re: Sentencing guidelines decrease the flexibility which might be considered either a good or bad thing.
Since you are a libertarian, I'm going to assume you think that local decisions are better than Federal decisions. As offensive as this may be to you, we probably agree. I've had a lot of friends that happened to be judges, and sentancing guidlines limited what they could do, on both sides. It's a bad thing for justice, by those that are actually there to hear the cases.
re; Drop that and you don't have rule of law you have rule by judges which is not the same thing.
Who do you expect to enforce the laws? The police, do you want them to sentance? The congress, with their lack of local knowledge and other priorities? The Executive?!?
re: Exactly based on the constitution. And if the constitution is totally silent on an issue then the states retain the power under 10th amendment. If the constitution does gives the feds power in the area of concern then the feds can regulate it unless it goes against specific limitations that have been placed on the federal government.
You know, I would go for that... local judges interpret the law. But you have to wake up to reality, everything is Federal. That's where the power is concentrated, more so in this admin than ever. I'm all for local rights... are you?
re: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct
Like I said, per the US constitution, it's the state perogative to name their electors. Not the USSC. I'm not surprised they broke the rules, I'm not even pissed they broke the law.
No matter what you do in life, sometimes things get so screwed up you have to say to yourself "what the fuck, for the sake of everybody, lets just fix this shit".
I don't like it, but I live with it.
So... Democracy isn't pristine or perfect as you would like it to be. You claim you want it local, but you support the Federal over the local judges.
I think you need to rethink.
John |
