Forum: Author Hangout

Does "no law" mean no law, or does it mean something else?

There are some limited exceptions to the First amendment.

So you're saying the court has interpreted into the Constitution exceptions to the document as written, "Congress shall make no law..."?

So you're saying the court has interpreted into the Constitution exceptions to the document as written, "Congress shall make no law..."?

No more surprising that having a president counter "Thou shall not commit adultery" by claiming that "oral sex does not count".

So you're saying the court has interpreted into the Constitution exceptions to the document as written, "Congress shall make no law..."?

Yep. If only the authors of the bill of rights had put a full stop after shall make no law.

What it says as is relevant to the discussion is that: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. However, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States) has determined that certain things that could be considered "speech" fall outside the bounds of the freedom of speech and therefore Congress can make laws about those things.

Yep. If only the authors of the bill of rights had put a full stop after shall make no law.

What it says as is relevant to the discussion is that: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. However, SCOTUS (Supreme Court of The United States) has determined that certain things that could be considered "speech" fall outside the bounds of the freedom of speech and therefore Congress can make laws about those things.

Your "problem" at this point is if you go with a strict circa 1796 interpretation of the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law" means the Congress of the United States of America.

They can't do so.

But your state legislature can, as could your county commissioners, or your city/village council.

It wasn't until the American Civil War, and the raft of reconstruction era amendments that "congress" in general was reinterpreted to apply to all levels of Government, be it local, state, or federal.

It wasn't until the American Civil War, and the raft of reconstruction era amendments that "congress" in general was reinterpreted to apply to all levels of Government, be it local, state, or federal.

Not true. Article 6 of the US Constitution is very clear on the issue of who makes the laws governing the US and which laws take precedence. It states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You need to look into the 14th Amendment and what it's longer term results and implications were:

14th Amendment, Section 1:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Which has widely been interpreted to mean "The Constitution previously granted these rights at the federal level. Section 1 of this amendment now grants them at the state and local levels.

You also might want to look into the tendency of State Constitutions prior to the 14th Amendment echoing the Bill of Rights in their own laws, even after the Bill of Rights was ratified. If the Bill of Rights was already in full force in those states, why did they codify it a second time? Redundant law is redundant? (The practice also "mysteriously" ended after ratification of the 14th Amendment. Hrmmm)

IE "Congress" meant "The Congress of the United States of America" until the 14th Amendment lead to it being interpreted as "government at any level."

You stated that according to a strict circa 1796 interpretation Congress could make no law and then went on to state the state legislatures could.

My post was in regard to states making laws that violated the provisions of the Constitution and any laws made by Congress. States may not pass laws that violate the Constitution.

The states couldn't ignore a law that was upheld as Constitutional.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, however, the states could ignore any provision of the constitution which started with "Congress shall not..."

As it was Congress which was restricted, not them.

Which brings us back to the 1st Amendment restricting Congress from enacting such laws. The State Legistlatures were not the US Congress, so it was perfectly constitutional for the states to do so, Congress was another matter. The 14th Amendment stopped that.

In regard to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, you stated that that while Congress was not permitted to pass laws violating the 1st Amendment, states could make laws that violated the 1st Amendment. That is not true. You totally disregarded Article 6 of the US Constitution which expressly prohibits states from passing laws that violate the provisions of the Constitution to include the Amendments to the Constitution.

/yawn

And we go right back to the 1st Amerndment being non-applicable to states because it started with "Congress shall make no law" and because the states were not Congress, they were explicitly exempted from the 1st Amendment until after the 14th Amendment was ratified and interpreted in the manner it now is.

2nd Amendment? No mention of Congress, states can't ignore it.

3rd, 4th and 5th Amendments? Again, no mention of "Congress" so it applies to the states as well.

Congress doesn't get mentioned in another Amendment until we reach the 12th Amendment, which deals with the Electoral College.

The 13th mandates "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

And the 14th puts us back to where we started. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is the lens through which the 1st Amendment was made to apply to the states as well as the federal government.

