Light Bulbs are getting Expensive / New Tax

Page 2 of 6  
Kurt Ullman wrote:

To me it's so patently related to population of the time that imo it is irrelevant. Intent was clear to be made to balance representation. There are also the passages that provide for the Congress to have the ability to make such necessary rules and regulations, etc., that a far better Constitutional scholar than we would have to work out the implications.
That it should perhaps be repealed to be consonant w/ the letter is, I suppose, arguable by pedants, but hardly worth the effort or trouble. (Although, no second thought, if we could get them occupied on such weighty matters, it might be good overall to minimize the collateral damage they otherwise inflict... :) ).
In the pragmatic view I tend to adopt also, it's not unconstitutional until the courts declare it so. Undoubtedly you could make a name for yourself by managing to make that happen... :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True. But in those areas where two constitutional provisions overlap, the courts generally go with the specific as opposed to the general. Even the ability to make rules, etc., states that they are only those necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. One of which really specifically is the 30,000 per rule. It would get REAL interesting if anyone wanted to push it.

Of course it is worth the trouble if it violates the constitutional provisions (unless you really want something like 10,000 Congress critters running around causing all sorts of mischief). The constitution shouldn't be something that you can pick and choose when there is a set standard.

Can't argue there. Heck I can be found standing over the dead body of someone, with the knife and three guns in my hand saying I told you I was gonna off your skinny little behind, and I am still not guilty until a court says otherwise. (g).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

But, by any reasonable interpretation, a body of 10,000 would be so unworkable as to make it "necessary and proper" to limit the number in order to effectively be able to execute the powers...

I really doubt it would cause much of a ripple at all as it is simply too mundane a change. While not a judicial scholar I have a hard time conceiving that the Court would consider it significant enough of a question to even docket it. Then again, they've taken on some other things that seemed pretty mundane at times, too...

Well, it doesn't appear there have been very many that think it worth the trouble given they've had almost 100 years to have done something about it and it hasn't happened yet (nor as far as I know has it ever been _seriously_ raised as an issue...
While in general I'm more for stricter interpretation than opposed, some things simply are so mundane as to be unworthy of the effort to "correct". This is one imo. The only rational change is to simply delete the clause and the effect can be obtained far more easily under the present rules as has been done...

OJ's really happy over that minor point, too...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But the actual number is still there and the courts tend to put much more weight on what is there than what should be. You don't have to be a terribly strict constructionist to acknowledge that the figure is there in black and white with nothing saying otherwise about how well it is supposed to work. Heck, wouldn't surprise me in the least that the Founders put that in to MAKE it unweildy and hard to get things done. (g).

Nah, It is a constitutional number. At the absolute minimum, it is an interpretation of two parts that seem to be in conflict (the number vs the "as needed" clause). They'd HAVE to take it if anyone complained.

Me neither. Like I said earlier this is probably like the fact nobody has actually pressed to get a judgement on the War Powers Act. Everybody is afraid they might lose and be worse off. Interesting occassional debate, though doncha think.

And in a couple days we'll probably see how Phil Spector feels about it, too (g).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

You allude to a point I intended to make...
One would have to go back and look at the historical record of how the number actually got into the final document, but it would not surprise me at all that it is there not in order to actually determine the overall size of the body but to ensure against gerrymandering. If, indeed such were the context, the actual magnitude of the number itself could be argued to be valid on in a relative sense in even a (somewhat) strict (as opposed to literal) interpretation.
The War Powers Act, while an interesting question, is irrelevant to this one...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree. But the solution is to not IGNORE the Constitution and do as you please,you do it RIGHT and AMEND it.

depends on the language of the amendment that gets proposed.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:
...

...
But, you just agreed the "necessary and proper" action was to make a rule as allowed...so, I would argue it wasn't ignored at all, simply another provision utilized rather than the other... :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

learn to read;I said nothing of the sort. I -agreed- that 10,000 Representatives would be unworkable and that it would be necessary to limit the number,but I did NOT say in any form that just passing a law would be a proper solution. The sole proper solution is to amend the Constitution.(not "make a rule") The "method" used was and is -not allowed- under the Constitution.

