World News Headlines

Coverage of breaking stories

Although the anti-federalists lost their main goal, what important task did they accomplish? counting slaves for political representation

source :

Although the anti-federalists lost their main goal, what important task did they accomplish? counting slaves for political representation

The Anti-federalists were able to get a Bill of Rights added to the new US Constitution.

Initially, the Anti-federalists wanted to merely amend the Articles of Confederation at the Constitutional Convention. However, this task seemed nearly impossible considering how many votes were needed to make amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

Instead, the Constitutional Convention proceeded by developing a brand new constitution. The federalists did not want to add a bill of rights, as they felt it would be dangerous and would actually limit the rights of citizens. On the other hand, Anti-federalists felt that it was imperative that there was a concrete list of rights that citizens had that could never be taken away by the government.

In the end, the federalists got the new constitution they desired while the anti-federalists got the list of guaranteed rights they desired.

Who Were the Anti-Federalists? - ThoughtCo

Who Were the Anti-Federalists? – ThoughtCo – The Anti-Federalists were a group of Americans who objected to the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and opposed final ratification of the U.S. Constitution as approved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Anti-Federalists generally preferred a government as formed in 1781 by the Articles of Confederation, which had granted the predominance of power to the state governments.Although the Anti-Federalists lost their main goal, which was to stop the ratification of the Constitution, they were able to insist that there be a Bill of Rights at the beginning of the Constitution, to ensure the the most essential personal liberties were not infringed upon.The Anti‐ Federalists are particularly important, though somewhat overlooked, for the way they warned about the ways the Constitution's federalist system could be misused and for their role in the ratification process and the passing of the Bill of Rights.

Although the Anti-Federalists lost their main goal, what – Although the anti federalists lost their main goal, what important task did they accomplish – 6493182 1. Log in. Join now. 1. Log in. Join now. Ask your question. megha5841 megha5841 02.11.2018 Social Sciences Secondary School Although the anti federalists lost their main goal, what important task did they accomplish 2The Anti-federalists were able to get the Bill of Rights added the Constitution. Although the Anti-federalists lost their main goal what important task did they Although the crusades didntThey had, in fact, designed the Constitution to replace the federal system of government under the Articles of Confederation with a national system. The true defenders of federalism were therefore the Constitution's opponents. The misnamed Anti‐ Federalists weakened their own case by acceding to the need for some additional national power.

Although the Anti-Federalists lost their main goal, what

How the Anti-Federalists Shaped the Constitution – Although the anti-federalists lost their main goal, what important task did they accomplish? a. counting slaves for political representation in the constitution through the three-fifths compromise b. granting smaller states power through enhanced debate in the new jersey plan c. protecting individual liberties through the inclusion of the bill of rights in the constitution d. changing thealthough the Anti-Federalists lost their main goal, what important task did they accomplish? answer. question. which issue was at heart of one of the compromises made between northern/southern states during constitutional convention of 1787? answer. question.Although the Anti-federalists lost their main goal what important task did they accompolish? The Anti-federalists were able to get the Bill of Rights added the Constitution. What are federalists…

Cayman Eco - Beyond Cayman Peatland drainage in Southeast ...
Cayman Eco - Beyond Cayman Tribune Editorial: Time ...
Cayman Eco - Beyond Cayman In Tanzania, locals and ...
Cayman Eco - Beyond Cayman Peatland drainage in Southeast ...
Cayman Eco - Beyond Cayman Peatland drainage in Southeast ...
Cayman Eco - Beyond Cayman Peatland drainage in Southeast ...
Cayman Eco - Beyond Cayman How It Feels Living in a City ...
Cayman Eco - Beyond Cayman Peatland drainage in Southeast ...
Cayman Eco - Beyond Cayman In Tanzania, locals and ...
Русский АвтоМотоКлуб | Экспресс-помощь на дорогах для ...
South Haven Tribune - Schools, Education3.18.19South Haven ...

