Politicians don’t want to spend tax money (not their money but they find ways to make it theirs) on mental health.
They’ll do it for prisons but not schools nor long term psychiatric care.
If the same funds that used to be spend for long term care was spend on community mental health programs, simple outpatient facilities mental and wellness programs, I think you’d see less problems caused by the unstable.
The problem isn’t precisely the loss of institutions: it’s the loss of mental health as a managed aspect of communities, whether institution or outpatient.
In short: the money’s not spend on mental health anymore, not unless you’re of the correct class. Then the funds show up.
====
Shifting blame around doesn’t help anything Jeff.
Fed, State, County, City or Borough, whether wellnsss programs, out-patient or full-time institution care, it’s expensive and nobody wants to pay.
===
Here’s the thing: untreated mental health finds its way into the criminal courts.
Criminal courts operate on city, county, state and federal levels.
I’ll see what the Supreme Court’s rulings on mental health and crime are.
====
The Supreme Court has ruled several times on Mental Health issues, first in 1972 :
====
The reason the Federal stepped into mental health in 1972 is that due process was not followed by State Institutional care facilities.
Due Process *is* a Federal issue, so thus mental health is also a Federal issue.
—–
Do you believe in balance of powers? Or do you treat each aspect of govt as independent agents at war with each other, with winners and losers?
====
Yes. Also, the USA is a hybrid of Federalist and Confederalist.
===
Madison is dead and much precedent has been set since 1789 then that is within the spirit of the founders. A mix of judicial philosophies through the centuries has kept our law in line.Or do you want to scorch centuries of growth and start over?
====
You want to scorch time and start over.
====
What’s static? govt? No. You’d be better off joining a commune and instituting your ideals there.I admire what you’re wanting believe it or not but returning to 1789 is fantasy football..
====
Ok. Since this part of the historical Timeline is your area of expertise – I will give you credit where it’s due – and my TARDIS hasn’t visited that time period as much as yours has: WHEN and in what event did America go wrong?
====
I answered but you rejected its modernity. So I can’t answer again unless I know which year I can no longer use information from.
======
If I can only go up to 1791 and no further for it all went to hell in 1792, then tell me.I’m in the USA of 2018 and all that came since 1791.You’re in a 1791 USA. Help me adjust to your thinking. You say you know “their intent” but you’re ALSO interpreting.
====
At which point did the Supreme Court become invalid?
At which point did lawmakers go astray?
At which land purchase was a mistake?
At which point did lawmakers go astray?
At which land purchase was a mistake?
=====
Ok. So who screwed it up?
—
I can’t invalidate 200+ yrs of change. I will for your fantasy but first I need to know who / what event screwed it a up.
=====
Look, I’m a simple guy. I don’t like what I see in how govt does things and have my beefs.But I can’t ignore 200+ yrs of history. If you want me to for this discussion, I will, but i have to know when it all went wrong.Scalia was and we are benefitting from the 200+ yrs since. If you want to cut away and remove what’s been accomplished, good and bad since 1791, when do I start? What year?
====
This is historical roleplaying to deny 200 yrs of change.
====
I’m looking up “when did the USA stop following the constitution” but not having much luck.
=====
Is it like pornography? “I don’t know how to define not following the Constitution, but I’ll know it when I see it”?
=====
You can convert me to your beliefs. I’m listening. But you need a better sales pitch.
====
Thank you Pat. Really, I do want to understand where the Constitutionalists are coming from. It all sounds tempting: Go back to original documentation.But I see 200+ yrs of 9th Amendment growth that I can’t wish away and I consider everything we’ve done as a country, liberal and conservative alike, as bringing us to where we are today. More good than bad.Still, I’d like to understand their thinking.
=====
You asked me to research and so I am. I found your perspective and am reading up on it.