But it WAS ignored. They failed to effect the change in the only legit manner allowed them. Instrad,they enacted an unconstitutional law and "looked the other way",IOW;IGNORING the Constitution's ONLY defined procedure for changing itself.
You are just putting out excuses.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

You're so much fun, though... :)
My reading is the rules give them the leeway to do what they did. So far, that hasn't been overturned.
But, since it hasn't been challenged in 100 years -- if you're so incensed, draft an amendment, get your Congressman to sponsor it, and see if it has legs...
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Meaning enact clearly unconstitutional laws and count on the risk,difficulty and expense of challenging them. (against a gov't system with unlimited time,resources,and funds.)
It's SO reassuring that you and so many others find that acceptable.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

Thanks... :)
There's an essentially zero out-of-pocket cost approach way to approach fixing it that I outlined previously.
I'm left wondering why if it is such a fundamentally egregious problem someone hasn't raised the issue in the last 90 years or so???
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I just explained that above; "Meaning enact clearly unconstitutional laws and count on the risk,difficulty and expense of challenging them. (against a gov't system with unlimited time,resources,and funds.)"
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

That's the AG's job -- write a letter explaining your concern -- I'm sure he'll follow it up immediately as it has been such an egregious oversight all these years...
The other alternative I gave you costs at most a first class stamp...
Are either of those actions that time-consuming or out of your economic reach?
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually in this case I don't think the AG would have a dog in this hunt until someone else files. The AG (actually the Solicitor General which I think is under the AG) defends laws, not tries to get them overturned. So, I doubt contacting Justice would do you anyone much good.

If this was a real concern, I would think that one of the fringe "mess with the government every chance they get" groups would have filed by now. I would think it would be their wet dream to get every law since 1917 or so tossed out as illegal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

...
Not necessarily only defend -- also can file in order to get ruling on the constitutionality in order to "vet" a law.
Also, yet another alternative route is to ask Representative to ask for an opinion.
As usual, it is far more self-fulfilling to vent spleen on usenet while tilting at windmills than to take even the most simple of expedients that might even begin to actually address the issue (if there were even a real issue to address which is, of course, the fundamental problem here)...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What a lot of weaseling. The Constitution was SPECIFIC.

Obeying the Constitution is "hardly worth the trouble"? If they do it there,they will do it elsewhere.Which they have.

That's the sort of permissive view that helps those who would disregard our Constitution.

IMO,people just don't want to open the door of amending the Constitution. With the way people think these days,it IS a scary thought.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wouldn't know why through the Congress. That opens up just one thing at a time by definition. Now a new Convention would put everything back up for grabs and I would have to agree with you there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:
...

If you feel so strongly that this is a concern, find a group and challenge it.
As I noted elsewhere, one would have to look at the context of the arguments made at the time the document was drafted, but it certainly is well within my reading that the point wasn't at all to mandate the absolute size of the body but to prevent jerrymandering and the avoidance of any one district being underrepresented vis a vis another. In that light, the sense of the document has been maintained inviolate.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Indeed it is. The wording is:
"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;"
I read that as saying that it puts an upper limit on the number of representatives, not a lower limit. The "shall not exceed" applies to the number of representatives, not the thirty Thousand. It legal for a Representative to represent more than 30,000, but not less, with the one noted exception.
This interpretation is supported by the following phrase saying that "but each State shall have at Least one Representative". This would not be necessary if the limit was on the maximum number of people that a Representative could represent.
So the current situation is entirely within the letter of the constitution.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Douglas Johnson wrote:

...
Damnit, Doug, you went and let the cat out of the bag by actually interpreting what it _actually_ says...
And it was so much fun pulling Yanik's chain but was beginning to pale... :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.