Ron Paul

[YASNY]

If the examples I gave don't tell you that US policy was not supreme at that point, then there is nothing else I can do. You've decided.

 

But isn't his argument such that whether it was supreme at that point, it shouldn't have been due to states rights?

[iamshack]

It is a state's right to do as they choose though.

 

#1 your argument is completely invalid - because "dumping" is not allowed - not because it is unhealthy, but because it violates property law. Property law is the highest law. Dumping is simply against the law - not against a regulation. It is the same as why I cant walk over to my neighbors house and dump my trash on his property - it is against the law and I'd get a fine for littering. That is why THAT problem would not occur. I suggest you read up on property law to further understand this (dumping into Lake Michigan from Indiana, still affects Illinois' property - and property law is the highest law ).

 

Secondly - if a state wants to pollute the air, and it's citizens do not have a problem with it - then that is their right as a state. If the neighboring states ALSO do not have a problem with it, well, then there is no problem. If a state does have a problem - then it becomes a federal case - which the Constitution is BUILT for - with the Supreme Court.

 

And no - there would be no "guidelines" for ALL states to adhere to. It would be a "case-by-case" basis. If Montana was polluting the air around Wyoming at the same rate as someone in Indiana and the citizens of Wyoming (unlike the citizens of Illinois), do not have a problem with it - why should Montana have to adhere to the regulation placed on Indiana? Because "you" feel they should? Because the citizens of Illinois feel they should? That is Wyoming's business, not Illinois's.

 

Your arguement reaches into bad territory here. You are now imposing that there "should" be one order for everything - mandated by the government. If the citizens of Wyoming don't care about the plant being in Montana, why should they adhere to what Illinois says? They shouldn't. That is Wyoming citizens' right. The problem is your argument is that there should be "one order". What if the USA has higher restrictions than Canada? Should we impose our law upon Canada? Or should we impose our law upon Mexico? What others do is their business UNLESS if affects our national security. Your argument is one that the federal government of the USA can make the decisions that are the safest for all citizens. But, what if Canada has tons of pollution pouring in nearby USA cities? Should there be "one order" that tells each country how to live? That is irrational and illogical & takes away civil liberties.

 

If I live in Wyoming, and the citizens of Montana are polluting my air, and myself and my neighbors are okay with it - then that is our business - not yours. If you live in Illinois and Indiana is polluting your air and you are NOT away with it - then it must be taken to federal court to have YOUR case decided.

 

"Property Law is the highest law." What?

 

Secondly, the reason for national regulations is because there were none before, and there were so many lawsuits, pollution, angry state officials, etc, that the regulations were enacted to protect ALL the citizens of the US.

 

Finally, yes, we should impose a standard on other countries, which is exactly why international treaties exist. They do the same as federal regulations except on an international level.

 

P.S.- Please do not tell someone to "read-up" on something you clearly are making things up out of thin air yourself about...

Edited January 15, 2008 by iamshack

[NorthSideSox72]

It is a state's right to do as they choose though.

 

#1 your argument is completely invalid - because "dumping" is not allowed - not because it is unhealthy, but because it violates property law. Property law is the highest law. Dumping is simply against the law - not against a regulation. It is the same as why I cant walk over to my neighbors house and dump my trash on his property - it is against the law and I'd get a fine for littering. That is why THAT problem would not occur. I suggest you read up on property law to further understand this (dumping into Lake Michigan from Indiana, still affects Illinois' property - and property law is the highest law ).

I think there is a problem with your property law argument here, because... who owns Lake Michigan? In the general sense, no one does, except perhaps the federal government. In some functions, the states own their shorelines and some distance out (I don't know what distance off hand). So if Indiana dumps in Lake Michigan, its either into Indiana waters or US waters - not Illinois or Michigan or Wisconsin waters. So those other states, taken at a purely property-law level, have no standing.

 

[iamshack]

But isn't his argument such that whether it was supreme at that point, it shouldn't have been due to states rights?