Rep. Gutiérrez Speaks Out After Being Handcuffed for Demanding Answers on ICE Raids & Deportations – NERMEEN SHAIKH: In Chicago, federal police
handcuffed Democratic Congressmember Luis Gutiérrez along with activists and lawyers
Monday after they held a sit-in protest at a federal immigration office.
Gutiérrez says the group refused to leave
the Chicago office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, after the agency’s
regional director refused to answer his questions about the Trump administration’s plans for
immigration sweeps and mass deportation. Gutiérrez spoke out on Monday after he was
handcuffed. REP. LUIS GUTIÉRREZ: We’ve accomplished our
goal today. We stood up to the Department of Homeland
Security and to Donald Trump’s hatred, bigotry today against refugees, against Muslims, against
our immigrant community. And we stood up and said, "Your policies are
morally bankrupt." AMY GOODMAN: Monday’s meeting was Gutiérrez’s
first with ICE officials since President Trump’s inauguration. Last month, Congressman Gutiérrez and fellow
Congressional Hispanic Caucus member Norma Torres of California said Republican lawmakers
had them thrown out of a meeting with a top ICE official. For more, we are staying with Congressmember
Luis Gutiérrez, who’s now back in Washington, D.C. He’s a member of the House Judiciary Committee
and is co-chair of the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Congressman Gutiérrez, describe what happened
on Monday. REP. LUIS GUTIÉRREZ: Well, we had a meeting with
ICE officials, as you reported. There were many community organizations, legal
defense funds there. A group of us insisted that we receive answers
to specific questions. Much has been reported on the case of Francisca
Lino. She’s a Mexican national. For 12 years, she has reported dutifully to
ICE and to Homeland Security, and each year they said, "Come back next year." She is a mother of four American citizens,
and an American citizen husband. And they have been showing discretion in terms
of their enforcement action towards her—until this last meeting. And they won’t reverse their decision. We asked them. We demanded they reverse that decision. They keep saying to us, in a very—in this
contradiction of terms, they keep saying to the American public, "We’re going after
the criminals. We’re going after the bad people, the people
that are out there to do harm." Well, they’re not. Francisca Lino, she’s a mom. She’s a—and she’s reported for 12 consecutive
years. What changed? The only thing that changed was that Donald
Trump got sworn in as president of the United States, and you have—you have Bannon and
Miller, and you have the new attorney general of the United States, Sessions, who have all
been talking. They didn’t start—they didn’t all come
together during this administration. They have been cooperating with one another
for many years, waiting to institute this kind of xenophobic, anti-immigrant policies. Second—and I think this is very, very crucial—last
Friday, through a series of tweets—imagine—the Department of Homeland Security, through a
series of tweets, said, A, "Oh, those DREAMers, those that have got DACA, we’ve picked up
1,500 of them. They’re criminals and gang bangers." And then they went on to say in another tweet,
"Oh, we’re going to go after them if they violate the law. DACA doesn’t give them protection against
being criminals." Again, 750,000 wonderful young people—they’re
doctors, they’re lawyers, they’re nurses, they’re school teachers in the Chicago public
school system, they’re workers, they’re students—criminalizing them once again and
saying they no longer have the protection against deportation. I thought it was important that we ask a fundamental
question: Are you going after DACA recipients? Because we know you’ve done it in Washington
state, we know you’ve done it in Mississippi, and we have other cases in which you have
done it. So, look, somebody’s got to stand up. If I tell people it’s right to give your
government information—to give your information over to the government, go through a background
check, that you’re going to be right with the law, and you are right with the law, and
you have done absolutely nothing wrong, other than another president got elected, you’ve
got to stand up for those people that have stood up for themselves. That’s what we were doing that day. And we said to them, "Until we have answers,
we will not leave." Look, it shows you what happens with a system
which is run by bullies. And what did they do? They handcuffed us. And as soon as they handcuffed us and they
saw that we weren’t—didn’t have any fear, they released us. I’ve never seen such a situation before. But the most important thing is, we raised
the issue to the American public. And we’re going to continue to do that. And I’m really excited about the fact that,
come this May 1st, across this country, we’re going to fill dozens of cities in a International
Day of Workers in which immigrants are going to be the primary showcase of American workers. NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to ask you about
Army veteran Miguel Perez Jr., a Mexican-born legal permanent resident of the U.S., an Army
veteran who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan. He arrived in the U.S. at the age of eight
and now faces deportation. REP. LUIS GUTIÉRREZ: Yes. NERMEEN SHAIKH: This is his father, Miguel
Perez Sr., speaking through a translator to the Chicago Tribune. MIGUEL PEREZ SR.: [translated] He was in special
forces in the Army. And they sent him to Afghanistan. So, he was there from 2001 to 2003 in the
first one. He came really proud, very happy. And I was very proud of him, as well, because
he defended the Constitution, he defended the system, defended this land, defended the
flag. And like my son says, "I was there. I was confronting there. I was in front of the battle. I should—I deserve an opportunity. I don’t know why I have to be deported." NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, that was Miguel Perez
Sr., the father of Miguel Perez. Now, he is a legal permanent resident of the
