Sure we can deregulate and trust the corporations

[wa8rti]

Did you catch the CBS 60 Minute feature on the Bayer Company. It seems they have made millions from a drug that is widely used during open heart surgery. Years ago an independant study in Germany brought it to Bayer's attention that there was kidney failure associated with the use of the drug. Bayer did nothing with the information. A couple of years ago a crusading doctor/reasearcher in this country did a study of 5000+ uses of the drug and found a high number of kidney failures in patients. He got the FDA to hold hearings. Bayer never told the group that they also had about completed a study which showed the drug to cause problems. The FDA panel voted to allow the continued use of the drug. Well now the truth is out and the drug has been pulled. Bayer says they didn't mention their study at the hearings because the the report wasn't finalized. The doctor whose study called the drug's safety into question 2 years ago estimates that about 1000 people per month have died of kidney failure in those 2 years. Sure go ahead and deregulate industry and trust big business to watch out for you. Sure at the risk of your health and safety. If you believe they will put your welfare ahead of their bottom line, you are dreaming.

[K0RGR]

Don't tell me, let me guess - this drug is also manufactured in one of the 700 Chinese factories that make pharmaceuticals for the U.S. - officially - or one of the thousands that do it without any government oversight...

[K3XR]

Sure we can put all these big drug companies out of business, they never do a thing to save or extend life. I got it, we'll turn it all over to the government, after all the Libs just loved how the government performed in Katrina.

[KG4JYD]

Sure go ahead and deregulate industry and trust big business to watch out for you. Sure at the risk of your health and safety. If you believe they will put your welfare ahead of their bottom line, you are dreaming.Uhh... the government didn't do anything about it either. The FDA spends billions and does nothing.

Who caught them? We the People! The media. The government is like a retarded giant - very powerful but incapable of anything but the most simple of tasks.

[K3XR]

LIBS must have had a great time watching 60 min. last night.

http://newsbusters.org/node/19301/print

[K0RGR]

The thing I find most amusing about those links to NewsBusted and other Richard Mellon Scaife funded sites is how they use the word 'socialist' as though it was some kind of venereal disease. It's whispered, like some terrible secret. "Don't look now, but those Europeans are - hush - socialists!".

The Danes claim that there are virtually no cases of 'learning disabilities' in Denmark. This is because they do not attempt to teach reading until the children are 8 years old. The Danes believe that the speech centers in many children's minds don't fully develop until age 8, and attempts to teach a child that is not ready results in problems such as dyslexia. Their theory seems to hold some water, too. Now, how does this square with our 'compassionate conservative' insistence that our children learn to read before age 8? Is any of this 'early childhood education' stuff supported by any kind of reasonable science?

[wa8rti]

I am constantly amazed by those who rail against government regulations seemingly unware of the history of our pure food and drug laws. And amazed that there is no outrage that a drug, estimated to have killed a 1000 people per month was allowed to stay on the market. Remember the Bush admininstration, in its business friendly stance, has taken to cutting back on oversight by cutting budgets in the FDA and USDA. Perhaps that played a part in the drug staying on the market and in the fact that the problems at a California slaughter house went unnoticed. I strongly urge the opponents of food and drug regulation to read "The Jungle" and tell me they want to return to the way things were at the beginning of the 20th century. You can cite all the FEMA failures you want (perhaps caused by putting an unqualified guy in charge) that doesn't change the fact the someone needs to watch over the food and drug industry. Look at the rest of the world and you will find that in industrial nations, regulation is the norm. In the third world, the lack of oversite is the norm. Are we to be like other western nations or a backward third world nation?

[KG4JYD]

I am constantly amazed by those who rail against government regulations seemingly unware of the history of our pure food and drug laws.Which are unconstitutional by the way....


And amazed that there is no outrage that a drug, estimated to have killed a 1000 people per month was allowed to stay on the market.If this is true, and willful negligence was proven, then the victims and their families should be compensated heftily for it. There should also be criminal prosecutions if there is guilt.




Remember the Bush admininstration, in its business friendly stance, has taken to cutting back on oversight by cutting budgets in the FDA and USDA.Both departments are unconstitutional and should be abolished. Any regulation of those industries is only Constitutional at the State level.



I strongly urge the opponents of food and drug regulation to read "The Jungle" and tell me they want to return to the way things were at the beginning of the 20th century.I've read it before and still understand that the federal government has zero authority to regulate food and drugs.



You can cite all the FEMA failures you want (perhaps caused by putting an unqualified guy in charge) that doesn't change the fact the someone needs to watch over the food and drug industry. Hmmm... well who caught these guys? It wasn't the FDA or the USDA now was it? No, it was citizens with a video camera!

Do you REALLY want the same group of people who botched Katrina, got us into Iraq, ruined our education system, lied about getting a BJ, brought us to the brink of nuclear war, etc to be inspecting our food and drugs?

I think not.

Look at the rest of the world and you will find that in industrial nations, regulation is the norm.So? Who cares. This is America.

Are we to be like other western nations or a backward third world nation?We are to be the leader in freedom and liberty. Other nations become like us, we are the leaders because we are (supposed to be) free.

[N2RJ]

Sure we can put all these big drug companies out of business, they never do a thing to save or extend life. I got it, we'll turn it all over to the government, after all the Libs just loved how the government performed in Katrina.

