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

341–350 of 369 posts

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

#341

Post by yieldcrv »

mothballed wrote: post #339
yieldcrv wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FDR is written about phenomenally in US history books for reasons that don't seem to match the reality of what happened. We can separate foreign policy wins from domestic policy losses, just like we do now. The now-heralded New Deal was getting torn apart by the Supreme Court, program after program for half the decade. And the remaining parts of the New Deal still exist on shaky constitutional ground if you really lo…

Isolating yourself to small legal circles can unfortunately open yourself to the vulnerability of mistakenly appealing to the authority of legal training that has specifically been tailored for success in the system we're in, which may optimize for coming to conclusions that help you win cases rather than optimizing for some other analysis. Looking at the bigger picture is an entirely different skill set than having…

I'll watch out for that. But ultimately I do want my view of the world to be the law of the land, which means "win cases", specifically reflecting my view and my currently obscure arguments. My observation is that populist arguments are the ones that fail because they don't understand the mechanisms and obscurity.

A now-less-obscure view is based on the observation that the New Deal used a completely novel and expansive view of the interstate commerce clause that completely subjugated the states and essentially created a parallel nation overlaying the collection of states - what was called the Federal government for practicing federalism was now only nominally federal, as Congress now only grants exceptions for state autonomy just to retain support on occasion. Despite how disruptive it would be to review this arrangement, this 100 year use of the interstate commerce clause is completely on shaky constitutional ground

The entire federal agency apparatus could be Thanos-snapped out of existence, just like the 1930s Supreme Court was doing

(I don't want that specific thing to happen, and I don't see the alternate federal authority for most of the agencies and their regulations if it were to happen, so that would be very disruptive)

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

#342

Post by hellojesus »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #140
drak0n1c wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be an improvement in the same spirit, as the modern CRAs are also unconstitutionally limiting over what one chooses to do with their own property. The scope should be limited to government-involved services and facilities, as those must serve all possible taxpayers. We live in a more connected, option-saturated information age where even bigots more often than not understand the utility of at least doing b…

>Egregious offenses are corrected by social pressure and business competition. This doesn't work when bigots are willing to pay a premium for discriminatory services. Also, do you feel the same way about the FHA and Title VII? Those also involve regulating what you can choose to do with your private property, but I don't want to assume that you don't consider housing and employment to be distinct from, say, hotels an…

I think it should be repealed. It's legally baseless. How hard would it possibly be to get anti discriminatory Ammendments into the constitution? Surely at least 2/3 of reps are not that unfit.

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

#343

Post by marcusverus »

mothballed wrote: post #328
marcusverus wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The power of the judiciary to "interpret" the constitution was a huge chink in the armor of the Constitutional order. A handful of unelected judges can effectively amend the constitution via simple majority, but can only be "overruled" by the people if there is extremely broad opposition (as a constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of both houses)--which is, of course, a total inversion of the democratic-republican pr…

The check elected officials have on this is to pack the courts. This is what FDR threatened to do to get through (at the time unconstitutional, now magically "not") a bunch of popular legislation.

Only if it could be done in an apolitical way, which seems impossible in the current political climate. The legitimacy of the US Federal Government depends on the perceived continuity of the (now mythical) constitutional order. If one party or the other packs the court without bipartisan support for their nominees in the Senate, it would be denounced by the other as an authoritarian end-run around the constitution--as a revolutionary rather than a mere procedural act. IMO this would be more likely to foment disunion than it would be to restore the bygone constitutional order.

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

#344

Post by hellojesus »

kelnos wrote: post #265
MichaelDickens wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the original idea of the Constitution was that most things would be regulated at the state level. This is pretty much already the case with marijuana, where it's illegal at the federal level, but in practice if it's legal in your state then it's legal.

"Pretty much" is doing quite a bit of work there. The feds ignoring marijuana use in states that have legalized or decriminalized it is the DoJ actively deciding not to prosecute MJ cases. They could absolutely send the FBI or whatever into a state with legalized marijuana and raid dispensaries and arrest people if they wanted to.

I'm convinced they don't do exactly that because they know it would ultimately result in the Supreme Court overturning Filburn.