U.S. REP. LUIS GUTIÉRREZ: Yes, yes. NERMEEN SHAIKH: How is it possible to deport
him? REP. LUIS GUTIÉRREZ: Well, because the Trump administration
can and will. And he is under an order of deportation. He has recently lost his case. And I think—I’m so happy you’re highlighting. We have—he’s not the only veteran. There are literally hundreds of veterans that
have served in the armed forces of the United States and, like Mr. Perez, are decorated
veterans. Mr. Perez wasn’t—has never been a U.S.
citizen. He’s a legal permanent resident, a green
card holder. His mom is a citizen. His dad is a citizen. All of his family are citizens, with his exception. Under the Bush administration, he was supposed
to be facilitated the process of American citizenship when he joined the armed forces. That did not happen. But he went on to serve not one tour of duty,
but two. And I find it just so reprehensible that an
administration led by a president of the United States that on multiple occasions refused
to bear arms for this nation when he was called upon, said he had a bone spur—a bone spur
that hasn’t stopped him from playing on every golf course in every continent of the
world—would deport someone who did take up arms and wasn’t even a citizen of the
United States—not one tour, but two tours. So, look, we’re going to continue to fight
for Mr. Perez. We are asking senators to look at this case
and to file a private bill. And what is that? A private bill is when a senator says, "Here
is my bill. Because of these extraordinary circumstances,
I want to file this bill to make this individual a citizen of the United States, because that
seems to be the one road." And you’re going to be hearing, Amy, more
and more about them. They are along the border, by the hundreds,
destitute. Now, I want the American public to know one
thing: Mr. Perez gets to come back after he’s deported. You know when he gets to come back? When he’s dead. He gets to come back in a coffin and buried
in a military cemetery for his service to this country. But while he’s alive, he cannot live here. NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Representative Gutiérrez,
could you explain what the argument is that the Trump administration is using to justify
his deportation? REP. LUIS GUTIÉRREZ: Well, that he committed a
crime. And he did. He was convicted of a felony. And look, I think you need to take everything
into account. Yes, he’s suffering greatly from PTSD. He has wounds, head wounds, that have caused
him great debilitation. That’s going to have an impact. That has an impact on a lot of our men and
women who return and have a great difficulty. But look, you have to take that and balance
that out with what? With the fact that this is the only country
that he knows. They should have facilitated his American
citizenship, because had he been an American citizenship, he would have simply been—gone
to trial, paid his time and then be reintegrated into society. We think this is an exceptional case in which
the government should—and just so that we’re clear, I called the prosecutors, and I said,
"This begs for you to show discretion. You do not have to deport Mr. Perez. You can show discretion and withdraw the charges. He’s already paid his—he went to jail
for five years. The sentence of the judge, he fulfilled it
completely. Don’t add an additional—how would I say?—burden
to this man. Let him reintegrate, where he needs his family
more than ever before." But we have hundreds of veterans like this
that are on the other side of the border who have served in the armed forces of the United
States faithfully and dutifully. AMY GOODMAN: Last month, President Trump called
his deportation plans a "military operation" during his meeting with CEOs. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You see what’s happening
at the border. All of a sudden, for the first time, we’re
getting gang members out. We’re getting drug lords out. We’re getting really bad dudes out of this
country, and at a rate that nobody’s ever seen before. And they’re the bad ones. And it’s a military operation, because what
has been allowed to come into our country, when you see gang violence that you’ve read
about like never before, and all of the things, much of that is people that are here illegally. And they’re rough, and they’re tough,
but they’re not tough like our people. So we’re getting them out. AMY GOODMAN: If you could respond to that,
Congressman Gutiérrez— REP. LUIS GUTIÉRREZ: Sure. AMY GOODMAN: —what he’s saying? Also the fact that the budget’s just been
released and, you know, massively upping the Pentagon budget, Homeland Security budget,
including paying for the wall, that President Trump said he would never do? REP. LUIS GUTIÉRREZ: Sure. Look, again, what they are doing is this new
act of criminalizing all immigrants, right? So, every time—and they only talk about
one border. They don’t talk about the border at JFK
or the one at LAX or Miami or the one in O’Hare, where literally hundreds of thousands of immigrants
come on a monthly basis, and millions of immigrants that have overstayed their visa arrived in
the United States. They want to focus on brown people. They want to focus on that border with Mexico. And they want to make it appear that you have
everything to fear from these bad hombres, because the criminal cartel that impacts your
life is only the one that comes through that border. Nonsense. Look, the fact is that border—entries through
the border are at a record low and continuing to be reduced. You know who’s showing up at that border? Refugees. Yes, refugees from Guatemala, from El Salvador,
that are coming from Honduras. Why? Because there are criminal cartels that are
there. And let me just suggest to the American public
this: Those criminal cartels are there because of the insatiable demand that exists in the
United States for the drugs that they run into the United States, number one. NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Representative Gutiérrez— REP. LUIS GUTIÉRREZ: It’s an American dollars,
it’s American guns, that are using and fortifying those cartels. .