Yeah your focusing on the Amendments, which modify the Constitution, and your totally ignoring what the Constitution states is boring. It is the Constitution, not the Amendments, that ban states from passing laws that violate the provisions of the Constitution.

And you're ignoring where the constitution(or a specific amendment) specifically place the limitations on a single body.

The 1st Amendment specifically limited Congress, and by extension the Presidency and the Court System as they were restricted to matters of Federal Law(which Congress would need to pass).

It is only through an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that the 1st Amendment becomes applicable to the states. If you read even a few examples of case law on the matter, I think you'll find that those 1st Amendment Challenges typically come by way of the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protections clause.

As originally written and passed, the Equal Protection clause was meant to be applied intra state, not inter state. Only after 1954 (Brown vs Board of Education) was it thus applied. At least as I was taught. That makes it relatively recent (to me, any year falling within my lifetime is relatively recent).

The only thing keeping the inter state interpretation in place now is stare decisis. It certainly wasn't the intent nor the original interpretation. And, as we have seen previously, that can change. That's what originalism brings you.

As originally written and passed, the Equal Protection clause was meant to be applied intra state, not inter state.

I don't understand that sentence. If what you say is true, what are the consequences? If you're saying equal protection of the Constitution does not apply within a state ...

However, the Equal Protection meant that when a citizen from New Jersey was in Georgia that had the exact same rights and a citizen of Georgia while in Georgia, and the same applied to all of the other states.

What you say is true but doesn't cover completely what the Amendment requires. A state legislature could not deny to any citizen within it's jurisdiction any privilege or immunity (however defined). Once a law was validly passed, the state or its agents could not arbitrarily enforce it against any person within the state's jurisdiction without violating the Equal Protection Clause. It didn't matter if the citizen in question was a resident of the state or not. More often than not, the protection was for residents of the individual state. But you're correct that non residents were also covered.

At the time of passage, the population, especially in Southern states, considered themselves more a citizen of the state than of the country. A good example of the feelings at the time was Robert E. Lee. He turned down Lincoln's offer of command of all Union forces due to his loyalty to Virginia, which also compelled him to resign from the U.S. Army. Nowadays, that feeling isn't quite as strong. But at the time, this is what the Amendment was dealing with.

I don't understand that sentence. If what you say is true, what are the consequences? If you're saying equal protection of the Constitution does not apply within a state ...

Intra state means within the state; inter state means across the states. I thought that was well known. My apologies for not recognizing that it was obscure.

It is the Constitution, not the Amendments, that ban states from passing laws that violate the provisions of the Constitution.

The Constitution HAD to include the ban, otherwise each State could simply pass a law to counter any Federal Law they disliked, effectively opting-out of the Federal Law. Such a farce would make Federal Law unworkable.

otherwise each State could simply pass a law to counter any Federal Law they disliked,

That's something South Carolina tried just before the Civil War. I believe they called it "nullification" of federal law as it applied to South Carolina.

You are right. Article 6 of the Constitution, which went into effect on March 4, 1789, banned the states from creating laws that violated the provisions of the Constitution.

Not_a_ID ignores that fact and insists that it was the 14th Amendment, which was adopted on July 9, 1868, that banned the states from creating laws that violated the provisions of the Constitution.

I will just ignore any further fallacious opinions that he wishes to present on this matter.

I am speaking specifically about the 1st Amendment, which very clearly stated "Congress shall make no law..."

The States were incapable of violating the First Amendment as it was initially written/interpreted because they weren't Congress. Much like how in the modern interpretation, Google can't violate your 1st Amendment Rights because they're not the government.

States had to honor the 5th Amendment because that right wasn't hedged in any way. So violating the 5th Amendment would be unconstitutional and thus prohibited.

You're arguing a position which is invalid on its face. But I agree at this point, if you're not able to realize that, it's pointless to pursue this further.

