In fact I can't think of any two clearer examples of what the interstate commerce clause was meant to address. And it's not even an amendment! It's in the original document! (not that amendments are any less a part of the constitution, just saying...).

Until Yesterday the United states was at peace with that nation, and although.............

---Franklin Delano Roosevelt

The EU similarily funds inter-state roads, isn't it a good thing to encourage transport infrastructure where indivual states building roads might ignore the benifits of joining up with their neighbours (or under fund it) perhaps because consumption tax is lower on the other side of the state line (we call it VAT - value added tax, and it's included in all prices...) so it is in the interest of a states tax income to avoid providing an easy way for people to cross the state line to buy goods.

That could be seen as an inefficiency in the economy of a country, so i can't see why anyone would object to interstate highways...

"They are not a waste of money, but they are against the Tenth Amendment. "

I forgot you were an expert on Constitutional law, The_Master_Warrior. Can you give me any sort of justification how federal funding of interstate highways is unconstitutional in any way? Or food regulations?

Don't take this the wrong way, but your understanding of the Constitution is a bit like Glenn Beck's. He comes at it with his own ideology and tries to apply it to the Constitution, which is why he thought the clause about taxing the slave trade before 1808 was a tax on immigration.

I want me an answer.

@TMW - the 10th Amendment doesn't apply because the Interstate Commerce Clause makes it clear that the Federal Government *does* have this power granted to it. Creating the notional higway system hepled to regulate and control the flow of commerce across state lines by using weigh stations and the like. It wasn't created for private passenger so much as shipping lanes via commercial vehicles. You have once again proven you rself to be *the* (Diplo)fool.

@ Invictus: That clause was deleted. Also, I forgot about that pesky interstate commerce clause, so I guess interstate highways and food regulation (only food that crosses state lines) are technically Constitutional.

That clause wasn't deleted. It was superseded when Congress outlawed the slave trade in 1808. At any rate, my point was that like Glenn Beck you grab a piece of the Constitution you think fits your ideology and extrapolate from there.

The interstate commerce clause is heavily abused today (like how it's used to regulate INTERstate commerce), but it nevertheless is important in that it allows the federal government to impose uniformity and sensible regulations for the public good. You need to get your head out of your rear and be less of a blind squawker of supposedly conservative views.

That's what I meant. It was effectively rendered inoperative by the 13th Amendment.

Also, and the libs don't? If a federal penny finds its way to a faith-based organization, they scream "Seperation of church and state!!!!" and sue like none other. But whenever conservatives pull the Second or Tenth Amendment, suddenly, the Constitution is irrelevant.

The Constitution is abused every day by Capitol Hill. I've been seriously tempted to mail a case of Red Bull to the Supreme Court Building. Someone is asleep at the switch. Most people say "necessary and proper", but they forget the last part. It's actually "necessary and proper to the foregoing powers". The Tenth Amendment just restated and reinforced this clause, which, apparently has been ignored for quite some time....

I will remind you that the Bill of Rights is nearly as old and just as important as the Constitution itself.

The Bill of Rights IS part of the Constitution. Equally valid. You may not like the various choices of the Supreme Court (and I myself have some serious issues with some of the torturous logic Rehnquist used in the past), but its verdicts are binding.

Every time I hear somebody spout off about judges "making law" I want to punch somebody, because it betrays a fundamental ignorance of the purpose of the judicial system and judicial review.

Well, it would have been inoperative by Congress outlawing the slave trade...

Jack Klein's right. An activist judge is usually just a judge whose decisions you disagree with. Sure there's some total nonsense like busing, but that's really the exception that proves the rule.

Activist judges are, in a short phrase, the biggest assholes in our government today. These unelected douchebags are nominated and elected by their liberal cronies. Then, they get to work by bypassing democracy and the democratic system to further their own terrifying political beliefs. When libs start sneaking by the Constitution thanks to activist judges, I just want to puke all over Nancy Pelosi.

TMW: Please give me an example of an activist judge, the case in question, and why he contravened the legal principles in question.

Sorry, "how he contravened the legal principles in question"

You really beleive that there's that much rampant corruption in the legal system? Federal judges are appointed by Presidents and those appointees naturally shoehorn the President's ideology to an extent. He gets to do that IN THE CONSTITUTION. State judges are elected and party politics have little weight. Some even win without parties. Party only matters in that a person already voting for a Republican or Democratic candidate will probably vote a straight ticket with the judges he knows nothing about. When have you researched your local judges' opinions to make yourself an informed voter? I never have.

The only place judge elections are crooked and competitive are in areas that are favorable to class-action and personal injury lawsuits like some areas of Southern Illinois. There judges campaign because it's loony down there an Southern Illinois sucks, but that corruption of the system is more to do with money than a political bias. Most judges jsut run on their record.

Again, you find a small issue and blow it up into a huge crisis without really thinking about it or looking into it. As I said before, there are absurd legal creations like busing but you can hardly judge all judges by a very few poor decisions by a very few individuals. It's like calling all Christians Fred Phelps.