 

YASNY,

He's referring to a completely different argument than the current one.

[NorthSideSox72]

But isn't his argument such that whether it was supreme at that point, it shouldn't have been due to states rights?

To get back to the discussion of states rights, yes, Bureau is arguing from that perspective, I think. I don't know though - I am currently a bit confused as to his points.

 

Its also of course not an objective argument. I mean, what does "supreme" mean? There is no right or wrong there. My perspective is different than his.

 

[iamshack]

If the examples I gave don't tell you that US policy was not supreme at that point, then there is nothing else I can do. You've decided.

 

Supreme to whom?

 

Look I'm not going to argue with you either.

 

Let's just agree to disagree?

[NorthSideSox72]

YASNY,

He's referring to a completely different argument than the current one.

Yes, that.

 

Sorry, this thread has split off at least three different discussion topics, and I hijacked one of them.

 

[YASNY]

YASNY,

He's referring to a completely different argument than the current one.

 

Ok, as intersting as this discussion has been ... and it has been very much so ... I'm gonna step aside because I'm getting very damn sleepy. You guys have fun, remain civil, and I'll get caught up tonight.

Edited January 15, 2008 by YASNY

[NorthSideSox72]

Supreme to whom?

 

Look I'm not going to argue with you either.

 

Let's just agree to disagree?

That was kind of my point earlier, when you seemed to be painting it as a right/wrong, on/off argument. It is necessarily subjective. Yes, we have different perspectives as to the extent of US power in the region in the 19th Century.

 

[StrangeSox]

It is a state's right to do as they choose though.

 

#1 your argument is completely invalid - because "dumping" is not allowed - not because it is unhealthy, but because it violates property law. Property law is the highest law. Dumping is simply against the law - not against a regulation. It is the same as why I cant walk over to my neighbors house and dump my trash on his property - it is against the law and I'd get a fine for littering. That is why THAT problem would not occur. I suggest you read up on property law to further understand this (dumping into Lake Michigan from Indiana, still affects Illinois' property - and property law is the highest law ).

 

Secondly - if a state wants to pollute the air, and it's citizens do not have a problem with it - then that is their right as a state. If the neighboring states ALSO do not have a problem with it, well, then there is no problem. If a state does have a problem - then it becomes a federal case - which the Constitution is BUILT for - with the Supreme Court.

 

And no - there would be no "guidelines" for ALL states to adhere to. It would be a "case-by-case" basis. If Montana was polluting the air around Wyoming at the same rate as someone in Indiana and the citizens of Wyoming (unlike the citizens of Illinois), do not have a problem with it - why should Montana have to adhere to the regulation placed on Indiana? Because "you" feel they should? Because the citizens of Illinois feel they should? That is Wyoming's business, not Illinois's.

 

Your arguement reaches into bad territory here. You are now imposing that there "should" be one order for everything - mandated by the government. If the citizens of Wyoming don't care about the plant being in Montana, why should they adhere to what Illinois says? They shouldn't. That is Wyoming citizens' right. The problem is your argument is that there should be "one order". What if the USA has higher restrictions than Canada? Should we impose our law upon Canada? Or should we impose our law upon Mexico? What others do is their business UNLESS if affects our national security. Your argument is one that the federal government of the USA can make the decisions that are the safest for all citizens. But, what if Canada has tons of pollution pouring in nearby USA cities? Should there be "one order" that tells each country how to live? That is irrational and illogical & takes away civil liberties.

 

If I live in Wyoming, and the citizens of Montana are polluting my air, and myself and my neighbors are okay with it - then that is our business - not yours. If you live in Illinois and Indiana is polluting your air and you are NOT okay with it - then it must be taken to federal court to have YOUR case decided - which is what the Constitution, giving it the Supreme Court, was built for.

 

Your argument falls apart pretty quickly. Illinois isn't telling Indiana what to do; the Federal government is. Indiana has as much of a say in the Federal government as Illinois.