====
Ok, I have my one answer: 1803 is when Jeff S Howard thinks the USA went astray.Marbury v Madison.”Although Article III does not confer the power of judicial review, in marbury v. madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803), the Supreme Court ruled that it is “emphatically the duty” of the federal “judicial department to say what the law is” by “resolving the operation” of congressional legislation that conflicts with the paramount law of the U.S. Constitution. Marbury thus emphasized the traditional role of courts as oracles of the law; however, it provided little guidance on how courts should interpret and apply the particular provisions of the Constitution.”Now I’m curious which rulings were Originalist interpretation and which were not.Stack up the Originalist interpretations and throw away the rest, and you have Originalist USA.
=====
Oof, this *is* interesting.Totally different perspective than I’m accustomed to.” The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison committed an illegal takeover of the government and Constitution by granting itself the unilateral and unchecked power to declare the acts of Congress or President illegal and unenforceable. This may sound like an arcane point, but it is not. Marbury v. Madison has granted the Courts virtually dictatorial powers to controvert the will of the People and to act in the manner of a despot.”woof. That’s where “Supreme Court Oligarchy” came from.Still not buying what he’s selling but I’m learning.
====
I doubt I’ll be convinced but I’ve come across Originalists many times in my 29 yrs online (since 1989) but I could never make heads or tails HOW they could ignore organic law.Finally, tonight, I’m going to make sense of it. I’m Progressive. I’m your enemy, Jeff. I’m probably even the evil L I B E R A L (whatever that’s supposed to be).But if I can at least understand somewhat of your perspective and where, historically, it came from, I’ll at least be a tad more sympathetic.– I know of the Federalist and Anti Federalist Papers – but to me that’s all sword and shield fight stuff.I want to know how the law went. 1803 Marbury vs Madison is the key.
====
Ok, that debate article was helpful. In this debate, I side solidly with Arnold Loewy. I read Charles Moster’s points and am not convinced.“This week, Arnold Loewy and Charles Moster debate over the U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison. Moster is a former litigation attorney in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidential administrations who has offices in Lubbock, Amarillo and Midland, and Loewy is the George Killiam Professor of Law at Texas Tech School of Law.
=====
Right, but here’s a problem, pointed out by Arnold Loewy:If a city or state decides that individuals cannot have firearms in their homes, there would be nobody to stop them. No supreme court to decide Constitutionality because that right would not be theirs to decide.
====
and eliminate every case decided by the Supreme Court.You’d have to because they would not be granted the powers to decide constitutionality. Only the State court decisions would hold.
====
Ah, look at this one :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois“The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States”If the Supreme Court did not have the power it had, it could not decide in favor of individual right to bear arms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois“The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States”If the Supreme Court did not have the power it had, it could not decide in favor of individual right to bear arms.
====
Nobody would be there to fight for you either Jeff.
=====
NRA couldn’t take anything to the Supreme Court on 2ndA issues with states rulings.
====
That’s an interpretation among others.
Who has the power to decide what’s the correct one?In your world? Nobody.
Who has the power to decide what’s the correct one?In your world? Nobody.
=====
If a State has a different interpretation, nobody can stop them. All you could do is wait for the next election cycle.
====
I know Jefferson’s words. Brilliant man. Maybe right, I dunno. But I know that you would have NO recourse on State tyranny.If the State says, “THIS is how the Constitution is to be interpretated” and you don’t like it, you can’t “take it to the Supreme Court”.All you could do is wait until the next election cycle and vote in people who appoint State judges who interpret the Constitution your way.As it stands, you have FAR more protection with the supreme court as it is.
If you don’t like how it’s ruling, rally for more Originalist judges.
—–
They do on all of them. If there’s a problem, SOMEBODY takes it to the Supreme Court.
====
Have I? I’m saying I find the Supreme Court’s ability to decide is a power worth keeping.
====
Wouldn’t matter. If a State says otherwise, you’d have no place to go.
===
If you want 9 Scalias, as much as I’d cringe, I’ll take it over elimination of their ability to watch over State law’s constitutional strayings.
====
So, if the State judges can interpret State Constitutions, the Federal judges can interpret Federal Constitution. The States have State Judicial Review so the Federal must have Federal Judicial Review.
Without this power, there’s no enforcement of the US Constitution possible.
====