We can just remove all checks and balances from everything, and let big business build a nuclear waste dump in your back yard. After all, we can trust them with our lives and well being.

[N3RQ]

Uhh... the government didn't do anything about it either. The FDA spends billions and does nothing.

Who caught them? We the People! The media. The government is like a retarded giant - very powerful but incapable of anything but the most simple of tasks.

Do you know anything about drug discovery? The FDA works with data provided to it by the drug companies.

Is anyone here old enough to remember Thalidomide? Thalidomide was a drug that was used to combat morning sickness; however, it also caused babies to be born with severe malformities. The FDA refused to approve this drug for the treatment of morning sickness, and saved millions of American children in the process.

[N3RQ]

Which are unconstitutional by the way....


If this is true, and willful negligence was proven, then the victims and their families should be compensated heftily for it. There should also be criminal prosecutions if there is guilt.




Both departments are unconstitutional and should be abolished. Any regulation of those industries is only Constitutional at the State level.



I've read it before and still understand that the federal government has zero authority to regulate food and drugs.



Hmmm... well who caught these guys? It wasn't the FDA or the USDA now was it? No, it was citizens with a video camera!

Do you REALLY want the same group of people who botched Katrina, got us into Iraq, ruined our education system, lied about getting a BJ, brought us to the brink of nuclear war, etc to be inspecting our food and drugs?

I think not.

So? Who cares. This is America.

We are to be the leader in freedom and liberty. Other nations become like us, we are the leaders because we are (supposed to be) free.

You seem to be clueless as to how many of our regulatory agencies came to be. The cold hard fact is that corporations will do bad things in the name of profit, and the average person would not stand a chance in Hades of defeating a corporation as powerful as one of the “Big Pharma” companies in a tort case if it were not for the regulatory agencies. It took decades to win to a lawsuit against “Big Tobacco” (tobacco is not regulated by the FDA), and that was only possible because an insider turned state’s evidence.

[W3MIV]

RQ to JYD:

You seem to be clueless as to how many of our regulatory agencies came to be.

Might I just add, "among a host of other things about government and the US Constitution." ;)

:p

[k4kyv]

If this is true, and willful negligence was proven, then the victims and their families should be compensated heftily for it. There should also be criminal prosecutions if there is guilt.

And that will bring each one of those 1000 people back to life?

It will mean absolutely zilch to me that another party is compensated heftily, or is criminally prosecuted, once I'm done in by someone else's negligence or greed.

[N2RJ]

I guess for KG4JYD, having a clue is unconstitutional.

[KG4JYD]

The FDA refused to approve this drug for the treatment of morning sickness, and saved millions of American children in the process.How about the millions of those who die and suffer because the FDA refuses to recognize drugs that could potentially save their life?

But more fundamentally, please tell me where in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution where the federal government is allowed to regulate drugs?

[KG4JYD]

The cold hard fact is that corporations will do bad things in the name of profit, And the government will do bad things in the name of power disguising it as "safety".

At least with corporations you have a choice. With government, there is no choice because there is no competition and the government can use force to enforce their "non-choice".

It took decades to win to a lawsuit against “Big Tobacco” (tobacco is not regulated by the FDA), and that was only possible because an insider turned state’s evidence.And what were the circumstances of that case? On what grounds were the companies found liable?

[KG4JYD]

And that will bring each one of those 1000 people back to life?No, but it will help to prevent it in the future. If people are held accountable for their actions then they are less likely to pursue actions that will cause damage to others. Litigation is usually better than regulation.

[AE6IP]

No, but it will help to prevent it in the future. If people are held accountable for their actions then they are less likely to pursue actions that will cause damage to others. Litigation is usually better than regulation.

So the literally 10s of thousands of lives saved by mine safety regulation would have been better used had they been wasted in mining accidents so that their survivors could fail to win litigation against the large companies with huge budgets for legal fees?

Litigation rarely results in such problems being corrected, or even mitigated. Regulation usually results in correction and mitigation.

[KA8DKT]

RQ to JYD:



Might I just add, "among a host of other things about government and the US Constitution." ;)

:p
Who follows the Constitution anymore?

-gary

[KG4JYD]

Litigation rarely results in such problems being correctedRiiiiight. :rolleyes:

[K5FH]

No, but it will help to prevent it in the future. If people are held accountable for their actions then they are less likely to pursue actions that will cause damage to others. Litigation is usually better than regulation.

If you really believe that, then you are even more hopelessly naive than we thought.

You are correct that "if people are held accountable for their actions then they are less likely to pursue actions that will cause damage to others." That isn't the issue. The issue is this: is it better for the consumer (read: potential victim) if corporations are held accountable before they cause damage, or after?

Regulation attempts to impose accountability before any damage occurs. Litigation imposes accountabliity after damage has occurred. In the case of food and pharmaceuticals, most of us who live in the Real World would rather have the manufacturers held accountable before they release tainted beef or drugs with dangerous side-effects to the unsuspecting, trusting public than after their products have maimed or killed.

Your previous posts convey the attitude that it's better to kill a few people (or a few hundred, or a few thousand, etc.) and let the courts decide what those lives were worth, than to regulate the companies and prevent those deaths from happening in the first place. "Kill 'em all; let the courts sort 'em out."

