iamshack

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Jan 19, 2008 -> 02:12 PM) You really don't get the comparison? A lot of people laughed at Baltimore for giving out the multi-year deals that they did for Bradford, Walker, and Baez. Now we appear to be doing the same thing, and people on here are saying it's a good thing. But we actually have an offense and "some" pitching. The 07' Orioles had absolutely nothing...

SO would you feel safe in stating that you basically thought he was full of crap?

QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 11:03 PM) By suspending belief I suppose. It's a movie!

Just want to say I thought it was awesome. Some will love it. Some will hate it. Not much in between.

So what else did he say? Seems to me that scientists always do this...they choose the data that best supports their theories and go from there...it's too bad he did the same, but are you really surprised?

Good luck to you, Shingo.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:41 PM) Agreed For everyone that wants to complain about this deal, look no further than what Gagne got from Milwaukee...

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:07 AM) Because Colon has a longer history of success without injury. Prior has been almost constantly injured throughout his career. Though I don't think either is a good bet, I think Prior has even less of a chance than Colon to rebound. AM 1000 making Colon signing with the White Sox somewhat imminent...

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 04:51 PM) How about your actions affect the quality of life on other individuals? In what sense?

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 04:27 PM) Your view is the "accepted" view, but it is not "correct" legally. As I said, if state A is polluting state B's natural resource - state B takes state A to the Supreme Court to have the case decided. Just because civil liberties have been taken away slowly but surely since the Civil War (how this debate started), does not mean it is right, legal, or Constitutionally. It is the opposite, to be sure. The problem is, the education level of MOST of Americans so SO LOW that they cannot even being to comprehend these matters - a more direct result of government inefficiency of another social program in education. You learn only what they want you to learn. You must go outside the box to see exactly what it is they have (and continue to) take away. Why is it for the Supreme Court to decide if the Constitution has already given the power to regulate to the Federal Government? It's the power to "regulate," not simply the power to "adjudicate."

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 04:00 PM) And iamshack: I was throwing out the 300,000,000 in response to a comment made by someone earlier to 'quick defend' so I didn't have to in a later post. And regulating commerce does not entail telling the citizens of the country the laws under which they need to obey - such as socialist policies to help the country. Commerce is a division of trade or production which deals with the exchange of goods and services from producer to final consumer. It comprises the trading of something of economic value such as goods, services, information or money between two or more entities. Your argument is defunct via the Constitution. Its right there in front of you. States have the rights that are NOT given to the Federal Government via the Constititution & there is nowhere in the Constitution mentioning environment, education, etc. The states are free to enact their own laws, which they do, and have the same three branches of government as the Federal Government does. They enact and enforce their laws under the citizens within their jurisdiction, and prosecute violators of said laws. Many of the Federal regulations you are claiming are invalid because of the power left to the States by the Constitution deal specifically with commerce, including environmental and education issues. If you think that for one minute federal environmental regulations don't affect "commerce between the several states," you need to look a bit more deeply into the affect of the examples you've cited, such as one state polluting another's natural resources, or one state's educational system which purchases buses, textbooks, and even pays teachers from other states or regions of the country. The Constitution specifically states, as you have pointed out repeatedly, that the rights not given to the Federal Government are those of the States, or the People. The Constitution specifically gives the right to regulate commerce to the Federal Government, thereby NOT giving it to the States. Now the States ARE allowed to regulate commerce as well, but any "field" already "occupied" by Federal regulation preempts State regulation. My argument isn't the one that is defunct- it's the one supported by the vast majority and the one in current practice. It appears to me that your view, the radical minority view, is the one that is defunct.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:37 PM) A few things to you iamshack: First, no, it would not be "Federal oversight" to the ENTIRE country. It would be Federal oversight on a case-by-case basis. If what affects AND BOTHERS people in Illinois, does NOT affect and bother people in Nevada - why should Nevada be imposed by the SAME LAW? If Indiana's polluting the air makes Illinois' citizens upset, but Utah polluting the air does not make Nevada residents upset - why should Utah have the SAME RESTRICTIONS as Indiana? That is a REMOVAL of civil liberties. Our society has simply become USED to this and accepts it as status quo now - not realizing that it is Un-Constitutional. As the 10th Amendment states: 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. That is an Amendment, in the Constitution. I don't see ANYWHERE in the Constitution where it is stated that the United States government regulates the environment, education, medicine, etc. No where. I also don't see it saying that the Federal government CAN'T do these things. And, by that matter, it is left up to the individual STATES & its citizens, respectively, to decide how they want to live. This is not up to you. You are a member of a state. Your state can decide things for your state. My state can decide things for my state. But, your state cannot decide things for my state, and the federal goverment (in THESE cases) cannot decide things for either of our states unless we take each others state to the Supreme Court and ask for a ruling. Even THEN, the ruling affects OUR states, not OTHER states where THEIR citizens have THEIR OWN RIGHT to CHOOSE how THEY want to live. That is our republic. We are not a socialist, fascist, etc. country where the GOVERNMENT makes OUR decisions. Your argument is 100% invalid because you are defending the RIGHT of the Federal Government to makes these decisions for ALL States. That is NOT the case & is so stated in the Constitution. And that is final. The Constitution - maybe in your eyes - was not "made to deal with 300,000,000 people" - BUT that is beside the point - because if the citizens of the USA wanted to change it - they CAN. It is a living document that can be changed. The problem is - it has not been changed to make your argument a valid point. Your argument is invalid, citing the Constitution of the United States of America. If you want to tell me how I "should" live, or how others "should" live for yours and their benefit - that is your right. But it is also my right to choose to ignore you and your socialist polices. The Constitution itself states you are wrong. The States have the right rule how they see fit - and not be mandated by the Federal Government by powers that were NOT DELEGATED to the Federal Government at the time the Constitution was written. Whether it "should" or "shouldn't" be that way is not up to you, or to the Federal Government to decide. It is up to the people to AMEND the Constitution to make it so - and I don't see that happening on these (social policy) subjects. 1) Please do not represent that I made a statement I never made (your 300 million statement); 2) I'm not telling anyone what to do, in Nevada, Utah, or Illinois. 3) The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:28 PM) It's from the CNN youtube debate, McCain questions Paul's foreign policy. http://youtube.com/watch?v=atYgjPD4uqc&feature=related Thanks, I enjoyed that.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:11 PM) 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...

