics, especially since the FDR administration which openly sought to stack the Court to do its bidding. More recently hearings to confirm justices have been dominated by positions on a few contested issues.
I believe that ...[text shortened]... ominated by Presidents more on thier judicial qualifications than on positions on single issues.
14 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThat goes without saying. There weren't so many instances of bright line distinctions between the parties as there are now. The more expansive the federal government becomes, the more these issues multiply.
If you believe that, you are misinformed. Presidents have always tried to place justices on the court who agreed with their ideological positions.
If a minimum wage in the pacific northwest draws people to that area, and enhances their economy, that may be a correct State decision. People in the various States can and have chosen to legislate differing means of financing local government, and we the people of the United States can vote with out feet and our U Hauls if we like one State better than others.
It may well be that as some feared a republic with limited government could never last.
14 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignThe US split into two major parties very early in its history. Partisan differences were quite intense in the decades after the Constitution as things like the Bank of the United States controversy and the Alien and Sedition Acts makes pretty clear.
That goes without saying. There weren't so many instances of bright line distinctions between the parties as there are now. The more expansive the federal government becomes, the more these issues multiply.
If a minimum wage in the pacific northwest draws people to that area, and enhances their economy, that may be a correct State decision. People i ...[text shortened]... hers.
It may well be that as some feared a republic with limited government could never last.
In the midst of the Great Depression, the Federal Government decided that a minimum wage applicable across the country would help consumer demand and be an aid to the economy. The SCOTUS reasonably found this to be a regulation of commerce well within the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause (there were no dissents). If States or localities feel that they want a higher than the federal minimum wage, they have a legitimate power to so decide. If it really bothers someone that much that the US has a federal minimum wage, I guess they can load up their U-Hauls and go someplace that doesn't.
14 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauder"The US split into two major parties very early in its history. Partisan differences were quite intense in the decades after the Constitution as things like the Bank of the United States controversy and the Alien and Sedition Acts makes pretty clear."
The US split into two major parties very early in its history. Partisan differences were quite intense in the decades after the Constitution as things like the Bank of the United States controversy and the Alien and Sedition Acts makes pretty clear.
In the midst of the Great Depression, the Federal Government decided that a minimum wage a ...[text shortened]... as a federal minimum wage, I guess they can load up their U-Hauls and go someplace that doesn't.
Jefferson and Adams disagreed on lots of things, but remained ammicable correspondents into their fading years. The intense debates of those day were about things of national interest, and articles of real delegated authority.
"In the midst of the Great Depression, the Federal Government decided that a minimum wage applicable across the country would help consumer demand and be an aid to the economy. "
Keynesians argued that, and others believed that allowing the market to reduce wages would end the depression and chronic unemployment more quickly. The result of government intervention was that the Depression lasted until the end of WWII, and unemployment was reduced by millions of men leaving the workforce and international industrial competition being eliminated, not by the creation of a minimum wage.
" If it really bothers someone that much that the US has a federal minimum wage, I guess they can load up their U-Hauls and go someplace that doesn't."
That is exactly what a lot of American businesses have done, and not just minimum wage employers. Others decide to downsize their businesses, automate, or just simplify. All of which eliminate jobs for low skill workers.
Unanimoty at SCOTUS doesn't mean the ruling is correct, any more than a 5-4 decision.
Originally posted by normbenign(Shrug) The depression was ended by a massive infusion of government spending which the Keynesians had always supported but had failed to convince the powers that be in the democracies to do (FDR was never a Keynesian and actually tried to cut spending to balance the budget in 1937 causing an increase in the unemployment rate which had dropped sharply since the early 1930's). Whatever your opinion of the minimum wage, it has overwhelming popular support and most feel the economy is better with it than without it. Decreases in the real minimum wage from 1968 on were met not with a massive increase in low wage jobs as ECO 101 day one predicts, but with persistently higher levels of unemployment.
"The US split into two major parties very early in its history. Partisan differences were quite intense in the decades after the Constitution as things like the Bank of the United States controversy and the Alien and Sedition Acts makes pretty clear."
Jefferson and Adams disagreed on lots of things, but remained ammicable correspondents into their fad ...[text shortened]... kers.
Unanimoty at SCOTUS doesn't mean the ruling is correct, any more than a 5-4 decision.
14 Jun 14
Originally posted by normbenignMany Western governments in the 19th Century were "limited" governments. They didn't last because the result of "limited" government was unpopular, and the limited governments vanished either because they were voted away or because they were overthrown in revolts.
That goes without saying. There weren't so many instances of bright line distinctions between the parties as there are now. The more expansive the federal government becomes, the more these issues multiply.
If a minimum wage in the pacific northwest draws people to that area, and enhances their economy, that may be a correct State decision. People i ...[text shortened]... hers.
It may well be that as some feared a republic with limited government could never last.
14 Jun 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe founders knew that democracy was dangerous, but that it would be difficult to design and keep a republic utilizing democratic inputs. It has proven so. Populism pits groups against one another. This is where the United States is now.
Many Western governments in the 19th Century were "limited" governments. They didn't last because the result of "limited" government was unpopular, and the limited governments vanished either because they were voted away or because they were overthrown in revolts.
14 Jun 14
Originally posted by normbenignYes, I'm sure they thought democracy was dangerous, which would explain why they implemented a system that was at the time one of the most, if not the most democratic one in existence.
The founders knew that democracy was dangerous, but that it would be difficult to design and keep a republic utilizing democratic inputs. It has proven so. Populism pits groups against one another. This is where the United States is now.
14 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOne must remember that when the Framers spoke of "democracy" they saw that as different from a democratic "republic". Madison in Federalist 14:
Yes, I'm sure they thought democracy was dangerous, which would explain why they implemented a system that was at the time one of the most, if not the most democratic one in existence.
The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa14.htm
And, in general, prior democracies had had no constraints as regards the rights of minorities and/or individuals; the People of Athens voted that Socrates had to drink the hemlock, so drink it he must. The system they created had constraints on governmental power of any sort built in.
EDIT: From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
Federalist 10
15 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderCould not have said it better. Thus the founders defined a government with three co-equal branches, a bicameral legislature, with one house directly elected (by the people), and the other elected by representatives of the States. This diffusion of power was to avoid the dangers of faction, and the dangers of democracy, while still granting the people representation they lacked under King George.
One must remember that when the Framers spoke of "democracy" they saw that as different from a democratic "republic". Madison in Federalist 14:
The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding o ...[text shortened]... citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
Federalist 10