RAVE Act worked into Amber Alert bill as a Rider

[Timber Loftis]

Right, but if we didn't let them use the "other purposes" BS language part, that purpose statement would certainly limit them, wouldn't you say?

[Thorfinn]

While we are at it, we could also tag on a requirement that they explain the Constitutional justification for the act. Congressman Ron Paul and I forget the guy from Arizona have tried to introduce it for several years, but it never gets very far. Imagine that...

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: While we are at it, we could also tag on a requirement that they explain the Constitutional justification for the act. Congressman Ron Paul and I forget the guy from Arizona have tried to introduce it for several years, but it never gets very far. Imagine that...

Useless to require this in the days of rampant commerce clause jurisprudence. It would need a similar back-step in commerce clause breadth and power to compliment it.

BTW - you know all this does is limit the feds. States have general police power. The states powers are only limited by what the constitution reserves for the fed, and states can step in to fill in any power you take from the feds - and likely would. How would you address that?

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Thorfinn: While we are at it, we could also tag on a requirement that they explain the Constitutional justification for the act. Congressman Ron Paul and I forget the guy from Arizona have tried to introduce it for several years, but it never gets very far. Imagine that...

Useless to require this in the days of rampant commerce clause jurisprudence. It would need a similar back-step in commerce clause breadth and power to compliment it.

BTW - you know all this does is limit the feds. States have general police power. The states powers are only limited by what the constitution reserves for the fed, and states can step in to fill in any power you take from the feds - and likely would. How would you address that? [/QUOTE]I may be too idealistic on this, but I believe that at the state and local levels, the general populace has a real and much greater control over their politicians...If the people seriously don't like a policy it can be gone in the next election....not quite that easy at the fed level.

[Timber Loftis]

In Vermont and Montana (which has more cows than people, I'll note), yes, in California, less likely.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: In Vermont and Montana (which has more cows than people, I'll note), yes, in California, less likely.

Well if we are fortunate, the San Andreas will take care of that for us (it was a joke...don't send me hate mail)

[Thorfinn]

I don't know. A Californian voter has a much better chance of ousting Feinstein or Davis than a Hoosier does...

The point, IMO, is that California can send, what, 54 representatives to South Dakota's 1, and if you accept the morality of 50%+1, it would be trivial to tromp all over the rights of South Dakotans. As a matter of fact...

But I would also agree that the smaller bodies are not necessarily any more responsive. Fighting Washington, DC, is pretty painless, though not effective. Unless you are a 6-year old Cuban refugee, it is pretty hard to get a high enough profile to get any attention from DC whatsoever. Not so when you are fighting town hall -- you get all kinds of "special attention"...

[Timber Loftis]

True enough about the special attention - getting your local constabulary and governance up in arms sucks. I get a LOT of business from clients who make this mistake.

Oh, and the Dakota comment. I'm sure I need not tell YOU about this very interesting thing called the Great Compromise that resulted in a bicameral legislature represented by.... hey, where'd everybody go? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]