Sure.

[K8YZK]

Sure we can trust corporations. I have some Enron and Worldcom stock for sale. Regulations didn't help there and how many people were not only out of a job, but their retirements.

Yes corporations can be trusted to stick it you.

Kurt
K8YZK

[KG4JYD]

You are correct that "if people are held accountable for their actions then they are less likely to pursue actions that will cause damage to others." That isn't the issue. The issue is this: is it better for the consumer (read: potential victim) if corporations are held accountable before they cause damage, or after?

Regulation attempts to impose accountability before any damage occurs. Litigation imposes accountabliity after damage has occurred. In the case of food and pharmaceuticals, most of us who live in the Real World would rather have the manufacturers held accountable before they release tainted beef or drugs with dangerous side-effects to the unsuspecting, trusting public than after their products have maimed or killed.
Logic doesn't work well for you does it?

If an individual or company knows it's going to have to pay the penalty for wreckless or negligent actions, it will act as a deterrent.

[K5FH]

Logic doesn't work well for you does it?

If an individual or company knows it's going to have to pay the penalty for wreckless or negligent actions, it will act as a deterrent.

Projecting again, aren't we?

Yes, it will act as a deterrent...in some, maybe most, cases. But what about those cases where it doesn't act as a deterrent at all? Hard as it may be for you to accept, fear of litigation doesn't stop a lot of things some (certainly not all) corporations do, especially if said corporations figure that it's cheaper to bury somebody than it is to implement an expensive fix to a product or process.

The purpose and reasoning behind Federal regulation of the food and drug industries is because of those industries' potential for causing widespread, catastrophic damage if something should go wrong. Admittedly, pre-market inspections and quality control don't, and can't, prevent every possible defect in a product. But such pre-market controls have a much better track record of keeping things from going wrong than any deterrent effect that litigation has or might have.

Again, it comes down to how much a life is worth. Your position seems to be that it's worth the deaths of a few innocent consumers in order to have your vision of a regulation-free utopia.

So, tell us, O Wise One: how many deaths of innocent consumers is it worth to you to be free of Federal meddling in the purity of food and pharmaceuticals?

[n2ize]

How about the millions of those who die and suffer because the FDA refuses to recognize drugs that could potentially save their life?

But more fundamentally, please tell me where in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution where the federal government is allowed to regulate drugs?

Since you haven't got a clue nor do you plan on getting one then why don't you just go and put your life in the hands of big corporate enterprise and leave it there. They'll take good care of you,

[N5NPO]

The thing I find most amusing about those links to NewsBusted and other Richard Mellon Scaife funded sites is how they use the word 'socialist' as though it was some kind of venereal disease. It's whispered, like some terrible secret. "Don't look now, but those Europeans are - hush - socialists!".

The Danes claim that there are virtually no cases of 'learning disabilities' in Denmark. This is because they do not attempt to teach reading until the children are 8 years old. The Danes believe that the speech centers in many children's minds don't fully develop until age 8, and attempts to teach a child that is not ready results in problems such as dyslexia. Their theory seems to hold some water, too. Now, how does this square with our 'compassionate conservative' insistence that our children learn to read before age 8? Is any of this 'early childhood education' stuff supported by any kind of reasonable science?

How old were you when you learned to read?

[N5NPO]

(Power hungry)Government oversite of (greedy) corporations is kind of like placing the wolf in charge of the fox who is gaurding the hen house.
Those who would trade liberty and freedom (to power hungry government) for security (from the greedy corporations) deserve neither.
The constitution be damned!

[KG4JYD]

So, tell us, O Wise One: how many deaths of innocent consumers is it worth to you to be free of Federal meddling in the purity of food and pharmaceuticals?You are spinning the issue again.

Life and death has nothing to do with it. The federal government is not allowed to regulate food and drugs. Please cite in Article 1 Section 8 where Congress is allowed to do that??? I am waiting...

[KG4JYD]

Since you haven't got a clue nor do you plan on getting one then why don't you just go and put your life in the hands of big corporate enterprise and leave it there. They'll take good care of you,I'd much rather trust big corporate enterprise than big government. At least a big corporation has competition and can't shoot me or throw me in jail. With the free market I would have a choice to take my business elsewhere or simply start up my own.

[KG4JYD]

(Power hungry)Government oversite of (greedy) corporations is kind of like placing the wolf in charge of the fox who is gaurding the hen house.
Those who would trade liberty and freedom (to power hungry government) for security (from the greedy corporations) deserve neither.
The constitution be damned!

Thank you for another voice of reason!

What people fail to realize is that big business like big government because big government can regulate and legislate in favor of big business.

[K8ERV]

But more fundamentally, please tell me where in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution where the federal government is allowed to regulate drugs?


Back a few years ago when I was in kindergarten I was taught there are two ways to interpret the Constitution, broad, and narrow.

The narrow interpretation says the gov can do only what is specfically permitted.

The broad interpretation says the gov can do anything that the Constitution does not prohibit.

On those 1000 deaths: just to play the devil's advocate, I would like to see how many people may have been saved by that drug.

Few things are black and white. But most things have both a benefit and risk.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[AE6IP]

If an individual or company knows it's going to have to pay the penalty for wreckless or negligent actions, it will act as a deterrent.

