Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 369 posts

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#191

Post by DrDeadCrash »

hackeraccount wrote: post #111
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that murder is handled by the states, not Congress. This is about what the federal government can do, not all government.

This is the question I'd love to see asked to people running for President. Name something you think the States can do that the Federal government is prohibited from doing.

The answer isn't something we should accept as an opinion, though. For example, laws prohibit the federal government from (direct) involvement in elections.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#192

Post by lokar »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #138
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that murder is handled by the states, not Congress. This is about what the federal government can do, not all government.

Murder can be federal crime if it involves: * the murder is of a federal judge or a federal law enforcement official * the killing is of an immediate family member of a federal law enforcement official * the murder is of an elected or appointed federal official * the killing is committed during a bank robbery * the killing takes place aboard a ship at sea * the murder was designed to influence a court case * the kill…

And in some locations, the federal government holds exclusive jurisdiction, so they better enforce these laws :)

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#193

Post by embedding-shape »

dfdsjsdklfjs wrote: post #139
embedding-shape wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even as a daily weed smoker myself though, it's hard not to acknowledge that a more liberal marijuana stance in a geographic location does lead to that smell being more commonly encountered when in public and out and about. Personally I don't mind, almost the opposite, but for people who don't like the smell, obviously they feel differently. Good thing we can have different policies in different places, and people ca…

[flagged]

Meanwhile, I smoke weed in my office, but I have a air purifier (rated for double the air flow capacity of the room) and not even my wife who works in the room next door can smell anything, and she actively despises the smell.

Sometimes you just need to find the right equipment :)

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#194

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

ianferrel wrote: post #161
thaumasiotes wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that like interstate commerce regulation was more egregious for wheat than it was for marijuana. But Raich is significantly more egregious: the theory on which the government won Wickard v. Filburn , that private consumption of wheat could affect the interstate market for wheat, doesn't even apply, because there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade.

>there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade. There is in fact an interstate market in many substances that are illegal to trade because laws against things do not make those things fail to exist.

No market that the federal government can recognize, tax or regulate

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#195

Post by rtkwe »

rdbl27 wrote: post #105
rtkwe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ruling only has binding precedent in the 5th Circuit, other circuits aren't bound to follow it. Formerly this kind of ruling would come with a nationwide injunction to force the issue but now that those are severely curtailed by the Supreme Court it's only binding to the courts under the jurisdiction of the 5th circuit. Decisions in other circuits can be very persuasive to other circuits but they're not required…

Nationwide injunctions are a very recent legal innovation -- as in, extremely rare until the 2000s, and uncommon until the 2010s. They were not how this situation was handled for nearly all of the existence of the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction

Seems like a perfectly valid one. If the government is violating the constitution or a persons rights why should there be suits all across the country to get that recognized? Especially when the question isn't on something with a lot of particularized tests that's sensitive to the exact case, eg 4th amendment law? Why should rights be so dependent on someone in my particular part of the country having sued?

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#196

Post by stale2002 »

dfdsjsdklfjs wrote: post #152
toast0 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's unreasonable to desire to be free from the noxious odors of others. > The right to waft my smells in any direction ends where your nose begins. - Abraham Lincoln or Ben Franklin or Mark Twain or someone

[flagged]

It doesn't have to be criminally illegal. Instead it could simply be civil. The apartment complex, which you do not own, would be the ones setting the rules here.

And you, of your own free choice, would have the choice to either follow the rules or go live somewhere else. The person you are responding to doesn't have an issue with you smoking in your own purchased home. Instead this was about apartment complexes.

And it wouldn't even have to be a law applied to you. It could be applied to the apartment complex. Apartment complexes already have to follow lots of laws. So they could simply be required to have this as a rule.

And then you, could make your libertarian choice to live there or not. Its not your apartment complex after all. And since its someone else property, they would absolutely have the free to make you not do this in their own property.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#197

Post by torstenvl »

bsimpson wrote: post #181
torstenvl wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It absolutely does not use that language, and it baffles me as to what would cause you to say that it does. Please endeavor to say only true things. The truth matters.

You're working awfully hard to be pedantic without comparing the actual language: > to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

[flagged]

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#198

Post by redsocksfan45 »

socalgal2 wrote: post #134
cogman10 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is this isn't seen by politicians as a motivating vote driver. It is, however, a motivation for someone to go out and vote against a politician. That's ultimately what keeps things like MJ illegal. There are just far too many people that will get upset about it if it were made federally legal. My state, Idaho, has one such politician that is constantly bringing up and trying to find ways to keep the…

You should argue with him he's acting like Satan. The mormons (I used to be one) say that Satan wanted to force everyone to be good, Jesus wanted each person to have free will and choose.

[dead]

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#199

Post by djoldman »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #184
HWR_14 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the supreme court revisit precedents if the circuit court doesn't readdress the issue?

Somebody has to bring a new case that presents a novel legal theory/presentation that isn't clearly addressed by the ruling that forms the precedent.

Additionally, one can argue that the state of the world has changed enough that assumptions made by the USC at the time of precedence require reversal.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#200

Post by pdonis »

HWR_14 wrote: post #174
semiquaver wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, this decision purports to rest on the “Necessary and Proper” clause, avoiding Wickard (decided on commerce clause grounds)

How does the supreme court revisit precedents if the circuit court doesn't readdress the issue?

The party that wants the precedent reversed loses in the lower court (because the lower court is bound by current Supreme Court precedent) and appeals to the Supreme Court. The canonical historical example is Brown v. Board of Education, which was appealed to the Supreme Court explicitly to ask them to reverse Plessy v. Ferguson, which lower courts had relied on as precedent.
Post reply on HN