In other words, if they don't allow EVERYONE free speech, only SOME people, then they ARE violating your First Amendment Rights.

Not really. They're in violation of United States Code, not the 1st Amendment.

States had to honor the 5th Amendment because that right wasn't hedged in any way.

Personally, I somewhat agree with you, the doctrine that until 14A Amendments 1-9 only applied to the federal government has no basis in the text of the constitution except as to 1A itself.

However, the doctrine you are so against, goes all the way back to the time of the ratification amendments 1-10.

As much as I agree with you, I recognize this as an unwinnable fight.

What started my posts was Not_a_ID's statements that the states had the right to make laws that violated the Constitution until the 14th Amendment was passed. I strongly disagree with those statements based on the prohibitions place on the states by Article 6 of the constitution.

Not what I said.

I said they had the ability to ignore The 1st Amendment, not the entire Constitution.

The reason they could was because the 1st Amendment restricted Congress, and Congress only.

I added the bold but earlier you said.

As we continue circling the drain on this:

Are there any amendments beyond the 1st Amendment that contains the verbiage "Congress shall make no law" besides the 1st Amendment that I missed?

In 1796, The United States Congress could not make a law that violated the 1st Amendment, but a state could.

As was pointed out as just one example(there are others), Massachusetts had a state religion, by law, for another 20+ years after that. It didn't go away by (Federal) court ruling, the thing that ended it was decisions within the state.

Personally, I somewhat agree with you, the doctrine that until 14A Amendments 1-9 only applied to the federal government has no basis in the text of the constitution except as to 1A itself.

What?

Amendments 2 through 9 applied to the states as well. 10th Amendment being N/A for the states, as it reserved all other rights to them.

Only the 1st Amendment clearly stipulated that Congress was the entity being restricted by that amendment.

Amendments 2 through 9 applied to the states as well.

No, none of them were applied to the states by the federal courts until AFTER 14A was ratified. And incorporation against the states was done piecemeal, one amendment at a time. 2A was determined to apply to the states less than a decade ago.

I agree with you, that the doctrine that amendments 2-9 don't apply to the states in their own right is atexual and wrong. But that doctrine does exist and it goes all the way back to the ratification of amendments 2-9. And it was accepted by the federal courts, all the way up to SCOTUS.

That's what states are doing by legalizing pot even though it's against Federal law.

My comment was on the Law as it was written and intended, not on the clusterfuck it has devolved into.

Which has widely been interpreted to mean "The Constitution previously granted these rights at the federal level. Section 1 of this amendment now grants them at the state and local levels.

Current "equal protection of the law" interpretation is nowheres near the intent of the Amendment's authors. Originally, this was meant to guard against state laws targeting former slaves by selective enforcement/non enforcement. The only thing keeping it in place will be stare decisis. Which is entirely likely to keep Roe v Wade in place given the fealty to said principle voiced by Kavanaugh in his confirmation hearing. Eventually, we shall see.

ETA: for misspelling

Maybe. As I said, we'll see.

Which has widely been interpreted to mean "The Constitution previously granted these rights at the federal level. Section 1 of this amendment now grants them at the state and local levels.

But that's not how SCOTUS has interpreted it. In point of fact, SCOTUS has been quite explicit in that they incorporated the bill of rights against the states under 14A's due process clause, and not on the basis of the privileges or immunities clause.

And that was reinforced with the Northwest Ordinance Act of 1787

However the Northwest Ordnance predated the constitution's writing by 2 or 3 months. At the time the US was under the Articles of Confederation.

But that's today. The general thinking is the current Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade. If that happens, what's next? Miller v California?

The same thing happened with the US income tax. It was ruled unconstitutional until a stacked Supreme Court reversed the previous ruling.

The same thing happened with the US income tax. It was ruled unconstitutional until a stacked Supreme Court reversed the previous ruling.

I was under the impression that it was not a stacked Supreme Court that approved a U.S. income tax, but that the constitution itself was amended. The 16th amendment is what overruled the previous Supreme Court ruling.