They had to stop hanging pickpockets in public in London in the 19th century because of the number of pickpockets who would work the crowd during the hanging.

Of course, in the courts, large company versus individual or small group, large companies win overwhelmingly, simply because they can afford to outlast the plaintiffs, no matter the merit of the case.

Do yourself a favor Matt, and look into the history of pollution in Los Angeles County. It's a text book example of litigation failing, time and again, and regulation turning out to be the only way that worked.

[AE6IP]

You are spinning the issue again.

Life and death has nothing to do with it. The federal government is not allowed to regulate food and drugs. Please cite in Article 1 Section 8 where Congress is allowed to do that??? I am waiting...

General Welfare...

Not that you'll ever understand that.

[AE6IP]

I'd much rather trust big corporate enterprise than big government. At least a big corporation has competition and can't shoot me or throw me in jail. With the free market I would have a choice to take my business elsewhere or simply start up my own.

"Can't shoot me" has only become true within the last 75 years, and "can't throw me in jail" may or may not be true now.

Do yourself a favor, Matt, and read anything by Upton Sinclair, or The War of the Copper Kings and get an idea about just how well the individual does against the corporation without the backing of government.

[K5FH]

You are spinning the issue again.

Life and death has nothing to do with it.

Life and death has EVERYTHING to do with it. Your entire premise is that it's better to risk killing a few (or quite a few) unsuspecting, trusting consumers and trust the deterrent effect of litigation to moderate corporate behavior than to have government regulation.

As Marty and others have stated, the threat of litigation, and the reality of it, have a very poor record of effectiveness in preventing recurrences of such problems. So the only thing we are left to conclude is that you believe it would be preferable for innocent people to die than to regulate certain types of corporate activity.

The question still stands: how many innocent lives is it worth to you to live free of governmental regulation of certain types of corporate activities?

Please cite in Article 1 Section 8 where Congress is allowed to do that??? I am waiting...

And we are waiting for you to answer my question. But, while you are formulating your next evasion, consider this:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; [emphasis added]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: 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.

Food and pharmaceuticals are manufactured in several different states, and in some foreign nations, and distributed throughout the United States. This fits the definition of "commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States," which Congress is obligated to regulate. The Pure Food and Drug Act, and its subsequent amendments, are "...Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."

Try living in the Real World, Matt. Or, at least spend enough time here to call it your legal address.

[KG4JYD]

The broad interpretation says the gov can do anything that the Constitution does not prohibit.And that would be incorrect. The Constitution is a limit on federal power. Anything the federal government does outside of the document is unconstitutional.

Does the phrase "enumerated powers" mean anything to you?

[KG4JYD]

Your entire premise is that it's better to risk killing a few (or quite a few) unsuspecting, trusting consumers and trust the deterrent effect of litigation to moderate corporate behavior than to have government regulation.WRONG. My entire premise is that the federal government is not given the power to regulate food and drugs.




Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;Yes, I'm quite familiar with it. And when written "to regulate" actually meant "to make regular" In other words, no trade wars, no trade imbalances, no tariffs between the States.

The Constitution never permitted the federal government to regulate commerce internally, it was only supposed to keep it regular and free. The Court has historically used the ICC to limit power of States from interfering with the free flow of commerce. And even with a broad interpretation the Constitution doesn't give the power of regulating production and manufacturing, just commerce and trade.

In the 20th century however The Supreme Court through a myriad of bad and incorrect rulings evolved the "interpretation" of the ICC to mean something completely different than what it actually did.

One of the first cases was Gibbons v Ogden where the court (Marshall again) incorrectly declared out of no where that "Congress could regulate intrastate activities which affect interstate commerce and thereby other states".

This is erroneous because Congress may only "regulate" interstate commerce while States may only regulate what happens within their borders.

[KG4JYD]

General Welfare...The General Welfare Clause (GWC) is NOT a grant of power to Congress but actually a restriction on it. It was designed to keep the 'powers of Congress to tax' restricted to promoting the general welfare, (as opposed to the special interest welfare).

The faulty legal interpretation by the Court which allowed an incorrect view of the GWC is called Helvering v Davis in 1937 during the New Deal socialist era. The court incorrectly decided that Congress was allowed to determine what taxes and spending promoted the general welfare which of course ignores the 10th Amendment and shifts power from the States to the federal government.

[AE6IP]

My entire premise is that the federal government is not given the power to regulate food and drugs.

A premise which many people have tried to teach you is incorrect.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with it. And when written "to regulate" actually meant "to make regular" In other words, no trade wars, no trade imbalances, no tariffs between the States.

No. You keep repeating this mistake, and people keep correcting it. "To regulate" meant to the founding fathers what the word it is derived from meant to the Romans, and that is the same that it means now.

The Constitution never permitted the federal government to regulate commerce internally, it was only supposed to keep it regular and free.

Do yourself a favor, Matt, and read something outside of the fringe. How about Madison's notes on the Constitution Convention in which regulating commerce among the states is clearly stated as one of the purposes of the new constitution, and eloquent reasons are given for why.

The Court has historically used the ICC to limit power of States from interfering with the free flow of commerce. And even with a broad interpretation the Constitution doesn't give the power of regulating production and manufacturing, just commerce and trade.

