Dumb Political Correctness

Well when it comes to North Korea it's ok for cops to kill people for minor crimes, see, it's totally different.

 

If Trump ever gets around to building the border wall with Mexico across Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, he should just turn right at the California border and start building northward.

 

Free interstate travel is one of the absolute key rights/agreements that hold the Union together. It was considered paramount to the founding fathers and was even in the Articles of Confederation. The problem is that California, as a state, is trying to target other states over their internal policies and are doing so with state employee travel bans (though California did exempt out of state travel to collect tax revenue ). I doubt even the most ardent southern states' rights enthusiasts in the 1850s would have agreed with this. This policy, and the trade agreement with China, are returns to the failed "too many states' rights" system of the Articles of Confederation in the 1780s. Doing away with this nonsense was one of the main points of ratifying the Constitution. Maybe since this is just a ban on official state trips it might be constituonal, but with interstate travel and comity being so fundamental to the Union and the dangerousness of this path... my guess is the Supreme Court finds this unconstitutional.

If private California businesses want to target Texas that is fine, but we already saw what happened when states themselves start down this path in the 1850s.

From the Texas Tribune:
"Meanwhile, other lawmakers openly considered a reciprocal ban against Texas-funded travel to California. Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, proposed such an idea during the most recent regular session of the Texas Legislature. It never received a full vote on the House floor, but he says he hopes to try to find a way to bring the issue up when lawmakers reconvene for a special session next month."

When states starting going tit for tat, it ends with instability and someone firing on Fort Sumter.

This travel ban and the trade deal with China are dangerous attempts by the State of California to return to the failed Articles of Confederation of the 1780s when it suits them. I certainly support state power and prefer it to federal power (i am very much in the pro state power camp), but this is too absurd and directly against the basis of the Union (and over a very minor issue at that).

My first impression of this is that it is unconstituonal, however I reserve the right to be wrong. I am not sure America has had nonsense like this since the 1850s, so I do not know how federal courts in the 2010s will react to 1850 and 1780 type shaningans.

 

They can do this. It's stupid as hell, but they can do it.

They can't enter into a binding treaty with anybody. However, they can voluntarily craft state regulations that comply with the agreement. Of course, if the regulations substantially impact interstate commerce (and they would), Congress could step in an preempt them. I doubt they'd do that though.

 

It just seems to me because this is one state to another, there is a comity issue at play. Am I off on this? It is not explicitly forbidden obviously, but cherry picking states like this seems to violate one of the main points of forming the Union. California does not have to spend money or send people to any other states obviously, but can they just outright ban all state activities in certain states? I think the answer has to be no. Maybe I am interpreting the Constitution far too liberally?

I hate to go into the old game often played with the 14th amendment with whether laws are discrimination or not over the years, but it almost seems to me California formally and overtly doing this unconstitutional, but if they did this without announcing, it would be okay. Again, I may be interpreting far too liberally.

 

If the law specifies that bathrooms should be segregated by gender at birth, how is this discrimination? You may not agree with it, but like the top ten rule for college admissions, it doesn't discriminate based on race, sex, etc. It applies to all. Or, is the argument that anyone can oppose a law if it goes against one's line of thinking because by definition it is discrimination (at least in one's mind)?

 

Not discrimination in that context. It is a matter of the relationship of the states to one another. States cannot engage in trade wars with one another for example. States cannot ban interstate travel for its citizens. This is not a 14th amendment issue. I was just pointing out this is like 14th amendment cases with de factor vs. de jure, but this is not a 14th amendment case. This deals with other parts of the Constitution. What California is doing seems to be against the entire point of the Constitution in the first place. This is not state versus people discrimination, this is state versus state, and I am not sure a state can overtly discriminate against another state in this manner (but I could be wrong). The question is, is this state power reserved under the 10th amendment or is it somehow under the comity clause. My first impression is this goes against the point of the Constitution, but I acknowledge I may be overly broadly interpreting the comity clause.

