Interesting Consideration....2024 just continues to give and give.

[Twangbanger]

Do the dock workers realize that they will be affected too? I'd say handle it like Reagan handled the air traffic controller strike. Of course a Democrat administration wouldn't do that.

Dock workers generally aren't Federal employees.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Dock workers generally aren't Federal employees.

Fair enough.

 

[foszoe]

They have authority to protect and regulate interstate commerce, do they not?

I didn't think we liked the gov't doing things under the interstate commerce clause.....but I guess if it gets what we want we do whatever they do. That seems to be the new standard. Last part is not directed to you specifically but my peception of INGO majority.

 

[foszoe]

Dock workers generally aren't Federal employees.

Yes that is the difference, but I guess it will be interstate commerce clause for the win!

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yes that is the difference, but I guess it will be interstate commerce clause for the win!

That's one difference. But the similarity is the wide-ranging effects it would have on the national economy. Unlike say, UAW striking against GM or Ford, where the effect is relatively limited to those companies and the ones immediately supporting/selling their products, the number of products affected by closing the ports would be far more damaging, affecting far more people. I think that's a legitimate use of the interstate commerce clause. It's a matter of degree.

 

[Leadeye]

As I remember the president can do quite a few things for a short time, but it eventually comes up for review.

 

[Ingomike]

I didn't think we liked the gov't doing things under the interstate commerce clause.....but I guess if it gets what we want we do whatever they do. That seems to be the new standard. Last part is not directed to you specifically but my peception of INGO majority.

This post shows a complete lack of understanding or the post is just trolling. The INGO majority doesn’t have anything against the commerce clause as the founders created it at all that I have seen. Every complaint about IC is related to the bastardization of it by congress and the courts.

I know of no one here that believes individual states should be able to control commerce between other states. We do believe that wheat raised and used in Indiana is not federal and under the IC, that suppressors made, sold, and used, in Texas are not IC.

 

[foszoe]

This post shows a complete lack of understanding or the post is just trolling. The INGO majority doesn’t have anything against the commerce clause as the founders created it at all that I have seen. Every complaint about CC is related to the bastardization of it by congress and the courts.

I know of no one here that believes individual states should be able to control commerce between other states. We do believe that wheat raised and used in Indiana is not federal and under the CC, that suppressors made, sold, and used, in Texas are not CC.

This post shows a complete lack of understanding or the post is just trolling.

The post it responded to was clearly about the bastardization of it by congress and the courts.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This post shows a complete lack of understanding or the post is just trolling. The INGO majority doesn’t have anything against the commerce clause as the founders created it at all that I have seen. Every complaint about CC is related to the bastardization of it by congress and the courts.

I know of no one here that believes individual states should be able to control commerce between other states. We do believe that wheat raised and used in Indiana is not federal and under the CC, that suppressors made, sold, and used, in Texas are not CC.

I think you mean "IC" not "CC"...

 

[Ingomike]

I think you mean "IC" not "CC"...

There can never be misinformation on INGO, someone will find it.

Fixed…

 

[foszoe]

That's one difference. But the similarity is the wide-ranging effects it would have on the national economy. Unlike say, UAW striking against GM or Ford, where the effect is relatively limited to those companies and the ones immediately supporting/selling their products, the number of products affected by closing the ports would be far more damaging, affecting far more people. I think that's a legitimate use of the interstate commerce clause. It's a matter of degree.

I think taking that stance broadens the interpretation of the clause from the position of the court prior to Roosevelt packing the court to post court pack attempt

I certainly don't think it meets original intent but depends on the later interpretations that allowed air pollution regulations to be supported by the clause.

To me it's like saying milita means the national guard.