Even in the 17th and 19th century, "regulate commerce" included production and manufacturing. What do you think a bureau of standards does?

In the 20th century however The Supreme Court through a myriad of bad and incorrect rulings evolved the "interpretation" of the ICC to mean something completely different than what it actually did.

One of the first cases was Gibbons v Ogden where the court (Marshall again) incorrectly declared out of no where that "Congress could regulate intrastate activities which affect interstate commerce and thereby other states".

Which was it, Matt, the 20th century or Marshall?

This is erroneous because Congress may only "regulate" interstate commerce while States may only regulate what happens within their borders.

You will, of course, provide us with some legal analysis showing that Marshall was wrong. You can append it to the other analysis of Marshall that you were going to provide us.

[AE6IP]

The General Welfare Clause (GWC) is NOT a grant of power to Congress but actually a restriction on it. It was designed to keep the 'powers of Congress to tax' restricted to promoting the general welfare, (as opposed to the special interest welfare).

The faulty legal interpretation by the Court which allowed an incorrect view of the GWC is called Helvering v Davis in 1937 during the New Deal socialist era. The court incorrectly decided that Congress was allowed to determine what taxes and spending promoted the general welfare which of course ignores the 10th Amendment and shifts power from the States to the federal government.

The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

Alexander Hamilton.

Predates the "socialists" by 200 years.

I'll take one of the founders over your fringe authors, thanks.

[N3RQ]

Logic doesn't work well for you does it?

If an individual or company knows it's going to have to pay the penalty for wreckless or negligent actions, it will act as a deterrent.

You are too young to remember the Ford Pinto fiasco.

[K5FH]

Yes, I'm quite familiar with it. And when written "to regulate" actually meant "to make regular" In other words, no trade wars, no trade imbalances, no tariffs between the States.

Maybe you're familiar with the words but you aren't doing so well on the meaning of the words. Rather than go over this with you again I'll just second what Marty said about the equivalence of "regulate" and "to make regular."

The Constitution never permitted the federal government to regulate commerce internally, it was only supposed to keep it regular and free. The Court has historically used the ICC to limit power of States from interfering with the free flow of commerce. And even with a broad interpretation the Constitution doesn't give the power of regulating production and manufacturing, just commerce and trade.

The ultimate purpose of manufacturing anything is to distribute it and sell it to someone who wants it. The process of distribution and sales is commerce. In this day and age most commerce has some interstate component to it.

In the 20th century however The Supreme Court through a myriad of bad and incorrect rulings evolved the "interpretation" of the ICC to mean something completely different than what it actually did.

A Supreme Court ruling might be "bad" in the sense that most people don't agree with it (i.e., Kelo vs. City of New London) but, by definition, it cannot be "incorrect" because the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the meaning and application of the Constitution. What they say is "correct" regardless of what we think of their decisions. Again: "The Constitition means what the Supreme Court says it means." - Justice Louis Brandeis.

One of the first cases was Gibbons v Ogden where the court (Marshall again) incorrectly declared out of no where that "Congress could regulate intrastate activities which affect interstate commerce and thereby other states".

Reread what I said earlier: most commerce has some sort of interstate component.

This is erroneous because Congress may only "regulate" interstate commerce while States may only regulate what happens within their borders.

You do not understand the concept of "interstate commerce" as it is defined by Congress and the Supreme Court. There have been many states-rights fights in the Federal courts over what constitutes interstate vs. intrastate commerce and the extent to which the Federal government may regulate it. Like most things in law, the definition evolves over time and is still evolving. The matter is far from settled, regardless of what you would like to think.

[wa8rti]

Sure we can trust corporations. I have some Enron and Worldcom stock for sale. Regulations didn't help there and how many people were not only out of a job, but their retirements.

Yes corporations can be trusted to stick it you.

Kurt
K8YZK

Regulation to be effective requires that there be enforcement. The Reagan Administration failed to enforce the savings & loan rules and when Bush 41 could no longer ignore the mess, the tax payers got the bill for that failure. Bush 43 is business friendly and a lot of the Enron, Worldcom, etc. problems can be laid at his administration's feet and the failure to watch the hen house door. Unfortunately far too many CEO's have no conscience of their own and require someone to do that job for them. I continue to be amazed at those who post here with a complete ignorance of the history of late 19 and early 20th century struggles to reign in and control corporate greed. And those who argue for corporations without regulation need to remember something. The courts have recognized corporations as if they were persons. Since persons are subject to and in need of rules and regulations, it should be no less true of a company. The rule of law is what should distinguish us from a barbarian society.

[KG4JYD]

A premise which many people have tried to teach you is incorrect.It's not my fault people are uneducated or refuse to acknowledge basic historical truth.



Do yourself a favor, Matt, and read something outside of the fringe. How about Madison's notes on the Constitution Convention in which regulating commerce among the states is clearly stated as one of the purposes of the new constitution, and eloquent reasons are given for why.Regulating = to make regular "among" the states, not IN the states.

[KG4JYD]

The ultimate purpose of manufacturing anything is to distribute it and sell it to someone who wants it. The process of distribution and sales is commerce. In this day and age most commerce has some interstate component to it.