 

And you still didn't address the fact that this system would (and did in the past) lead to extremely congested court systems, protracted legal battles, and wasted resources and time.

 

Let's take your argument a step farther -- why is the state level the best? Why not limited state roles and bring everything down to county or city levels?

[iamshack]

I think there is a problem with your property law argument here, because... who owns Lake Michigan? In the general sense, no one does, except perhaps the federal government. In some functions, the states own their shorelines and some distance out (I don't know what distance off hand). So if Indiana dumps in Lake Michigan, its either into Indiana waters or US waters - not Illinois or Michigan or Wisconsin waters. So those other states, taken at a purely property-law level, have no standing.

 

That's actually not correct. They absolutely have standing if they can show that the fact that Indiana is dumping things into Lake Michigan which eventually show up on the shores of Illinois or Michigan, or pollute the waters of Lake Michigan which affects the shoreline or the air in or above Illinois or Michigan. Some arguments have even been made that if you pollute the water which effects the marine industry that is part of your commerce, that you have standing.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's actually not correct. They absolutely have standing if they can show that the fact that Indiana is dumping things into Lake Michigan which eventually show up on the shores of Illinois or Michigan, or pollute the waters of Lake Michigan which affects the shoreline or the air in or above Illinois or Michigan. Some arguments have even been made that if you pollute the water which effects the marine industry that is part of your commerce, that you have standing.

Well, now that I think about it, since a lot of environmental regulation and law is attached to the 5th Amendment takings clause, that does have some connection with property. But again, Illinois doesn't own Lake Michigan. The US government does, in effect - correct? So by nature, doesn't it have to be a federal matter, as opposed to Illinois going to court to protect property?

 

[StrangeSox]

Well, now that I think about it, since a lot of environmental regulation and law is attached to the 5th Amendment takings clause, that does have some connection with property. But again, Illinois doesn't own Lake Michigan. The US government does, in effect - correct? So by nature, doesn't it have to be a federal matter, as opposed to Illinois going to court to protect property?

 

Illinois owns lake front property that would be affected by the dumping.

[NorthSideSox72]

Illinois owns lake front property that would be affected by the dumping.

Undoubtedly it would be effected. That effect is a good example of what both the takings clause and the interstate commerce clause are currently interpereted to protect against. But is that property law? I am not so sure. Because while any state or entity could theoretically sue some corporation or other state for pollution making to their air/shores, that does not guarantee standing from a constitutional point of view. Its definite that an entity cannot legally dump on some other entity's property. Its not direct or definite that pollution dumping in Lake Michigan is an act against Illinois.

 

But as I said, I am not sure if its a 5th amendment thing (which is definitely property law) or an interstate commerce thing (not property law) or a health and welfare protection thing (not either).

 

[iamshack]

Undoubtedly it would be effected. That effect is a good example of what both the takings clause and the interstate commerce clause are currently interpereted to protect against. But is that property law? I am not so sure. Because while any state or entity could theoretically sue some corporation or other state for pollution making to their air/shores, that does not guarantee standing from a constitutional point of view. Its definite that an entity cannot legally dump on some other entity's property. Its not direct or definite that pollution dumping in Lake Michigan is an act against Illinois.

 

But as I said, I am not sure if its a 5th amendment thing (which is definitely property law) or an interstate commerce thing (not property law) or a health and welfare protection thing (not either).

 

I think you could sue under any number of theories and win.

 

Property law is filled with rules which prohibit others from doing things which only indirectly affect your property. You don't need something directly dumped on your property to have standing. You can even sue people for growing trees which extend out into your sightline when trying to view the Lake from your porch.

 

The Takings Clause and Property Law are intertwined- the Takings Clause was was covered in my Property Law Class, although you're right, it is primarily a Constitutional Law issue.

 

Then there is also the health and welfare protection as you mentioned, and especially the commerce clause.