@ Jack_Klein:

While I tend to agree with you and Invictus, I think its a joke to not recognize that occasionally there are judges who are activist, not in that they "contravene" existing legal principles, but in that they explore and flesh out "penumbras" of the Constitution which were not thought to exist before.

A lot of this has to do with judicial reliance on legal scholarship (sort of the "law review" effect) rather than literal precedent.

I'll do Master_Warrior's work for him, since I doubt he'll be forthcoming with any citations:

1. Classic judicial activism: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (holding that a small amount of grain produced by a midwestern farmer was subject to interstate commerce regulation due to a negative effect his production had on interstate sales of chicken feed) (Activist Judge: Justices Bob Jackson/Harlan Stone)

2. Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) (holding for the first time that a state government - or a duly authorized municipality of that government - may utilize eminent domain for the purposes of ensuring private construction and development, thus reading into "public use" the concept of "public purpose" (which had been done before), but going one step further in asserting "private use" as a "public purpose") (Activist Judge: J.P. Stephens)

Like I said, I agree completely (as a conservative, and a constitutional strict constructionist) that the "activist judge" claim is blown out of proportion. But its childish, and frankly demonstrates an ignorance of the law, to claim that it doesn't happen.

Exactly.

So, you vote along party lines when it comes to your judges, Invictus? Then when some abusive guy who eventually gets removed from the bench comes along, you have no one to blame but yourself, dude. I think judges are one of the *most* important position to personally vet as their decision are law. Judges, governors, and mayors all have great power (and the Judge Executive in Kentucky's counties, which is like the mayor of the county) and all should be put under the greatest of scrutiny.

@TMG - "Waaaa liberals do it too!" Just because someone else does it doesn't deflect from your culpability in doing it.

Oh, I'm not trying to state that judges have made some cruddy choices. However, its more the charge that "liberal activist judges make law" that I have issue with.

Your two cases are interesting, the first being during the Second World War, where governmental powers were rather broadly applied. Granted, I would agree that its going too far, but the historical context of these things are important to understand.

The second case is rather interesting, particularly with the charge of activist judges. I see the logic in their holding, despite not agreeing with it.

However, the main point I was trying to make is directed at people who spout off about activist judges without really reading what is actually going on, which is why I usually ask anybody ranting about the judicial system to cite cases, because usually people engaged in those kinds of rants don't do their homework. The Supreme Court is the highest law, and even in such bitter cases as the various Nixon cases, as well as Bush v Gore, the party that lost out on the holding acknowledged the Court's authority in these matters, even if they did not agree. I mean, I shudder to think what would have happened if Nixon had effectively told the Court to pack sand, or if Gore had refused to acknowledge the Court's authority in Bush v Gore.

I think we call that a Constitutional Crisis in the business.

Ah December 7th, the BEST day of the year... My Birthday.

Who cares about Pearl Harbour?
Yes it was a pivotal moment in allowing the US to start its policy of interference, but was certainly nothing compared to the atrocities committed in Europe by Germans, or in Asia, and in particular, in China, by the Japanese.
Americans have always been lucky in that respect;)

And at least the Japanese had the courage and courtesy to attack a military target, vs. al-Quida, who was too cowardly to attack something that shot back.

I'll agree with that as far as the Twin Towers goes, but the Pentagon is very much a military target. I was actually visiting there a few days beforehand, had a friend who was part of the Navy Ceremonial Guard who was doing tour duty there.

I mean, just think of how many nukes that the Russians probably had aimed at the Pentagon and Washington. They weren't going to take a chance that one or two of them would get the job done. :P

But the Pentagon did not have adequate defensive weaponry to shoot down an airliner. It doesn't matter. The Twin Towers were not military targets.

And the Japanese used military equpiment to attack a military base. Even if the Pentagon is classed as military, it was still a civilian airliner they crashed into it. So, please don't even THINK of equating AQ with the Japanese fleet or 9/11 with Pearl Harbor. One was a legitimate attack on a military by a military, the other was a bunch of cowards who hijacked innocent civilians and killed them to get their targets, both military and economic. Had they a military of their own and used their military might, I could accept the comparison, but they didn't and I won't.

Pearl Harbor was still a blatant example of aggression, so I would hardly call their actions legitimate. By that logic Germany invading Poland is "legitimate," as is Russia invading Afghanistan and Saddam invading Iran and Kuwait.

Can i ask then what the hell was the reason behind invading Iraq post 9/11 when everyone already knew that Saddam was NOT responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
Surely this invasion is just as disgusting as that of the Germans in Poland etc, and the Japs in China and Asia?

Actually, you are equating an attack on a military base with an invasion of entire countries. This is something I would expect from Sic, but not you Invictus. Japan didn't invade Hawaii, they attacked a military base and it's associated airfields(unprovoked and by surprise, without declaration first, admittedly, but most aggressors do the same). I'm not casting the attack on Pearl Harbor as any less of a travesty than it was, but when compared to the September 11 attacks, it was just another military engagement. September 11 finally allowed me to understand how my dad felt (and still does to some degree) about the Japanese as I feel the same thing about Muslim's the world over. My brain knows they aren't all terrorists bent on my way of life's destruction, but my heart hates them all just the same.