On America

[exploited]

[Saz]

[exploited]

[ToddStarnes]

To be fair federalism was like a 6 week topic for us, but my prof was a socially awkward genius and co-founder of a major libertarian strand of originalism (which is quite convincing btw). so it wasn't several years and hundreds of thousands, just like 10K (i guess?) and a couple of weeks because you had to cover other shit relating to federalism, like spending powers, coercion, commandeering, shit like that. it was a good class.

Randy Barnett - his book is worth a read even though his arrogance is palpable on paper.

[ToddStarnes]

https://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Lost-C ... dy+barnett

Galt you in particular should really read this. You would love this book man

[Saz]

[Saz]

I also haven't said much substantive but the ICC is actually brilliant to the point where I agree, the framers couldn't even fathom what a stroke of genius it actually is. There was a perfectly good reason for it's initial inclusion, both to overcome the flaws in the originals AoC and to prevent states from protectionist measures of other states. It was an absolute necessity even when first drafted, but obviously in a union of the states, they aren't just going to say our commerce is all under federal purview. They must and did start with the basic premise that power lies with the states and is only granted to the fed for compelling and necessary reasons. The fact that it has evolved so well over the years to permit exactly the sort of federal oversight necessary to allow a nation like our to grow and nurture a massive single market is probably something they could never have envisioned, but tbh that's the genius in the drawing...it only has such broad reach because so much commerce is interstate! As you said really shows the merit in being ambiguous when you can be clear.

Ex is completely off base, it's obviously a grant of power to the federal government, and it was a necessary grant because there is always a presumption that power lies with the state and not the fed unless specifically enumerated. If they didn't include the clause the federal government simply wouldn't have this power. He has no sense of the context in which the nation formed and the politics necessary to bring the states together. It wasn't possible to just grant all powers to the fed, no war it desirable in many cases. Saying its a flaw to not grant congress full commerce powers at the outset is just ignoring reality. it's like me saying the EU is flawed because it's not a federal superstate yet - it completely ignores the political reality and ignores that fact that without broad consensus even the cleverest idea is doomed to failure. The ICC was just right for its time and is still right today, as it has been able to flex as our notions of federalism, and as our economy, radically changed. The hard part isn't creating a policy that works today, or tomorrow, it's creating one that works for 300 years, in today's world and a world of the future that cannot even be fathomed.

[exploited]

It just strikes me as odd that you would describe this as brilliant when literally every other liberal democracy recognizes the right to national control of commerce, in those times and in our times, and the only reason it remains effective is because all limits have been essentially removed. It is like saying some dude is brilliant because a bridge he built fell down, but in doing so, people had to build a better bridge.

The SC could have gone another way. It didn't, so you're good, but it easily could have. And for well over a century and a half, it did go the other way, putting severely damaging limits on federal power. How many children's lives were ruined for their brilliance? How much did labour rights get pushed back?

Saying ambiguity is great when it works out in your favour is fine, but it doesn't make sense to say it is better when the great outcome was to remove all ambiguity.

Edit: the other thing I'd point out is that saying something wasn't politically feasible doesn't make it not a mistake. The reason why it wasn't politically feasible is because people wrongly believed power over commerce should, to some degree, be shared or exist concurrently with each sovereign state. It was a mistake to believe that then, and it is a mistake to believe that now.

[spacemonkey]

[NAB]