 

I read a case (which I referred to earlier) whereby a guy was suing because his restaurant was being detrimentally affected (the numbers of fish he usually imported and served were diminished) by pollution occurring in another state. He lost that case, but only because he was importing fish from hundreds of miles away as opposed to catching them on the body of water where his restaurant was.

 

Anyways, you can see how tenuous the connections can sometimes be in order to have standing.

Edited January 15, 2008 by iamshack

[StrangeSox]

Anyways, you can see how tenuous the connections can sometimes be in order to have standing.

 

And it that comes back to the question: Do we really want the courts going through thousands of issues on a case-by-case basis like this?

[iamshack]

And it that comes back to the question: Do we really want the courts going through thousands of issues on a case-by-case basis like this?

 

Of course not.

 

They're already overloaded, it's a waste of resources, both in manpower, time, money, wasted energy consumption, etc.

[iamshack]

It doesn't matter if it is a "waste" in your eyes. In MY eyes, it is not a waste. And that is what the Constitution is about. I have a right, as do you - to not be ruled over the Federal Government when it is not their RIGHT to do so.

 

Read again:

 

You cannot dump into a body of water, because it violates property law. The property being Indiana, the Federal government, and eventually any shoreline it reaches. If the "dumping" reaches Illinois' property, then, yes, it is violating the property law of Illinois.

 

The problem with your argument, iamshack, is that the Federal regulations WORSEN the environment - because MANY states want them more strict (and would have them so if left up to them). The point is, if neighboring states are okay with something that is going on - then it is not a Federal matter - as long as it is not against the law in general. But - the Federal government does not have the RIGHT to impose regulations on EVERYONE. They have the right to do a case-by-case basis.

 

I suppose we should simply not listen to the Bill of Rights & it's 10th Amendment:

 

Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that tells me how much pollution I can or cannot fill the air with. Therefore - it is a STATE matter. If a neighboring state has a problem with it - it goes to the Supreme Court - which was implemented in the Constitution to deal with this exact problem. NOTHING outside of national security and state to state commerce security should be regulated by the federal government - states have the power to do as they choose. And if neighboring states are polluting the air, and neither have an issue with it - well, it is not YOUR right to tell them how to live. That is THEIR right. If two states DO have a problem - they go to the Supreme Court. Just because you, personally, feel a moral responsibility to ensure that the environment is not ruined does not give YOU the RIGHT to tell others in other places of the country who may NOT care to tell them what to do. If you DO want that, then you are a socialist & I suggest you move to a socialist country. The USA is a republic for the people BY the people. If the people of two states decide that they like THEIR laws, then that is THEIR business - not YOURS - THAT is what the Constitution is about.

 

Tell me again why property law trumps state's rights or civil liberties, or any of the other rights you bring up?

 

 

[southsider2k5]

It doesn't matter if it is a "waste" in your eyes. In MY eyes, it is not a waste. And that is what the Constitution is about. I have a right, as do you - to not be ruled over the Federal Government when it is not their RIGHT to do so.

 

Read again:

 

You cannot dump into a body of water, because it violates property law. The property being Indiana, the Federal government, and eventually any shoreline it reaches. If the "dumping" reaches Illinois' property, then, yes, it is violating the property law of Illinois.

 

The problem with your argument, iamshack, is that the Federal regulations WORSEN the environment - because MANY states want them more strict (and would have them so if left up to them). The point is, if neighboring states are okay with something that is going on - then it is not a Federal matter - as long as it is not against the law in general. But - the Federal government does not have the RIGHT to impose regulations on EVERYONE. They have the right to do a case-by-case basis.

