Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think the disconnect between you two lies in these areas:

1. Is the federal government empowered to make any law not expressly forbidden by the Constitution?

2. Are there any laws that the states are allowed to make for their own people and territory without being overridden by the federal government?

The crux of your comments seems to lie in a practical argument — it's useful to have the government doing this stuff. nirvana's argument is strictly Constitutional, and is not interested in any conveniences that might be offered by bending the law.

(For the record, I'm not 100% in agreement with either side here. I'm just trying to synthesize what I see as the difference in where you two are coming from.)




As for (1), it seems like answering that question just gets us mired in what "expressly forbidden" means.

As for (2), the Constitution settles this directly; laws enacted by the legislative branch of the federal government are the "supreme law of the land".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: