Why do we keep getting these milk-toast Republicans, beleive me, I want Obama out of there so bad, but even so it's hard for me to get all excited about Romney, it's for sure I'll vote for him, but sheeze, if he picks Pawlenty it's going to be labeled the "White bread ol' boys ticket". I think if he picks Pawlenty he loses. I really think these candidates live in a vacumn ...
This is the second time a RINO has been shoved down our throat. If Romney doesn't do what McLame did for a VP he's in big trouble.
It is and was clear to any observer when you have ten conservatives and only one moderate running, the moderate is going to garner enough votes to carry the day -- especially since the early states deciding the primary race lean left and allow open voting. Romney never broke 25% in GOP popularity, but the other 75% was split between too many people.
It is and was clear to any observer when you have ten conservatives and only one moderate running, the moderate is going to garner enough votes to carry the day -- especially since the early states deciding the primary race lean left and allow open voting. Romney never broke 25% in GOP popularity, but the other 75% was split between too many people.
"...when you have ten conservatives and only one moderate running, the moderate is going to garner enough votes to carry the day."
Romney never broke 25% in GOP popularity
Yup. Happened in 2008 and again this cycle. How do you stop that from happening. I don't know. But I know I'm disgusted with it. Could even Ronald Reagan win the nomination these days?
This is the second time a RINO has been shoved down our throat. If Romney doesn't do what McLame did for a VP he's in big trouble.
it's hard for me to get all excited about Romney, it's for sure I'll vote for him
This is the second time a RINO has been shoved down our throat. If Romney doesn't do what McLame did for a VP he's in big trouble.
But that points to lack of discipline and organization in the part of the conservatives.
Romney may not ever have received more than 25% of the vote, but then again, there was no conservative running able to get more than 25% consistently by coalescing the conservative vote.
Why is it that everyone expects things to be done for them?
Luis, I am curious, would you want Romney to pick Rubio? You are close on the ground in FLA. so I am curious what you think of him?
i personally love the guy.. *swoon*..(Sorry just had to do that for old time sake) LOL
I'm going to put on my flak suit, answer this, then head for cover.
Marco Rubio does not meet the Constitutional requirements under Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution to hold the Office of President, and because of that, he can't be Vice President.
...(running for cover)
I'm of two minds, Luis. I like Rubio. But you make a good point. That birthplace thing could be a problem for him.
But I also like West. He would make a great attack dog (with the added benefit of having that great Florida tan, giving him more leeway in criticizing the president). And I'd certainly be comfortable if a man with his tough military background had to step up to the role of president.
It is still awfully early in the campaign, so I would not recommend slashing one's wrists just yet...
JIM is that you? LMAO
I know...ain't that just the S#IT?
I have to maintain my intellectual integrity, and if I don't believe that Obama qualifies then I can't support Rubio.
Here...read this:
Birth of a Notion, Part 2. Barack Obama and the XIV Amendment (http://boilingfrogs.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/birth-of-a-notion-part-2-barack-obama-and-the-xiv-amendment/)
People, people, people - we are starting to speak with the same pessimistic voices that turned us away from Freerepublic. Don’t fall for every bit of misinformation that hits a Drudge headline, or mainstream media for that matter. Nobody saw Palin coming back in 2008, not even Drudge. I think Romney is smart enough to know that he is going to have to throw the conservatives a bone, with a great pick.
The qualities he must look for:
Conservative, but yet will appeal to moderates or a large voting bloc like Hispanics. Articulate. No teleprompter required
Sharp. Ready for those gotcha questions.
Dynamic. Fire in the belly
I have faith that He will pick a good one, and in a few weeks that name will be a hot topic here on GOPBR
Should Romney lose (which I firmly believe will not happen), Obama and the Democrats class warfare jihad would put the final nails in the coffin of the free America we all grew up in.
Like Glenn Beck said this morning, "America does not survive one more term of Obama."
I posted this on another thread, but since this thread is getting all the action, and it is apropos, I'll post it her as well:
If I was running Romney's campaign I'd .....
SNIP
Is Romney capable of this grand a vision? I keep hoping. But so far all I have seen is more of the same old same old.
Good post, mass. From your keyboard to the attention of Romney's campaign team. God help us. Prayers up.
... That is why that Bain attacks are working. They send the message that Romney is just a self-interested, corrupt hack....
