Getting out of the way of business
Every time I either read or listen to Scott Brick narrate Atlas Shrugged, I pick something up I hadn't seen or understood. This time is no exception; it's what Judge Narragansett is adding to The Constitution: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade."
I'd heard and read this many times, but until tonight, never really thought about applying it to the laws of this country, and what that would mean.
The effect of this simple 12 word sentence, if applied not only to current laws but any future law prior to its even being considered, would be stunning. Even if the law wasn't specifically designed to hinder trade (perfect example: I live in Indiana; you can't buy carry out beer or wine on Sunday unless it's from a microbrewery or an Indiana winery), their net effect is almost always some kind of hinderance to business.
I can't even imagine how much better off we would all be, and I've got quite an imagination.
I'd heard and read this many times, but until tonight, never really thought about applying it to the laws of this country, and what that would mean.
The effect of this simple 12 word sentence, if applied not only to current laws but any future law prior to its even being considered, would be stunning. Even if the law wasn't specifically designed to hinder trade (perfect example: I live in Indiana; you can't buy carry out beer or wine on Sunday unless it's from a microbrewery or an Indiana winery), their net effect is almost always some kind of hinderance to business.
I can't even imagine how much better off we would all be, and I've got quite an imagination.
To me, this is the single most important addition we could make (though probably better worded than I have just jotted down). I suspect that 70% of the local, city, county, state, and federal laws that we have would not pass this criterion. If we wanted to do One Thing to return freedom, this is the thing to do.
Jan
I do not understand how/why started interpeting the Constitution so broadly that we're not really following it, so I don't understand if one line would be enough to make us follow it. It seems like the line should say, "We really mean it. We're not just whistling Dixie. We the People need to follow this."
Until and unless this is done, Andrew Jackson's precedent (ignoring a Supreme Court ruling that the Indian Removal Act was unconstitutional, and getting away with it) will continue to stand, and any president who has the cheek to use it will do so.
Having a more active check-and-balance that allows one branch of the government to try the others if the others break the law may be a good idea - it is better to change than to engage in a lamentable consistency.
Jan
Jan
All the rest is 'left to the states.'
While there are many times when I think that some laws SHOULD be at the federal level so the 'rights' are guaranteed to ALL citizens in Every State, a lot of people argue that the States must retain those rights and powers.
If that's the case, the unintended consequences of your suggested change to the Constitution should be looked into in depth!
1.get some of my friends who are Constitutional scholars
2. ask them to get some of their colleagues, whom they admire
3. make a committee of 5 or 6 people with funding for about 6 months to examine the wording of such an amendment and the ramifications of its implementation.
One of the intended consequences is, as you probably guess, to invalidate most laws currently on the books.
Jan
Jan
If the Bats visit you, please tell 'em I've got a dozen or so friends who could rescue HP if we were empowered to do so.
That's the state in which several photographer friends of mine, while attending a Professional Photographer's school were arrested for taking off their shirts while fishing on a nearby lake. Things probably have changed since then but it was quite a shock even 25 years ago. Interestingly, the name of the town that had the school, was Warsaw.
If you want to start righting the ship, those two Amendments need to be repealed.
of tne people of the United States.
how 'bout that one? -- j
oh. . needs a p.s. these days:
The Executive Branch shall not, either.
That's getting GOVERNment and it's Force out of the way of humanity.
The coming Great Collapse will put them all out of business and shut them all down. That'll be our Last Chance to Go Voluntary.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and prohibited discrimination against African-Americans, was passed under the Commerce Clause in order to allow the federal government to charge non-state actors with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up to that point because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limited application to state actors. The Supreme Court found that Congress had the authority to regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. 379 U.S. 241 (1964). It also ruled that the federal civil rights legislation could be used to regulate a restaurant, Ollie’s Barbeque, a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama because, although most of Ollie’s customers were local, the restaurant served food which had previously crossed state lines. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 274 (1964). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce...
specifically Ollie's BBQ.
Sundays only (?) No idea what background machinations were going in your state on to lead to such state legislation, but it seems to fit.