There had to be better revolutionary figures you could think of to accomplish the same intent. I can think of one.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
I had to laugh when I read at the bottom, two of the supporters of this.
"National Association of Convenience Stores and Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America"
There's nothing like using big government to penalize your competition.
Same article 1 section 8
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
So the Federal government may regulate interstate commerce, and is granted the right to execute those powers (along with all the other stuff) by any department of the government of the United States.
vaping hardware and e liquid production and sales is interstate commerce, unless the products are made and sold only within a single state. The FDA, a legal and constitutional agency, has the right to regulate such commerce under established law. The states still retain the ability to further legislate things like state taxes and state laws of sales, such as restricting sales to specific license holders to deal in that product. The FDA is not interfering with states rights.
If the goal is to bind the federal government from taking any actions short of stuff like maintaining an army, declaring war, signing treaties and all that stuff, with no powers over interstate commerce or basically everything else, all of which should be legislated obkybon a state level, you'd need to toss out every judicial decision that favors the federal government's constitutional right and responsibility to act outside of a remarkably limited interpretation of the constitution.
If that's the goal, not even a constitutional amendment(s) would be sufficient. You would need to convene a constitutional convention and rewrite most of it. And let's face it, that's not happening, however tempting it might sound. The Constitution in whole, with its amendments, was not designed to create a Libertarian government. If that's what you want, you have quite an uphill battle accomplishing it, and the basic issue extends well beyond the issue at hand, the regulation of vaping, which is a fairly minor issue beyond a small segment of the population.
The judiciary, responsible for the interpretation of the constitution and ensuring laws enacted are constitutional has weighed in in hundreds of cases establishing the right of federal agencies to enact regulations to carry out their task of enforcing the laws passed. Expecting all that to be tossed out is really a nonstarter as a method of ordering some juice and replacement coils online. There are other legal and likely more effective means to challenge vaping related legislation and regulation than trying to overturn centuries of laws and legal judicial rulings on federal powers.
Revolutionary is not synonymous with communism/Marxism. There was a pretty big revolution involving your country (mine too) a while back. Bronze's avatar was there.
Horselady was actually sounding more reactionary than revolutionary. And her post was dead-on. Too many don't understand those concepts at all. Hell, most people think the US is a democracy.
Horselady was actually sounding more reactionary than revolutionary. And her post was dead-on. Too many don't understand those concepts at all. Hell, most people think the US is a democracy.
yeah, especially in those countries where US brought the democracy with them.
--
are we warming up for something?
So you're telling me if I grow some tobacco, extract the nicotine, make e-liquid from it, sell it, and do all that only within a single state, I don't have to register as manufacturer with the FDA, and they will leave me alone?
Reading the Constitution, that's certainly how it should be, but back during WWII, Wickard v. Filburn trashed the last vestiges of pretense that the FedGov can't regulate anything it wants to, no matter whether it only happens within a single state, and no matter whether commerce is actually involved.
I would argue that in fact is what our founders initially gave us. We lost it, however, by apathy.
I absolutely agree that it's not going to be overturned. It's too far gone for that. I also agree that we have to work with the gargantuan monster that it has become, the best we can, to hold onto what little liberty that we still have. Vaping, included.
Sorry, I don't follow. I don't know what you think I'm warming up for.yeah, especially in those countries where US brought the democracy with them.
--
are we warming up for something?
My point is that people here tend to favor outcomes over following law. If it benefits them, they like it. They want the government (especially federal) to help them every way possible, whether it should be empowered to or not. And they view Supreme Court decisions in much the same way - depending on whether they think the outcome is "fair." They don't understand what the court is required to do. And they don't understand the difference between democracy and a representative republic. Our founders abhorred the former, and warned against it. Contrary to popular belief, we are the latter.
You are correct. They can come and get you anyway. We're in a position where their reach is into every aspect, even on a local level.
The first person to cite to Hitler or NAZI is, at best a very shallow thinker and at worst a fool or charlatan.
Edit: I did not think that was the intent of the post by @shadev, it struck me differently.
Last edited:
Odd how the written word strikes the mind, I did not find your remark out of line at all. Given my political proclivities I frequently react adversely.
Guess the founders had a picture of how they wanted the country to be. Being a transplant I'm not too well up on the subject. I have to disagree about apathy being the reason it didn't work out the way they wanted. It was more that things weren't working out too well for a lot of people. When they eventually got the vote they had their own ideas. Or maybe, given a choice, we would rather have our lives run by a government we can theoretically get rid of rather than a bunch of corporations we have no influence over at all. Too many big boys on the block, so we wanted our own big boy. Big Gov hasn't worked out too well either, the corporations still run the show. Maybe another change is coming.
I read a speech once by an opponent of female emancipation. He said if women get to vote all they will do with it is vote for the tallest candidate. If only we could go back to the good old days when short white guys like me had a fair shot at making it.
I read a speech once by an opponent of female emancipation. He said if women get to vote all they will do with it is vote for the tallest candidate. If only we could go back to the good old days when short white guys like me had a fair shot at making it.
I had to laugh when I read at the bottom, two of the supporters of this.
"National Association of Convenience Stores and Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America"
There's nothing like using big government to penalize your competition.
It is a new from of capitalism, if can't beat 'em then grease the administrative state and regulate them out of business.
One of formative decisions of the Supreme Court advancing both the power of the federal government and the administrative state is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). Whenever I think of it today, long after I first read it, I am aghast at the arrogance of the court and the lust for power displayed by the agency involved.
I'll only point out its not all that new. Capitalism has long worked that way. And despite the ability to intercede with antitrust law, it's not proven to be consistently useful.
As an aside, anyone see the news today that Facebook is rolling out their own currency for online FB transactions? Imagine, a company that knows all sorts of stuff about the public and private lives of 2 Billion users worldwide now creating their own transnational currency. Kinda odd they'd announce it right now when the US congress is a already concerned and considering possible antitrust action, never mind all the EU fines they're looking at.
There was a time when the reach of the federal and local governments was not as intrusive or extensive as it has become. Today, a business can literally be regulated out of business, that was not true seventy five years ago. See the promise to eliminate coal as a source fuel for electricity, essentially by regulating it out of business. These days, anti-trust is not the only and certainly not the most effective way of eliminating competitors.
I do understand your point, but it's tough to think of an industry that's been regulated out of existence, short of the asbestos industry. Individual businesses can be regulated out of existence, but are still more likely to be run out of business or he assimilated by larger corporations. Amazon has devastated much of the physical retail community across business categories. Outsourcing of jobs and abuse of independent contractor rules have undermined employment law and regulations. I know we frequently blame government for our ills, but corporations operating without fear of attempts of government regulation have done an awful lot of damage. Let's face it. Fines of a few billion dollars don't scare off companies from acting with impunity while making tens of billions of dollars.
Similar threads
- Locked