The 16th amendment is what overruled the previous Supreme Court ruling.

You are correct. I should have known better than to post that without verifying it first.
Thank you for setting me straight.

I was under the impression that it was not a stacked Supreme Court that approved a U.S. income tax, but that the constitution itself was amended. The 16th amendment is what overruled the previous Supreme Court ruling.

That was my understanding as well. They didn't like the SCotUS ruling, so they amended the Constitution, SCotUS changes its tune after new law had been passed. As a court should do.

The 16th Amendment to the US Constitution permitted the income tax. Previous attempts were struck down by SCOTUS.

The same thing happened with the US income tax. It was ruled unconstitutional until a stacked Supreme Court reversed the previous ruling.

If you don't want to know history, nobody -- except schoolteachers when you are subject to them -- will compel you to. When you don't know history, it is unwise to post on it.

The income tax was declared unconstitutional (on what I consider a wrong reading of history), then a constitutional amendment was passed to make it legal.

If you don't want to know history, nobody -- except schoolteachers when you are subject to them -- will compel you to. When you don't know history, it is unwise to post on it.

The income tax was declared unconstitutional (on what I consider a wrong reading of history), then a constitutional amendment was passed to make it legal.

American History was a favorite subject of mine in both high school and college even it it wasn't my major in college. Your first paragraph is spot on.

Your second paragraph suggests that you know that an income tax per se was not prohibited by the Constitution. Proof of that can be seen in the Revenue Act of 1861, an income tax that funded the Civil War for the U.S.

What the Constitution prohibited was any direct tax that was non proportional among the states as based on population. Therefore, any national tax had to be collected from individual states in the same relative ratio as population among the states, something quite unwieldy. What Amendment XVI removed was that particular requirement. Just read it and you'll see. But read the relevant sections of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, clause 4) first.

The provisions stated were one of the reason for requiring a Census every 10 years. And here I bet everyone thought that government greed was a modern phenomenon. :)

ETA: for misspelling

Pretty much what Jim said. Federal revenues up to that point were mostly taxation on foreign trade(tariffs) and associated fees. Beyond that, it was the government sending a bill back to the respective states and the states determining how they were going to pay for it.

Direct taxation of the population, outside of a declared war(which IIRC, SCotUS made an exception for), was a no-go.

My purpose was to confirm that the income tax was never unconstitutional. Hope I succeeded in that.

It was my impression that the income tax, prior to amending the constitution, had to be levied against the states - not the individual. Thus Virginia (one of the largest states very early on by population) and one of the smaller ones had to be the same total income tax - and that was burdensome on individuals in the states with smaller populations.
It was a part of the basis for giving each state - regardless of population - two senators each; and thus each state would be taxed the same on the income tax. The 16th amendment changed the income tax - but not the number of senators.
of course, I could be wrong about this, but it is what I remember.

The second section that I mentioned, Aricle 1, Section 9, clause 4, specifies no direct tax to be levied unless based on te Census or Enumeration. I don't know how else to interpret that other than proportional to population.

@Uther_Pendragon

If you don't want to know history, nobody -- except schoolteachers when you are subject to them -- will compel you to. When you don't know history, it is unwise to post on it.

The income tax was declared unconstitutional (on what I consider a wrong reading of history), then a constitutional amendment was passed to make it legal.

American History was a favorite subject of mine in both high school and college even it it wasn't my major in college. Your first paragraph is spot on.

@Uther_Pendragon

"except schoolteachers when you are subject to them"

I went to school in the deep, anti-Supreme Court, South and that is where I was taught, not only what I posted but also that African-Americans were an inferior species and glorified the KKK, from text books approved by that State.

After Potomac Bob politely pointed out my error I looked it up, I thank him for setting me straight on something else they deliberately got wrong.