Except that, as Karl Rove just pointed out on Fox, Obama launched the Bain attack ads at the beginning of May when national polls had it Obama 45, Romney 45. Now, 2 1/2 months later, those same polls have it Obama 46, Romney 46. So that line of attack appears to have faltered. But that's the only flaw I see in your analysis.
Except that, as Karl Rove just pointed out on Fox, Obama launched the Bain attack ads at the beginning of May when national polls had it Obama 45, Romney 45. Now, 2 1/2 months later, those same polls have it Obama 46, Romney 46. So that line of attack appears to have faltered. But that's the only flaw I see in your analysis.
You cannot go by national polls, you have to look state by state and in the critical swing states where those ads have been running Obama is pulling well ahead of Romney. His team better get their head out of the sand and fast!
BTW, massadjv...... did you catch your old friend Willie Brown on Bill O'Reilly last night? He was singing praises about Arnold Schwartzeneger because Arnie "went above and beyond to help blacks in CA"....... I can't stand Brown 99% of the time, but have to admit the man has charisma and that is likely why he thrived as he has in CA.
Charisma, extreme intelligence and absolutely no scruples or conscience whatsoever. Being liberals, we loved him for all of those things.
Interesting. I can think of several figures of historic proportions who possessed those same characteristics - and another who currently lives in DC.
We have an "American Idol" electorate. They Are looking for entertainment.
It's too early to start making predictions. Romney has to be considered the underdog, based on money and the electoral college. In truth, no one in the establishment thought any Republican could beat OPapaDoc in 2012, which is one reason our field of candidates was so weak. Romney was the establishment's choice because he was the "safest" guy to head the ticket while the party tried to get the senate and hold the house.SO TELL US, VICTOR, ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM???
SO TELL US, VICTOR, ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM???
I wouldn't take too much stock in Rove. Romney has gone from ahead to behind in VA and FL. Obama is pulling away in OH. PA is nearly out of reach. Rove knows this, but prefers to look at the national picture where Romney's numbers reflect his improvement in places he was going to win anyway, while Obama improves his position in the battleground states.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html)
Please relax. The polls that you cite are flat out WRONG.
Why?
Because they assume a Democrat advantage of between 7 and 9 percentage points in party affiliation among likely voters.
In order to believe that, you would have to believe that the 2012 race will attract an even higher turnout among Democrat core constituencies than occurred in 2008 (when Democrats enjoyed a 7-point advantage in the "Hope and Change" era).
Do you really believe that to be the case this year? Who is more motivated to vote in 2012 - Republicans or Democrats? As for Independent (unaffiliated) voters - do you think they will be more or less likely this year to endorse Barack Obama after having lived through and seen the results of his first term?
In reality, Republican and Democrat turnout is far more likely to mirror 2010 than 2012.
So, please -relax. But still: get everyone you know who might be so inclined to register and vote to save America from a second Obama term.
andy, I can't even begin to count how many times I've been wrong in politics; but, this time I'm certain--even I can't be wrong. Obama will lose. In part because Obama's been a failure on the economy, but also because Romney is the right man for this moment in history. He's got the right skills and the right temperament to succeed. He's an attractive candidate who's conservative enough for what needs doing over the next four or eight years. He's got the support of 90+ percent of conservatives like Cruz, Rubio, Ryan and scores of other high profile conservatives. Plus, he appeals to the middle as well.
I am resolved and I am not worried any longer about Romney's chances.
Maybe so, but let's not get too sanguine, or rest to easily on our apparent laurels. There's still the matter of an election to win.
In the meantime, however, since my vote and, I suppose, your vote, aren't going to turn the tide and put NYS into Romney's column, what would be the more productive use of our time? I'm asking honestly.
Maybe so, but let's not get too sanguine, or rest to easily on our apparent laurels. There's still the matter of an election to win.
In the meantime, however, since my vote and, I suppose, your vote, aren't going to turn the tide and put NYS into Romney's column, what would be the more productive use of our time? I'm asking honestly.
Go on the Mitt site and sign up to make calls in the swing states! :patriot:
I won't do that because I absolutely cannot stand it when someone calls me. So far I've managed to be polite, but political campaign phone calls drive me up the wall, which is a bad thing because my wife is getting tired of footprints on the ceiling. Since I hate it, I would feel very awkward doing it to other people.