Alexander Hamilton (who I hate to quote) wrote in Federalist 80 "It may be esteemed the basis of the Union, that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.'" He was making an argument for the national judiciary, but I do agree that keeping peace among the states and preventing these types of disputes was the entire point of switching from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (stability among the states). My interpretation may be too broad and I am generally in favor of states' rights, but this sort of action seems to go against the entire point of the Constitution. Like I said, I am not sure that even Southern firebrand secessionists in the 1850s would have agreed to a state doing this. However, I would need to look more into comity cases in the 1850s for answers. Like I said earlier, regardless, California is on a dangerous 1850s/1780s path of instability among the states with actions like this.

There is also a commerce clause issue. A "dormant commerce clause" has been inferred by courts from the commerce clause. The commerce clause "grant of power implies a negative converse—a restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce." "Justice Anthony Kennedy has written that: 'The central rationale for the rule against discrimination is to prohibit state or municipal laws whose object is local economic protectionism, laws that would excite those jealousies and retaliatory measures the Constitution was designed to prevent.'" Of course, this California law is not economic protectionism. However, my point is this is an economic law that can lead to "retaliatory measures" and we already went down that path in the 1850s....

 

If you're a believer in the Tenth Amendment, then the fact that it's not explicitly prohibited is enough reason to say California can do this. And keep in mind, they're not prohibiting its citizens from conducting activities in other states. They're prohibiting their state from conducting activities with taxpayer money.

The equal protection clause protects "person"(s), not other states. If we're being strict constructionists, the 14th Amendment isn't a barrier.

 

I do not disagree on the 10th amendment... I just am not sure the 10th amendment ever applied to state versus state economic discrimination (see the dormant commerce clause and comity clause in my above post). I could be wrong. My problem is, this goes against the entire core purpose to having the Constitution and our Union. This is why we switched from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. The 10th Amendment was meant to apply to things not expressly turned over by the people to the federal government. However, I acknowledge I may be reading the federal government's power and the lack of power by the states here too broadly.

I addressed this in my last post. The 14th amendment is not a barrier at all. I just meant the de facto versus de jure analysis may come into play. A state can spend its money where it pleases, but can it outright ban this?

 

The dormant commerce "clause" (in quotes because there isn't actually such a clause) is ******** and a product of judicial activism.

 

But...and without having fleshed out the argument...if a corporation can be a 'person,' then why not a State?

I am still left believing, however, that the Constitution that was violated was not that of the United States but more likely that of the State of California based upon the usurping of authority I had previously mentioned. Again, not completely fleshed out and very much a seat of the pants thought...

 

Corporations become "persons" as a matter of state law. A state doesn't have to allow corporations to exist at all. Could a state make other states "persons" as they've made businesses "persons?" I suppose so, but to my knowledge California hasn't done so.

I haven't read the California constitution, so I can't say.

 

This is true and much of the case law on it is baloney. I still come back to the fact that the entire point of the Union/Constitution was to prevent shenanigans of this sort from the states. If all the states start putting embargos on state spending in other states over trivial things or form out of state spending alliances, we have a less perfect union. Of course, it is also possible that only California enacts this stupid law, they are ignored by the other states and eventually give it up.

As for the commerce clause/comity issues, I reread the Heart of Atlanta Motel case (finding the civil rights act constitutional under the commerce clause). The answer, like with California's deal with China, may simply be federal preemption as Deez mentioned earlier. California is free under the 10th to do whatever they want with interstate and foreign commerce, unless they are preempted by congress. Of course, California is a state that ignores federal law on marijuana. The entire thing is very interesting constitutionally (and dangerous if other states retaliate). I never did get to and probably will not get to looking at this relative to 1850s comity cases. Even if constitutional, I still doubt 1850s states' rights enthusiasts would have agreed with this move by California.

Ultimately, with marijuna, deals with China and interstate state spending embargos, it is clear California firmly believes in states' rights when it suits them.

 

Repeat post from the On the Field thread.

https://www.outsports.com/2017/3/22/15028504/ucla-kentucky-tournament-ncaa-travel-ban

Just discovered that UCLA completely ignored the embargo for the NCAA basketball tournament this year... so this is a toothless proclamation and maybe not as constitutionally interesting as I thought.