"except schoolteachers when you are subject to them"

I went to school in the deep, anti-Supreme Court, South and that is where I was taught, not only what I posted but also that African-Americans were an inferior species and glorified the KKK, from text books approved by that State.

You make a good point. That's why college was so valuable; it allowed (even encouraged) self exploration of a subject much more so than high school. At least when I matriculated (in the pre internet days). I understand that isn't the case any longer as nowadays most colleges appear to be more indoctrination centers than learning centers. But inquisitive students can still explore on their own if they're so inclined.

Self study is still the best way to learn.

except schoolteachers when you are subject to them"

I went to school in the deep, anti-Supreme Court, South and that is where I was taught, not only what I posted but also that African-Americans were an inferior species and glorified the KKK, from text books approved by that State.

After Potomac Bob politely pointed out my error I looked it up, I thank him for setting me straight on something else they deliberately got wrong.

I do not recognize the south you speak of unless it was parts of Alabama or Mississippi.

The hyphenated Americans is a problem. Either your American or you're not except in one specific case. That being Native-American. Even then it is due to the pseudo-nations inside another nation known as reservations.

Your post reads like you believe 'that' south is still in existence. You don't actually believe that do you? Further, you make it sound as if there is no racism elsewhere in the country. That is simply BS. Some of the worst racist I've ever come across were found in the N.E.

I am a pure half and half or mutt. One side was all first and second generation German, the other were all Cherokee. Racism to me is not being pure enough for the Natives, white enough for the Anglos, dark enough for the blacks, the wrong set of cheekbones and eyes for the Asians, and too White for the Hispanics. The mutts like me know of what I'm speaking.

In the last two decades, I found myself particularly disgusted with the turn of PC/hyphenated America. Do people truly believe that the hyphenation isn't racism itself? Are the hyphenated people's so weak that they cannot stand on their own needing big brother to protect them? Are not those same hyphens human like everyone else on the planet?

Racism will never end as long as people recognize others as anything other than human.

when they're the ones being excluded from everything

And idiots are alive and well

I think of it as Racism will end when people stop identifying with their racial heritage and just accept others as people.

Sadly, humans have a way of disappointing in that regard. They'll just find a new thing to use in order to discriminate against others.

Used to be that Race was a good way to delineate "tribe" at the most basic level.

Racisim is little more than a symptom of tribalism in action. The only question is how somebody decides to go about defining "their tribe."

Edit to add: When you get down to it, when/if you actually bother to interact with a "racist" in the older useage, you'll find those people are some of the most tribal people out there. And their "tribe" is 99 times out of 100 defined a LOT more narrowly defined than simply "you have white skin, you must be okay."

Used to be that Race was a good way to delineate "tribe" at the most basic level.

Tribe is a heck of a lot more 'basic level' than race.

Tribe is a heck of a lot more 'basic level' than race.

Hence the whole:

When you get down to it, when/if you actually bother to interact with a "racist" in the older useage, you'll find those people are some of the most tribal people out there. And their "tribe" is 99 times out of 100 defined a LOT more narrowly defined than simply "you have white skin, you must be okay."

They just use Race as the first filter they pass things through in order to determine if you're "part of the tribe" or not.

In rural Alabama back around 1900, being Black meant you had a rough life. But they weren't alone in that. Being Catholic put you in a bad spot with the locals, as would being a Mormon, a Jew, a homosexual, or a Republican.

Yes, they treated blacks like shit, but it wasn't just the blacks. The others simply had a few more opportunities to try to blend in because "the first filter for tribal membership" didn't work as well on them.

But that's today. The general thinking is the current Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade. If that happens, what's next? Miller v California?

That one comes down to how you view the fetus that is developing at the time of the abortion.

A fetus has grounds for claiming more legal standing in court regarding "harm to a minor(child)" than any work of fiction does.

Aside from a possible overturn of Roe v Wade, SCotUS tends to rule in favor of expanding individual rights over restricting them when it comes to upsetting previous precedent.