LB, at this moment the answer is no. That could change if Pennsylvania becomes competitive, and depending on how Romney campaigns. Funny thing is, I don't want or expect Romney to run a conservative campaign. I wouldn't find him credible if he did. I actually think he may have a better chance of getting my vote if he puts Condi Rice on the ticket and reels in enough suburban women to get within the margin of error in my state. At that point, I'd have to make the calculation that my denying him my vote could have the effect of helping OPapaDoc. But so long as Pennsylvania stays firm Obama territory, I feel no ethical dilemma in not voting for Romney.
I will be very active in trying to deny Obama re-election, of that you can be certain. For example, I will make many more videos mocking OPapaDoc and liberals. But specifically promoting and supporting Romney? I just can't go there. At least not yet.
Interesting.
The only action that will eventually bring about stopping Obama from being re-elected, is to vote for the individual running against him, who has the greatest chance of defeating him.
The most likely outcome of people not voting for the opposition because they feel that the opposition has already lost, is that the opposition will lose.
I can understand your unwillingness to cast a vote for Romney. I just don't understand your refusal to cast an effective vote against Obama if you really wish to actively deny Obama re-election.
At Lexington, 75 minutemen faced over 700 British troops. The minutemen were outnumbered, out gunned, and untrained, and faced certain defeat.
Thank God someone fired that first shot.
I am voting for Romney even if I am the only person in Florida doing so.
It's not about whether I like Romney or not, it is about what I think about Obama.
Your point of view is reasonable and cogent. I make no argument against it, nor do I criticize anyone for voting for Romney.
Please understand that I am not critical of your choice, it's obviously a choice, so we all have the right to make our own, but having grown up in a place where I did not have the ability to vote, I see the exercise of my vote as a sacred duty; I owe it to the country and the people who welcomed me.
I am far from thrilled by Romney, but I am frightened of Obama, and to me, not casting a vote against him amounts to my sitting idly by while the country is raped and pillaged.
I can't do it.
Maybe, voting for Romney in Florida will be quixotic, but I will charge at that windmill with everything I have.
Romney cannot win without Florida. He can win without Pennsylvania.
I did not say I was not going to vote. I will definitely vote for my good conservative congressman Joe Pitts and several other candidates down ticket. At this point, I have not decided to cast a ballot in the presidential race. I do hope Obama loses, and I guess that means I hope Romney wins. I also hope Liz Warren loses and Scott Brown wins. But I can't vote for Scott Brown because he does not live in my geographical region. In my mind, Romney does not reside within my political geography, so I can't really vote for him, either. But I do not hold any animosity toward him, or for anyone who is supporting him.
Mass: suppose, strictly for the sake of argument, that polls showed Pennsylvania narrowing and Obama having a mere hairs' breadth lead over Romney at the end of October - would you still not vote for Romney?
I have not decided yet. But assuming Romney hasn't sold too much of our liberty down the drain with his campaign promises, I can see myself voting for him. It's like saying "Suppose you are allergic to both broccoli and cauliflower. Broccoli will kill you quickly, whereas cauliflower will kill you over the long term. Now suppose you had to eat one of them to survive. Which one would you choose?"
The notion that I should choose cauliflower because cauliflower is "better" seems ludicrous to me.
Fair enough. But let's put you to the test: would you choose cauliflower for the simple reason that you would have a better chance of survival, or would you instead choose to die for lack of any food at all?
“If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” said Saul.
IT is surrogates making statements like this that make me question if I will indeed vote for Romney here in Arizona.......
What's is the problem?
He said "REPEAL AND REPLACE"
There-in lies the difference between a fiscally conservative Republican and a liberal Republican... fiscally conservative Republicans want the government the hell out of healthcare... totally.
No....therein lies the difference between somebody who recognizes this is a States Rights issue and the Federal Government has no business sticking their power anywhere near my health needs or demands.
Rush was freaked out today out a possible loss in November.
IMHO, this is a Purrfect time for Sarah Palin to come out swinging in opposition to Romney trying to walk away from repealing Obamacare.....which almost 70% of the country opposes.
Rush was freaked out today out a possible loss in November.