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) 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...

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) 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?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 01:30 PM) 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.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 01:02 PM) 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.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:42 PM) 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.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:39 PM) 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?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) 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.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:34 PM) 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...

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:11 PM) Doesn't each state suing each other over every single issue create another gigantic beuracracy and log jam in the court system? And, ultimately, isn't the Federal government still deciding and setting a de facto standard for every state to follow? And why should Indiana have the right to harm residents of other states, indirectly or not? Why should they be allowed to trash the enviroment even if no other state was affected? Exactly. There were/are lawsuits like this arising from this sort of conflict all the time, why create more? Secondly, this is the same thing. Whether you have federal guidelines prohibiting the behavior, or states subjecting themselves to federal jurisdiction on the issue, what is the difference?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:03 PM) The only problem with that is that South would then be faced with a situation, where new states coming into the union could not be 'slave states' by virtue of that hypotheitcal agreement. That would have left them with two scenarios, neither of which was beneficial to the South. First, the congress would expand due to the addition of non-slave states, therefore tipping the balance against them at a later date. Also, in the event the first situation came to fruition, then the North would have a much larger area to draw resourses from in the event of a war. No, I agree, such an agreement would have been disastrous for the South in the long run (arguably in the short run, how short, who knows?). I was pointing out that Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the Union, not immediately abolish slavery. The evidence is pretty strong that he would have accepted a result which would have achieved that primary goal, had it been available to him.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) The states should expect to have the Federal government in place to protect the National security interests of the country. This is an entirely different topic, in my view, because I believe the Federal government is overextending their right by trying to police the world and in my opinion (please don't argue, because you may or not have have a different one - but it does not matter here), they should not be across the seas as much as they are as I feel it brings more problems than it does protection. So, the Constition DOES say that the Federal government is in place to make sure national security is secure. They also defend the states, state by state, in that Arkansas doesn't "pillage" goods that are being driven from Louisiana to Kansas. And I believe that the Federal government does receive the benefits for this - and they would need much LESS funding if they were not policing the world (again, my opinion on what they SHOULD be doing). But they do receive funding & I agree they need to receive some funding - just not as much as they're getting because I personally think they're doing way too much. So are you saying that the income taxes they are receiving from the residents of the states is their return? Even though, under your theory, the states can secede at any time, for whatever reason? Don't you think that makes for a pretty unstable form of government?