A fetas has grounds for claiming more legal standing in court

Could you give a single example of a foetus claiming anything in a courtroom..??

It would be possible for an adult to represent a foetus, but that person could not honestly claim to be acting upon the instructions of their client.

Granted they could claim to be acting "in the best interests" but that is pure conjecture at that point.

The 1st Amendment is only 1 sentence long

And there are paragraphs, that are shorter than that sentence.

I tell them they are flakes, but they tell me they are corn. Then the milk and juice jumps in and it's a free-for-all.

Swap to cheerios, much more realistic, a bowl full of little assholes...

Swap to cheerios, much more realistic, a bowl full of little assholes...

You have a point...

Honor, make speeches and run for election and many of the other things they do right now, but laws would not change from what we have now

Yes, to a point Congress could still change the law. How? Saying Congress shall make no law, does not say that Congress cannot unmake(repeal) law.

Saying Congress shall make no law, does not say that Congress cannot unmake(repeal) law.

Yes..!!

How about they repeal enough laws so that, "ignorance of the law is not defence", actually makes practical sense.??

Obviously won't happen, but then neither will the "ignorance" part be repealed. Farcical as it is.

Obviously won't happen, but then neither will the "ignorance" part be repealed. Farcical as it is.

Therein is one of the worst violations of intent to be found within US law in regards to innocent until proven guilty. Anyone who has ever spent any time actually reading the laws (code of federal regulations CFR for instance) will realize it's practically impossible to know or remember them all.

Every American citizen has violated one or more laws by the age of majority as a result. In most cases, it's a minor violation but still a violation.

Every American citizen has violated one or more laws by the age of majority as a result. In most cases, it's a minor violation but still a violation.

According to the book 'Three Felonies a Day' your estimate is very low,and many of the violations are not classified as minor crimes in terms of legal consequences.

According to the book 'Three Felonies a Day' your estimate is very low,and many of the violations are not classified as minor crimes in terms of legal consequences.

In many(if not most) states, going more than 15MPH over the speed limit qualifies as a felony level offense.

So doing 36MPH on a 20MPH school zone is probably one of the most commonly committed felonies on a given weekday.

In many(if not most) states, going more than 15MPH over the speed limit qualifies as a felony level offense.

I'd like to know what states you that is.

Note: Generally anything with a max sentence of 1 year or less is just a misdemeanor, not a felony.

I just checked for Wisconsin where I live. The maximum jail time for just speeding is 10 days. 25 MPH or more over the limit is automatically reckless driving, but even that is still just a misdemeanor with a max jail sentence of 1 year.

ETA: The only reference I can find for speeding as a felony is this:

https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/auto-accident/car-accident-claims/is-driving-over-100-mph-a-felony-offense

Driving over 100 mph may, under some circumstances, be a felony offense -- a crime punishable by fine or a year or more in jail. The categorization -- whether misdemeanor or felony -- depends on your state's speeding law, whether this is your first, second, or third high-speed offense, whether you had passengers, whether there was an accident, whether you were driving recklessly (other than excessive speeding), and where the speeding occurred. The more factors that stack up against you, the stiffer the fine and more likely of the felony categorization.

I'd like to know what states you that is.

Note: Generally anything with a max sentence of 1 year or less is just a misdemeanor, not a felony.

I just checked for Wisconsin where I live. The maximum jail time for just speeding is 10 days. 25 MPH or more over the limit is automatically reckless driving, but even that is still just a misdemeanor with a max jail sentence of 1 year.

It was coming from memory off of a speeding ticket I acquired back around 2004. Looks like the code for that state has changed, or the ticket printer was in error. I wasn't ticketed for that, but it WAS a field available on the ticket where it said 15+ MPH over could be classed as a felony level offense.

Reckless driving, which can be an adjunct to speeding for that state, is in their state code as a misdemeanor with up to 90 days in jail, license suspension or revocation, etc.