Are Regulations Over? | The Judicial Review 5 – Previously, on the Supreme Court show: Lochner era Court: “Capitalism rules!” The Economy (Unregulated): “I am suffering
from depression.” F.D.R: “I got you, fam.” Lochner era Court: “How about no?” F.D.R: “How about yes?” Lochner era Court: “Okay.” The Economy: “I am better now.” And now, the continuation… For much of the twentieth century, the United
States experienced an age of economic prosperity.
This was the time the middle class was at
its strongest ever, largely due to the U.S. government’s implementation of significant
economic stabilizers like social security and Medicare, the strengthening of labor unions,
and the enactment of miscellaneous progressive policies preventing or at least controlling
rampant wealth inequality. This age of Keynesianism lasted until the
1970s, when neoliberalism became the dominant force of economic thought through figures
like Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. Ever since,
the political and economic power of the working class has diminished significantly, while
the grip of the capitalist class on the economy has grown to massive levels.
With all of this going on, we now have the opportunity to elect the first president of
the United States to lead a people’s movement in decades, or maybe ever. If Bernie Sanders
succeeds in this goal, we should see a reversal of these trends, as well as a much needed
revitalization of the public sector as we brace ourselves for an age of cataclysmic
climate change, the resurgence of hate-based violence, and the rise of international fascim.
A Sanders administration could spark collectivist unity by passing regulations to protect the
people from the existential threats to our generation.
Or… could it? See, not only has the U.S. government dropped
many key regulations in the past several decades but the very authority of the government to
regulate has been challenged in the courts since the Bill Clinton era. This will be our
topic for today, as we explore whether our government retains the regulatory powers it
applied in the midst of the twentieth century. But, first, some background.
Congressional regulations have been enacted as an application of the Commerce Clause of
the Constitution, which basically allows the legislature to regulate activities related
to the market. This is a counterintuitive way to enforce civil protections, which should
theoretically fall under other powers like the Equal Protection Clause. But, as Boston
University professor Nicole Huberfeld points out, the U.S. has been very resistant to social
change through normal means. Huberfeld references the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, which struck
down protections for the recently freed slaves while limiting the Fourteenth Amendment as
applicable only to state-based discrimination. To target discrimination in the private sector,
then, Congress began enacting protections justified by a narrative of economic growth.
Ever since, civil liberties for oppressed groups have been adopted not as social policy
reliant upon equality under the law but as economic policies under the Commerce Clause.
(It’s always so reassuring to know that our human worth is historically rooted in
our effect upon the market.) The first major Supreme Court case involving
the Commerce Clause was Gibbons v. Ogden, decided in 1824. The case resulted from a
dispute regarding navigable water routes, namely whether a boat licensed by the federal
government could sail on water bodies managed by a monopolistic company with permission
from the state of New York. The Court then interpreted the Commerce Clause to give the
federal government full authority over navigation routes, as they pertain to interstate commerce.
This decision was huge at the time, considering how mighty the states were during the antebellum
era. Due to industrialization and the mainstreaming
of classical economic thought, by the end of the century our nation entered a phase
of pro-business power and restrained government, now known as the Lochner era. We covered this
in a previous video, so I’m not going to go into much detail here. Just keep in mind
that our nation saw the rise of a populist movement which got stonewalled for forty years
by a pro-corporate Supreme Court until it mysteriously decided to stop being obstructionistic.
If you want more detail, check out my video up here, okay? Yes? Pretty please? GIVE ME VIEWS During the age of F.D.R.’s New Deal, the
Court decided several cases that vastly increased the power of the federal government over the
internal economy. A notable one is National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin
Steel Corporation, in 1937. Workers at Jones & Laughlin attempted to unionize, a right
guaranteed to them by the Wagner Act, and the company fired them for it. The National
Labor Relations Board took the issue to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the federal
government may enforce workers’ protections, allowing federal regulations of local activity
so long as this local activity held a ‘substantial relation’ to interstate commerce. Huberfeld
notes that the Court was viewing commerce in a pragmatic way, as a phenomenon with practical
effects on daily life, rather than as a mere theoretical principle which is the preferred
view of legal conservatives favoring doctrines like originalism and such. Under this view,
the Supreme Court deferred to the judgment of the elected branches to determine, from
past experience, what would be best for our nation to thrive.