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

#345

Post by mothballed »

yieldcrv wrote: post #341
mothballed wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isolating yourself to small legal circles can unfortunately open yourself to the vulnerability of mistakenly appealing to the authority of legal training that has specifically been tailored for success in the system we're in, which may optimize for coming to conclusions that help you win cases rather than optimizing for some other analysis. Looking at the bigger picture is an entirely different skill set than having…

I'll watch out for that. But ultimately I do want my view of the world to be the law of the land, which means "win cases", specifically reflecting my view and my currently obscure arguments. My observation is that populist arguments are the ones that fail because they don't understand the mechanisms and obscurity. A now-less-obscure view is based on the observation that the New Deal used a completely novel and expans…

I don't view the New Deal changes in constitutionality as prevailing through some from of reasoning of arguments per se, just projection of power. Projection of power is unlikely to be changed through lawfare. Usually it is not relinquished without violence. The violence that set the stage for consolidation of federal power, IMO, was in large part the civil war (removal of secession as a check on federal power, IMO the most powerful check states had) but of course also the concerns from the aftermath of WWI.

The fact the ICC was used is the least consequential part of the whole thing. That's just what was picked by the whig-gods to present legitimacy to the projection of power. Could have just as well been a proclamation from god under some other system. If the ICC expansion non-sense is struck out of some kind of convenience for some matter they are attending to, I don't think it changes much, just means the priest will utter some other magic phrase.

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

#346

Post by jhbadger »

pattilupone wrote: post #96
sir0010010 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally would be okay with having it legal if smoking could still be banned in multifamily complexes. I don't care if my neighbors are using edibles, but since I know that legalized weed means more smoke coming from my neighbors' balconies, I will always vote "No" when marijuana legalization is on the ballot in my location.

Can smoking tobacco be banned in multifamily complexes currently? I'd think the policy would be the same.

Every apartment that I've lived in in the US has as part of the lease that you can't smoke (tobacco or anything else) in it. Same for hotel rooms.

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

#347

Post by dragonwriter »

sir0010010 wrote: post #88
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…

I personally would be okay with having it legal if smoking could still be banned in multifamily complexes. I don't care if my neighbors are using edibles, but since I know that legalized weed means more smoke coming from my neighbors' balconies, I will always vote "No" when marijuana legalization is on the ballot in my location.

Smoking (even of tobacco) can generally be banned in the CC&Rs of properties (multifamily complexes is the case where this makes the most sense) and by the landlord in any rented property, multifamily or subject to CC&Rs or not.

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

#348

Post by dragonwriter »

heavyset_go wrote: post #243
sir0010010 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally would be okay with having it legal if smoking could still be banned in multifamily complexes. I don't care if my neighbors are using edibles, but since I know that legalized weed means more smoke coming from my neighbors' balconies, I will always vote "No" when marijuana legalization is on the ballot in my location.

Voting to put people in prison because of smells is certainly a take.

Not all bans are criminal, and tobacco smoke has problems beyond odor.

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

#349

Post by mothballed »

marcusverus wrote: post #343
mothballed wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The check elected officials have on this is to pack the courts. This is what FDR threatened to do to get through (at the time unconstitutional, now magically "not") a bunch of popular legislation.

Only if it could be done in an apolitical way, which seems impossible in the current political climate. The legitimacy of the US Federal Government depends on the perceived continuity of the (now mythical) constitutional order. If one party or the other packs the court without bipartisan support for their nominees in the Senate , it would be denounced by the other as an authoritarian end-run around the constitution--…

The fabrication of legitimacy is indeed the main task of the supreme court.

However violence is another way to project legitimacy. Putting someone away for life or drone striking a goat farmer provides real legitimate proof of power.

The government is much stronger than it was 100 or 200 years ago. So perhaps it can dispense with appearances of judicial legitimacy using the currency of violence. It's not clear they need to continue with the fiction of an impartial court to hold their grasp; like a space ship they can jettison that hallowed out rocket having already safely been placed into orbit.

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

#350

Post by dragonwriter »

bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) is a pretty straightforward application of the precedent of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) [0] rather than a novel, out-of-the-blue new interpretation of the Constitution.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Post reply on HN