IMHO, this is a Purrfect time for Sarah Palin to come out swinging in opposition to Romney trying to walk away from repealing Obamacare.....which almost 70% of the country opposes.
There-in lies the difference between a fiscally conservative Republican and a liberal Republican... fiscally conservative Republicans want the government the hell out of healthcare... totally.
Actually, this illustrates the difference between statists and Constitutionalists.
A statist, conservative or liberal, will argue that the decision on whether to have government involvement in healthcare or not is to be decided at the Federal level, where a Constitutionalist will understand that (like abortion) the decision lies with the individual States.
In Romney's Massachusetts, Romneycare was supported by more than 80% of the people of the State, 99% of the MA legislature, and nearly every special interest group in the State. Today 84% of the people of the State still approve of it.
If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.
We have to support the people (and the legislature) of a liberal State like MA, to enact legislature like Romneycare, because in acknowledging their Constitutional right to enact that legislation, we strengthen the equally Constitutional right of a State like Alabama to outlaw abortion, should Roe v. Wade ever fall.
Insofar as Romney and Obamacare...he is on record, as late as July 11 this year, in front of a hostile crowd at the NAACP national convention, on making the repeal of Obamacare one of the first active goals of his Presidency, and Romney knows that not doing so will amount to political suicide.
I expect that he will sign any legislature that comes across his desk that will dismantle Obamacare...what we need to do if we really want Obamacare gone, is seize the Senate, maintain our hold on the House, and elect Romney.
That takes going to the polls and voting a straight Republican ticket.
Some may argue that they will have to hold their noses, but to me, the higher stench would come from inaction based on unattainable (or unrealized) goals.
Actually, this illustrates the difference between statists and Constitutionalists.
A statist, conservative or liberal, will argue that the decision on whether to have government involvement in healthcare or not is to be decided at the Federal level, where a Constitutionalist will understand that (like abortion) the decision lies with the individual States.
In Romney's Massachusetts, Romneycare was supported by more than 80% of the people of the State, 99% of the MA legislature, and nearly every special interest group in the State. Today 84% of the people of the State still approve of it.
If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.
We have to support the people (and the legislature) of a liberal State like MA, to enact legislature like Romneycare, because in acknowledging their Constitutional right to enact that legislation, we strengthen the equally Constitutional right of a State like Alabama to outlaw abortion, should Roe v. Wade ever fall.
Insofar as Romney and Obamacare...he is on record, as late as July 11 this year, in front of a hostile crowd at the NAACP national convention, on making the repeal of Obamacare one of the first active goals of his Presidency, and Romney knows that not doing so will amount to political suicide.
I expect that he will sign any legislature that comes across his desk that will dismantle Obamacare...what we need to do if we really want Obamacare gone, is seize the Senate, maintain our hold on the House, and elect Romney.
That takes going to the polls and voting a straight Republican ticket.
Some may argue that they will have to hold their noses, but to me, the higher stench would come from inaction based on unattainable (or unrealized) goals.
If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.
The Romney surrogate using Romneycare to defend the reason Romney is not responsible for the death of this man's wife has nothing to do with states rights. It has to do with the surrogate being stupid and showing just how little Romney understands how the majority of Americans outside MA want government mandated healthcare. It was stupid to take the discussion anywhere near the healthcare argument if the argument you were going to use was "his wife should have lived in MA"... it should have been the woman died 7 years after Romney was not longer affiliated with Bain Capital and 5 years after her husband left the company Bain purchased AND after she left her own job where SHE had insurance coverage....... in no way, shape or form was Romney responsible for this woman's death and neither Bain or Romney or Obamacare had one thing to do with her death... perhaps it would be more revealing to know what kind of cancer the woman came down with, what her lifestyle was and what led to her leaving her job where she had insurance.
Rap, the surrogate knew that she didn't want to get down in the gutter defending who didn't 'kill' his wife.
Why argue such a ridiculous charge? Plus, she didn't know at the time, that the guy was offered a buyout....or she would have worked that in her statement.
DC she "should" have been smart and savy enough to tell the questioner that Governor Romney is sorry the man lost his wife, but he in no manner, shape, or form had any connection to her death either in a direct or indirect manner. No way should she have said what she said... anyone saying what she did does not belong in the job of spokesperson.