Regulating production and manufacturing does NOT = trade/commerce.



but, by definition, it cannot be "incorrect" because the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the meaning and application of the Constitution. What they say is "correct" regardless of what we think of their decisions. Then why have they reversed multiple previous decisions?


Again: "The Constitition means what the Supreme Court says it means." - Justice Louis Brandeis.And if you believe that lie Hillary has some land in Arkansas for you and George also has some land in Iraq.

The Constitution means what it means. Original meaning is defined at what the words meant when they were written down.



most commerce has some sort of interstate component.But not all does.



You do not understand the concept of "interstate commerce" as it is defined by Congress and the Supreme Court. No, I do understand it which is why I realize it's a face.


the definition evolves over time and is still evolving.Incorrect. Would you get into a mortgage with the rules "evolving"? Would you invest in a fund with rules that evolve? Would you get into a cash poker game where the rules "evolve"? What about a contract with your employer in which the rules "evolve"?

I think not.

The only way the Constitution "evolves" is through the amendment process. Outside of that it means what it means.

[AE6IP]

It's not my fault people are uneducated or refuse to acknowledge basic historical truth.

Matt, with all due respect, you're the least well educated person in these discussions. So, yes, in this case, it is entirely your fault.

Regulating = to make regular "among" the states, not IN the states.

You really need to read Hamilton on the topic and Madison's notes on the constitutional convention.

[AE6IP]

Regulating production and manufacturing does NOT = trade/commerce.

Sure it does. Supreme court ruled so over 200 years ago, and Alexander Hamilton wrote so.

The Constitution means what it means. Original meaning is defined at what the words meant when they were written down.

Which sounds fine unless you know anything at all about language. As early as the first months of Washington's presidency, Hamilton and Jefferson were arguing over what various clauses of the constitution meant. This came as no surprise to anyone, as the attendees of the constitutional convention argued throughout the convention and the arguments continued through the ratification.

Incorrect. Would you get into a mortgage with the rules "evolving"?

I wouldn't, but millions have. They're called ARMs.

Would you invest in a fund with rules that evolve?

You might want to read the prospectus for some funds closely. They all reserve the right to change the terms.

Would you get into a cash poker game where the rules "evolve"?

That would be called "dealer's choice." Lots of people play that sort of poker.

What about a contract with your employer in which the rules "evolve"?

All employment contracts are subject to change. Only union contracts require the consent of the employed to make those changes. In California, this is known as "employment at will."

I think not.

And this, as in so much, you are in a tiny minority on the fringe.

The only way the Constitution "evolves" is through the amendment process. Outside of that it means what it means.

So the "arms" one has the right to bear are limited to exactly the set of weapons that were considered arms in 1776?

You've never sat on a standards body, have you Matt? Even people with a lot of experience, being extremely careful, find it impossible to write documents without ambiguity that requires interpretation. The United States constitution is clearly not written to the level of care that, say, the ANSI C standard was written to.

The only way to change the constitution is by amendment. But the way to understand it is by interpretation, and it is the interpretation that evolves, as the world in which it applies evolves.

And in the United States, the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution is, and has been for 200 years, the Supreme Court.

[KG4JYD]

And in the United States, the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution is, and has been for 200 years, the Supreme Court.Incorrect. That is a power that the court usurped on its own.

Nowhere in the Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to conduct judicial review. See Marbury v Madison in which John Marshall should've recused himself from the case entirely. Here we are 200+ years later and we are still dealing with bad decisions from Marshall.

[AE6IP]

Incorrect. That is a power that the court usurped on its own.

Nowhere in the Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to conduct judicial review. See Marbury v Madison in which John Marshall should've recused himself from the case entirely. Here we are 200+ years later and we are still dealing with bad decisions from Marshall.

And still waiting for you to produce one shred of evidence to support your point of view.

Where's that analysis of Marbury v Madison that you were going to provide to show what's wrong with the legal theory behind it.

Have you even gotten around to reading it yet? Last time I tried to get you to defend your outrageous point of view, you made statements that indicated that you hadn't.

By the way, the only one you're fooling with your selective responses is yourself. There are holes in you constitutional theory you could park the ISS in.

Do yourself a favor, Matt. Rather than wasting your time on web boards, go to the library and check out the Federalist Papers and Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention. Then read about the process the Constitution went through to get ratified, and about how it was disputed almost immediately among Jefferson and Hamilton when they were in Washington's cabinet.

If you're going to have a wacky constitutional theory, at least try to base it in actual history, instead of making it all up from whole cloth.

[K5FH]

Incorrect. That is a power that the court usurped on its own.

Nowhere in the Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to conduct judicial review. See Marbury v Madison in which John Marshall should've recused himself from the case entirely. Here we are 200+ years later and we are still dealing with bad decisions from Marshall.

"Usurped?"

One definition of "usurp" from the American Heritage Dictionary is: to seize and hold by force or without legal authority.

So you are saying that the Supreme Court had no legal authority to conduct judicial review, but "seized" that authority from another? If that is the case, then from whom did they seize that authority? From Congress? Where in the constitution does it say that Congress can conduct judicial review? Where is judicial review mentioned in the Constitution in the first place?

The power of the Supreme Court to conduct judicial review is implied in the wording if the Constitution, as are many other things the government does.