Also noteworthy is the 1941 case United States v. Darby Lumber Company, which upheld the
Fair Labor Standards Act. This law allows the federal government to regulate working
conditions, including overtime pay and child labor, when their output involved a, quote–unquote,
“substantial effect” on interstate commerce. This decision reversed previous rulings from
the Lochner era and contributed to increasing Congress’s oversight over corporate practices.
The substantial effect standard would be used to back the body of regulations enacted in
the later half of the twentieth century. Finally, for our purposes, we have Wickard
v. Filburn in 1942. This case revolved around the Agricultural Adjustment Act, a piece of
legislation limiting the produce of farmers for personal consumption. Now, right off the
bat, I want to clarify that I’m not personally expressing support for this or any other particular
law, as I’m sure that this case will annoy some in the audience; I’ll just focus on
the general trend of federal regulation, so please bear with me. In this case, the federal
government argued that wheat farmed for home use hindered interstate commerce, as farmers
growing their own food meant fewer people participating in the market. As it had been
doing to this point, the Court upheld Congress’s regulatory powers, and it would continue to
do so for several decades into the future. The Commerce Clause was also prevalent during
the Civil Rights era, filling wide gaps that the Fourteenth Amendment was by then too weakened
to address. One example of this is Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, a 1964 case
concerning the motel’s refusal to accept African American customers. The Court, embracing
the social impact of the Civil Rights Act, invoked the Commerce Clause to reason that
racial discrimination negatively impacted interstate commerce.
The justices built upon this framework in Katzenbach v. McClung, where they found that,
even if a specific establishment did not have a significant impact on interstate commerce,
Congress still had the power to regulate it on the basis that the purpose of the legislation
was to prevent a slow-down of interstate commerce that could result from discriminatory practices
by businesses. Is this iffy ground? Maybe. Would it be better
to protect vulnerable persons rather than stretch commercial reasons? I’m inclined
to believe so. But understand that equal protections had become so limited at this point, especially
as they pertained to the private sector, that economic protections stuck better. That’s
how federal protections worked until the end of the century.
And now we skip to the case at the center of our discussion today, United States v.
Lopez. Decided in 1995, Lopez centered on the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which
prohibited the carrying of firearms in school premises. Just to be clear, this was not a
Second Amendment case, the question was not about the right to bear arms or anything like
that. Instead, it was about the power of Congress to regulate personal activity within locally
owned premises. Under the ‘substantial economic effect’ doctrine that we covered previously,
the federal legislature should have the authority to regulate firearms so long as their production
involved interstate commerce. However, for the first time in 58 years, the Court flipped
its position, arguing that agreeing with this view would give U.S. officials limitless say
over local matters. The decision basically allowed Congress to regulate commercial issues
while keeping practices only indirectly related to the economy out of reach. As simply as
that, the Court called into question more than half a century of pro-regulation jurisprudence,
opening the door for further challenges later on.
Lopez is a clear example of the ideological shift within the Court in recent times. Much
of the pro-government judicial philosophy of the mid 1900s came from New Deal judges
who favored public oversight of the private sector. By the end of the century, however,
the conservative legal movement was in full steam, packing the different levels of academia
and the federal judiciary. Institutions like the Federalist Society were quite influential
in setting the intellectual grounds for the anti-regulation agenda that started with Lopez.
(Not to sound conspiratorial or anything, but if you’ve been looking for figures in
suits pulling the strings from behind the curtains, definitely keep an eye on judicial
scholarship.) Ultraconservative Justice Clarence Thomas,
quite literally a celebrity among Federalist Society circles, welcomed the challenging
of more regulations, arguing that otherwise the federal government would grow into a police
state of sorts. (Believe me, the irony of his statement as a defense of our current
system is not lost on me.) True to his originalist leanings, Thomas accused his colleagues of
not having gone far enough, claiming that the threat of an unhinged federal government
would never be resolved unless the Court abolishes federal powers that do not conform to pre-Civil
War times. (So, you know, your generic ‘states’ rights’ argument, which not only ignores
that the alternative has been historically worse but also that restraining commerce laws
to the standards of the 1800s is a pretty moot fight in current times… just saying…)
Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the majority’s decision, pointing out that
Lopez put at risk up to 100 federal statutes, perhaps naively missing the fact that that