With respect to the larger question of whether the federal government can Constitutionally have a role to play in health care the answer is a decided "yes." No, Congress cannot directly dictate who gets treatment and who does not, but Congress can most definitely regulate the interstate aspects of the business of providing health care. For example, Congress could most definitely set quality standards for medical equipment that is sold in interstate commerce.
If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.
The Romney surrogate using Romneycare to defend the reason Romney is not responsible for the death of this man's wife has nothing to do with states rights. It has to do with the surrogate being stupid and showing just how little Romney understands how the majority of Americans outside MA want government mandated healthcare. It was stupid to take the discussion anywhere near the healthcare argument if the argument you were going to use was "his wife should have lived in MA"... it should have been the woman died 7 years after Romney was not longer affiliated with Bain Capital and 5 years after her husband left the company Bain purchased AND after she left her own job where SHE had insurance coverage....... in no way, shape or form was Romney responsible for this woman's death and neither Bain or Romney or Obamacare had one thing to do with her death... perhaps it would be more revealing to know what kind of cancer the woman came down with, what her lifestyle was and what led to her leaving her job where she had insurance.
Good stuff Luis. How come you used to piss me off so much? (Mostly kidding.) :beer:
I have absolutely no clue what your response has to do with my quote.
Because your quote going on about how great MA thinks Romneycare is has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
I could care less if MA likes Romneycare or doesn't like Romneycare, he is running for President of the USA, not MA and the majority of Americans who will be voting are not in favor of Obamacare.
This is not a states rights issue it is a surrogate who totally shot the campaign in the foot today problem... same as the etcha-sketch guy a couple of months ago.......
Because your quote going on about how great MA thinks Romneycare is has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
I could care less if MA likes Romneycare or doesn't like Romneycare, he is running for President of the USA, not MA and the majority of Americans who will be voting are not in favor of Obamacare.
This is not a states rights issue it is a surrogate who totally shot the campaign in the foot today problem... same as the etcha-sketch guy a couple of months ago.......
Not that he needs it but I am going to defend Luis on this one.
He was not comparing or referring to what happened today. He was only explaining what are states rights issues and what the majority in Mass wanted.
I did not take his comment to mean anything but that.
We are all upset today that the Idiot Andrea Saul screwed the pooch and should be fired, IMO. But that wasn't what his comment was about.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Well I am fit to be tied because Hannity couldn't wait to exploit this dumbass woman's comments.
Were they more important than the BIG LIE. Hell NO. But ratings demand that these people trash Romney. Might be good TV but the future of our country depends on us ridding ourselves of the leftist trash in the white house.
JMO
Actually, what you are describing is an expansion of the Commerce Clause, beyond what may have been the original intent of the clause.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Congress did not invoke the Commerce Clause for the first 100 years of our existence, and the original intent was to deny the sort of discriminatory State legislation that had been previously permitted under the Articles of Confederation, such as passing legislation which would prohibit goods manufactured in one State to be sold within the boundaries of the State generating the legislation.
Many Constitutional scholars describe the original intent of the Clause as being more of a directive to Congress to regulate the manner under which Commerce would be conducted, but not in the current endless powers that Congress has given itself to regulate, dictate, and control commerce, manufacturing, and even what one may do with the fruit of one's own land.
In your specific example, the originalists would respond that the Commerce Clause would require that the manufacturers of medical equipment sold in in interstate commerce would supply full disclosure of all information pertaining to the equipment they manufactured, that they would provide proof of liability coverage, and absorb all costs associated with their equipment harming end users due to flaws in manufacturing.
Given that minimalist view, the market itself would weed out substandard, inadequate, and poorly manufactured and designed equipment, and those manufacturers would simply fail.
In today's acceptance of the nanny nature of the current definition of the Commerce Clause, as stated above, substandard equipment meeting minimal government standards, built more economically and sold at a lower cost to the consumer, would control the marketplace, destroy the market for better equipment that exceeds those standards, is manufactured better, and is more efficient. As a result, the market suffers, quality suffers, and eventually, the very consumers that excessive regulatory actions under an expansive definition of the Commerce Clause sought to protect, would suffer the greatest of all.
Very simply: nope.
Not that he needs it but I am going to defend Luis on this one.
He was not comparing or referring to what happened today. He was only explaining what are states rights issues and what the majority in Mass wanted.
I did not take his comment to mean anything but that.