As Marty indicated in a previous post, even modern standards organizations can't write specifications that are so precise and accurate that they have no room for interpretation. This isn't the fault of the organizations or the people who run them; it's simply the nature of how the Real World works.

I would submit that the Constitution was written the way it was, that is, lacking in detail in some respects, because the Framers expected it to be applied through interpretation by men learned in the law. They realized that extreme precision in many constitutional provisions was neither desirable or feasible.

Of course, one fundamental mistake they made was assuming that the Constitution would always be interpreted and applied by honorable men who would rise above politics. Obviously, that didn't happen too often. Regardless, the Supreme Court is still the ultimate authority as to whether or not a law is at variance with the Constitution. Says so right on the label.

[KG4JYD]

Where's that analysis of Marbury v Madison that you were going to provide to show what's wrong with the legal theory behind it. Yes, sorry, I will get to that very soon (hopefully tonight). I will have to do some research first and I am away from my office at the moment. As soon as I get back I'll start to look into it.



about how it was disputed almost immediately among Jefferson and Hamilton when they were in Washington's cabinet.And Hamilton was wrong.

[AE6IP]

And Hamilton was wrong.

And while you're "researching" please explain to us how you, who haven't even read Madison's text of the convention, are qualified to determine whether Hamilton or Jefferson were right in a particular dispute.

Washington, by the way, sided with Hamilton, in the instance I had in mind. Even Madison wasn't certain of Jefferson's position on the matter.

[KG4JYD]

And still waiting for you to produce one shred of evidence to support your point of view.

Marbury v Madison created USSC judicial review out of thin air. Marshall just granted himself the authority to decide upon the Constitutionality of a specific statue.

First off, Marbury had been nominated by President Adams for a job in the judiciary which had been confirmed by the Senate. Sec of State John Marshall failed to deliver the commission from Adams to Marbury preventing Marbury from taking office.

Marshall became appointed to the Supreme Court and James Madison took his place as Sec of State. Madison was a Republican and refused to deliver the commission to Marbury who then filed suit in the Supreme Court.

Because Marshall was incompetent and directly involved in the case he should've recused himself. This entire case and the way in which it was handled was politically motivated. Justice was not blind, and there were absolutely ulterior motives on the part of Marshall.

The question of whether or not the court over which Marshall sat had jurisdiction over the case should've been initially answered. However Marshall did not do that and instead asked the question of whether or not Marbury had a right to the commission which de facto presumed that he did.

Marshall in his decision cited Hamilton's "Federalist 78". This is a fallacy on the part of Marshall because the Nationalist writings of "The Federalist" were rejected at the Convention and also during ratification debates.

To be fair, judicial review had existed previous to the Marbury decision, but it was not written into the Constitution even though most Founders intended it to be.

Not only did did 'M v M' establish the Supreme Court precedent of judicial review (deciding what was Constitutional) it allowed the Court "to lecture elected officials" on the subject matter even when the court has no jurisdiction in the case. This trend continues from Marshall in bad rulings later on one of which was specifically Fletcher v Peck in which he usurped the power of federal courts to supervise enactments of state legislatures.

[W3MIV]

Wrong again, Matt.

Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution clearly states: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution...."

Nothing could be simpler nor clearer. In Marshall's words:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution; if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary Act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary Act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

As Martin has tried repeatedly to educate you, the entire basis of our system is English Common Law (except, as Martin also noted, in Louisiana, which due to its separate lineage incorporates French jurisprudence); thus, modern American jurisprudence is a strong cable formed of threads of law that reach back through our Constitution of 1787 to much earlier origins in England, through even the Magna Carta of 1215, and which clearly establish the role of the judiciary as the interpretater, as well as the arbitrator, of the law.

A final note, the Federalist arguments publised by Publius (John Jay, who was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison) were never rejected in any part by the Convention, for they were written after the Convention concluded and recommended the final Constitution to the thirteen states for ratification. No less material, the writings of the Federalist were NOT rejected during ratification, else the Constitution would never have been ratified.

[KG4JYD]

thus, modern American jurisprudence is a strong cable formed of threads of law that reach back through our Constitution of 1787 to much earlier origins in England, through even the Magna Carta of 1215, and which clearly establish the role of the judiciary as the interpretater, as well as the arbitrator, of the law.Yes, but this is NOT England this is the United States. Basing decisions off of English common law is a fallacy because the Constitution started an entire legal system (at the federal level at least) which is separate and discreet from English Law.



A final note, the Federalist arguments publised by Publius (John Jay, who was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison) were never rejected in any part by the Convention Wrong. The Constitution sets up a Federal government, NOT a nationalist government. The nationalist ideas in the "Federalist" were not adopted by the Convention at Philadelphia.

[nx6d]

I'd much rather trust big corporate enterprise than big government. At least a big corporation has competition and can't shoot me or throw me in jail. With the free market I would have a choice to take my business elsewhere or simply start up my own.


I think the expression "hopelessy naive" has been applied to you before. That last statement makes me think it needs to be applied again.

[KG4JYD]

I think the expression "hopelessy naive" has been applied to you before. That last statement makes me think it needs to be applied again.Why don't you attempt to logically refute it instead of name calling? Oh that's right, you don't have an argument :rolleyes:

[W3MIV]

Yes, but this is NOT England this is the United States. Basing decisions off of English common law is a fallacy because the Constitution started an entire legal system (at the federal level at least) which is separate and discreet from English Law.