Edit: That said, for a CDL Holder in particular, 15+ over is essentially a DUI for them. They're also subject to a federal minimum for DUI which is lower than some states. IIRC, that applies whether they're in a commercial vehicle or not.

According to the book 'Three Felonies a Day' your estimate is very low,and many of the violations are not classified as minor crimes in terms of legal consequences.

I personally believe it's more than three on any given day. However, if I said that in context of the post you quoted, some armchair lawyer would come along and want to argue.

Aside from the obvious laws broken everyday (the aforementioned speeding laws etc), there are the subjective combination laws. Those are not so obvious. Gasoline, household chemicals, etc storage and usage for example. The average Joe and Jane doesn't bother reading the fine print on them. Fertilizer + diesel fuel, ammonia + vinegar, that kind of thing. A person could write for a year of Sundays and never cover all the potential. One false accusation + possession of those otherwise legal substances and you find yourself in a deep hole legally.

How many people have ever transferred one of those substances to an unapproved container?

Another big one is tax returns.

Then there are the antiquated or otherwise severally obscure laws.

Every major country and most minor ones in the world have such gotcha laws on the books. Usually the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" only comes out when you've pissed off someone in power or you have something they want.

as well as shifting big rocks

The mining industry uses a lot of anfo (ammonium nitrate + fuel oil AKA fertilizer + diesel fuel). In addition to shifting big rocks, it's very useful for turning big rocks into little rocks.

Dry ice works better for clearing burrows like that.

and a lot dearer in rural Australia

I was unaware of that, thanks for pointing it out.

After some research, I find rural Australia isn't the only place with the problem. More specifically, it's the Co2 gas dry ice is made from that is suffering/suffered shortages in other places around the planet. The worst of it being in the UK.

From a call I've made, my Praxair contact is telling me it's gearing up to happen again/get worse along with some other industrial gases.

Maybe this should be in story ideas, but what would happen if Congress could make no law?

Another idea along this line is Congress actually assuming the authority granted it in the Constitution. Not many know that Congress can make laws or a category of laws off limits to judicial review. It's there and said power has been reviewed judcially and repeatedly upheld. Starting with the Marshall court and coming all the way to the end of the 19th century.
Think, for example, of Congress passing a law to make judicial review of, say, immigration laws off limits. To chose just one example in the present. There are others out there so the field would be fertile.

I suspect it would be difficult to get a law through Congress taking away the judicial power of judges to review the law.
I've seen a televised debate on this issue - where so-called experts took one side or the other and had at each other. The thing that struck me about the debate was that regardless of the side they took, they all believed that Congress could prevent the judiciary from interpreting the law - but could not take away the judiciary's power to review its constitutionality.

The thing that struck me about the debate was that regardless of the side they took, they all believed that Congress could prevent the judiciary from interpreting the law - but could not take away the judiciary's power to review its constitutionality.

That was my understanding also but it seems a little, how to say, unpractical to me. If the law if off limits per Congressional (and Presidential) action, how does it get to the courts to begin the process?

That power to negate review isn't without limit to my understanding. Congress can't pass an unconstitional law, e.g. abrogating Amendment V and shield it from review. So I suppose mechanisms exist for getting it before the courts.

Another interesting clause permits Congress to issue Letters of Marque to private entities. It's in the clause giving Congress the authority to declare war and reads:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

The only example that I know of for certain is Jean Lafitte back in the early 1800s. Remember the history of the Battle of New Orleans when he fought there? He was a pirate preying on shipping before that.

Maybe that it how the contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan are authorized. Anyhow, it seems a way to raise a private army and navy if need be.

Anyhow, that would be an interesting story.

Another interesting clause permits Congress to issue Letters of Marque to private entities. It's in the clause giving Congress the authority to declare war and reads:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Maybe that it how the contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan are authorized. Anyhow, it seems a way to raise a private army and navy if need be.

Anyhow, THAT would be an interesting story.

I would certainly be interested in reading a story like that - set in the 21st century.