was the point. In trying to defend his position, Breyer referenced studies finding that gun
violence hurts students’ academic development, and that hurt students would be detrimental
for the economy, making this something Congress should be capable of regulating. (I’m not
even going to hide it, I find it so utterly depressing that this was the conversation
more than twenty years ago, and I see that to be a very serious foreshadowing for the
absurd situation we find ourselves in today, but I digress.)
Lopez is important in that it allowed the Court to signal favoritism for a New Federalism,
a political stance based on opposition to the regulatory government conceived under
the New Deal. Whether we have made it to that point yet is still an open question, but the
fact that conservative influence, especially of the unapologetically neoliberal kind under
the Trump administration, has been continuously rising leads me to believe that enacting solid
federal regulations in the coming years will be a herculean task to accomplish. We gotta
make sure that that obstacle doesn’t catch us with our pants down.
The thing is that the Court has been sending some very mixed signals on this for the past
twenty years. In 1994, a Virginia Tech student filed suit
against her rapists under the Violence Against Women Act. Six years later, the suit made
it to the Supreme Court, which borrowed from Lopez to strike down the provisions of the
act allowing victims to sue their assaulters in federal court. Just as in Lopez, the Court
argued that violence is not a commercial activity and hence is beyond the reach of federal legislation.
Today, VAWA has been effectively annulled by Senate Republicans’ refusal to renew
the act. Scholars at the time feared that the Freedom
of Access to Clinic Entrances Act would face a similar fate. Fortunately, challenges to
this act were dismissed by the Court. Lopez also put an end to the migratory bird
rule, a standard used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection
Agency under the Clean Water Act to protect wetlands used by migratory birds crossing
state lines. As practicing attorney Laurie G. Ballenger explained, the rule not only
was not grounded on commercial practices but it involved education and criminal law, fields
traditionally under state jurisdiction. Following from the reasoning in Lopez, wetlands did
not qualify for federal protections and, given their fragility and their critical role in
providing ecosystem services, this is kind of a big deal.
The question whether wetlands can be protected federally was first raised in Solid Waste
Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers in 2001. Here, the
Court struck down the migratory bird rule as originally expressed in the Clean Water
Act, but it failed to address whether Congress may or may not regulate wetlands. Then Rapanos
v. United States raised the same question, but the Court deadlocked, meaning we still
have no resolution on this topic. Whatever the answer ends up being, it’s likely to
be the same for federal protections of endangered species and other environmental concerns.
Then the Court flipped again in 2005, arguing in favor of federal regulations on weed in
states that had legalized it. (Glad to see that the right protections are being maintained,
sigh.) Most recently, the Court upheld Obamacare’s individual mandate in National Federation
of Independent Business v. Sebelius, although it did so by interpreting the mandate not
as a commerce-oriented activity but as a tax, shifting its foundation from the Commerce
Clause to the Taxing and Spending Clause. This is how the Court does politics, by maneuvering
in the realm of interpretation to produce a desired outcome. This is why it is so crucial
for our movement to embrace the force of the judicial branch as a powerful tool for policymaking.
Granted, the Court is not necessarily almighty. Political scientist Miranda Yaver has found
that Congress may sideline opposition from the Supreme Court by withholding funds to
the states acting against the national interests rather than by passing new laws to regulate
them directly. Yaver sees her proposal as aligned with the decision in Sebelius, seeing
as the individual mandate ended up being legitimized not as a regulation but as a tax. This strategy,
admittedly, is a countermeasure to the animosity of the members of the Court toward federal
regulations, and it is undoubtedly something to keep in mind if our now solidly originalist
Supreme Court refuses to fall in line with what we must enact not only to stabilize our
markets but also to guarantee a decent quality of life to all members of our nation.
Business-friendly politicians and judges have been sowing the seeds of an anti-government
movement for the past couple of decades, and we’re likely to see them germinate within
a few years. This will be one of our greatest foes in the near future, so we ought to do
our part to level the field in our favor as much as humanly possible. We have about a
decade left before it all goes to crap, so let’s get going!
That’s all I have for now. I really appreciate that you stayed for so long to hear me talk
about this, and I hope that you learned something new today. Please share this video if you
think other people could find it interesting, and leave a like and a comment so the YouTube
algorithm knows to show my content around. Also subscribe and ring the bell if you want
to hear when my next video is released. Thank you again for watching, and I will see you
in the next one. .