BS. This sounds exactly like “1984″. Great quote from that book…it goes something like this…”Freedom is the ability to say 2+2=4″. Well, if your the gov’t, in your wolrdview, 2+2=5 and there is nothing the individual can say to deny that. The gov’t tells you what truth is.

Very dangerous philosophy. This is what lawyers bring to society.

http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/15/could-politically-incorrect-sp

Gee, that’s great. Hmm. I’m betting Obama has a “compelling interest” to not allow negative “news” or “opinion” concerning Obamacare. So, by yours (and O’Connor’s) opinion, its ok to disregard the 1st amendment. After all, its compelling.

Brilliant.

I’d suggest simply reading the Constitution oneself and discovering what it means. Its quite an easy read. One doesn’t need a robed master to tell you what it should mean.

You’ve explained how the Constitution should be interpreted. You’ve explained how things that are not literally in the comnstitution should still be allowed because they are the correct interpretation of Intent. You’ve explained how some things (the FAA) should be read in the Constitution, and other things (healthcare reform) shouldn’t.

Those are your opinions, and bless you for them. But to use an old phrase, your opinion and 50 cents’ll get you a cop of coffee.

Last thread you mentioned O’Connor’s decision in the Mich. U. racial profile case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-241
You brought the case up to point out how SCOTUS violates the Constitution, noting that she “completely disregarded the 14th Amendment”.
But the entire reason there was a case before the Supremes was so that they COULD consider the impact on the Amendment:

“We granted certiorari, 537 U. S. 1043 (2002), to resolve the disagreement among the Courts of Appeals on a question of national importance: Whether diversity is a compelling interest that can justify the narrowly tailored use of race in selecting applicants for admission to public universities.”

Disregarded? It’s all they dealt with! Read the decision. She meticulously details the origin, meaning of words and phrases, case history, facts and factors, and provides an authorative justification for all of it. “She disregarded it” reads the same to me as “I would have decided it differently”.

And if that’s the case . . . good for you. I disagree with Court decisions all the time. Most of SCOTUS cases are decided 5-4, which is a pretty good illustration that these questions don’t have indisputible answers, so it should go without saying that people will disagree with it.

But “let’s tear the system down and wipe the slate clean” is not the right answer. I disagree with SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore . . . but I had to soldier on under it. The only way to insure the Supreme Court is going to interpret the Constitution in the way you think is correct is to be on the Court . . . and limiting the number of Judges to one.

I disagree with your judicial interpretation, but that’s fine. I disagreed with just about every thing my Con Law Professor believed. I had a student last year that Set a new record for being “wrong” in his interpretations . . . but he got an A from me (as I got from my professor) because his technique for arriving at those conclusions was sound. It’s how you think, not what you think.

THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. Everything about our system is designed to allow for that.

In every 5 miles of Interstate, it is required that 1 mile of it be straight. Why? So that military aircraft can use them for runways. So, in a time of war, our interstates could be turned into airports if need be. Makes it difficult for the enemy to bomb our airports and reach air supremacy. So not only are the interstates quite possibly the greatest legitimate use of interstate commerce, they also could very well be the greatest use of true defense.

For the most part, yes, those agencies should be abolished. What is the Commerce Clause? The Constitution says Congress can “regulate interstate commerce”. What did this mean at the time the Constitution was enacted? “To regulate” meant “to make ready”, “to facilitate”, etc. Congress was to ensure commerce (trade) flowed between the states. States could not hoard something or use “predatory” tactics to harm other states. Dispute me if you can, but history, the constitutional debates, and the Federalists papers are all clear. Lets go into specifics…

The FAA — as noted in other discussions, the FAA is actually a very reasonable dept based on the original founder’s few. Air Travel is HUGE for interstate commerce, therefore it’s prudent for the US Gov’t to do what it can to ensure air travel remains open.

Nuclear Regulatory Agency — possibly the most effective dept ever as we don’t build Nuke plants anymore. Brilliant. This dept has been so great that we have had to increase our dependence on all those other dirty fuels. If we didn’t have these depts, I’d bet over 80% of our electrical energy would come from clean uranium and our “carbon footprint” would be next to nothing. No conservative would ever stand for reversing global warming now would they. So, yes, do away with it. Jane Fonda’s movie was bullshit. We should have Nuke plants on every corner. Only the agencies stand in the way. Energy companies have a vested interest on making their plants safe. Plus, if a plant is made in one state AND an individual is purchasing energy in that same state, the federal gov’t should have nothing to do with it. The Fed could potentially have a say in a different states citizens purchasing power from it tho. But why? There is no need and its Constitutionality is very suspect.

FDA — aside from a couple of true successes in the early years, the FDA is basically just greatly increasing the costs and time it takes to get beneficial drugs on the market. Their decisions these days come more from political calculations then medical merit. Since the FDA seems to “hinder” trade of drugs, I fail to see how it is good for interstate commerce. Sure, it has had success in protecting the public in the past (thalidomide), but it sure looks like its just on overbloated bureaucracy slowing things down today. Drug companies have a vested interest in created safe, effective drugs. The FDA isn’t needed AND isn’t Constitutional anyway.

Interstate Highways — I can’t think of anything that epitomizes readying interstate commerce more than the Interstate Highway System. Nothing has ever been done by the Fed Gov’t to increase trade more than the interstates. I’m surprised you think this is an expansive reading of the commerce clause. Its as direct as you can get. Not to mention that the interstate system was really passed on its use for the military in a time of war. The military would take over the highways and use them if we were attacked. That usage isn’t as relevant today since air mobility is king, but it still would be used for defense purposes if the need arises. No constitutionality issue whatsoever, no expansive reading of the commerce clause on this one.

So, any other agencies you wish to discuss relating the commerce clause

So do propose to abolish those Government agencies that stem from an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause? The FAA, Nuclear Regulatory Agencies, FDA, Interstate Highways, and so forth? Are you going to replace them or simply stop covering what they do?

I always thought the Conservatives were the ones grounded in reality, and the Liberals were the flights-of-fancy “wouldn’t it be great if” dreamers.

1. The government should consume no more resources than necessary to do its functions.
2. Its functions should be limited by a fairly restrictive reading of the Constitution. In particular, the “Commerce Clause” should not be interpreted as an enabling act for vast government intrusiveness.
3. “Social insurances” should exist, but should be measures of last resort for individuals.
4. Government policy should avoid entrenching existing business models or structurally guarantee groups wealth beyond what the market should provide. Whenever regulatory regimes are blocking innovation, the regulatory regime should be re-examined and discarded.
5. Businesses that are failing must be allowed to fail quickly so that resources are not overly invested in failure but are redeployed elsewhere. If the government is involved, it should be to help displaced workers, not to prop up dying businesses.