Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP Sen. Mike Lee: Child Labor Laws Unconstitutional (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  False equivalency alert (8+ / 0-)

    Yes, some on the left would like to see changes in the 2nd (though even folks like Tom Tomorrow are conceding that's unlikely) and are willing to look the other way on state's right as ways to change issues like gay marriage and marijuana laws. But compare that to the scores of ignorable parts from the right: 1st Amendment -- they want a state religion, 4th Amendment -- anything to stop terrorism (or people they don't like), 5th Amendment (see 4th), 6th Amendment -- endless detention is fun!, 8th Amendment -- torture is even more fun!, 10th Amendment -- what Civil War you talkin' about? 14th -- no anchor babies, 16th -- taxation is worse then torture, 17th -- the people can't be trusted to elect Senators, 19th -- women voting? yeah, right. 22nd -- Bush should still be king, er President. 24th -- voting is for the rich (or white, your choice). You call that "both sides" doing it?

    I have a purpose in life, I am my cat's doorman.

    by ontheleftcoast on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 10:59:46 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Forgot a big one (7+ / 0-)

      13th -- Why can't we have slaves? Or as they call them: unpaid, full time servants and laborers.

      I have a purpose in life, I am my cat's doorman.

      by ontheleftcoast on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 11:03:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The issue is ignoring parts of the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eatbeans

      constitution, not using the constitutional process of amendments.

      it is useful to have more than a cartoon level of understanding of what the left and right believe.

      The right would argue that some on the left ignore the constitution by:

      1.  Claiming that the power to regulate interstate commerce permits the regulation of essentially all commerce.
      1. Limitation of free political speech through things like the fairness doctrine or limitations on speech before elections even if fully truthful. While nude dancing is protected speech because if may have political speech content.
      1. Takings of property or its value without compensation in violation of the 5th. through laws and regulations.
      1. Excessive powers of regulators in assuming powers, beyond what was passed in law.
      1. Unreasonable limits on gun ownership.
      1. Some members of the court using laws of other countries in reaching their decisions.
      1. A "living constitution" view that permits individual judges to decide what those evolutionary changes are outside of the normal process of passing laws and constitutional amendments.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 11:34:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, so because the right claims it (5+ / 0-)

        it's true?

        1. SCOTUS has found on multiple occasions that the power to regulate interstate commerce does permit the regulation of essentially all commerce, dating back at least to 1824 (Gibbons v. Ogden);
        1. Where are the calls for reintroduction of the fairness doctrine? They're extremely few, vastly outnumbered by the invented claims from the right that the left wants to reintroduce it. Nudity can be a political statement - viz. John Lennon and Yoko Ono, but that's irrelevant anyway, since the 1st quite deliberately protects far more than only political speech (and nudity can definitely be an artistic statement, since it has been part of art for millenia); the obscenity doctrine that SCOTUS has developed is entirely a court invention, having no basis whatever in the text of the 1st amendment, and jars greatly when compared to the way calls for violence are treated by the court;
        1. The right has no understanding of the difference between taxation (allowed) and seizure (not allowed), and their thirst for seizure from their chosen villains belies any possible storyline that presents them as guardians of the fifth;
        1. So saith the right, rarely with any factual backing. Truth is they don't want government agencies to carry out their explicitly intended purposes, for example the EPA regulating pollution, or the FCC communications; compare that to the executive branch excesses they not only tolerated but applauded under Bush; if there was a genuine problem here, there would be Article III remedies, but the right would much rather moan about it on talk radio than lose in court;
        1. Define "unreasonable"; the NRA is not a reasonable body, so their definition is not acceptable;
        1. A right-wing fiction; they're just pissed off because they're claims that it's legal to criminalize homosexualities because everyone else on the planet hates gays fell flat when it was pointed out that actually, no, not everyone else on the planet hates gays;
        1. Again a right-wing fiction, which goes hand-in-hand with the right-wing fiction that Scalia has unique insight into the intentions of the drafters of the constitution, and that the constitution should be interpreted on the bases of that unique insight instead of the plain meaning of the words.
        •  Great rebuttal (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Steven D, sullivanst

          Some points I'd like to make. First, the 4th only provides prohibitions "against unreasonable searches and seizures". The usual complaints from the right on this is seizures for non-payment of taxes. The one I've got some qualm about is seizure from drug raids. For example, an ounce of cocaine on a yacht could result in seizure of the yacht even if the owner had nothing to do with the drugs on board. Of course that's a rightwing inspired crazy from their "zero tolerance" policy on drugs.

          The fairness doctrine doesn't stop rightwing bloviating, it simply asks that time be given to the left as well. You want 30 hours of Rush a week? Fine, make room for 30 hours of Tom Hartmann. As for the left stopping political speech the law overturned by Citizens was called "McCain-Feingold". I guess McCain is now a lefty?

          And I'd love for this clown (and from the sound of it Rand Paul loving Libertarian) show me some commerce that isn't interstate? The days of a mom & pop business are gone. Hell, even the ones that exist have internet sales portals.

          And that leads me to the pipe dream of the right -- banishing the Fed (and don't kid yourself, that's the agency they really want banned. The EPA was just a ruse and created by that flaming liberal Richard Nixon). Yes, Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) signed the act that brought the Fed into existance, but only as a response to the Panic of 1907. The purely Republican (which in those days wasn't insane) created Aldrich-Vreeland Act which recommended creating the Federal Reserve.

          I have a purpose in life, I am my cat's doorman.

          by ontheleftcoast on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 01:22:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not saying the right wing is correct. (0+ / 0-)

          Both sides have their arguments for their points of view.

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Mon Jan 17, 2011 at 01:37:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Gay marriage and marijuana laws... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Steven D, sfbob, ontheleftcoast

      Who's more guilty of trampling states rights on those questions?

      It's the right that love DOMA, which usurps the traditional right of the states to define marriage. Most on the left simply want those who same-sex-marry in those states which allow it to have the full rights and benefits of marriage accrue to them, but DOMA prevents that. While the left does organize to try to make gay marriage the law of every state they can, I can't recall ever seeing anyone advocate for a Federal imposition of same-sex marriage on every state.

      The existing Federal "war on drugs" initiated and championed by the right usurps states' rights to legislate their own drug laws, and the ability of the DEA to intervene when drugs are grown, sold and consumed without ever crossing a state boundary stands up in court only the basis of the exact same interpretation of the Commerce Clause that the right loudly decries when it advances programs favored by the left. Again, the left-wing activists for the end of the Federal war on drugs are mostly not calling for Federal preemption of state drug laws, they're mostly calling for the end of Federal preemption so that states can decide individually whether to legalize.

      It's really only the 2nd where there's a case that the left wants to impinge, but since the goal is to keep people alive and the right loves to proclaim that "the constitution is not a suicide pact" when we decry torture, warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention, their complaints are hypocritical.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site