Originally Posted by spence
I'm sure many Federal regulations you'd probably assert are not Constitutional others would argue in many ways increase our freedoms and are beneficial to business.
You've made a general thesis here, now what is your proof? What specific regulations and how do they increase our freedoms beyond what is garanteed in the Constitution?
By providing a common Federal standard, businesses aren't burdened by a myriad of redundant and unnecessary state regulations. Several medical device customers I work with actually like the fact in the US they only have to deal with the FDA while in the EU there are multiple regulatory agencies. Similarly, another manufacturer I was speaking with this week, who plans expansion into Europe, is faced with the daunting prospect of managing product specifications that will be different in nearly every country...even though the product is essentially identical.
In another thread you didn't trust States to regulate because they might do so too much in FAVOR of business, but here you argue that it is better for business to have Central regulation. Anyway, would it even be possible for States to have regulation on interstate commerce that would conflict with each other? Isn't that exactly one of the reasons the Constitution was written--to correct the problem of commercial warfare between the States? The Federal regulation of such warfare is CONSTITUTIONAL! States do have various regulations on business, and businesses which are national tend to adhere to the most stringent so they can be legal in all States. What is unconstitutional about the FDA is its unelected plenipotential power--executive, legislative, and judicial power, and one of the most damaging things beyond that is its overstrict regulation which distorts the market in favor of the richest businesses and artificially raises costs--massively in the case of drugs. This also creates a corrupt relationship between government and business with which "most people" are frustrated.
Constitutionality is certainly a required test for all laws, but the idea that everything is black and white only works in a vacuum.
I don't know how black and white could work in a vacuum since white implies light reflecting on matter. The Constitution certainly is not a vacuum, nor is it in a vacuum. It is a framework for government based on nature, human nature, and allows for an actual humanity to govern itself.
I think most Americans prefer a greater degree of free market, though I'd also think most Americans would say that too pure a free market would be inherently destructive.
Actually, no. It is the corruption of the market that would be destructive. PURE market forces dictate value to both buyer and seller. If one cheats, he distorts the transaction, and the aggregate of such cheating would destroy the market.
That being said, I think what we have today in the grand scheme of things, isn't anywhere near being close to a "greater degree of socialism".
In the grand "spectrum" of our Constitutional history, we have a greater degree of socialism now than in the beginning. The "vector" has been in that direction and threatens to accelerate.
I wouldn't say they're trying to rig anything in their favor, rather just undo some of the "rigging" that has arguably gotten us off track.
Since the Occupiers have not had a coherent statement of purpose, it's not possible to say. But many of the "spontaneous" demands (free education, forgiveness of all debt, etc.) rig in their favor.
I'm not sure what basis there is for an argument that states minimal or strict behavior always is better.
Better than what? Better than Federal minimal or strict behavior? What's better got to do with it? Each has its Constitutional domain.
If there was no FDA would the states be able to regulate less effectively or more? There are plenty of examples where deregulation at the federal or state level has not led to any benefit for the consumer or public.
The greatest "benefit" for the public that the Constitution grants is optimal personal freedom. If you believe that constricting that benefit in favor of some perceived temporary consumer benefit by creating a permanent judicial precedent to do so is a good and greater "benefit," that is a greater degree of socialism to which I don't agree.
I also don't think to say there's room for interpretation, as long as it's done within the system, is in any way not adhering to the Constitution. Even passionate issues like Roe, where the pure Constitutionality argument is perhaps weaker, are still considered settled by the majority of people and backed by judicial findings.
Being settled by a majority of people in individual States is a far cry from the SCOTUS imposing a Federal mandate that is not in the Federal Constitutional domain.
Ultimately I think issues need to be evaluated in context of reality, where things really sit today and not some purist theoretical world that is the fancy of academics.
-spence
|