 

Probably a bunch of lefty legislators virtue signalling to the idiot masses.

 

The point of the Constitution was to give Alexander Hamilton enough power to tax citizens directly and have them pay to the Federal government. Then he could pay back the wealthy investors of the Revolution and start to build his mercantilist version of the country he wanted.

There weren't any real issues with the Articles that I know of.

 

An American traveling to Canada to give a speech was arrested at the airport for “smuggling hate speech” on his iPad.

 

hahaha. That's certainly one way to spin it.

The states were never going to pay their debts (which also included back pay to veterans). Unless a modern government administration federalized the debt the country would have behind the economic 8 ball for a long time. Hell...slavery based farming might have been the dominant economic system for decades longer than it did.

Without a Hamilton federal government, there would have been no U.S. Navy, and these Muslim Barbry States would have continued pirating American shippiinng, kidnapping American sailors, and raping American women.

But hey Monahorn...at least we wouldn't have to do that stupid Hamilton tax thing. It's not like this country Hamilton set up did anything like...you know, save the World from fascisin and communism and put a man on the Moon.

 

But if we're following the text of the Constitution and believe in the idea that states are governments of general jurisdiction and powers (meaning they can do anything the Constitution doesn't prohibit them from doing), then we have to assume that those concerns are adequately addressed in the Constitution's express limitations on state powers under Art. I, Sec. 10 and subsequent amendments. We shouldn't have constitutional doctrines, not limited by objective language, that federal courts can use to arbitrarily strike down laws they don't like. That's what's wrong with the substantive due process doctrine, but a doctrine that does what you're suggesting would have the same problem and pose the same opportunities for judicial tyranny and abuse.

On the merits, I strongly favor civil rights legislation. However, the blatantly result-oriented cases used to uphold federal civil rights legislation were a judicial travesty and intellectually dishonest. That's not a line of cases to emulate. It's a line of cases to severely limit or overturn.

Like I mentioned earlier, California can't enter into a treaty or alliance. That's expressly prohibited under Art. 1, Sec. 10. However, if Jerry Brown goes to Beijing, bashes Trump, and announces that California will voluntarily adopt certain regulations, they can do that. The preemption comes into play by Congress overriding California's state environmental regulations to the extent that they impact interstate commerce. However, as conservatives, we generally favor a limited definition of what constitutes interstate commerce.

To me this is a bigger worry. I think federal marijuana laws are an abuse of federal power. However, that's not why states are choosing to ignore them. They're ignoring them because they run counter to those states' political agendas. And of course, if conservative states did the same thing with a federal law they didn't like, these same states and the political media would crap in their pants.

Yep, they're hypocrites.

 

No kidding

 

And Annie Lowrey is Ezra Klein's wife. She's no conservative.

 

Nor libertarian

 

The veterans were one of the groups that got royally screwed by Hamilton. He was no friend to them as seen in Shay's Rebellion. Hamilton wasn't taxing to pay veterans. He actually set up a system that distributed money from poor to rich.

The country would have been fine without Hamilton. You don't get efficient economy and industry by taxing the lower and middle class. I just don't get how anyone can say slavery would have lasted longer without a federal tax system. Guess who paid 75% of federal taxes by the mid-19 century?

 

Libs in Chicago will pay extra for a gluten free carwash

 

Cognitive dissonance -- none of these virtue-sign-hanging folks ever address the fact that a majority of Muslims around the world think gay acts should be criminal, punishable by death

 

It's like there's no living, breathing examples of the horrific outcomes and societal devastation caused by mass merging of diametrically opposed cultures in the West.

Libs are like the woman who marries a guy who cheated on all 3 prior wives and left the last one for her. "This is different, we are truly in love, he'll be faithful to me".

 

Or Conservatives don't understand a joke?

 

SH is the first in line for that gluten free car wash. Once done it's Hammer time!

 

Virtue Signaling is a powerful drug. Some people do and say really stupid things to get it.