Wrong. The Constitution sets up a Federal government, NOT a nationalist government. The nationalist ideas in the "Federalist" were not adopted by the Convention at Philadelphia.


I surrender, Matt. At one time, I thought you were merely clinging stubbornly to erroneous misconceptions fed to you by reading some of the distortions ubiquitous on the internet. I have finally come to realize, however, that you simply lack the brain power to understand some of the issues you insist are upside down when it is you who are attempting to stand on the ceiling.

[nx6d]

Why don't you attempt to logically refute it instead of name calling? Oh that's right, you don't have an argument :rolleyes:

Refuting nonsense from the uninformed is purely a waste of time.

You've got your inexperienced mind already made up anyway, so what's the point?

[AE6IP]

Marbury v Madison created USSC judicial review out of thin air. Marshall just granted himself the authority to decide upon the Constitutionality of a specific statue.

I see you've still not read Marbury v Madison.

Justice was not blind, and there were absolutely ulterior motives on the part of Marshall.

and yet you have still failed to cite the argument in M v M on which Marshall based his decision, and thus, of course, have not offered a counter argument. Whatever Marshall's motives it is his legal reasoning that is at issue here. I ask again: where is the error in that reasoning?

By the way, Marshall found that Marbury was entitled to the commission and that the government should have delivered it.

The question of whether or not the court over which Marshall sat had jurisdiction over the case should've been initially answered. However Marshall did not do that and instead asked the question of whether or not Marbury had a right to the commission which de facto presumed that he did.

Matt, now you're simply embarrassing yourself. Marshall did, indeed, take up and answer the question as to whether or not the court had jurisdiction on the case.

Marshall in his decision cited Hamilton's "Federalist 78". This is a fallacy on the part of Marshall because the Nationalist writings of "The Federalist" were rejected at the Convention and also during ratification debates.

Marshall didn't cite Hamilton. This is part of how I know you've still not read the decision. "The Federalist" were written after the Convention, and so could not have been 'rejected' at the convention.

There is no written evidence from the period that suggests that judicial review was rejected. There is written evidence that suggests that Marshall's strong views including his opinion on the judiciary as a check on the legislature were a significant part of reason Virginia ratified the constitution.

There's really no part of the history of the period you do understand Matt.

[AE6IP]

Yes, but this is NOT England this is the United States. Basing decisions off of English common law is a fallacy because the Constitution started an entire legal system (at the federal level at least) which is separate and discreet from English Law.

No, Matt, the constitution did not "start an entire legal system", even at the federal level. It applied an existing legal system, that of English Common Law, as described in Blackstone.

The constitution extended the existing system in some areas, altered it in others, and restricted it in a few, but it did not replace it.

The Constitution sets up a Federal government, NOT a nationalist government. The nationalist ideas in the "Federalist" were not adopted by the Convention at Philadelphia.

The man who wrote the final draft of the constitution, and whose notes on the constitutional you really should read, was one of the authors of the Federalist. Are you really suggesting that James Madison wrote a defense of the constitution (which is what the Federalist papers are) that ran contrary to the document he penned?

[KG4JYD]

and yet you have still failed to cite the argument in M v M on which Marshall based his decision, ...
By the way, Marshall found that Marbury was entitled to the commission and that the government should have delivered it.
Of course Marshall would agree to that because it was his own incompetence as to why Marbury never got it in the first place.

But the decision itself isn't as significant as the precedent or the effect it created.


Marshall did, indeed, take up and answer the question as to whether or not the court had jurisdiction on the case.No, he first asked "does Marbury have a right to this comission" which de facto gave the court jurisdiction. The proper initial question would've been "does this court have jurisprudence in this matter"?



"The Federalist" were written after the Convention, and so could not have been 'rejected' at the convention.Nationalism was rejected against federalism at the convention. The Federalist was nationalistic in nature; a philosophy on which the Constitution was NOT based.

[AE6IP]

Of course Marshall would agree to that because it was his own incompetence as to why Marbury never got it in the first place.

Your grasp of history, once again, is found wanting. It was not Marshall who failed to deliver Marbury's commission.

But the decision itself isn't as significant as the precedent or the effect it created.

One of the few bits of this you get right.

No, he first asked "does Marbury have a right to this comission" which de facto gave the court jurisdiction. The proper initial question would've been "does this court have jurisprudence in this matter"?

Jurisdiction, Matt, not jurisprudence. And no, you're trying another red herring. The court can't determine whether it has jurisdiction until it determines what the matter is that is being placed before it. Marshall's ruling, which you still haven't read, is written in proper form.

Nationalism was rejected against federalism at the convention. The Federalist was nationalistic in nature; a philosophy on which the Constitution was NOT based.

Unhuh. Just as Marshall quoted Hamilton in justification. But you're dodging another question. You claim that the Federalist papers were rejected by the Constitutional Convention. Ignoring that that they were written after the convention, and ignoring that they were written in defense of the Constitution, how do you explain your assertion that Madison wrote arguments contrary to what he recorded?

You really should read Madison's notes from the Convention, Matt. They'll disprove just about everything you assert about what happened there.