and this time you worded it to fit her would-be position.
schoolzombie87says
rajsays
…let’s examine the US Constitutional issues.
<
p>
What provision in the US constitution gives the federal government the power to enact such a federal law? It strikes me that this law is analogous to the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which was struck down by the Rehnquist court in the 1990s, because there was no provision in the US constitution that granted Congress to pass such a law. It is also analogous to the federal law that purported to criminalize carrying firearms within 500 feet (or so) of a public school. Both of those laws were purported to be based on the Interstate Commerce Clause, but the Rehnquist court held that the relationship between the act that were criminalized and the ICC were so nebulous that the purported constitutional power was insufficient.
<
p>
I agreed with both cases, by the way. Now, what provision of the US constitution would give the Congress the power pass a law like Jessica’s law?
bannedbythesentinelsays
I'm not 100% on this, but don't we have minimum sentencing for drug offenses? Is that close to a precedent?
hrs-kevinsays
Since the drug offenses affected are federal crimes not state crimes.
hrs-kevinsays
Everyone knows you are just a troll. Prove me wrong by discussing this issue yourself. You might start by reading all of the current state versions of “Jessica’s Law” and comparing and contrasting their differences. Then you should suggest a version that you would like to see proposed at the Federal level. In your discussion, don’t forget a cost-benefit analysis.
schoolzombie87says
Look Kevin
<
p>
I think you and I got off on the wrong foot. I just want to ask Niki a couple of questions that’s all. My style is short and sweet.
<
p>
How about I ask Niki my questions the way I want to ask them. And you can ask Niki your questions the way you want to ask them.
<
p>
hrs-kevinsays
You can ask the questions any way you want, but until you prove yourself to be seriously interested in discussion rather than simply throwing bombs, you should fully expect to continue to be ignored.
and this time you worded it to fit her would-be position.
…let’s examine the US Constitutional issues.
<
p>
What provision in the US constitution gives the federal government the power to enact such a federal law? It strikes me that this law is analogous to the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which was struck down by the Rehnquist court in the 1990s, because there was no provision in the US constitution that granted Congress to pass such a law. It is also analogous to the federal law that purported to criminalize carrying firearms within 500 feet (or so) of a public school. Both of those laws were purported to be based on the Interstate Commerce Clause, but the Rehnquist court held that the relationship between the act that were criminalized and the ICC were so nebulous that the purported constitutional power was insufficient.
<
p>
I agreed with both cases, by the way. Now, what provision of the US constitution would give the Congress the power pass a law like Jessica’s law?
I'm not 100% on this, but don't we have minimum sentencing for drug offenses? Is that close to a precedent?
Since the drug offenses affected are federal crimes not state crimes.
Everyone knows you are just a troll. Prove me wrong by discussing this issue yourself. You might start by reading all of the current state versions of “Jessica’s Law” and comparing and contrasting their differences. Then you should suggest a version that you would like to see proposed at the Federal level. In your discussion, don’t forget a cost-benefit analysis.
Look Kevin
<
p>
I think you and I got off on the wrong foot. I just want to ask Niki a couple of questions that’s all. My style is short and sweet.
<
p>
How about I ask Niki my questions the way I want to ask them. And you can ask Niki your questions the way you want to ask them.
<
p>
You can ask the questions any way you want, but until you prove yourself to be seriously interested in discussion rather than simply throwing bombs, you should fully expect to continue to be ignored.
Too bad.
I guess we should at least exchange emails. You can unload on me at schoolzombie@hotmail.com
I see no benefit in having a pointless e-mail exchange with you or any other person who is primarily interested in trolling.
<
p>
đŸ˜‰