 

I suppose we should simply not listen to the Bill of Rights & it's 10th Amendment:

 

Tenth Amendment ? Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that tells me how much pollution I can or cannot fill the air with. Therefore - it is a STATE matter. If a neighboring state has a problem with it - it goes to the Supreme Court - which was implemented in the Constitution to deal with this exact problem. NOTHING outside of national security and state to state commerce security should be regulated by the federal government - states have the power to do as they choose. And if neighboring states are polluting the air, and neither have an issue with it - well, it is not YOUR right to tell them how to live. That is THEIR right. If two states DO have a problem - they go to the Supreme Court. Just because you, personally, feel a moral responsibility to ensure that the environment is not ruined does not give YOU the RIGHT to tell others in other places of the country who may NOT care to tell them what to do. If you DO want that, then you are a socialist & I suggest you move to a socialist country. The USA is a republic for the people BY the people. If the people of two states decide that they like THEIR laws, then that is THEIR business - not YOURS - THAT is what the Constitution is about.

 

So since you have ignored all of my other replies, I am curious if you will answer me as to how if we eliminate federal oversight, and add to the overburdened court system, meanwhile eliminating income taxes, how do we pay for the court system to figure all of these disputes out?

[StrangeSox]

So since you have ignored all of my other replies, I am curious if you will answer me as to how if we eliminate federal oversight, and add to the overburdened federal court system, meanwhile eliminating income taxes, how do we pay for the court system to figure all of these disputes out?

 

Fixed that for you, since his position seems to leave the power in the hands of the Feds still, but just leaves everyone in the dark with no guidelines to go by.

Edited January 15, 2008 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

Hopefully after a couple more 4th and 5th place finishes I can stop hearing about this Ron Paul madness.

[mr_genius]

Hopefully after a couple more 4th and 5th place finishes I can stop hearing about this Ron Paul madness.

 

Ron Paul is doing pretty well considering his political stances. I like that he adds to the political discussion. I wouldn't call it "madness".

[iamshack]

There would be plenty of federal money to regulate as is with the withdrawal of troops abroad and more so when the programs that are affected as such by this argument are cut: education, energy, environment, etc. All these programs receive IMMENSE funding and would be cut, as they would no longer be necessary when state's rights are placed at the forefront. I'm too busy at the moment to go into specifics, but that is the gist of it. Cut the need for military funding abroad, then cut the unnecessary programs that actually make things WORSE (i.e. federal funded department of education that is the bigget inhibitor of a good education), and you have - basically - most of your answer. When states are made to compete with each other to provide the best life possible - to entertain more citizens to remain/move to their state - the quality of life increases. When a central entity tries to run control over everything - which we do with the environment, education, etc. - it leads to a weakening of the overall system, worse quality of life, and inefficiency. Pure free market is what a "states first" provides - because the states compete with each other to draw more citizens - therefore more money to them. This ineviteably leads to states "competing" to give you the highest quality of life. When the federal government gets involved for "everyone", it is no longer a free market & therefore, quality of life actually decreases - which is what we are seeing in America today, and will see much, much, much more of in the future. Of course "life quality" may be "higher" now than 20 years ago - but, it is at a substantially LOWER rate of increase than it SHOULD be.

 

The states already do this in large part. They compete with eachother in all kinds of ways to attract citizens, whether it be through jobs, schools, tourism, taxes, etc. We already have this.

 

Some Federal oversight is required because the states can have shortsighted goals, or engage in activities that may not harm them, but harm the citizens of other states, regions, etc.

 

I don't understand the point of prohibiting Federal Regs but then placing ultimate jurisdiction in the hands of the federal gov't anyways. This does nothing but make for a more inefficient way to police the states...

[iamshack]

Ron Paul is doing pretty well considering his political stances. I like that he adds to the political discussion. I wouldn't call it "madness".

 

Mr Genius, could you post a link to the discussion that is occurring in your avatar? I'd like to see/hear that discussion...

[mr_genius]

Mr Genius, could you post a link to the discussion that is occurring in your avatar? I'd like to see/hear that discussion...

 

It's from the CNN youtube debate, McCain questions Paul's foreign policy.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=atYgjPD4uqc&feature=related