The Donkey
New member
imported post
Brass Magnet wrote:
I'm not sure that we disagree that much:
I like "general welfare" clauses as a vehicle forslaughter-house type regulation. Iam less comfortable with inherent "police powers"which the Slaughterhousecourt relied on.
I might pick on the "harem" thing a bit: some of FDR's justices are favorites . . . .
Brass Magnet wrote:
The Donkey wrote:I agree that some may have an effect on the surrounding population; but there are other ways that the Feds and states can garner the power to regulate that through general welfare clauses and such. Therefore; IMO, theres no need to strip us of other rights.A major difference between the floral business and slaughter-houses was that slaughter-houses had severe effects on the health of the surrounding population.
I agree that states have the power to regulate businesses for health reasons, even if it means drastically changing the way business is done.
The last comment is my problem also; I wish politics didn't have anything to do with the courts as I believe they have no place there. The laws should be interepreted as to their original intent and nothing more in my opinion. There shouldn't be room for political maneuvering. In an ideal world the justices that succumb to that should be impeached. Like FDR's self appointed harem of justices.In the case of the floral business, there might be a question about whether the regulation in question is rationally related to any legitimate public interest.That question might arise under the DP and the EP clauses, and --in my opinion-- should arise under the P & I clause.
IMO, it should only arise under general welfare clauses; that's where the government was given the power. I know we will have fundamental disagreements on the issue of what would be a legitimate public interest but wouldn't it seem that the PoI clause and DP clause are for us? For our rights? To restrict power and not give it? Government powers are outlined elsewhere in the constitution.
I am not annoyed withthe result in Slaughterhouse-- but I am bothered with howthe caseswere decided --and how that decision is applied regarding the P & I clause. I think P & I ought to encompass civil rights.
What a Court ideologically concerned with economic liberties might do withP & I isto bring us back to the Supremes of the 1930s, standing against a President and a Congress to prevent necessary bold actions in the economic sphere.
Politically, I don't trust them: but luckily, I think they don'ttrust themselves either.
I'm not sure that we disagree that much:
I like "general welfare" clauses as a vehicle forslaughter-house type regulation. Iam less comfortable with inherent "police powers"which the Slaughterhousecourt relied on.
I might pick on the "harem" thing a bit: some of FDR's justices are favorites . . . .