On Nov 1, 8:53 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:56 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:49 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:04 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) gotcha.comcast.net
wrote:
Info Junkie wrote:
On Oct 30, 1:08 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:38 am, Info Junkie <bondr... at (no spam) att.net> wrote:
Amendment XIV's primary function was to extend the jurisdiction of
U.S. Courts
over cases between a citizen and his state over rights protected in
the U.S. Constitution.
At least that, and making citizens of the former slaves.
See...we can agree on something Mr Rosenbluth, eh? :-)
Neither claims a "principle of Federal supremacy".
Forcing the states to adhere to honoring rights protected in the U.S.
Constitution through lawsuits in U.S. Courts, as well as forcing
states to grant citizenship to the fomer slaves, strikes me very much
as a statement of Federal supremacy.
I would venture a guess that you're confusing the "supremacy" of the
federal government with the "supremacy" of the constitutional expansion of the
protections of the BoR to individuals. IMHO, this is not a "principle of Federal
supremacy"
To me, they are part of the same thing. Both are examples of the
federal government (U.S. Courts in the example of enforcing the 14th
Amendment) reigning supreme.
To you, of course they would be "the same thing". What you (dis)miss
is that BOTH the state(s) and the federal goverment must abide by the
laws. THAT's the problem. Congress has exempted itself (and other
branches) from laws it passes, while the Executive Branch has exempted
itself by Executive Orders (illegally IMHO). You may feel the federal
government is "supreme", but not in the spirit and intent of the US
Constitution.
IMNSHO, if it's constitutional for the federal government to exempt
itself from the laws they impose on others, then it should be just as
constitutional for the states to exempt themselves as well...oh that
was nullification, eh? There is nothing in Amendment XIV that refers
to that.
From what laws does Congress exempt itself from that the states must
comply with?
Oh my.
Yet another snark you often use, but should drop.
While you post yet another style-over-substance fallacy.
Google would serve you well Mr Rosenbluth .
http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm
OSHA puts requirements only on private sector workplaces. State and
federal workplaces are treated alike (public sector exempt, private
sector not exempt).
(Sigh) I wrote that Congress exempted itself from several laws (and
included the Executive Order wrt constitutional). I did NOT claim
these same laws/Executive Orders applied to the states. My response
was based on my statement, NOT your added caveat "...that the states
must comply with". My bad.
(Based on my original statement)
"The Occupational Safety and Health Act encourages states to develop
and operate, under federal OSHA guidance, state occupational safety
and health programs. Once a state plan is approved, OSHA funds up to
50 percent of the program's operating costs. States are required to
provide standards and enforcement programs, as well as voluntary
compliance activities, which are at least as effective as the federal
program."
(http://osha-compliance-manual.blogspot.com/2009/03/osha-approved-
state-programs.html)
The federal government "encourages" making the drinking age 21 as
well. Oh btw, what is "voluntary compliance"? Isn't that like the
current tax system in the USA? ROTFLMHO
THE FOIA, Ethics in Government Act, the Independent Counsel, Limitations
on Gifts, Non-Official Activities As Agent or Attorney, Personal Gain,
and Honoraria and Outside Compensation all do not apply to the states..
Congress exempted itself.
The Labor and Employment Laws that have No Relevance to the Activities
of Congress (of course) have no relevance to Congress.
Congress exempted itself . Noted is you didn't address "Title VI of
the 1964 Act prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, or
national origin in", the "1975 Age Discrimination Act", "National
Labor Relations Act", "The Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act" or the "Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988"
Congress is exempted from the proposed health care plan.
I'll comment on that on when we have signed legislation.
IF we have signed legislation.
From what executive orders has he executive branch
exempted itself from that the states must comply with?
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order...
The Federal Labor-Management Relations Program does not apply to the states.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf
The policies mandated in this executive Order doe not apply to the states.
...but does exempt the Executive Branch as I noted in my original
statement.
I don't see anything in the above examples that support the claim the
federal government is treating itself in a special manner.
Now that I clarified by position (without your added caveat) , your
points are now moot.
Your original statement was "if it's constitutional for the federal
government to exempt itself from the laws *they impose on others* {my
emphasis}, then it should be just as constitutional for the states to
exempt themselves as well."
It's that "impose on others [outside the federal government]" that leads
to the "added caveat" (it's a qualifier, not a caveat).
Yes you added the words "...that the states must comply with", a
qualifier (not a caveat) I did not place in my original statement.
Laws passed by Congress that "they impose on others" refer to those
outside of the Legislative Branch. This is also true wrt Executive
Order, i.e., laws signed by the POTUS that are imposed on others
outside of the Executive Branch. not in Congress
The qualifier
is thus essential. My points are not mooted.
ROTFLMHO. Unless you now wish to prove you are a 100% accurate mind-
reader Mr Rosenbluth, your input as to whether your added qualifier
"...that the states must comply with", has no validity of it is
"esstential" or not to my original comments. *I* make the decision to
MY original comments and have already shown your qualifier is NOT what
I claimed.
Ergo, my comment "IMNSHO, if it's constitutional for the federal
government to exempt itself from the laws they impose on others, then
it should be just as constitutional for the states to exempt
themselves as well...oh that was nullification, eh? There is nothing
in Amendment XIV that refers to that" remains accurate in the context
orginally posted.
THAT Mr Rosenbluth, means your points are indeed mooted as they were
based on false assertions.