We are all upset today that the Idiot Andrea Saul screwed the pooch and should be fired, IMO. But that wasn't what his comment was about.
From a borderline newbie. I'm taken back when a mod intervenes when Rap can take the on the issue when necessary. His comment had NOTHING to do with Rap's post. How in the h3ll did the Commerce Clause work itself it this thread.
BTW: Verbosity does not equal clarity.
From a borderline newbie. I'm taken back when a mod intervenes when Rap can take the on the issue when necessary. His comment had NOTHING to do with Rap's post. How in the h3ll did the Commerce Clause work itself it this thread.
BTW: Verbosity does not equal clarity.
"I'm taken back when amodAdministrator intervenes..."
oops. my bad. I forgot about the protected minority thing. 8888crybaby
Yeah...I know you.
The tone of that post just set my senses a-tingling.
It will come to me...keep talking.
My original post was about Rap's legitimate statement and about what I discerned was an OT response from you. Nothing more. If I am wrong, I apologize to you Luis Gonzalez. And also that I felt an intervention from a mod was unnecessary/ If I am wrong, again, I apologize to you Luis. If you accept my apology, that's great. If not, well I'll live with it. Pax and Bonum
My original post was about Rap's legitimate statement and about what I discerned was an OT response from you. Nothing more. If I am wrong, I apologize to you Luis Gonzalez. And also that I felt an intervention from a mod was unnecessary/
Can't argue against that level of eloquence.
We'll agree to disagree.
I just don't see the original intent of the Commerce Clause being so broad that it allows the Justice Department to shut down a private farm because the milk it produces for self-consumption may impact interstate commerce.
That expansive view of the Commerce Clause is wrong.
With respect to farms producing for self-consumption we quite agree. Wickard v. Filburn - or at least the precedent that case is taken for now - was wrongly decided, and the recent Obamacare ruling from the Supreme Court impliedly backstopped that conclusion; there are now at least 3 cases that have found limits to the reach of the Commerce Clause.
However, that was not the context in which I set my statement. A business that manufactures medical devices is most assuredly engaged in commerce and under reasonable Supreme Court jurisprudence is most likely engaged in interstate commerce. Accordingly, Congress can regulate that business. Even if that business makes absolutely sure that it sells nothing outside the borders of its home state it is still engaged in interstate commerce in this day and age. If the Commerce Clause could not, in general, reach most intrastate businesses, on the conclusion that the only commerce that Congress could regulate was that which actually crossed a state line - and then only at the time of crossing the state line, you would end up with a formalism that would make a mockery of the underlying purposes of the Commerce Clause.
Romney himself isn't that exciting, I just looked at the list of potential VP's on Drudge and think this is going to be more boring than 2008. At least Palin injected some lifeblood into the campaign.
Pawlenty? That's who it looks like it's going to be? PLEASE you gotta be kidding me, he didn't look like he could fight his way out of a wet paper bag ...
OK, so we're arguing a lawyer's view of the actual expansion of the Commerce Clause vs. a Constitutional originalist's understanding of it.
In United States v. Lopez, Clarence Thomas pointed out that "the Commerce Clause does not state that Congress may “regulate matters that substantially affect commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”, in fact the Constitution grants Congress the power to "regulate Commerce....among the several States", which is best interpreted as setting the standards of how Commerce may be discharged, but not which commerce, or which standards of commerce (at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, 'Commerce' consisted of buying, selling, bartering, and transporting for the aforementioned purposes) would be allowed to exists at the whim of Congressional actions. In fact, in The Federalist papers often uses the term "commerce" in contradistinction to productive activities such as building and manufacturing.
So, an originalist will see the Commerce Clause as simply a directive given to Congress to regulate how commerce (buying, selling, bartering, and transporting to achieve those acts) is conducted among the sevaral States etc, and not impact production and manufacturing, which is your view.
If the original intent of the Commerce Clause was to give Congress the power that you believe it grants them, or as I said above, a Clause that regulated matters which substantially affect commerce, then, when coupled with the traditional understanding of the Necessary and Proper Clause, many of Congress' enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution would be rendered superfluous.
Why take the time to grant Congress the power to coin money, to enact bankruptcy laws, to fix the standards of weights and measures, to punish counterfeiters, establish post offices, and grant patents, when obviously all these things substantially affect Commerce among the several States, and would be included in that expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause that we have arrived at today?
