Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (14437)	3/10/2006 10:06:19 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542961

Recruiters in My Cornflakes! Time to give McCullough v. Maryland another look Brian Doherty Interesting reading. I gather we are in for several such interpretations of the decision before the back and forth of that settles down to warring camps.

To: Lane3 who wrote (14437)	3/10/2006 10:41:12 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 542961

"Why is that? Because relating a power to war, for Congress or the president, means never having to say you are sorry—mostly because judges seem to share a primal, extraconstitutional sense that the power to wage war is so holy and necessary it must be protected at all costs. (Hey, you can always vote out those Congressmen who passed a law requiring military recruiters in your bedroom!)" It is, indeed, a terrible decision.

To: Lane3 who wrote (14437)	3/10/2006 10:54:22 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542961

Reductio ad absurdum should have been the theme of the article. Another attempt to find fault with the decision by a non lawyer who doesn't realize the separation of powers implications of not upholding Congressional power in an area in which the Constitution specifically provides for such power. This isn't an issue that can be Googled for instant wisdom. Thinking about these things requires training in law, history, policy, etc. The article borders on the specious. The McCullough v. Maryland case is one of the first bricks on which our system was built; reversing it is unthinkable. Utter chaos would result in any number of fields starting with taxation, followed by impingement of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, and so on. And this is precisely why a liberal like Ginsburg went along with the decision and why certiorari was accepted. There is an important separation of powers issue lurking in the background which needed to be affirmed on an unanimous basis. You see, this at the essence was not a case solely about DADT or infringement on free speech but about how our government is structured on a Constitutional basis. Railing against "bigotry" was not the issue; it was so far down the ladder of importance as to be almost invisible. The court did not go into these matters because good decisions deal only with what is before them, but I absolutely, positively guarantee you that separation of powers was in the forefront of the justices's thinking when they agreed to go unanimous on it. No way were they going to put a chink in M v.M because they know full well that a chink becomes larger as time progresses. A silly article, really.

To: Lane3 who wrote (14437)	3/10/2006 2:39:53 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 542961

I agree with the decision to an extent but I also agree that "the court's explicit declaration that Congress could—since the question of recruitment has to do with the military, and when it comes to the military Congress's power is mighty and well-nigh unquestionable—force colleges to allow military recruiters on campus, whether or not there was any Spending Clause nexus involved" might go to far as a matter of constitutional law, and definitely goes to far as something that would ever be desirable. I don't think that the government should be required to pay money to the universities but taking control and directly forcing the recruitment would be a bad policy, and of dubious constitutionality IMO. No more dubious than some other decisions but that's hardly a defense. Tim