Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by iudqnolq | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

iudqnolq

> The federal government does not have police powers

Then what's the FBI?

View on HN

An investigative agency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_co...

Unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional. And morally wrong, and very corrupt (look at literally anything Hoover have done, or recent scandal with spying, or Page and Strzok.)

What part of the constitution?

Constitution is whitelist not blacklist, what part give it permission?

Police power doesn't simply mean having a law enforcement agency. It means being able to do the daily policing work that the federal government is basically explicitly barred from doing except in particular circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_co...

> Federal police power has been defined by Supreme Court rulings. In affirming that Congress has limited power to enact legislation, the court ruled in United States v. Lopez (1995) that "The Constitution...withhold[s] from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation."[6][7] In United States v. Morrison (2000), the court invalidated a provision of a federal law on violent crime. The court stated, "The regulation and punishment of intrastate violence that is not directed at the instrumentalities, channels, or goods involved in interstate commerce has always been the province of the States...[W]e can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime..."[6][8]

Eh, you're technically right but the courts have interpreted interstate commerce extremely broadly. A pandemic is interstate in a similar sense as the wheat in Wickard v. Filburn.

Um okay... but he asked what the FBI was. Is the FBI enforcing covid vaccines? I don't think so

I used the FBI as an example of a federal agency that has broad enforcement powers and that most Americans don't consider unconstitutional.

A pandemic is much more legitimately interstate than anything in wickard v filburn

I agree that requiring large employers to require vaccines has a more significant effect on interstate commerce that a person growing wheat for their own use. I think it's a similar order of magnitude though.

How is mandating a remote employee, who's clearly not moving around a legitimate interstate interest. Pray do tell. In general, non-kangaroo courts require laws to be written to be suitably tailored and narrow in scope.

>How is mandating a remote employee, who's clearly not moving around a legitimate interstate interest

Do I get to use the same asinine reasoning they used in Wickard v. Filburn?

Because if not then your guess is as good as mine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com