In fact, there then is absolutely nothing out of the regulatory reach of Congress under this definition of the Commerce Clause, because everything that we do today involves interstate commerce.
In Federalist #42, James Madison observed that bankruptcy power (laws) “intimately connected with the regulation of commerce” which is obviously correct, but, it also points out that when the Framers intended to grant Federal power over an activity which substantially impacted interstate commerce, they enumerated a specific power over that activity.
While lawyers may be forced to dwell within the expansions arrived at by precedents and built-up interpretations which distort the original intent of the clear and precise wording of the Constitution, I am not restricted by either.
I see the Constitution as a simple, and direct set of instructions.
Still, it is often true that the vice-presidential nominee turns out to be someone who was never on the radar.
No matter who Romney picks, the democrats and their media lap-dogs will pummel the nominee, stopping just short of accusations of mass murder and cannibalism.
Rubio continues to intrigue me. And as for his not being a natural born citizen, it didn't stop our Kenyan born president's messianic rise.
I just want to add something to the thread but I can't think of anything.
The Constitution is neither simple, nor direct, and it certainly isn't a set of instructions in the sense that a recipe is a set of instructions.
With respect to limiting the Commerce Clause to merely regulating the mode of buying or selling, that eviscerates the Commerce Clause. How? Very simple: State A, which wishes to protect its internal markets from out-of-state markets prescribes extremely high quality standards for products coming from out-of-state, and a much more relaxed set of standards for in-state products. Basis? Because in-state producers will be familiar with the needs and requirements of their own fellow state citizens than would out-of-state producers and any in-state producer can be readily prosecuted for failing to meet those standards than could an out-of-state producer because the state already has in personam jurisdiction over the in-state producers and the ability to quickly shut down in-state production facilities; chasing down an out-of-state producer could prove impossible since the police power of State A does not extend into the territory of any other state (by definition).
That is a rational basis for discriminating between in-state commerce and out-of-state commerce, and if left alone would effectively permit State A to embargo out-of-state goods and circumscribe the existence of a national market for goods; furthermore, if State A also provided that the producers of any other state would be subject to the lower standards if that other state were to mandate that its in-state producers comply and that they subject themselves to State A's jurisdiction, it would allow states to create little enclaves of trade. It would also set up the possibility of trade wars, wherein various states use their general police powers to establish standards and rules that discriminate against out-of-state goods as a means of retaliating against one or more other states.
Balkanizing the national markets and engaging in trade wars by setting product standards that discriminate against the goods produced in one or more other states is the antithesis of the basis for the Commerce Clause. However, under your reading of the Commerce Clause Congress would be powerless to prevent this because none of the rules imposed by the states directly regulates buying or selling: provided an out-of-state producer complies with the heightened standards required by State A, that out-of-state producer is more than welcome to sell its wares in State A.
Bottom line: in order to effectively regulate commerce between the states and to prevent the balkanization of the national market and the risks of interstate trade wars, Congress must be able to regulate rules that relate to the standards for goods that move in interstate commerce and must have the power to limit or reject standards that have the effect of discriminating between in-state and out-of-state goods.
Furthermore, interstate commerce is necessarily dependent on the roads, rail lines, and other infrastructure through which goods flow from producers to consumers; that infrastructure is part and parcel of the instrumentalities of interstate commerce. Without the ability to impose regulations on those instrumentalities, the states could again engage in discrimination against out-of-state commerce; for example, State A could mandate a gauge for rail lines within the state that do not match the gauge used by any surrounding state. Out-of-state producers wanting to ship goods into State A for sale in State A would then be put to the costly exercise of bringing their goods to a rail head in an adjacent state, offloading the goods and transshiping them to a rail head in State A, and then shipping them to their destination(s) in State A. Since in-state producers would not face that burden, State A would have effectively discriminated between in-state and out-of-state commerce and under your interpretation of the Commerce Clause there would be nothing Congress could do about it because State A's actions merely concerned rail standards, not whether an out-of-state producer could sell its wares in State A.
Finally, there is the so-called "Dormant Commerce Clause" jurisprudence of the Supreme Court under which a state is prevented from engaging in activity that interferes with interstate commerce even if Congress has not imposed any regulation on the subject matter; for a state to engage in such activity, there must be some express or directly implied authorization from Congress first.
Without the ability to reach standards imposed on the quality of goods or standards imposed on in-state infrastructure used to move goods in interstate commerce, or the courts' ability to block activity that interferes with interstate commerce in areas where Congress has chosen not to impose affirmative regulations, the intent of the Commerce Clause and the policies that underly it, intent and policy expressed by the Founders themselves, the Commerce Clause is effectively eviscerated.
Once we admit the necessity of allowing Congress to reach such areas that are, technically speaking, beyond the simple and direct instruction of the Commerce Clause, then we are only discussing the extent to which Congress may reach in those areas, not whether or not Congress can act in those areas at all. In other words, as my crim law professor used to say, "now that we've established you're a prostitute, let's rediscuss your price."
I just want to add something to the thread but I can't think of anything.
I just want to add something to the thread but I can't think of anything.
By the time I thought of something to say, the topic had changed again. I'm always late to the party.
But you look marvelous!
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff302/ksluecke/TheQueen.gif)
Hmmh.....not so sure. She's walking like she's about to whoop your a$$!
Your disagreement with Clarence Thomas is noted, as is your reasoning why the Commerce Clause has been expanded beyond its original boundaries.
Creating a higher standard of manufacturing for out-of-state products than for in-state produced products is a negative thing?
Only if you fail to take into consideration the fact that the disproportionate tariffs assigned to automobiles manufactured outside the US has not deterred the ability of BMW, Audi, Mercedes Benz, Volvo and others to nearly dominate the luxury car segment in the US. The same would be the case with the inequity in manufacturing standards that you made the central point of your post, since it would create a de facto luxury/high performance market dominated by external products, making the locally manufactured product either give up that segment of the market, or be forced to manufacture their goods to the higher standard set in place for the out-of-state manufacturers in order to compete for it.
You seem to believe that government can manage the market, where I believe that a market less impacted by negative externalities created by government intervention is a more efficient, better market, with those benefits flowing down to the end users.
Under an originalist view of the Commerce Clause one State cannot embargo product from other States, but if it attempted to, that embargo would entail prohibiting the transportation of goods into its markets for the purposes of conducting commerce, and run afoul of the very purpose of the Clause: having the power to regulate such actions by States. In addition, that State action would create a situation that the verbiage of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution calls a controversy "between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state", since individual wishing to engage in trade with a neighboring State would be disallowed to do so.
The idea that lacking your expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the national market would be balkanized is ironic, the segmented market has always existed, divided by the spending ability of the consumer. I can buy my children $20 sneakers, or I can buy them $180 sneakers, depending on my ability (and willingness) to pay either sum, but the fact that the $20 sneaker exists, has not impacted the $180 sneaker market in the least bit; both markets thrive.
Yes, I understand the concept of the "Dormant Commerce Claus", yet another way for the Federal government to overstep its Constitutional limits, and expand its powers without the burden of amending the Constitution. I don't like the idea that there exists a practice in the Federal system which allows the government to act at will, without constraints, as it sees fit.
I don't look at government the same way that you do. You seem to believe in a government that sees its citizenry as possible hapless victims of an unregulated market, and goes about the business of protecting us from unscrupulous merchants. But the flaw in your logic is that any set of manufacturing standards set in place by a State government, must necessarily be set at the lowest common manufacturing standard, otherwise it would make it impossible for manufacturing in the State to thrive. That, coupled with your imaginary higher standard of manufacturing set in place for out-of-State products would in fact create that $20 and $180 sneaker market, with out of State manufacturers controlling the luxury sneaker market.
"Commerce" is commerce, and manufacturing is manufacturing, and Congress and the Courts have expanded the meaning of the word "commerce" way beyond its original meaning, and the Commerce Clause far beyond its original intent.
Ocean, can I buy you a beer sometime?
From a borderline newbie. I'm taken back when a mod intervenes when Rap can take the on the issue when necessary. His comment had NOTHING to do with Rap's post. How in the h3ll did the Commerce Clause work itself it this thread.
BTW: Verbosity does not equal clarity.
Bullshit.
Ocean, can I buy you a beer sometime?
We're done.
Stop that! You know this thread got out of hand, there is no need to fuel the fire...
:patriot: