PDA

View Full Version : What a Weird World BEP and TJ Live In


Pages : [1] 2

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:08 AM
I don't mean this as insulting, but this latest debate has only brought home how incredibly odd it must be to rail against the world in the manner that super-strict libertarians seem to.

Everything about our system of governance is totally wrong. The Supreme Court hasn't gotten one right in at least 60 years, and maybe longer. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were the worst Presidents we ever had. Ending slavery was a good result, but done in a totally incorrect way and unconstitutional way that should have resulted in Lincoln's impeachment. Slavery was legal so what's the problem anyway. Everything we've ever done since the day after the Constitution was ratified has been an illegal and unconstitutional expansion of federal power.

It goes on and on.

mlyonsd
03-20-2008, 08:11 AM
Now you've done it.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 08:16 AM
Ah says the poster who feels America should have had a parliamentary system instead.
Couldn't get more polar opposites if you ask me, especially from one of the most legitimate wars ever fought in our history to get away from such ideas. Let's face it Amn you're just another big govt guy and we're not. Oh! And traditional limited-govt conservatives agree with most of these things too. I am not a libertarian.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 08:21 AM
Uh oh...

Looks like we've drawn the ire of the socialists who demand we interpret the constitution from a perspective that ignores the doctrine of enumerated powers.

The Constitution says anything you want it to if you look at it like that.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 08:22 AM
Tee-Hee! Someone's having emotional difficulty with disagreement or other ideas.
Tar n' feather them then!

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 08:24 AM
Wonder when Amn's side-kick will arrive to join the tarrin'?
This is better than a Stalinist purge!
I thought liberals were well liberals—open to new or other ideas especially on liberty.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 08:26 AM
What a ****ing cheap shot artist. I can see TC pulling this sort of low ball tactic when losing a debate. I didn't imagine Amnorix would do it.

Absolutely no honor.

NewChief
03-20-2008, 08:27 AM
It appears that TJ and BEP are going to take this thread to 100 just muttering to themselves in post form.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:28 AM
Ah says the poster who feels America should have had a parliamentary system instead.

While I don't object to the parliamentary system per se, I've never said this. Our system works fine.

Couldn't get more polar opposites if you ask me, especially from one of the most legitimate wars ever fought in our history to get away from such ideas. Let's face it Amn you're just another big govt guy and we're not. Oh! And traditional limited-govt conservatives agree with most of these things too. I am not a libertarian.


It's not that -- I've argued time and again with Patteeu and Brock and many many others here, going back to some cataclysmic wars with KCWolfman years ago.

It's your fundamental rejection if nearly everything that the vast majority of (1) historians, (2) Constitutional scholars, and (3) economists believe that boggles my mind. If it was just one of those groups, fine, but it's all 3.

I don't mind disagreement. Heck, it's the reason why we're on this forum. But it just struck me now how odd your worldview must be. While I'm sure you have active forums, etc., rest assured that you're more or less in the Flat Earth Society.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 08:28 AM
Look at the generalities in it too: "everything" about our system of governance is wrong.
LMAO No most of our system of original govt is right, and we want it back!

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:29 AM
What a ****ing cheap shot artist. I can see TC pulling this sort of low ball tactic when losing a debate. I didn't imagine Amnorix would do it.

Absolutely no honor.


Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick. Adn I'm not losing the debate. I'm sure you disagree, but htat's fine.

I'm just saying that it only occured to me just now (maybe I"m slow on the uptake) that you're in fundamental disagreemetn with the overhwleming majority views on all of US history, mainstream economic theory, and mainstream Constitutional interpretation.

Noen of that makes me right. Maybe you guys have it all right and we're all wrong. That's fine. But it didn't hit home until now just how fringe-y you are (in my opinion) on all of these major subject matters.

FD
03-20-2008, 08:30 AM
I've wondered about this myself. They must look around and see nothing but horrors and usurpations for practically our whole history, and yet we seem to be doing pretty well as a nation.

Of course this can be reconciled by repeatedly predicting collapse and doom that will never come.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 08:30 AM
It appears that TJ and BEP are going to take this thread to 100 just muttering to themselves in post form.

Why not! This is fun. And we get to defend ourselves. I guess some people would prefer a kangaroo court instead?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Stalin1.jpg/185px-Stalin1.jpg

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:31 AM
Look at the generalities in it too: "everything" about our system of governance is wrong.
LMAO No most of our system of original govt is right, and we want it back!


I know you agree witht he Founders concept, but the way we practice governance in America now is basically almost entirely wrong.

If I understand you correct, based on our many arguments, you would say that the vast majority of government spending is unconstitutional, and that a very very large percentage (majority) of government programs are unconstitutional. I imagine you would also axe many federal cabinet agencies, etc.

No?

NewChief
03-20-2008, 08:32 AM
Why not! This is fun. And we get to defend ourselves. I guess some people would prefer a kangaroo court instead?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Stalin1.jpg/185px-Stalin1.jpg

You'd be a lot more effective if you didn't throw your little Stalin accusations around at the slightest hint of anything. It's just weird after a while.

Donger
03-20-2008, 08:33 AM
But it didn't hit home until now just how fringe-y you are (in my opinion) on all of these major subject matters.

Welcome.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 08:34 AM
To answer the question though:

I live in a world in which socialism has taken over both parties - one party delights in dragging the country further and further into a socialist abyss, while the other has given up and uses its power only to get as much money out of the system as possible in order to call themselves "effective" politicians. And anyone who stands for conservative principles gets laughed at by both parties for not going along with the charade, for arguing against the popular public education version of American history, where anyone who advances the cause of socialism gets heaped with praise, and anyone who advocated to maintain a constitutional republic gets scorned.

It bothers me that our forefathers shed their blood to make us free men, and that their sacrifice gets scoffed at in favor of making everyone slaves to a socialist system where the fruits of their labor are stolen from them, and redistributed through a socialist welfare system. That's not liberty.

Donger
03-20-2008, 08:34 AM
You'd be a lot more effective if you didn't throw your little Stalin accusations around at the slightest hint of anything. It's just weird after a while.

It seems rather clear that BEP is pretty sexually frustrated.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:35 AM
Welcome.

Yeah, slow me. I knew it, but I'd never tied it all together that it was ALL of these areas.

I feel like I should ask if they think the sun rises in the East. Maybe they disagree on the laws of physics as well? :shrug: :D

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 08:36 AM
To answer the question though:

I live in a world in which socialism has taken over both parties - one party delights in dragging the country further and further into a socialist abyss, while the other has given up and uses its power only to get as much money out of the system as possible in order to call themselves "effective" politicians. And anyone who stands for conservative principles gets laughed at by both parties for not going along with the charade, for arguing against the popular public education version of American history, where anyone who advances the cause of socialism gets heaped with praise, and anyone who advocated to maintain a constitutional republic gets scorned.

It bothers me that our forefathers shed their blood to make us free men, and that their sacrifice gets scoffed at in favor of making everyone slaves to a socialist system where the fruits of their labor are stolen from them, and redistributed through a socialist welfare system. That's not liberty.

:thumb: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Yup and Donger is a liberal too.

siberian khatru
03-20-2008, 08:36 AM
http://www.airsoftscotland.com/acatalog/Mk2grenade.jpg

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:37 AM
To answer the question though:

I live in a world in which socialism has taken over both parties - one party delights in dragging the country further and further into a socialist abyss, while the other has given up and uses its power only to get as much money out of the system as possible in order to call themselves "effective" politicians. And anyone who stands for conservative principles gets laughed at by both parties for not going along with the charade, for arguing against the popular public education version of American history, where anyone who advances the cause of socialism gets heaped with praise, and anyone who advocated to maintain a constitutional republic gets scorned.

It bothers me that our forefathers shed their blood to make us free men, and that their sacrifice gets scoffed at in favor of making everyone slaves to a socialist system where the fruits of their labor are stolen from them, and redistributed through a socialist welfare system. That's not liberty.


I got your neg rep, which of course I will be returning per my standard practice of quid pro quo.

Drop thsi thread and go back to the other, although I think we're more or less done with that debate. Clearly, your concept of strict constructionism doesn't apply when you don't like the obvious result.

But I'll kick your ass here or there, let me know.

pikesome
03-20-2008, 08:37 AM
I know you agree witht he Founders concept, but the way we practice governance in America now is basically almost entirely wrong.

If I understand you correct, based on our many arguments, you would say that the vast majority of government spending is unconstitutional, and that a very very large percentage (majority) of government programs are unconstitutional. I imagine you would also axe many federal cabinet agencies, etc.

No?

I'm not BEP but if you take a strict interp of the Constitution, the only things the Fed Gov is allowed to do are those spelled out. If this is your position it makes most of our government programs illegal, unconstitutional, whatever.

I'm not willing (exactly) to argue that's the right position but it's case where a relatively logical position invalidates a lot of our current system in one fell swoop.

Donger
03-20-2008, 08:38 AM
Seems I was pretty accurate.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 08:45 AM
I'm not BEP but if you take a strict interp of the Constitution, the only things the Fed Gov is allowed to do are those spelled out. If this is your position it makes most of our government programs illegal, unconstitutional, whatever.

I'm not willing (exactly) to argue that's the right position but it's case where a relatively logical position invalidates a lot of our current system in one fell swoop.

That's really the point. Not only that but the Constitution always had a mechanism in it to make some of those things legal. Tough to do perhaps but that was the idea: not to water it down easily. It's actually a barrier to socialism because it requires expansion of central power.

banyon
03-20-2008, 08:46 AM
:thumb: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Yup and Donger is a liberal too.

Thanks for completely validating Amnorix's original post in this thread with yet another ridiculously indefensible position.

How can Donger and I both be liberals and disagree fundamentally on nearly everything? Oh yeah, you just use that to mean "people who disagree with me".

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 08:47 AM
Ahhh! I LOVE the ignore feature!

banyon
03-20-2008, 08:49 AM
Ahhh! I LOVE the ignore feature!

Seems I was pretty accurate.

Indeed. Welcome to the ever-growing club. Pretty soon, she'll only be able to see TJ's posts. Maybe they should just pm so she'd never have to see anyone who disagreed with her zany ideas.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 08:52 AM
It is important to include all the constraints that a strict interpretation gives us. For example Corporations technically are extensions of government power by granting limited or contractual arrangements to entities not explicitly noted in the Constitution.

As way of defense, I do think there is an undercurrent or assumption on everyone's part to maximize individual choice and freedom. But in a nation of 300 million, I don't see how that is obtained without negotiation and agreement that will have containment on some fronts of liberty in order to maximize the overall well being. It is the hallmark of human existence to find ways of cooperation and to do so with consideration of others, (not represented in strict Natural Selection biological strategies among even the apes).

The fact we do have process that includes tension between diverse sets of interest is itself the guarantee that things are responsive if not to the degree any individual wishes on any particular front.

Donger
03-20-2008, 08:56 AM
Thanks for completely validating Amnorix's original post in this thread with yet another ridiculously indefensible position.

How can Donger and I both be liberals and disagree fundamentally on nearly everything? Oh yeah, you just use that to mean "people who disagree with me".

Shuddup pinko.

penchief
03-20-2008, 08:57 AM
It is important to include all the constraints that a strict interpretation gives us. For example Corporations technically are extensions of government power by granting limited or contractual arrangements to entities not explicitly noted in the Constitution.

As way of defense, I do think there is an undercurrent or assumption on everyone's part to maximize individual choice and freedom. But in a nation of 300 million, I don't see how that is obtained without negotiation and agreement that will have containment on some fronts of liberty in order to maximize the overall well being. It is the hallmark of human existence to find ways of cooperation and to do so with consideration of others, (not represented in strict Natural Selection biological strategies among even the apes).

The fact we do have process that includes tension between diverse sets of interest is itself the guarantee that things are responsive if not to the degree any individual wishes on any particular front.

You'd better watch out. TJ an BEP will start lumping you in with me. And nobody wants that.

Donger
03-20-2008, 08:57 AM
Indeed. Welcome to the ever-growing club. Pretty soon, she'll only be able to see TJ's posts. Maybe they should just pm so she'd never have to see anyone who disagreed with her zany ideas.

The funny part is that my little jab was a test. I believe she had me on ignore previously.

Why would one take someone off ignore?

pikesome
03-20-2008, 09:03 AM
The funny part is that my little jab was a test. I believe she had me on ignore previously.

Why would one take someone off ignore?

Once Huard quit playing QB I took Hootie off ignore, that's the only person I've ever had on for more than a day or two.

patteeu
03-20-2008, 09:21 AM
I think the neo-isolationist, blame-America aspect of the Ron Paul candidacy has pushed some people further toward that particular fringe where finding fault in America and America's icons is a badge of honor. As a libertarian (albeit, one who tries to be somewhat pragmatic), I sympathize with some of the criticisms of Presidents like Lincoln and FDR and with the idea that much of our modern state ought to have required constitutional amendment to develop the way it has, but as out-of-mainstream as my views are, I'm struck by how strident some Ron Paul libertarians (i.e. anti-war libertarians) have become. The elevation of Wilson and TR to the same anti-libertarian status as Lincoln and FDR is something I don't remember being common before Ron Paul style opposition to the war and fearmongering about "neocons" became popular among some libertarians.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 09:26 AM
You could have just said "people who believe in the constitution are crazy."

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 09:32 AM
Ideologically rigid zealots serve as constant reminders of the dangers of the lunatic fringe in politics.

They serve a useful purpose, reminding the rest of society of the dangers of extremism.

Kinda like an ugly endangered species display at the zoo. ;)

StcChief
03-20-2008, 09:36 AM
yeah. it's too bad the fringe are treated as an endangered species.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 09:47 AM
yeah. it's too bad the fringe are treated as an endangered species.


We have ourselves to blame for that, but I suppose it's just human nature.

I mean, it's like reality television, rubber-necking as we drive by a horrendous accident, our fascination with Britney Spears or Paris Hilton. Americans are drawn toward stupid and silly assed stuff. This is just another example. It's why O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, Limbaugh, and Michael Moore are all rich.

;)

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 10:02 AM
I think the neo-isolationist, blame-America aspect of the Ron Paul candidacy has pushed some people further toward that particular fringe where finding fault in America and America's icons is a badge of honor.
Ron Paul does not blame America. He blames certain ideas, factions and people in our govt—basically govt and power seekers in it. Hegemons, empire builders and such.
That is not America. America is her people. And they are anti-hegemon and generally anti-war.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 10:06 AM
Ron Paul does not blame America. He blames certain ideas, factions and people in our govt—basically govt and power seekers in it.
That is not America. America is her people.

And "her" people thinks Ron Paul is a loon. :)

banyon
03-20-2008, 10:08 AM
You could have just said "people who believe in the constitution are crazy."

How you don't see that this "if you don't agree with me then you don't believe in the Constitution" is just the obverse side of the coin from when you denigrate Tom Cash's "if you don't agree with me then you must be a cowardly draft dodger" is beyond me. They're both forms of appeal to abuse, yours just sounds smarter when you say it.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 10:11 AM
Shuddup pinko.


ROFL

StcChief
03-20-2008, 10:17 AM
We have ourselves to blame for that, but I suppose it's just human nature.

I mean, it's like reality television, rubber-necking as we drive by a horrendous accident, our fascination with Britney Spears or Paris Hilton. Americans are drawn toward stupid and silly assed stuff. This is just another example. It's why O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, Limbaugh, and Michael Moore are all rich.

;)
I don't watch staged reality TV.

why haven't we adapted the big black curtain for accidents like Japan. stop oil wasting rubber necking to cause another accident.

I've seen all I want (and that was too much of Britney/Paris cooter sluts A.W.s)

The journalists stir the pot for their own agenda to some degree.
and make people think, or hopefully inspire them to ask why.

I've never seen a Micheal Moore movie (no $$ from me).

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 10:18 AM
Now that I think about it, all of these areas do seem to flow of necessity from one another. If you're of a strong libertarian bent, then logical consistency would suggest that you are not only fixated on a very laissez-faire outlook regarding economics, but on non-interventionist government programs. That ties well with an (absurdly) strict reading of the Constitution, which then automatically flows into "Lincoln should have been IMPEACHED!!" outlook on history.

Apparently the positive results from these Presidencies gets ignored in the fixation on philosophical beliefs.

It is internally consistent, I'll grant that.

The problem is the absurdly awkward results it triggers. Lincoln freeing of the slaves comes under attack by those who supposedly uphold individual liberty as the highest, most sacred cause. Talk about ironic...

penchief
03-20-2008, 10:35 AM
The problem is the absurdly awkward results it triggers. Lincoln freeing of the slaves comes under attack by those who supposedly uphold individual liberty as the highest, most sacred cause. Talk about ironic...

Exactly the point I've been arguing with them for some time now.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 10:36 AM
I wondah where I ever said Lincoln should be impeached.
He was shot and his VP was impeached.

Lincoln only freed the slaves in secessionist states too.

Sounds like someone has a nwthunah's pov. I used to have the same pov too.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 10:40 AM
I don't watch staged reality TV.

why haven't we adapted the big black curtain for accidents like Japan. stop oil wasting rubber necking to cause another accident.

I've seen all I want (and that was too much of Britney/Paris cooter sluts A.W.s)

The journalists stir the pot for their own agenda to some degree.
and make people think, or hopefully inspire them to ask why.

I've never seen a Micheal Moore movie (no $$ from me).

I'm with you; but we are, apparently a minority in this country. :shrug:

:shake:

HonestChieffan
03-20-2008, 10:41 AM
This is all being recorded and monitored you know. The fringe is everywhere.

StcChief
03-20-2008, 10:51 AM
This is all being recorded and monitored you know. The fringe is everywhere.

but like old blue jeans, eventually you cut it off.

SNR
03-20-2008, 11:01 AM
Now that I think about it, all of these areas do seem to flow of necessity from one another. If you're of a strong libertarian bent, then logical consistency would suggest that you are not only fixated on a very laissez-faire outlook regarding economics, but on non-interventionist government programs. That ties well with an (absurdly) strict reading of the Constitution, which then automatically flows into "Lincoln should have been IMPEACHED!!" outlook on history.

Apparently the positive results from these Presidencies gets ignored in the fixation on philosophical beliefs.

It is internally consistent, I'll grant that.

The problem is the absurdly awkward results it triggers. Lincoln freeing of the slaves comes under attack by those who supposedly uphold individual liberty as the highest, most sacred cause. Talk about ironic...Just upfront, I agree that Lincoln was a terrible president in terms of the way he handled the press and the violation of habeas corpus. He mismanaged his generals as well, even though he took a rather "hands on" approach to the war. Oh yeah, and he also unfairly executed hundreds of Sioux indians. Add him onto the list of control-freak presidents we've had.

However, I think the Civil War was a cause for fighting, since Sumter was attacked. And whatever way we went about it, slavery WAS abolished. So I view Lincoln as more of an asshole who made one (maybe two) HUGE, and perhaps the most important decisions regarding the future of the nation.

The one thing I don't understand about this thread is how people can get in a hissy fit over interpretations of history. Those Ron Paul loonies as some people refer to them on here have a pretty logically valid case for the way history should have gone (the Civil War is just one of those events in history). It's also accurate with everything they believe about what the role of government ought to be and what the founding fathers wrote in the original unamended constitution (none of these drastic changes to the size of government apart from the income tax have been included as amendments).

Besides, why do we hold intrinsic value on the things taught in grade school? It seems to me that there are some folks on here that love these interpretations taught to them in elementary school history classes that anyone who wishes we followed a different path based on their idealistic views on government is now a dumbass loony crackpot whackjob.

banyon
03-20-2008, 11:03 AM
I wondah where I ever said Lincoln should be impeached.

It's pretty much rife throughout this thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=173001&highlight=impeach&page=7).

Of course you don't directly say it, but if being a serial rapist, staging elections, being one of the worst tyrants in history and ruling like a thug and a dictator don't get you impeached, what exactly would qualify?

HonestChieffan
03-20-2008, 11:07 AM
When TJ was on the stump for Paul, he seemed for the most part even keeled and stayed on his game. Maybe some stuff was a bit moonbatty but no more so that PR was. But this new TJ is like a new person.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 12:01 PM
Apparently the positive results from these Presidencies gets ignored in the fixation on philosophical beliefs.

It is internally consistent, I'll grant that.

The problem is the absurdly awkward results it triggers. Lincoln freeing of the slaves comes under attack by those who supposedly uphold individual liberty as the highest, most sacred cause. Talk about ironic...

I think what is over your head is that you seem to think we disagree with some of the results, when it's more the manner in which it was done. I notice you select the parts of our posts that align with your take on them. Not that we all don't do this to some degree. The other thing is that at least I, can't speak for TJ, do not think the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery. We've parsed all this before including quotes from Lincoln showing that even for him it was about preserving the Union. There were a lot of other factors.

As I said before, slavery was dying around the western world. Spain, France, Denmark, Canada and the British Empire all did away with slavery before us with the stroke of a pen. There's a lot more countries than than what I listed too. In fact it was done away with in the Northern states too. I just do not buy that this war was about slavery even if the net result was its abolition. Nor am I unhappy that the union stayed together. I think they would have rejoined out of necessity anyway. But I definitely think slavery would have eventually been done away with without a war. It just was not an efficient system. Nor was it necessary long term because it started due to a severe labor shortage in the colonies for growing tobacco. The country became more populated over time. So I just don't think the mass slaughter was necessary to achieve this goal. I think that pov is elementary school history.

Rent the movie "Amazing Grace" about Wilberforce in England. I agree with that.

BTW I didn't get my views on this war from any libertarian reading originally. I've added to my views from reading diLorenzo but it was a slow evolution from movies, meeting southerners, visiting the south including reenactments of CW battles. My real change on Lincoln came after seeing the movie "Gangs of NY." I vaguely remember the resistance to a draft and a paid exemption from HS history but had forgotten it. It was the shooting and killing of Americans in NY, including the use of cannons that shocked me into checking the accuracy of the movie. I didn't believe Lincoln actually would do that. So I looked it all up when I got home beginning by reading a blog on imdb where some very knowledgeable people said it was true. They were discussing all the facts on it. I've since shared email with DiLorenzo on his books on Lincoln UnMasked regarding the movie. He told me Hollywood actually was pretty accurate on it. Some of it was dramatized though.

So since then I'm just not as willing to accept the standardized watered-down history we are given on certain presidents. I usually wonder now: what else is there that I was never told or don't know. That and the fact we also have a Freedom of Information Act.

I'm flattered by the attention though.:D

Taco John
03-20-2008, 12:12 PM
Now that I think about it, all of these areas do seem to flow of necessity from one another. If you're of a strong libertarian bent, then logical consistency would suggest that you are not only fixated on a very laissez-faire outlook regarding economics, but on non-interventionist government programs. That ties well with an (absurdly) strict reading of the Constitution, which then automatically flows into "Lincoln should have been IMPEACHED!!" outlook on history.

Apparently the positive results from these Presidencies gets ignored in the fixation on philosophical beliefs.

It is internally consistent, I'll grant that.

The problem is the absurdly awkward results it triggers. Lincoln freeing of the slaves comes under attack by those who supposedly uphold individual liberty as the highest, most sacred cause. Talk about ironic...



What you call "absurdly" strict, we call the doctrine of enumerated powers. This used to be a celebrated doctrine by conservatives. But many who consider themselves conservatives in this day and age are only conservative in name, they are more party loyalists than loyalists to any sort of underlying principle. Those of us dedicated to actual constitutional principle (and no, progressives are not constitutional loyalists - not by a long shot) are slandered by the socialists on the left to be fringe - and they are obliged by the wishy washy "Republicans" (most of which don't actually believe in "Republican" government - they just like the tough guy marketing that they've been sold). However, more and more of these types are waking up to realize that they've been fooled. I'm happy to do my part.

And your silly supposed awkward triggers is nothing but a strawman. No one has criticized Lincoln for freeing slaves. How ridiculous! The criticism of Lincoln is that he didn't care about freeing the slaves, he only cared about increasing the power of the federal government at the cost of whatever got in his way. Rather than allowing the constitution to work out the problems of the nation peacefully (as it was intended to), Lincoln opted to make war on the southern states. And while it's true that the Southern States attacked first, that didn't happen without significant provocation.

The whole point of the Lincoln discussion is that there is more history to examine there than meets the eye. The question is: was war necessary? I contend that it wasn't. The whole part where "Lincoln freed the slaves" is nothing more than a red herring in the discussion. Lincoln didn't care about the slaves. He just cared about winning.

Lincoln is honored because he won the war. Whitewashed in your view of history is whether or not war was necessary. There's a good argument that it wasn't.

I'm personally not willing to condemn (nor priase) Lincoln, because I'm still learning. What I'm not going to do is just accept the public school version of the events and accept the idea that only good things were the result of the Lincoln presidency. I'm far too cynical for that, and he was a politician before he was a president.

pikesome
03-20-2008, 12:23 PM
It's pretty much rife throughout this thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=173001&highlight=impeach&page=7).

Of course you don't directly say it, but if being a serial rapist, staging elections, being one of the worst tyrants in history and ruling like a thug and a dictator don't get you impeached, what exactly would qualify?

You need to have your intern "polish the knob".

Donger
03-20-2008, 12:28 PM
Lincoln didn't care about the slaves.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Taco John
03-20-2008, 12:34 PM
How did you reach that conclusion?

By reading his own words:


Letter to Horace Greeley:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 12:39 PM
To those who worship at the alter of a dogmatic and rigid notion of "enumerated" rights, and federalism....allow me to introduce you to a often overlooked, sometimes maligned (even by me,) and eminently important part of the same Constitution you profess to hold so dear:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Which means, as our elected representative.....ambiguities can be derived, and the Constitution informally "amended" through provisions such as the necessary and proper clause, the interstate commerce clause, and the constitutionally proper interpretation of the notion of "general welfare."

The founders were very wise. Such flexibility and lattitude is one of the biggest reasons our Constitution has been so strong and lasted so long. It keeps rigid ideological types from hijacking the document, and allows it to grow and change....as the nation does.

pikesome
03-20-2008, 12:40 PM
By reading his own words:


Letter to Horace Greeley:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

I think that says he values the Union over settling the slavery issue. That's not quite "Lincoln didn't care about the slaves".

Taco John
03-20-2008, 12:42 PM
I think that says he values the Union over settling the slavery issue. That's not quite "Lincoln didn't care about the slaves".


I love how ticky tack you get on me, but when Amnorix insists that we're slandering Lincoln for freeing the slaves you S-T-F-U.

Some referee... :rolleyes:

patteeu
03-20-2008, 12:44 PM
Ron Paul does not blame America. He blames certain ideas, factions and people in our govt—basically govt and power seekers in it. Hegemons, empire builders and such.
That is not America. America is her people. And they are anti-hegemon and generally anti-war.

Are you talking about Ron Paul or Jeremiah Wright?

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 12:45 PM
By reading his own words:


Letter to Horace Greeley:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

Lincoln didn't "care" about slavery? :spock:

He didn't care, initially, about granting them the same rights, but that's an entirely different matter. And it changed.

Check the date on the letter....

Lincoln's idea on slavery, like any politician, evolves during their service. After the Emancipation Proclamation he became much more ambitious about his goals for blacks.

Donger
03-20-2008, 12:47 PM
By reading his own words:


Letter to Horace Greeley:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

I think you are confusing his official position with his personal opinion.

Oh, you left off this part:

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

pikesome
03-20-2008, 12:47 PM
I love how ticky tack you get on me, but when Amnorix insists that we're slandering Lincoln for freeing the slaves you STFU.

Some referee... :rolleyes:

The problem is you claimed he didn't care, that's false, plain and simple. He did care and his feelings on the matter were well known at the time. But presented with two choices 1. The Union or B. No Slavery, The Union was going to win every time.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 12:51 PM
Are you talking about Ron Paul or Jeremiah Wright?

The Tuskegee Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male) was an officially sanctioned experiment by the United States Government. Does one qualify as an America hater for voicing concerns that the American federal government should not be treating citizens in this way?

Taco John
03-20-2008, 12:54 PM
I love all this red herring greatness... Lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves. He cared about keeping power. Period.

He may have later "seen the light" as the political story started to unfold. But that wasn't his purpose.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 12:56 PM
"But, but, but my public school teacher tole me that Lincoln was the great emancipator! He just wanted to make everybody free!"

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 12:57 PM
I love all this red herring greatness... Lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves. He cared about keeping power. Period.

He may have later "seen the light" as the political story started to unfold. But that wasn't his purpose.

:spock:


How do you explain his writings and speeches BEFORE he even ran for President; like those during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, in the Senate election--and before?

While he was not for "equal" rights, he clearly denounced slavery and found it to be immoral and socially repugnant.

:shrug:

Donger
03-20-2008, 12:58 PM
Wow. Is everything that doesn't fit your view a conspiracy?

pikesome
03-20-2008, 01:00 PM
Wow. Is everything that doesn't fit your view a conspiracy?

Yea.

Was it Lincoln's face in the cloud over the towers?

patteeu
03-20-2008, 01:04 PM
The Tuskegee Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male) was an officially sanctioned experiment by the United States Government. Does one qualify as an America hater for voicing concerns that the American federal government should not be treating citizens in this way?

It depends on how you express yourself. IMO, it wouldn't be a justification for damning America nor would it be a justification for redirecting the finger of blame away from a group of outraged black terrorists who decided to blow up the WTC along with thousands of innocents as a response to those experiments.

banyon
03-20-2008, 01:06 PM
:spock:


How do you explain his writings and speeches BEFORE he even ran for President; like those during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, in the Senate election--and before?

While he was not for "equal" rights, he clearly denounced slavery and found it to be immoral and socially repugnant.

:shrug:

I guess being the standard bearer for the party of abolitionism doesn't count for anything?

Taco John
03-20-2008, 01:07 PM
Wow. Is everything that doesn't fit your view a conspiracy?



Conspiracy?

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 01:07 PM
Yea.

Was it Lincoln's face in the cloud over the towers?

The WTC was at the corner of Lincoln Blvd and Booth Ave, and isn't 9/11.....Mary Todd Lincoln's birthday?

:eek:


;)

Donger
03-20-2008, 01:09 PM
Conspiracy?

Sure. Didn't you know that all the public school teachers are in on it?

banyon
03-20-2008, 01:11 PM
Sure. Didn't you know that all the public school teachers are in on it?

Don't forget the textbook manufacturers and the "state-appointed" historians.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 01:14 PM
:spock:


How do you explain his writings and speeches BEFORE he even ran for President; like those during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, in the Senate election--and before?

While he was not for "equal" rights, he clearly denounced slavery and found it to be immoral and socially repugnant.

:shrug:



:facepalm:

Which part of "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..." do you not understand.

Nobody is putting Lincoln down for freeing slaves. The point is: THAT WASN'T HIS AIM. This point can't be refuted. Lincoln's own words makes this absolutely clear. The war wasn't fought over the freeing of slaves. The whole "Lincoln freed the slaves" discussion is a red herring.

So the real question then is "why was the war fought in the first place," and even more poignant "was it necessary for our government to make war on its own people?"

The whole slave discussion is just window dressing to the real questions that constitutionalists have regarding Lincoln.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 01:25 PM
Sure. Didn't you know that all the public school teachers are in on it?

You consider the U.S. Department of Education to be a conspiracy? I guess it could fit the technical definition. I just consider it an inherently liberal organization who uses its powers to teach liberal viewpoints through a centralized educational system. They "standardize" on what is acceptable to teach in classrooms, thus homogenizing the educational system.

I don't see this as a "conspiracy." It's a pretty wild stretch to call it that. I do see it, however, as a system that deprives Americans of a rich and diverse education and which uses this centralization for their own indoctrination purposes. Ask any kid about what they think about Global Warming if you are naive enough to believe that this couldn't possibly be the case.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 01:34 PM
I think what is over your head is that you seem to think we disagree with some of the results, when it's more the manner in which it was done. I notice you select the parts of our posts that align with your take on them. Not that we all don't do this to some degree. The other thing is that at least I, can't speak for TJ, do not think the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery. We've parsed all this before including quotes from Lincoln showing that even for him it was about preserving the Union. There were a lot of other factors.

As I said before, slavery was dying around the western world. Spain, France, Denmark, Canada and the British Empire all did away with slavery before us with the stroke of a pen. There's a lot more countries than than what I listed too. In fact it was done away with in the Northern states too. I just do not buy that this war was about slavery even if the net result was its abolition. Nor am I unhappy that the union stayed together. I think they would have rejoined out of necessity anyway. But I definitely think slavery would have eventually been done away with without a war. It just was not an efficient system. Nor was it necessary long term because it started due to a severe labor shortage in the colonies for growing tobacco. The country became more populated over time. So I just don't think the mass slaughter was necessary to achieve this goal. I think that pov is elementary school history.

You were wrong then and you're wrong now. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4318782&postcount=55

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 01:45 PM
:facepalm:

Which part of "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..." do you not understand.

Nobody is putting Lincoln down for freeing slaves. The point is: THAT WASN'T HIS AIM. This point can't be refuted. Lincoln's own words makes this absolutely clear. The war wasn't fought over the freeing of slaves. The whole "Lincoln freed the slaves" discussion is a red herring.

So the real question then is "why was the war fought in the first place," and even more poignant "was it necessary for our government to make war on its own people?"

The whole slave discussion is just window dressing to the real questions that constitutionalists have regarding Lincoln.

The war was not started by the Union to free the slaves. That is true.

What is also true is that the South seceded PRIMARILY because they were concerned about their waning power over the federal government, and that they would eventually be isolated, and that it would cost them slavery -- their "peculiar institution", which they would die to defend.

BEP brought this argument up before and got annihilated then. I don't have time to repeat it all.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3876559&postcount=67

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3876559#post3876559

and the posts that follow discuss all thsi in painful detail. You and BEP are wrong. The PRE-war sentiments of Lincoln and Calhoun and the other leaders of the United States make it very clear that slavery was the primary issue dividing the states.

Lincoln didn't go to war to end slavery -- that is true. But as the opportunities arose, he SEIZED on them to end slavery where and when he could. He had to be careful because of teh border states -- it was more important to win the war than end slavery everywhere immediately. But that doesn't negate his personal feelings and his political opportunism to end slavery. He was just pragmatic about it.

JUST LIKE THE FOUNDERS WERE when they allowed slavery to continue, despite the feelings of many northerners. America first, then deal with slavery.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 01:46 PM
So the real question then is "why was the war fought in the first place," and even more poignant "was it necessary for our government to make war on its own people?"


Well, it was the Southern states that seceded adn started the war, so Lincoln's choices were war or dismemberment of the union, which he was (understandably) unwilling to accept.

There was no middle road.

StcChief
03-20-2008, 02:22 PM
Well, it was the Southern states that seceded adn started the war, so Lincoln's choices were war or dismemberment of the union, which he was (understandably) unwilling to accept.

There was no middle road.stop bringing up facts, it muddles their argument

Cave Johnson
03-20-2008, 02:59 PM
Does BEP call the battles by their southern names too (i.e. Antietam/Sharpsburg)?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-20-2008, 03:04 PM
I just love the fact that a 220+ year old document written by men who didn't know what germs or atoms were is somehow an unassailable document

Taco John
03-20-2008, 03:16 PM
I didn't say it was unassailable. If you want to change it, then CHANGE it. Don't ignore it. Once you ignore the law of the land, the country finds itself on a slippery slope where laws are made and determined by the seat of the pants of whoever is in power. The constitution is there to provide a framework for the government to operate within so that this slippery slope scenario doesn't happen. It has nothing to do with germs or atoms. It's about the rule of law.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 03:17 PM
Does BEP call the battles by their southern names too (i.e. Antietam/Sharpsburg)?

Yep


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4321477&postcount=82

Lincoln was dishonest...he thought he could ram through protectionist tariffs, and provide corporate welfare for RRs after a short war. No one took a real war seriously. There were people picnicking during the first battle of Manassas...that's how unserious it was taken.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 03:26 PM
Well, it was the Southern states that seceded adn started the war, so Lincoln's choices were war or dismemberment of the union, which he was (understandably) unwilling to accept.



So then, just to be clear -- It's ok with you if a president ignores the rule of law and wages war rather than allowing for diplomatic (and even constitutional solutions), provided they can provide worthy historical justification after the fact. Is that right?

George Bush is unwilling to accept that Iraq could potentially be used as an Al Queda training camp, and that Saddaam Hussein potentially had WMDs. By your standard, the man is a hero, so long as he can say he did it in the interests of protecting America after the fact.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 03:31 PM
So then, just to be clear -- It's ok with you if a president ignores the rule of law and wages war rather than allowing for diplomatic (and even constitutional solutions), provided they can provide worthy historical justification after the fact. Is that right?

Let's be more specific -- to avoid dismemberment of the union and illegal secession, then drastic, extra-Constitutional measures may be necessary. Suspension of habeas corpus, whatever...

I wouldn't agree with that for foreign wars.

George Bush is unwilling to accept that Iraq could potentially be used as an Al Queda training camp, and that Saddaam Hussein potentially had WMDs. By your standard, the man is a hero, so long as he can say he did it in the interests of protecting America after the fact.

No. See reasoning above. The Constitution wasn't contemplated to handle what happens in event of civil war.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 03:45 PM
Let's be more specific -- to avoid dismemberment of the union and illegal secession, then drastic, extra-Constitutional measures may be necessary. Suspension of habeas corpus, whatever...

I wouldn't agree with that for foreign wars.

No. See reasoning above. The Constitution wasn't contemplated to handle what happens in event of civil war.


Welcome to the slippery slope. It's ok to break the law, so long as in the end you personally believe that there's a really, really good reason to do it... and can convince the Department of Education of it.

Meanwhile...

"I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization. Eliminating every black person from American soil would be a glorious consummation." -Abraham Lincoln (http://www.bookpleasures.com/Lore2/idx/0/2475/article/Abraham_Lincolns_Execution.html)

Taco John
03-20-2008, 03:47 PM
Say what you will about my positions... But my positions put the greatest amount of power in the most amount of hands - decentralizing it. This is what our founding fathers intended.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 03:54 PM
Question for BEP/TJ -- were any of these acts/laws/events Constitutional? The President signing or triggering the event , and the approximate year, is next to the event:

First Bank of the United States (early 1790s) - George Washington
Assumption of State Debts (early 1790s) - George Washington
Supression of Whiskey Rebellion (early 1790s) - George Washington
Alien and Sedition Act (late 1790s) - John Adams
Louisiana Purchase (1803) - Thomas Jefferson
War with the Barbary Pirates (1802-1806 or thereabouts) - Thomas Jefferson
Embargo Act (1808'ish) - Thomas Jefferson
Second Bank of the United States (~1815) - James Madison

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 03:58 PM
Welcome to the slippery slope. It's ok to break the law, so long as in the end you personally believe that there's a really, really good reason to do it... and can convince the Department of Education of it.

Meanwhile...

"I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization. Eliminating every black person from American soil would be a glorious consummation." -Abraham Lincoln (http://www.bookpleasures.com/Lore2/idx/0/2475/article/Abraham_Lincolns_Execution.html)


Pathetic. Your arugment is completely pathetic. There is NO event more threatening to a government than civil war. NOTHING.

Second, your quote is out of context and ridiculously misleading!!

In making the charge of racism, DiLorenzo sounds like an especially nasty liberal. He frequently distorts the meaning of the primary sources he cites, Lincoln most of all. Consider this inflammatory assertion: "Eliminating every last black person from American soil, Lincoln proclaimed, would be 'a glorious consummation.'" Compare the nuances and qualifications in what Lincoln actually said: "If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation." One need not be a Lincoln admirer to recognize that DiLorenzo is making an unfair characterization. DiLorenzo actually gets so overwrought that at one point he attributes to Lincoln racist views Lincoln was attacking.



http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.226/pub_detail.asp

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 04:01 PM
Say what you will about my positions... But my positions put the greatest amount of power in the most amount of hands - decentralizing it. This is what our founding fathers intended.

No, but feel free to believe whatever you want.

If they wanted completely decentralized power, they would've stuck with the Articles of Confederation.

If they wanted to completely put power into the hands of the masses, they wouldn't have come up with the electoral system, or had states appointing their senators.

Wrong, wrong and again wrong. How long can you accept this pummeling without changing your views. The only impressive thing here is your obstinacy in the face of facts repeatedly thrown at your and ignored time and time.

tiptap
03-20-2008, 04:06 PM
I just love the fact that a 220+ year old document written by men who didn't know what germs or atoms were is somehow an unassailable document

Technically Jefferson would not know the atom of modern day science. Neither would Dalton. But Jefferson was a kindred Epicurean. And central to the philosophy was the given tenet of atomism. As to germs, will cell theory was Locke in 1680 so I assume Jefferson was aware of this finding. Germs as agents of disease was still being worked out. But yeast associated with wine or beer or cheese making would be known. As such I think other early Americans would have some idea about parts of those subjects, at least abstractly.

But I agree with your point that a document made by men is constituted by each preceding generation. It doesn't rise to the level of dogma with some individual judging for us the limits or range of understanding. They are a voice though in the open discussion. (And since I don't think anyone has precedence to divine understanding, I don't even think dogma is possible.)

Taco John
03-20-2008, 05:04 PM
Second, your quote is out of context and ridiculously misleading!!
http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.226/pub_detail.asp


Bah... In your knee jerk reaction, you failed to realize that the quote I gave didn't come from DiLorenzo....

Nice try though.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 05:10 PM
No, but feel free to believe whatever you want.

If they wanted completely decentralized power, they would've stuck with the Articles of Confederation.

If they wanted to completely put power into the hands of the masses, they wouldn't have come up with the electoral system, or had states appointing their senators.

Wrong, wrong and again wrong. How long can you accept this pummeling without changing your views. The only impressive thing here is your obstinacy in the face of facts repeatedly thrown at your and ignored time and time.

*ppffffbbt*

Pummeling! No one said that the power needed to be in the hands of "the masses." That's not what I advocate at all. I advocate the Republican "decentralization" of power. I'm in favor of the Republican form of government, because it allows those who are the most active and educated to take the wheel and decentralizes power. That's not the masses. Go to any caucus and tell me about "the masses" you see there.

Pummeling! Good God man! You pat yourself on the back awful hard.

The only thing you've proven is that you don't much care for the constitution. You apparently find it to be a trite document that should be ignored whenever the president finds it inconvenient and can make a historical case for the importance of ignoring it. Unless of course, it's George W. Bush.

Yeah, you're pummeling me alright... :rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-20-2008, 05:20 PM
Technically Jefferson would not know the atom of modern day science. Neither would Dalton. But Jefferson was a kindred Epicurean. And central to the philosophy was the given tenet of atomism. As to germs, will cell theory was Locke in 1680 so I assume Jefferson was aware of this finding. Germs as agents of disease was still being worked out. But yeast associated with wine or beer or cheese making would be known. As such I think other early Americans would have some idea about parts of those subjects, at least abstractly.

But I agree with your point that a document made by men is constituted by each preceding generation. It doesn't rise to the level of dogma with some individual judging for us the limits or range of understanding. They are a voice though in the open discussion. (And since I don't think anyone has precedence to divine understanding, I don't even think dogma is possible.)

S--
Ss---

Semmelweis

*smacks himself on the head*

http://content.bt.com/distribution/btvision/universal/images/movies/im1/12-Monkeys_im1.jpg

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 05:30 PM
I think that says he values the Union over settling the slavery issue. That's not quite "Lincoln didn't care about the slaves".

What about his deportation program back to Africa?

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 05:35 PM
The only thing you've proven is that you don't much care for the constitution. You apparently find it to be a trite document that should be ignored whenever the president finds it inconvenient and can make a historical case for the importance of ignoring it. Unless of course, it's George W. Bush.
That's how they train them in law school. My gf is constitutional lawyer and a limited govt conservative (paleo-con) and she says lawyers are even taught that the 10th amendment is a dead letter and original intent cannot be found because the FF's all disagreed. They value legal precedent more than the original document, even when it veers far off into error. A nation governed more by men instead. That's the arguments you see being made here by the left. They want govt by men—democracy. So they can institute their own paradigm over what we had. My own lawyer says Constitutional law is specialized area. Even then we have those such as Lawerence Tribe and those like Scalia. I wonder if Amnorix could pummel Scalia? I already know, per his own words that he disagrees with everything on the Federalist Society's site which is closer to our pov.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 05:39 PM
Technically Jefferson would not know the atom of modern day science. Neither would Dalton. But Jefferson was a kindred Epicurean. And central to the philosophy was the given tenet of atomism. As to germs, will cell theory was Locke in 1680 so I assume Jefferson was aware of this finding. Germs as agents of disease was still being worked out. But yeast associated with wine or beer or cheese making would be known. As such I think other early Americans would have some idea about parts of those subjects, at least abstractly.

But I agree with your point that a document made by men is constituted by each preceding generation. It doesn't rise to the level of dogma with some individual judging for us the limits or range of understanding. They are a voice though in the open discussion. (And since I don't think anyone has precedence to divine understanding, I don't even think dogma is possible.)
It has nothing to do with molecules or germs. That's placing the argument into the wrong category of thing. It's about the nature of man and the nature of power and how man can abuse power. So in order to keep use free, and since govt infringes liberty and since the type of men attracted to govt don't always have noble intentions, they came up with a balance of some govt because men weren't angels versus freedom for individuals. Sheer genious if you ask me.

bango
03-20-2008, 06:55 PM
I heard that Lincoln had wanted to end slavery, but did not because of the effect that he knew that it would have on the United States Economy. I also heard that he started his service as President as a conservative and became more liberal as time went on. It might have been better for our country if the Civil War would have happened during the watch of Andrew Jackson because of the Nulification Crisis. It looked like it was going to happen eventually. It was just a matter of when.

banyon
03-20-2008, 07:03 PM
That's how they train them in law school. My gf is constitutional lawyer and a limited govt conservative (paleo-con) and she says lawyers are even taught that the 10th amendment is a dead letter and original intent cannot be found because the FF's all disagreed. They value legal precedent more than the original document, even when it veers far off into error. A nation governed more by men instead. That's the arguments you see being made here by the left. They want govt by men—democracy. So they can institute their own paradigm over what we had. My own lawyer says Constitutional law is specialized area. Even then we have those such as Lawerence Tribe and those like Scalia. I wonder if Amnorix could pummel Scalia? I already know, per his own words that he disagrees with everything on the Federalist Society's site which is closer to our pov.

Lawyers aren't "taught that the 10th Amendment is dead". What a load of s***. The only class it would ever be brought up is Constitutional Law, and since there are practically ZERO Supreme Court cases ruling based on the Tenth Amendment, other than organizational and conceptual reference, there's about as much to talk about as when we cover the 3rd Amendment. Your sources appear to be wrong again.

Also I disagree with him in many areas, but Scalia is not a raving lunatic. I've seen him speak at my school 2x. He wouldn't be caught dead agreeing with the loopy s*** in the threads today.

banyon
03-20-2008, 07:10 PM
Question for BEP/TJ -- were any of these acts/laws/events Constitutional? The President signing or triggering the event , and the approximate year, is next to the event:

First Bank of the United States (early 1790s) - George Washington
Assumption of State Debts (early 1790s) - George Washington
Supression of Whiskey Rebellion (early 1790s) - George Washington
Alien and Sedition Act (late 1790s) - John Adams
Louisiana Purchase (1803) - Thomas Jefferson
War with the Barbary Pirates (1802-1806 or thereabouts) - Thomas Jefferson
Embargo Act (1808'ish) - Thomas Jefferson
Second Bank of the United States (~1815) - James Madison

heh. I bet those aren't convenient either.

BucEyedPea
03-20-2008, 07:48 PM
Posted by Amnorix: let's be more specific -- to avoid dismemberment of the union and illegal secession, then drastic, extra-Constitutional measures may be necessary. Suspension of habeas corpus, whatever...
Where does the constitution say extra-Constitutional measures may be necessary for "illegal" secession? Even Rawles who wrote the View of the Constitution in 1829 cited secession as legal. He called it the Founder's Constitution too. The notes from the Constitutional Convention show that the Founders rejected the plan what would not allow secession. I think that one was the Virginia Plan. Even Judge Napolitano says it was a voluntary union per the CC. Secession was not illegal. The Union was voluntary. I listed and quoted newspapers in an earlier thread on this BB from that time that made the same case when we debated this same stuff ad infinitum before.

Regarding suspension of habeas corpus, CJ Tany said only Congress could suspend it—not the president. You're making some of the same arguments the Bushies make to defend Bush on the sole basis that you agree with this past war and don't the one we're in. Everyone's a chicken-hawk when we read about wars from the past with romantic notions of glory and noble causes.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 07:50 PM
Bah... In your knee jerk reaction, you failed to realize that the quote I gave didn't come from DiLorenzo....

Nice try though.

Doesn't matter since either DiLorenzo quoted the same person, or the same person quoted DiLorenzo. Either way, the refutation I posted blows it up completely -- no matter who said it.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 07:52 PM
What about his deportation program back to Africa?

He was a racist. No moreso than just about any other Northerner. He hoped that a deportation program would be best for both races, but it was ultimately impractical obviously.

Let's face it -- you'd be hard pressed to find any white man born before 1950, much less 1850 as Lincoln was, who was advocating having black men able to bugger their daughters.

That doesn't change his feelings about slavery, which he was consistently against for his entire life. Hell, just look at the pre-Civil War Presidents. How many were actual slave owners themselves. Quite a few...

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 07:55 PM
My own lawyer says Constitutional law is specialized area. Even then we have those such as Lawerence Tribe and those like Scalia. I wonder if Amnorix could pummel Scalia? I already know, per his own words that he disagrees with everything on the Federalist Society's site which is closer to our pov.

Con Law is highly, super-specialized. Very few lawyers practice in that field, and it's currently impossible (unlike in the past) unless you have a certain type of background. The days of Louis (Lewis?) Powell becoming a SC are dead. Would never survive the confirmation process.

I wouldn't pummel Scalia. He'd mop the floor with me. As Lawrence Tribe would mop the floor with you. Scalia, much as I dislike him, is a truly brilliant lawyer.

And yes, I'm not a member of the Federalist Society.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:04 PM
Where does the constitution say extra-Constitutional measures may be necessary for "illegal" secession?

It doesn't. Obviously. Nor does it permit secession. The lame view that Buchanan had -- "it's illegal but WHAT can I do *sob*" is certainly within the Constitution, but pathetic. No government ever created contemplated it's own destruction.

Even Rawles who wrote the View of the Constitution in 1829 cited secession as legal. He called it the Founder's Constitution too.

I've never heard of Rawles, so I looked him up. One of the first few hits had this quote on a message board:

"Rawle was a comparatively obscure figure. Many claims have been made about him, but it's incredibly difficult to find any objective writings concerning his life and writings. There are no biographies of him that I could find, nor does his body of work seem to extend much beyond his On the Constitution.} By contrast both James Kent and Joseph Story have far more impressive credentials, a far larger body of writings, and biographies written about them that are available today.

Rawle's book was used at West Point for one year, and one year only, 1826. The only high ranking confederate who appears to have been taught from Rawle was Albert Sidney Johnston. I have an article by Col. Edgar S. Dudley, published in The Century Magazine in August of 1909 which specifically addressed Rawle's book at West Point.

Douglas Southall Freeman debunked Rawle as a source of secessionism among Confederates in Volume 1 of his R. E. Lee: A Biography.

Thomas Fleming writes: "After the Civil War some vengeful anti-West Pointers did indeed try to trace Davis' disloyalty to his education under Thayer. They maintained that the future leader of the Confederacy had derived not a little encouragement from one of his textbooks at West Point, On the Constitution, by a disunionist legal philosopher named Rawle, who taught that the states had a natural right to secede. Davis himself denied that he ever studied Rawle, and West Point defenders, paging through old archives, reported that the book had been used for one year early in Thayer's regime, largely for want of an alternative text. When James Kent, New York State's great Supreme Court justice, sometimes called the American Blackstone, published his Commentaries, which sternly rejected the idea of secession, Thayer immediately snapped up copies fo rhis cadets. Only in this century has the Rawle canard been totally laid to rest in the most definitive possible way. An examination of James Kent's journal for June 3, 1828, reveals him to have been a member of West Point's Board of Visitors. After listening to the cadets recite on constitutional law, he noted 'They appeared to be masters of the first volume of my Commentaries.' The cadet who shone brightest in discoursing on the principles of this rock-ribbed Unionist was Jefferson Davis." [Thomas J. Fleming, West Point: The Men and Times of the United States Military Academy, p. 59]

Rawle provides no support for his assertion. He simply asserts there is a right to secession and moves on. Compare that with Joseph Story, who provides supporting documentation for his view against secession. "

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/civil-war-history-secession-politics/19328-william-rawles-view-secession.html


The notes from the Constitutional Convention show that the Founders rejected the plan what would not allow secession. I think that one was the Virginia Plan. Even Judge Napolitano says it was a voluntary union per the CC. Secession was not illegal. The Union was voluntary. I listed and quoted newspapers in an earlier thread on this BB from that time that made the same case when we debated this same stuff ad infinitum before.

"EVEN" Judge Napolitano. You're referring to a former US Judge from a decade or so ago who is now a Fox News correspondent. He's nto the be-all and end-all of Constitutional law knowledge, and I can throw a host of scholars back at you who would disagree. So what?

Regarding suspension of habeas corpus, CJ Tany said only Congress could suspend it—not the president. You're making some of the same arguments the Bushies make to defend Bush on the sole basis that you agree with this past war and don't the one we're in. Everyone's a chicken-hawk when we read about wars from the past with romantic notions of glory and noble causes.

CJ Taney also wrote Dred Scott and was an ardent Southerner. You might as well be quoting Jefferson Davis.

I've never argued that Iraq was illegal or unconstitutional. I do think Congress hsould take back the right to declare war, but if they want to informally authorize it as they have, I don't have a big problem with it.

Amnorix
03-20-2008, 08:07 PM
Question for BEP/TJ -- were any of these acts/laws/events Constitutional? The President signing or triggering the event , and the approximate year, is next to the event:

First Bank of the United States (early 1790s) - George Washington
Assumption of State Debts (early 1790s) - George Washington
Supression of Whiskey Rebellion (early 1790s) - George Washington
Alien and Sedition Act (late 1790s) - John Adams
Louisiana Purchase (1803) - Thomas Jefferson
War with the Barbary Pirates (1802-1806 or thereabouts) - Thomas Jefferson
Embargo Act (1808'ish) - Thomas Jefferson
Second Bank of the United States (~1815) - James Madison

Can I get an answer on these? And I'd like to add the Fugitive Slave Law as well.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 09:03 PM
I didn't say it was unassailable. If you want to change it, then CHANGE it. Don't ignore it. Once you ignore the law of the land, the country finds itself on a slippery slope where laws are made and determined by the seat of the pants of whoever is in power. The constitution is there to provide a framework for the government to operate within so that this slippery slope scenario doesn't happen. It has nothing to do with germs or atoms. It's about the rule of law.


Formal amendment of the Constitution, is clearly a preferred choice....when something, explicitly stated in the document or clearly "left to the states," needs to be addressed by the Constitution.

However, you/BEP have, still...thus far, failed to address or anwer the issue of the 9th amendment:


"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The bottom-line is that such rigid strict constructionist interpretation of the document is ludicrous in the face of the 9th amendment....and this is, coming from someone who considers himself much more conservative and more a fan of strict contructionism, generally, than many Americans....just not in the reactionary and rigid fringe fashion which you and BEP seem fond of.

Clearly, as one of the reactionaries here....you would oppose Roe v. Wade as a dreadful error in judgement by the Court then, would you not? :shrug:

Taco John
03-20-2008, 09:40 PM
Clearly, as one of the reactionaries here....you would oppose Roe v. Wade as a dreadful error in judgement by the Court then, would you not? :shrug:



Absolutely. The Federal Courts should have never ruled on the matter. They should have sent it back down to the states.

Taco John
03-20-2008, 09:59 PM
Can I get an answer on these? And I'd like to add the Fugitive Slave Law as well.

I would need to do more research than I have time available to me right now to give you an adequate response.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 10:27 PM
Absolutely. The Federal Courts should have never ruled on the matter. They should have sent it back down to the states.

Well, I applaud you on that point. As far as the Lincoln discussion, I also agree his PRIORITY was not to end slavery...as it should not have been, at the time; however, your notion that he didn't "care" about slavery...is, to be generous, over-stated and misleading....he did "care." He simply understood the politics of his day.

Which, btw...imho, is the hallmark of a good President: understanding the issues of his day, and determining the best political course of action....given the hand that is dealt him/her. It's why I agree with the majority of scholars who rank TR and Lincoln among our "great" 4-5 Presidents....and why you, perhaps, disagree. IMHO, you and BEP are attempting to apply 18th centruy standards to 19th and 20th Century Presidents, during the 20th century--that is truly, revisionist history, in the repulsive and repugnant pejorative sense. Again, JMHO.

Despite our differences, sad for you, we are not really that far apart. I am conservative--at least compared to true liberals. I'm just not ideologically inclined...but rather choose a more pragmatic and, imho....more realistic, approach to politics.

Paul inspires reactionaries, to be sure; however, Obama inspires....not only liberals, but those of us who understand...pragmatic politics, and the politics of timely POLICY rather than ideology and partisanship. Paul wants to take us back to the 1700s; Obama realizes that partisanship and division are ripping apart the nation; he understands that healthcare and the immigration problems are serious, and in need of compromise....he's at least, attempting, to bridge the gap. Unfortunately, on national security, and taxes, he seems to wedded to the far left; which leaves an opening for McCain, imo. I've got the same 7 months to decide as everyone else.

JMHO :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 10:43 PM
BTW....:spock:

Is ANYONE....so bold as to try to answer the 9th amendment question???

Doesn't the 9th amendment open the door, very widely, to a perspective of our Constitution as a "living document"....not to be encumbered by rigid adherence to literal interpretation?

:shrug:

Or am I the only one who views it as a "loophole" through which Congress, and subsequently Presidents....have driven a rather large....Mack, or is it Peterbilt 18-wheel-truck.....through???

FWIW, I do think....Americans, generally speaking have accepted and approve of MOST of those measures, because we keep electing the same "big government" and "welfare state" democrats (and republicans) to Congress. And, in a REPUBLIC, that matters. Sorry....but it does.

What say you??? :hmmm:

Taco John
03-20-2008, 10:52 PM
I'm not talking about his feelings. When I say "he didn't care" I'm talking about his priorities with the war. It wasn't a war about slavery.

And as far as pragmatism goes... Pragmatism is for pussies.

Ron Paul doesn't want to take us back to the 1700's. He wants to get us back to the rule of law. We're on a slippery slope right now, sliding off into the abyss.

We don't have an income tax because the people were clamouring to have their wages garnished at an equivalent of 5-6 months of the year. We have an income tax because there are people who have an agenda for this nation who have manipulated every lever they can get their hands on in order to see it through. If that sounds conspiratorial to anyone, then they've missed more than one history lesson.

The end goal is the centralization, and ultimate consolidation of power. It happens again and again and again throughout history. Only now we're becoming more and more global. The founders understood this, and put safeguards into our constitution to give their legacies the tools to keep these forces at bay. Know your history! It's ALL ABOUT centralized banking! We've not only ignored these tools, but we've fallen under the spell of those who want to consolidate the power.

Government isn't acting for you or me anymore. It's a machine run loose on a globalist agenda. Point and laugh all you want right now. But none of us are going to have the last laugh if we don't reign this thing in, because we're going to be too busy doing everything we can to keep our heads above the water.

Pragmatism isn't a principle. It's just the path of least resistance.

Mr. Kotter
03-20-2008, 11:24 PM
I'm not talking about his feelings. When I say "he didn't care" I'm talking about his priorities with the war. It wasn't a war about slavery.

And as far as pragmatism goes... Pragmatism is for pussies.

Ron Paul doesn't want to take us back to the 1700's. He wants to get us back to the rule of law. We're on a slippery slope right now, sliding off into the abyss.

We don't have an income tax because the people were clamouring to have their wages garnished at an equivalent of 5-6 months of the year. We have an income tax because there are people who have an agenda for this nation who have manipulated every lever they can get their hands on in order to see it through. If that sounds conspiratorial to anyone, then they've missed more than one history lesson.

The end goal is the centralization, and ultimate consolidation of power. It happens again and again and again throughout history. Only now we're becoming more and more global. The founders understood this, and put safeguards into our constitution to give their legacies the tools to keep these forces at bay. Know your history! It's ALL ABOUT centralized banking! We've not only ignored these tools, but we've fallen under the spell of those who want to consolidate the power.

Government isn't acting for you or me anymore. It's a machine run loose on a globalist agenda. Point and laugh all you want right now. But none of us are going to have the last laugh if we don't reign this thing in, because we're going to be too busy doing everything we can to keep our heads above the water.

Pragmatism isn't a principle. It's just the path of least resistance.

I'm not talking about Lincoln's feelings either; I'm talking about right and wrong....the morality, and his duty as a public servant to serve the good, but not doing what was necessarily popular....but what was right. As a Paul zealot, you should understand that; even if, IMHO, you misunderstand the Constitution.

"Rule of law" is nothing more than a euphemism for rigidity to ideological dogma--especially in light of the whole Clinton fiasco, IMHO. As for the income tax, I don't like it either; but given the demands placed on the government by THE PEOPLE (who elect our representatives)....it's apparent to me, that despite our protests, we want...we desire...we demand...we insist upon a level of government activism, programs, and assistance that we reject in the "abstract" but DEMAND in real life....otherwise we'd elect true fiscal conservatives, who are demanding government accountability, and fiscal prudence....yet we do not.

I don't believe the "goal" is centralization; however, unfortunately....the state of nature, the free market, and absolute liberty also have drawbacks; human nature and greed intercede to make, for example, healthcare and healthcare insurance one gigantic cluster-fugg--and if private business REFUSES to solve the problem, "the people" will DEMAND that their government to do it for them. And that's something, while not the preferred option, folks are just about ready to accept...given the current state of affairs.

Our government gives "the people" what they want--at least eventually. You and I may disagree....but that's, simultaneously, the beauty and the curse of democracy (yes, "republican" democracy too)....it, ultimately, does give us what we want, and sadly...too often what we deserve.

The government you envision, presumes an educated, informed, and involved citizenry. Seriously. Think about that. We are anything BUT that. As a rule, Americans are not too educated (politically speaking,) we refuse to become informed (except for the wonks among us,) and we don't often get involved (out of either apathy or complacency.)

Pragmaticism is not simply the path of least resistance; in America, it is really...the only path. As a nation, we are too fat and too happy and too rich and too comfortable, to seriously resist the political inertia of the nanny state...UNLESS something dramatic changes in our political culture, and soon. I refuse to cling to that pipe-dream....and, simply, have decided to try to work within the system that "is"---however inadequate it may be.

Once again, JMHO. :shrug:

Logical
03-21-2008, 12:09 AM
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Whoa, you certainly interpret that differently than I do.
Simply stated it is a statement that many other rights not specifically listed exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated.

It certainly IMO does not mean the rest of the constitution specifically explaining rights should or can be over-ridden because other rights not explained might trump them. I don't see how you get there Rob.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-21-2008, 12:18 AM
BTW....:spock:

Is ANYONE....so bold as to try to answer the 9th amendment question???

Doesn't the 9th amendment open the door, very widely, to a perspective of our Constitution as a "living document"....not to be encumbered by rigid adherence to literal interpretation?

:shrug:

Or am I the only one who views it as a "loophole" through which Congress, and subsequently Presidents....have driven a rather large....Mack, or is it Peterbilt 18-wheel-truck.....through???

FWIW, I do think....Americans, generally speaking have accepted and approve of MOST of those measures, because we keep electing the same "big government" and "welfare state" democrats (and republicans) to Congress. And, in a REPUBLIC, that matters. Sorry....but it does.

What say you??? :hmmm:

Kotter,

I think that people forget that the Constitution is ultimately nothing more than a manifesto agreed upon by a large populace. Yes it was prescient, brilliant, and surprisingly insulated from obsolescence, but in the end, it's just a collection of beliefs. It's not timeless, nor is it, or should it ever be considered, sacrosanct.

I guess the true irony that I am deducing from this and other threads is that TJ and BEP are not at all dissimilar from the literalists who would argue that we need to follow the Bible to the letter of the law.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go load up my shotgun. My neighbor wears clothes made from two different types of cloth.

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 12:24 AM
Whoa, you certainly interpret that differently than I do.
Simply stated it is a statement that many other rights not specifically listed exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated.

It certainly IMO does mean the rest of the constitution specifically explaining rights should or can be over-ridden because other rights not explained might trump them. I don't see how you get there Rob.

The scholarly, and constitutionally relevant interpretation of the 9th, thus far...according to a variety of SC decisions....has meant:

Rights of the people, are not limited to those specifically granted by the Constitution, but is open to any right not specifically denied to the people by the Constitution.

I'm not saying it's the "right" interpretation....even if it is a reasonable reading; however, it IS the interpretation....which opened the door to the SC's recognition of the right to "privacy," and subsequently the "right" to abortion....and, most recently, the "right" to sodomy. (Griswold-Roe-Lawrence decisions.)

It was a "slippery slope" that strict contructionists warned could open a flood-gate....and it, indeed, has.

Now we are left to accept the "good,"....along with the bad; it's a logical step down the path we have chosen....(the "elastic" clause, the necessary and proper clause, the commerce clause, the right to privacy....abortion....and sodomy)

The lesson for me is, be careful what you wish for....or else you may get it.

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 12:29 AM
Kotter,

I think that people forget that the Constitution is ultimately nothing more than a manifesto agreed upon by a large populace. Yes it was prescient, brilliant, and surprisingly insulated from obsolescence, but in the end, it's just a collection of beliefs. It's not timeless, nor is it, or should it ever be considered, sacrosanct.

I guess the true irony that I am deducing from this and other threads is that TJ and BEP are not at all dissimilar from the literalists who would argue that we need to follow the Bible to the letter of the law.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go load up my shotgun. My neighbor wears clothes made from two different types of cloth.

Thanks for that, Hamas....I appreciate your answer, and your humor about it. Really. Heh. LMAO

You (and banyon--and Amnorix) seem to be the only ones here, thus far anyway, able to separate ideology and dogma....from reality, practicality, and democratic rule (albeit, as republican form of democracy--leave it to the pedagogues, I suppose.) Thanks for that.

:thumb:

;)

Amnorix
03-21-2008, 05:49 AM
I would need to do more research than I have time available to me right now to give you an adequate response.


That's fair. If it helps (I doubt it), you can limit it to the 3 for each of Washington and Jefferson. Or just pick a few of those.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 08:20 AM
BTW....:spock:

Is ANYONE....so bold as to try to answer the 9th amendment question???

Doesn't the 9th amendment open the door, very widely, to a perspective of our Constitution as a "living document"....not to be encumbered by rigid adherence to literal interpretation?

:shrug:

Or am I the only one who views it as a "loophole" through which Congress, and subsequently Presidents....have driven a rather large....Mack, or is it Peterbilt 18-wheel-truck.....through???

FWIW, I do think....Americans, generally speaking have accepted and approve of MOST of those measures, because we keep electing the same "big government" and "welfare state" democrats (and republicans) to Congress. And, in a REPUBLIC, that matters. Sorry....but it does.

What say you??? :hmmm:

No, you're wrong.

The 9th amendment is an explicit reaffirmation that the constitution grants powers to the government, it doesn't grant liberties to the people. It addresses the concern that by enumerating some important liberties in the bill of rights, some people might take those to be the only sacrosanct liberties.

The powers that the constitution grants to the government are fixed and should be construed according to the language of the document not the context of the changing times. Changes to the document made necessary by the changing times are to be accomplished through a process addressed in Article V.

Amnorix
03-21-2008, 08:37 AM
No, you're wrong.

The 9th amendment is an explicit reaffirmation that the constitution grants powers to the government, it doesn't grant liberties to the people. It addresses the concern that by enumerating some important liberties in the bill of rights, some people might take those to be the only sacrosanct liberties.

The powers that the constitution grants to the government are fixed and should be construed according to the language of the document not the context of the changing times. Changes to the document made necessary by the changing times are to be accomplished through a process addressed in Article V.

You realize that this is the BEP/TJ argument whole cloth?

patteeu
03-21-2008, 08:52 AM
You realize that this is the BEP/TJ argument whole cloth?

It's really meaningless if it's living.

I realize that I tend to agree with them more than I disagree with them on the constitution. I think they are right about how it was intended to be used. I don't see any practical way to reverse over 150 years of constitutionally questionable (to say the least) history overnight though. Nor do I think it's a good idea to do so. Some of the changes since that time have clearly made us a better, stronger, and more prosperous nation and, in a perfect world, to the extent that these changes have worked, they should be incorporated into the Constitution through the amendment process rather than rolled back for the sake of getting back to the constitution our forefathers wrote for us.

Having said that, I think they both go further than I would. For example, they both want to read something into the constitution about the manner in which Congress can exercise it's power to declare war. While I think a formal declaration, where possible, would be a better option, I think Congress is within their right to exercise that power through a less formal, more collaborative process like the one used for the current actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond.

Taco John
03-21-2008, 09:14 AM
You realize that this is the BEP/TJ argument whole cloth?

My God you're arrogant...

Taco John
03-21-2008, 09:17 AM
Having said that, I think they both go further than I would. For example, they both want to read something into the constitution about the manner in which Congress can exercise it's power to declare war. While I think a formal declaration, where possible, would be a better option, I think Congress is within their right to exercise that power through a less formal, more collaborative process like the one used for the current actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond.



Now here's something, that if he's consistent, Amnorix will agree with you on. In Amnorix's view, the constitution can be subverted if you can tag some sort of benefit statement onto the breach after the fact. It's ok to breach the constitution, so long as you think you have a really good reason to.

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 09:27 AM
No, you're wrong.

The 9th amendment is an explicit reaffirmation that the constitution grants powers to the government, it doesn't grant liberties to the people. It addresses the concern that by enumerating some important liberties in the bill of rights, some people might take those to be the only sacrosanct liberties.

The powers that the constitution grants to the government are fixed and should be construed according to the language of the document not the context of the changing times. Changes to the document made necessary by the changing times are to be accomplished through a process addressed in Article V.

That is strict constructionist and literalist hogwash. It is you who is wrong. Please explain to me, then, why nearly all reputable Constitutional scholars I've ever read commonly refer to the 9th amendment as "powers/rights reserved to the people."

And I'm saying this as someone who generally defers to a strict constructionist view...but in light of the nature of our REPUBLIC, the ninth amendment clearly and reasonably provides "wiggle room" when the people, through their government (especially Congress) decide to avail themselves of it.

It's why the interstate commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the right to privacy, and other such "loopholes" have been legitimized through court decisions---stare decisis and case law. Like it or not, given the power and role of judicial review....Congress is left with two choices: rewrite laws effected by such decisions (compensating for judicial objections,) or amend the Constitution.

It's precisely why I deplore judicial activism; yet our Constitution and law clearly permits that flexibility. It is only literalists and dogmatic ideologues who refuse to acknowledge the fact--and it's akin to Christian fundamentalists and literalists who deny evolution, and insist the world was created 6,000 or so years ago....in six 24 hour days. Enjoy your stay at the lunatic fringe.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 09:37 AM
I think what people aren't saying is that the Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on the Federal govt. It was not written as a grant of power including power over the states or people. It also was not written as a restraint of power on the states either except where that power was delegated to the federal govt. So the 9th Amendment was written regarding the Fed govt taking away or limiting all these unenumerated rights of the people. It's the concept of federalism.

The idea that the Fed govt can enforce the Bill of Rights, or any other unenumerated rights to the states was due to the introduction of the 14th Amendment. This watering down of federalism and original meaning did not happen right away. This was gradual through court cases for one.

People who opposed the 14th amendment said it would eventually erode state's rights and federalism. States were mini-sovereignties. Those who wanted it swore up n' down that this would never happen. Who was right? Those who opposed. What happened was that concepts of due process expanded overtime whereby the BoR's was eventually applied to the states.

This is how we got the Roe v Wade case. That belonged to the states.

What people forget is the context of the time of our founding. The states pre-existed the Federal govt. They had constitutions with B of Rs in them too. So our national B of R's was modeled on the states—not the other way around.

Even the states can pass gun laws.

I'm gonna go find an excellent write-up on this by a lawyer who is a libertarian.
In fact another originalist was asked to sign onto an Amicus brief on the DC gun case and refused because the 2nd Amendment applies to the Federal govt and not to a state. I just don't know if DC qualifies as a state in the same way.

So if you're an original intentist the 9th Amendment is about the Federal govt not infringing those unenumerated rights. It is not original intentist to say the 9th means the federal govt can force the states to respect. Even though that's what we have today.

A living constitution or or those saying our govt can be reconstituted willy-nilly is basically a silent coup of our original govt.

Amnorix
03-21-2008, 09:42 AM
Now here's something, that if he's consistent, Amnorix will agree with you on. In Amnorix's view, the constitution can be subverted if you can tag some sort of benefit statement onto the breach after the fact. It's ok to breach the constitution, so long as you think you have a really good reason to.


I honestly don't even think I understand what that means.

Amnorix
03-21-2008, 09:43 AM
My God you're arrogant...

Well, yes, sometimes I am, but I've no idea why what I said as you quoted it was an example of it.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 09:47 AM
Reserved Powers (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger58.html)
I know emotional BS will fly because this is on Lew Rockwell's site but they are original intentist strict constructionist. It's written by someone I know. He's a lawyer too and a constitutional scholar. So it's written from the pov of original intent.

This system of federal and state powers is known as “federalism.” By dividing power in that way, the idea was to keep the central government weak and keep political power closer to the people. Compare that to a country that has one central, national government, which is responsible for governing the entire nation.

Obviously, it is not always easy to delineate clearly the line between federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction, but federalism has always been a core element of America’s political system. As the authors of American Jurisprudence 2nd (1979) put it, “The distinctive operation of the state and federal governments within their respective spheres is basic to a federal constitutional system, however complicated and difficult the practical accommodation to it may be.”

There’s something else important to note here: The Bill of Rights, by its own terms, applies only to the federal government, not to the state governments. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the Congress, not the state legislatures, from depriving people of freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble. By the same token, although it doesn’t expressly mention the federal government, the Second Amendment operates to protect the right to keep and bear arms from federal infringement but not from infringement by the states.

Therefore, when the Constitution came into existence the state governments, being governments of general powers, theoretically had the power to deprive people of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other such rights.

So why didn’t the states exercise such general powers? Because the concepts of fundamental rights and procedural protections were so ingrained in the hearts and minds of the citizenry, evidenced by the fact that the states had bills of rights in their own constitutions. In fact, given that state constitutions predated the Bill of Rights, the latter was actually modeled on them.

It’s important to note though that if there wasn’t an express restriction in the state constitution, there was nothing to prevent a state government from abridging fundamental rights of the people – except, of course, by electing a new legislature with the intent of having the offending law repealed.

Ultimately, after the post-Civil War adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process clause of that amendment effectively incorporated the rights and guarantees in the federal Bill of Rights and applied them to the states.

Continued in link...

banyon
03-21-2008, 09:48 AM
I think what people aren't saying is that the Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on the Federal govt. It was not written as a grant of power including power over the states or people. It also was not written as a restraint of power on the states either except where that power was delegated to the federal govt. So the 9th Amendment was written regarding the Fed govt taking away or limiting all these unenumerated rights of the people. It's the concept of federalism.

If that were the primary purpose of the Constitutional Convention, as you assert, were to restrain Federal power then there would have been no need to rescind the Articles of Confederation. That (unsurprisingly) runs counter to the obvious historical record.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 09:50 AM
Originally Posted by patteeu
Having said that, I think they both go further than I would. For example, they both want to read something into the constitution about the manner in which Congress can exercise it's power to declare war. While I think a formal declaration, where possible, would be a better option, I think Congress is within their right to exercise that power through a less formal, more collaborative process like the one used for the current actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond.

Well there you have it...another living constitution pov. It happens on the left and the right. Including those who want to support Fast Track for trade...a power that belongs to congress not the president. Conservativism really is dead as Saddam Hussein.

a1na2
03-21-2008, 10:40 AM
Holy schmolies!

:rolleyes:

patteeu
03-21-2008, 10:52 AM
That is strict constructionist and literalist hogwash. It is you who is wrong. Please explain to me, then, why nearly all reputable Constitutional scholars I've ever read commonly refer to the 9th amendment as "powers/rights reserved to the people."

First of all, we have a lot of "reputable" Constitutional scholars who believe the constitution is a living document so it stands to reason that I have a fundamental disagreement with a great number of them (as do many of their fellow reputable constitutional scholars, I might add).

But more relevantly, "powers/rights reserved to the people" is entirely consistent with what I said. The constitution is an expression of powers granted to the federal government. What is not granted to the government is reserved to the people whether it is a right explicitly recognized in the document (e.g. free speech in the first amendment) or whether it is a non enumerated right that is not addressed at all.

And I'm saying this as someone who generally defers to a strict constructionist view...but in light of the nature of our REPUBLIC, the ninth amendment clearly and reasonably provides "wiggle room" when the people, through their government (especially Congress) decide to avail themselves of it.

It's why the interstate commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the right to privacy, and other such "loopholes" have been legitimized through court decisions---stare decisis and case law. Like it or not, given the power and role of judicial review....Congress is left with two choices: rewrite laws effected by such decisions (compensating for judicial objections,) or amend the Constitution.

It's precisely why I deplore judicial activism; yet our Constitution and law clearly permits that flexibility. It is only literalists and dogmatic ideologues who refuse to acknowledge the fact--and it's akin to Christian fundamentalists and literalists who deny evolution, and insist the world was created 6,000 or so years ago....in six 24 hour days. Enjoy your stay at the lunatic fringe.

Your constitutional analysis is so muddled and desperate to find middle ground between a constructionist view and a living document view that it's laughable. You haven't said one thing that explains why the 9th amendment opens up a big loophole (indeed big enough to obliterate the rest of the constitution entirely) much less provided any evidence that the authors of the 9th amendment intended it to do so.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 10:59 AM
I think what people aren't saying is that the Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on the Federal govt. It was not written as a grant of power including power over the states or people.

It's a restraint on the federal government precisely because it grants specific powers to the government rather than granting the government general power and reserving specific rights to the people.

Edit: From your own link to Jacob Hornberger's article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger58.html) on Lew Rockwell:

In delegating certain powers to the federal government, the states, with some exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.

The rest of your post didn't seem to have anything to do with anything anyone has said in this thread. I agree with what you're saying in it (at least to a large degree), but I can't quite figure out why you said it.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 11:11 AM
Well there you have it...another living constitution pov. It happens on the left and the right. Including those who want to support Fast Track for trade...a power that belongs to congress not the president. Conservativism really is dead as Saddam Hussein.

I don't read into the document that which isn't there. Like the nonexistent requirement for Congress to exercise it's constitutional power of declaring war in a shape, manner, and form that meets with your approval.

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 11:16 AM
First of all, we have a lot of "reputable" Constitutional scholars who believe the constitution is a living document so it stands to reason that I have a fundamental disagreement with a great number of them (as do many of their fellow reputable constitutional scholars, I might add).

But more relevantly, "powers/rights reserved to the people" is entirely consistent with what I said. The constitution is an expression of powers granted to the federal government. What is not granted to the government is reserved to the people whether it is a right explicitly recognized in the document (e.g. free speech in the first amendment) or whether it is a non enumerated right that is not addressed at all.

Your constitutional analysis is so muddled and desperate to find middle ground between a constructionist view and a living document view that it's laughable. You haven't said one thing that explains why the 9th amendment opens up a big loophole (indeed big enough to obliterate the rest of the constitution entirely) much less provided any evidence that the authors of the 9th amendment intended it to do so.

The very fact that there is such sharply divided opinion among legal scholars should make it self-evident to you that, indeed, there is no "right" answer to this--it is a matter of persepctive and interpretation. Ultlimately, it is the SC's opinion that matters--and they have chosen to reject your view, historically. Reality is what matters; and the reality says that our courts and government have made the Constitution a living document, even if you and I don't always like it.

The one thing you are right about is that the Constitution is, and was designed to delegate governmental authority to the federal government while simultaneously reserving other powers to the states, and the people. I'm certainly not suggesting otherwise. The point you, BEP, and TJ fail to understand, apparently, is the those powers can be derived in one of three ways: inherently, explicitly, and implicitly. And you are choosing to completely disregard and ignore implicit powers. Despite the protestations of literalistic strict constructionists, implicit powers are a recognized, accepted, and valid part of Constitutional law.

Take away the implied powers doctrine, and you strip the federal government of the power to do much of anything. And while many folks would love to see that happen, most Americans (based on our election results) have chosen a different path....and have rejected the idea of literalistic strict constructionism. Denying that truth doesn't erase it.

If you want to change that, you are going to have to get the people to elect politicians who share your view....over a long period of time. The bottom-line is, it ain't gonna happen any time soon. Personally, I prefer strict constructionist judges too; but to argue that our government has acted "unconstitutionally" when the SC has decided otherwise....is living with your head in the sand. It is what it is.

Good luck with the effort though. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 11:31 AM
If that were the primary purpose of the Constitutional Convention, as you assert, were to restrain Federal power then there would have been no need to rescind the Articles of Confederation. That (unsurprisingly) runs counter to the obvious historical record.

Precisely. That was the whole motivation for writing the Constitution--to simultaneously create a STRONGER federal government, without making it to TOO strong (hence federalism, checks and balances, and separation of powers were included.)

Judicial review and implied powers have certainly been used to INCREASE the strength of the federal government, but it's been done with the consent of the people--at least insofar as we have "accepted" that direction (or, at least, failed to reverse it through our elected officials.)

This whole argument is like arguing "the sky isn't blue"...well, technically, it isn't; yet anyone with eyes understands that it IS.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 11:52 AM
The very fact that there is such sharply divided opinion among legal scholars should make it self-evident to you that, indeed, there is no "right" answer to this--it is a matter of persepctive and interpretation. Ultlimately, it is the SC's opinion that matters--and they have chosen to reject your view, historically. Reality is what matters; and the reality says that our courts and government have made the Constitution a living document, even if you and I don't always like it.

So now you've abandoned argument on the merits and have moved on to the fallacy of an appeal to majority? I didn't need you to tell me that my views were in the minority and that we've operated as if we have a living constitution for a very long time.

The one thing you are right about is that the Constitution is, and was designed to delegate governmental authority to the federal government while simultaneously reserving other powers to the states, and the people. I'm certainly not suggesting otherwise. The point you, BEP, and TJ fail to understand, apparently, is the those powers can be derived in one of three ways: inherently, explicitly, and implicitly. And you are choosing to completely disregard and ignore implicit powers. Despite the protestations of literalistic strict constructionists, implicit powers are a recognized, accepted, and valid part of Constitutional law.

Take away the implied powers doctrine, and you strip the federal government of the power to do much of anything. And while many folks would love to see that happen, most Americans (based on our election results) have chosen a different path....and have rejected the idea of literalistic strict constructionism. Denying that truth doesn't erase it.

I don't reject implied powers. It's a question of degree. What I disagree with is something as pre.posterous as the notion that the 14th amendment implies that if the government is going to recognize marriage for special treatment that it must also recognize same-sex marriage for that same special treatment. Or the notion that since guns are often transported across state lines from the place of manufacture to the place of sale, that the commerce clause authorizes Congress to ban guns within a certain radius of schools.

If you want to change that, you are going to have to get the people to elect politicians who share your view....over a long period of time. The bottom-line is, it ain't gonna happen any time soon. Personally, I prefer strict constructionist judges too; but to argue that our government has acted "unconstitutionally" when the SC has decided otherwise....is living with your head in the sand. It is what it is.

Good luck with the effort though. :shrug:

Duh. Do you really believe I needed you to tell me that?

Mr. Kotter
03-21-2008, 12:16 PM
So now you've abandoned argument on the merits and have moved on to the fallacy of an appeal to majority? I didn't need you to tell me that my views were in the minority and that we've operated as if we have a living constitution for a very long time.

I've abandoned nothing; you are still pretending that the difference is one of right versus wrong, when clearly the difference is one of interpretation and perspective...and, again, despite your protestations, it's precisely the way the founders intended it. Otherwise, they'd have left out the provisions for formal and informal amendment. And they would have prohibited any expansive notion of implicit powers, which they did not.

I don't reject implied powers. It's a question of degree. What I disagree with is something as pre.posterous as the notion that the 14th amendment implies that if the government is going to recognize marriage for special treatment that it must also recognize same-sex marriage for that same special treatment. Or the notion that since guns are often transported across state lines from the place of manufacture to the place of sale, that the commerce clause authorizes Congress to ban guns within a certain radius of schools.

Duh. Do you really believe I needed you to tell me that?

Ah-ha....so, finally--you concede; now, we get to the real sticky widget (which, fwiw, I agree with you about.) This issue is, and always has been and will be, about matters of degree---not an issue of whether the notion of implied powers and infomal amendment exist, but rather reaching consensus on WHEN they are appropriate, and when they are not. THAT is why the courts have come up with a variety of "tests"---the undue burden test, the obscenity test, the clear and present danger test, the time, manner and place tests (for speech and protests).....to deterimine what circumstances constitute a "tipping-point" in favor of federal involvement. Indeed, it will be interesting to see what they do with the homosexual unions and gun questions. I'd prefer they leave THOSE to the states, myself.

As to your last question, the answer (apparently) is yes; because it's only NOW that you concede the issue is not black or white---but different shades of gray. As I've said, I prefer that our default position....be a strict constructionist interpretation. However, the Congress and the nation fail to do the (I hope in retrospect you will agree) right thing in desegregating society....I'm glad the Brown decision came down the way it did.

And, yes, I realize the slippery slope possibility....but trust American citizens enough to believe, if it really matters in the end (like race does)....that we will get it "right."

;)

Amnorix
03-21-2008, 12:28 PM
Edit: From your own link to Jacob Hornberger's article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger58.html) on Lew Rockwell:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">In delegating certain powers to the federal government, the states, with some exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



I don't have time to get into this -- need to do work. Hope to participate in this thread after today however.

But referencing the quote you cited above -- I don't believe the states delegated anything to the federal government. Rather, the people redistributed power by giving some to the federal governmetn, which were in general express and limited, while leaving the balance to the state governments, which were in general unlimited except as limited by the Constitution (including by virtue of the application of most of the Bill of Rights to the States via the 14th amendment).

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 01:13 PM
I don't read into the document that which isn't there. Like the nonexistent requirement for Congress to exercise it's constitutional power of declaring war in a shape, manner, and form that meets with your approval.

Oh yes you do! Including not understanding, or ignoring the fact, that the resolution you seem to endorse for Iraq was not a decision by congress to use force but a transfer of that authority to the presidential branch to decide when necessary in his view, in total defiance of their enumerated powers under the Constitution to make that decision. At one point you admitted I was right on this then you flipped back for some reason. Bottom line: You're not being objective here nor consistent, but a Bushie partisan because you agreed with the action when such an action could have still been pulled-off constitutionally since most were on board with it at that time. This is what I call cowardice by congress and hat-dumping. This way if it doesn't succeed they can blame Bush—exactly what's happening. No accountability or responsibility for having to make that decision themselves.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 02:05 PM
I've abandoned nothing; you are still pretending that the difference is one of right versus wrong, when clearly the difference is one of interpretation and perspective...and, again, despite your protestations, it's precisely the way the founders intended it. Otherwise, they'd have left out the provisions for formal and informal amendment. And they would have prohibited any expansive notion of implicit powers, which they did not.

WTF are you talking about? There is no provision for informal amendment.

Ah-ha....so, finally--you concede; now, we get to the real sticky widget (which, fwiw, I agree with you about.) This issue is, and always has been and will be, about matters of degree---not an issue of whether the notion of implied powers and infomal amendment exist, but rather reaching consensus on WHEN they are appropriate, and when they are not. THAT is why the courts have come up with a variety of "tests"---the undue burden test, the obscenity test, the clear and present danger test, the time, manner and place tests (for speech and protests).....to deterimine what circumstances constitute a "tipping-point" in favor of federal involvement. Indeed, it will be interesting to see what they do with the homosexual unions and gun questions. I'd prefer they leave THOSE to the states, myself.

As to your last question, the answer (apparently) is yes; because it's only NOW that you concede the issue is not black or white---but different shades of gray. As I've said, I prefer that our default position....be a strict constructionist interpretation. However, the Congress and the nation fail to do the (I hope in retrospect you will agree) right thing in desegregating society....I'm glad the Brown decision came down the way it did.

And, yes, I realize the slippery slope possibility....but trust American citizens enough to believe, if it really matters in the end (like race does)....that we will get it "right."

;)

Uh, no, I don't concede anything. My view of the constitution hasn't changed one iota since you started blabbering about how I was wrong. Maybe it's your interpretation of my view that was wrong. Maybe it's you who is conceding. I certainly don't think that the 9th amendment makes the Constitution a living document (which is what I thought we were discussing). To the extent that you want to mischaracterize my acceptance of implied powers as a defacto living document position, you can't attribute my acceptance to the 9th amendment in any way. I'd believe in implied powers with or without the 9th amendment. The constitution isn't detailed enough to be functional without limited implied powers.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 02:14 PM
I don't have time to get into this -- need to do work. Hope to participate in this thread after today however.

But referencing the quote you cited above -- I don't believe the states delegated anything to the federal government. Rather, the people redistributed power by giving some to the federal governmetn, which were in general express and limited, while leaving the balance to the state governments, which were in general unlimited except as limited by the Constitution (including by virtue of the application of most of the Bill of Rights to the States via the 14th amendment).

I have a hard time with that. It's my understanding that the delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention were selected by their states, not directly by the people. As such and given that the states were considered the sovereigns with general power, it seems to me more proper to say that they were delegating power from the states to the federal government. But I'm not sure that's a distinction that matters all that much. Either way, they were gathered together to grant as much or as little power over both the states and the people as they could agree as a group to grant.

The main reason that I used a quote from BEP's article though was because of the persuasive power I thought it would have over her. She'd just rejected my characterization of the people granting power to the federal government (either directly or through their sovereign states) and I was pointing out that her own source agreed with me.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 02:16 PM
Oh yes you do! Including not understanding, or ignoring the fact, that the resolution you seem to endorse for Iraq was not a decision by congress to use force but a transfer of that authority to the presidential branch to decide when necessary in his view, in total defiance of their enumerated powers under the Constitution to make that decision. At one point you admitted I was right on this then you flipped back for some reason. Bottom line: You're not being objective here nor consistent, but a Bushie partisan because you agreed with the action when such an action could have still been pulled-off constitutionally since most were on board with it at that time. This is what I call cowardice by congress and hat-dumping. This way if it doesn't succeed they can blame Bush—exactly what's happening. No accountability or responsibility for having to make that decision themselves.

I don't see the defiance. They decided to do it in a more collaborative fashion, that's all. The Constitution is silent on the manner in which they are to exercise their clearly granted power.

Taco John
03-21-2008, 02:19 PM
I don't see the defiance. They decided to do it in a more collaborative fashion, that's all. The Constitution is silent on the manner in which they are to exercise their clearly granted power.

Precedent isn't.

patteeu
03-21-2008, 02:35 PM
Precedent isn't.

I thought you were big on the idea of the constitution being the supreme law of the land?

Taco John
03-21-2008, 02:38 PM
I thought you were big on the idea of the constitution being the supreme law of the land?

What did I say that would give you the impression that I thought differently?

Referencing precedent doesn't fit the bill. It merely shows that government has acted in a specific way in order to meet it's constitutional obligations.

Amnorix
03-21-2008, 02:38 PM
Precedent isn't.

*cough*War on the Barbary Pirates*cough*


That's one of the items I listed in my "was this Constitutional?" list for this very reason.


From Wiki:


On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yussif_Karamanli), the Pasha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasha) (or Bashaw) of Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripoli), demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate) to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress). Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/58/EnterpriseTripoli.jpg/180px-EnterpriseTripoli.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EnterpriseTripoli.jpg) [/URL]
Enterprise capturing Tripoli


The frigate [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%281799%29"]USS Enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EnterpriseTripoli.jpg) defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a fierce but one-sided battle on August 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1), 1801 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1801).

The American navy went unchallenged on the sea, but still the question remained undecided. Jefferson pressed the issue the following year, with an increase in military force and deployment of many of the navy's best ships to the region throughout 1802. USS Argus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Argus_%281803%29), USS Chesapeake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Chesapeake), USS Constellation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constellation_%281797%29), USS Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution), USS Enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%281799%29), USS Intrepid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Intrepid_%281798%29), USS Philadelphia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Philadelphia_%281799%29) and USS Syren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Syren_%281803%29) all saw service during the war under the overall command of Commodore Edward Preble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Preble). Throughout 1803, Preble set up and maintained a blockade of the Barbary ports and executed a campaign of raids and attacks against the cities' fleets.

banyon
03-21-2008, 02:45 PM
What did I say that would give you the impression that I thought differently?

Referencing precedent doesn't fit the bill. It merely shows that government has acted in a specific way in order to meet it's constitutional obligations.

I don't get this hangup on the value of precedent. It allows for participants in the court system to have an expectation of how things are regularly interpreted.

The only alternative out there in the developed world is the French Civil System where everything is codified and judges get to decide the way a case should go based on the circumstances of each individual case, in other words, no standard rules of interpretation. it essentially makes every case like a child custody case, the judge just does what he/she thinks is right and you have no idea what's going to happen before you go in the courtroom. Parties won't settle since the results may well turn unexpectedly to their favor, and you can try ten cases on the exact same facts and get ten different results. Is that really preferable? I mean, I guess there are the Chinese and African tribal justice systems, or Sharia or Judaic tribunals, but what is the practical alternative to using precedent?

Taco John
03-21-2008, 03:39 PM
*cough*War on the Barbary Pirates*cough*


That's one of the items I listed in my "was this Constitutional?" list for this very reason.


From Wiki:


The Barbary Pirates were pirates. They weren't a nation to be declared war on. I wouldn't expect a formal declaration of war on pirates any more than I would expect a formal declaration of war on gang members, or even terrorists (though I would welcome a formal declaration on Al Queda - I just wouldn't expect it, as I expect formal declarations of war to be against nations who we can deliver these formal declarations to). I would, however, expect congress to give authorization for specific actions that they would like the executive to take, which they apparently did in the case of the Barbary Pirates. Past that, it's also my understanding that congress enacted the constitutional letters of Marque and Reprisal as a tool for executing this "war" (which wasn't really a "war).

Amnorix
03-21-2008, 03:46 PM
The Barbary Pirates were pirates. They weren't a nation to be declared war on.

Only because you don't know what the Barbary Pirates really were. They operated from several cities along the North African coast, and were in fact city-states against whom war could certainly be declared. They had ambassadors and otherwise operated entirely as governments, and had privateers who pirated under the flag of the city-state in question.

We are not talking about Captain Hook type pirates. The Barbary Coast described, generally, the area in which these pirates operated from, and the Barbary Pirates refers, collectively, to these state-sanctioned "pirates".



From Wiki:


In 1783 the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) made peace with, and gained recognition from, the British monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire), and in 1784 the first American ship was seized by pirates from Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco). After six months of negotiation, a treaty was signed, $60,000 cash was paid, and trade began. Morocco was the first independent nation to recognize the United States, in 1778.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-11>[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#_note-11)</SUP> But Algeria was different. In 1784 two ships (the Maria of Boston and the Dauphin of Philadelphia) were seized, everything sold and their crews ordered to build port fortifications.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), then the ambassador to France, and John Adams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams), then the ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the ambassador to Britain from Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripoli). The Americans asked Adja why his government was hostile to American ships, even though there had been no provocation. The ambassador's response was reported to the Continental Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Congress):
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. <SUP class=reference id=_ref-12>[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#_note-12)</SUP>
American ships sailing in the Mediterranean chose to travel close to larger convoys of other European powers who had bribed the pirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates). Payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States government annual revenues in 1800.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-13>[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#_note-13)</SUP> In the early 1800s, President Thomas Jefferson proposed a league of smaller nations to patrol the area, but the United States could not contribute. For the prisoners, Algeria wanted $60,000 dollars, while America offered only $4,000. Jefferson said a million dollars would buy them off, but Congress would only appropriate $80,000. For eleven years, Americans who lived in Algeria lived as slaves to Algerian Moors. For a while, Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Empire) was patrolling the Straits of Gibraltar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straits_of_Gibraltar) and preventing Barbary Pirates from entering the Atlantic. But they made a cash deal with the pirates, and they were again sailing into the Atlantic and engaging in piracy. By late 1793, a dozen American ships had been captured, goods stripped and everyone enslaved. Portugal had offered some armed patrols, but American merchants needed an armed American presence to sail near Europe. After some serious debate, the United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy) was born in March 1794. Six frigates were authorized, and so began the construction of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_United_States_%281797%29), the Constellation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constellation_%281797%29), the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution) and three other frigates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

Taco John
03-21-2008, 03:50 PM
That doesn't change the fact that congress didn't recognize them as a nation state, and still gave specific orders for the president to execute. You bolded the wrong part... This is the part you should have paid attention to:

they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."


They didn't recognize it as a "war." They did recognize that there would be violence happening. What they did do, is direct the presidents actions by setting specific objectives. They didn't leave him with an open-ended ticket.

I fail to see how this is unconstitutional.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 03:51 PM
I really don't consider the Barbary Pirates enough of a precedent. It ridiculous grasping at straws to say so. Even after that we still had a trend of declaring war, save for the "rebellion" under Lincoln. We stopped declaring war, and I've said it a tens of times by now with links to back up to the Federalist Society, we don't declare due to our membership in the UN. No member country declares war anymore. They're all internationalis police actions. That includes Korea and Vietnam as well as Iraq both times. This is why some politicians, like Henry Hyde, call a declare "archaic."

But the case with the Barbary Pirates was that Jefferson, being an easily offended thin skinned personality ( I still like his ideas even if he was perfect in applying them all the time), was just cheap. He wanted to retire the nation's debt but the Barbary pirates felt that the Medditerranean was their lake to control. So they charged tribute for passage. England always paid it for a long time as well as many other nations. But it was Jefferson who refused to pay the tribute. He was offended and indignant of it. So that invited the attacks from the pirates. Then we had a right ot immediate response without a declare per the Constitution as well. Yeah! he didn't exactly act honorably with congress about it but it hardly can be called a precedent.

Still, there is nothing after that that shows a irreversible trend in not declaring war until post WWII when we joined the UN and passed the UN Participation Act. This is how a treaty can erode sovereignty. This is where the actual precedent begins in not declaring war. Presidents don't have to consult congress for such police actions. In fact it was Truman who played it by the book. According to the Federalist Society site it would apply if we initiated an aggressive war on our own.

I say any treaty that overrides any specific consititutional provisions should be null and void or at least the parts that do declare such. Still Bush did not have complete UN authority from the SC despite signing the UN treaty and the congress still transferred it's power to decide to use force to the president. No one did that in the 19th century or the mid 20th century ever either.

bango
03-21-2008, 05:08 PM
Am I the only one that thought that Ron Paul had some good ideas, but felt that many of his stances on the issues were outdated and that he did not have any chance of winning his party's nomination let alone the office of President?

patteeu
03-21-2008, 05:23 PM
The Barbary Pirates were pirates. They weren't a nation to be declared war on. I wouldn't expect a formal declaration of war on pirates any more than I would expect a formal declaration of war on gang members, or even terrorists (though I would welcome a formal declaration on Al Queda - I just wouldn't expect it, as I expect formal declarations of war to be against nations who we can deliver these formal declarations to). I would, however, expect congress to give authorization for specific actions that they would like the executive to take, which they apparently did in the case of the Barbary Pirates. Past that, it's also my understanding that congress enacted the constitutional letters of Marque and Reprisal as a tool for executing this "war" (which wasn't really a "war).

Who cares what you expect? I'm more interested in acting according to the constitution.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 06:05 PM
Am I the only one that thought that Ron Paul had some good ideas, but felt that many of his stances on the issues were outdated and that he did not have any chance of winning his party's nomination let alone the office of President?
Like what? Limited govt so it ensures liberty? Yeah! A lot of people say that and our Constitution are out of date. Instead unecessary wars, socialism and inflation are trendy even if they destroy nations eventually.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 06:06 PM
I wonder if we declared war on BlackBeard and Jean Lafitte?

Let's say Tommy was in the wrong, for the sake of argument alone, why would that make it right for others to act similarly?

bango
03-21-2008, 06:18 PM
Do you really think that limited government will work in our world today? What type of limited government? Federal? More than likely. State? Maybe. Local? No. A large no if the Feds and State are seriously reduced. Do you really think that the people of today are going to vote for a smaller government? I am sorry, but not in the world that I and the rest of us are lving in. When was the last time that a Ron Paul Type of Politician won and election? Eisenhower? I would love to live in a country that has liberty and a small government. Do you know of one that is not a shithole? You might get a small government, but few people in those countries have any finacial liberty. That is true liberty. The liberty of financial freedom.

Taco John
03-21-2008, 06:20 PM
Who cares what you expect? I'm more interested in acting according to the constitution.

You seem to be more interested in getting around the constitution...




The Congress shall have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 06:52 PM
The Congress shall have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

Well there you have it. Excellent! Rep for you!

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 06:56 PM
Do you really think that limited government will work in our world today? What type of limited government? Federal? More than likely. State? Maybe. Local? No. A large no if the Feds and State are seriously reduced. Do you really think that the people of today are going to vote for a smaller government? I am sorry, but not in the world that I and the rest of us are lving in. When was the last time that a Ron Paul Type of Politician won and election? Eisenhower? I would love to live in a country that has liberty and a small government. Do you know of one that is not a shithole? You might get a small government, buNow t few people in those countries have any finacial liberty. That is true liberty. The liberty of financial freedom.

It works all the time. But you have to be willing to leave certain people and actions alone and not feel pressed to change everybody to do things your way, especially around the world. Your argument that it wouldn't work applies equally to the worlds of 1775-1800 too. Remember, what most of the world said then: it wouldn't work! We became the richest nation under it which allowed us to be a superpower. Now we're moving back to models from the old world.

I say go back to when we were doing well and put those policies and actions back in because what worked before will work again.

a1na2
03-21-2008, 07:19 PM
Well there you have it. Excellent! Rep for you!

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Taco John http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4643563#post4643563)
The Congress shall have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The congress also overwhelmingly gave President Bush the authority to go to Iraq. We need not go further with that because it has been rehashed many times; however, the authority to go was given and the action was and is legal.

bango
03-21-2008, 08:18 PM
You think that the same policies that worked over two hundred years ago will work again today? Our country and most of the world is moving to the left. I am sorry, but I do have to disagree with you.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 08:41 PM
You think that the same policies that worked over two hundred years ago will work again today? Our country and most of the world is moving to the left. I am sorry, but I do have to disagree with you.

Certain ones yes. But we're talking about our Constitution and liberty. If you think moving toward socialism and communism—in other words less freedom— is really that great then I guess you'll enjoy it's equal poverty for all just like other 3rd world countries. Maybe you should try to stay on topic and discuss specifics instead of stupid generalities that no one can pin you down on.

BucEyedPea
03-21-2008, 08:47 PM
Do you know of one [limited govt] that is not a shithole?
Yes I do as a matter of fact. America pre-big govt. The richest and freest one in the world. And still with the least amount of govt over other countries including Europe. I mean China has adopted some of our economic policies and they're rising out of abject poverty. But America was unlike the Congo with it's high income tax rate of like 57%. You seem like the type that would prefer socialist Congo. BTW are you banyon by any chance? he likes the Congo. You should take a vacation there with him.

a1na2
03-21-2008, 09:10 PM
Didn't they make a movie about this crap? The Never Ending Story?
ROFLROFLROFL
:shake:

banyon
03-21-2008, 09:53 PM
You think that the same policies that worked over two hundred years ago will work again today? Our country and most of the world is moving to the left. I am sorry, but I do have to disagree with you.

Good luck. She doesn't like historical, international, or state by state comparisons that undercut her theories. just focus on a strip of land from @1784-1792 and the minority white males that prospered under the "system" that was in place then for a few years before the Supreme Court screwed it all up for the next 200 years. And if you have any historical data, make sure it is only from a small group of malcontented deviants (preferably from Austria), nothing else counts. Oh, and also you have to use everyday words that have had the same meanings for hundreds of years only with the meanings they had around 1800 or so, no new useages are allowed. Also, if your ideas differ even slightly, then you will be branded as belonging to whatever the ideologically opposite extreme group is (socialist/neocon/nazi/Stalin). If you can do all of that, she will be happy to converse with you. Enjoy.

chagrin
03-21-2008, 09:57 PM
Good luck. She doesn't like historical, international, or state by state comparisons that undercut her theories. just focus on a strip of land from @1784-1792 and the minority white males that prospered under the "system" that was in place then for a few years before the Supreme Court screwed it all up for the next 200 years. And if you have any historical data, make sure it is only from a small group of malcontented deviants (preferably from Austria), nothing else counts. Oh, and also you have to use everyday words that have had the same meanings for hundreds of years only with the meanings they had around 1800 or so, no new useages are allowed. Also, if your ideas differ even slightly, then you will be branded as belonging to whatever the ideologically opposite extreme group is (socialist/neocon/nazi/Staln). If you can do all of that, she will be happy to converse with you. Enjoy.


Holy shit - awesome :clap:

ChiefaRoo
03-21-2008, 09:58 PM
This thread is boring, so here's a guy boning a donkey
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5wtZX1i6OYc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5wtZX1i6OYc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Logical
03-21-2008, 11:16 PM
This thread is boring, so here's a guy boning a donkey
<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5wtZX1i6OYc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>I agree the thread it boring, but I will pass on your YouTube just in case it is accurately described.:eek::doh!:

By the way why can't I delete the YouTube from my post.

Mr. Kotter
03-22-2008, 12:07 AM
This thread is boring, so here's a guy boning a donkey
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5wtZX1i6OYc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5wtZX1i6OYc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


Go, TJ, Go T-J, Go T-J...., Go T-J!!!



LMAO LMAO LMAO



ROFL

ChiefaRoo
03-22-2008, 12:18 AM
I agree the thread it boring, but I will pass on your YouTube just in case it is accurately described.:eek::doh!:

By the way why can't I delete the YouTube from my post.


Don't worry it's not pRon it's only Clerks 2


PS - I hope that donkey doesn't have a hiney troll.....

Taco John
03-22-2008, 12:38 AM
Good luck. She doesn't like historical, international, or state by state comparisons that undercut her theories. just focus on a strip of land from @1784-1792 and the minority white males that prospered under the "system" that was in place then for a few years before the Supreme Court screwed it all up for the next 200 years. And if you have any historical data, make sure it is only from a small group of malcontented deviants (preferably from Austria), nothing else counts. Oh, and also you have to use everyday words that have had the same meanings for hundreds of years only with the meanings they had around 1800 or so, no new useages are allowed. Also, if your ideas differ even slightly, then you will be branded as belonging to whatever the ideologically opposite extreme group is (socialist/neocon/nazi/Stalin). If you can do all of that, she will be happy to converse with you. Enjoy.



I don't know what makes you believe that you're any less an idealogue than she is. The difference is that your small group of malcontented deviants believe in socialism, only they're too chickenshit to be up front it.

ChiefaRoo
03-22-2008, 12:53 AM
Go, TJ, Go T-J, Go T-J...., Go T-J!!!



LMAO LMAO LMAO



ROFL

Interspecies erotic f**ko

ChiefaRoo
03-22-2008, 02:14 AM
I agree the thread it boring, but I will pass on your YouTube just in case it is accurately described.:eek::doh!:

By the way why can't I delete the YouTube from my post.

Because secretly you want to watch it, you need to watch it ...... sinner.

BucEyedPea
03-22-2008, 07:35 AM
I don't know what makes you believe that you're any less an idealogue than she is. The difference is that your small group of malcontented deviants believe in socialism, only they're too chickenshit to be up front it.

Yup! And ftr I do not ignore anyone based on their ideology. Never have.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 08:15 AM
I wonder if we declared war on BlackBeard and Jean Lafitte?

Let's say Tommy was in the wrong, for the sake of argument alone, why would that make it right for others to act similarly?

For the sake of discussion, it wouldn't.

Now, let's say, for the sake of discussion, that Tommy actually believed he was acting within the bounds of the recently drafted constitution since he was intimately familiar with the circumstances surrounding it's drafting and with the thoughts of it's authors. What does that say about your interpretation?

BucEyedPea
03-22-2008, 08:16 AM
For amnorix...if he's brave enough. :eek: :D
History of the weird.
Yes, land was also bought from the Indians.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/guide.jpg

patteeu
03-22-2008, 08:16 AM
You seem to be more interested in getting around the constitution...




The Congress shall have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

And they've exercised that power twice in the new millenium.

BucEyedPea
03-22-2008, 08:19 AM
And they've exercised that power twice in the new millenium.

Which is error.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 08:25 AM
Yes I do as a matter of fact. America pre-big govt. The richest and freest one in the world. And still with the least amount of govt over other countries including Europe. I mean China has adopted some of our economic policies and they're rising out of abject poverty. But America was unlike the Congo with it's high income tax rate of like 57%. You seem like the type that would prefer socialist Congo. BTW are you banyon by any chance? he likes the Congo. You should take a vacation there with him.

When was it that America was "pre-big govt."? Was Lincoln the line of demarcation? Or FDR? Either way, you've got a problem on your hands. America's period of phenomenal growth to superpower status took place during the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th, IMO. That was during a period of 3 of your demon presidents, TR, Wilson, and FDR.

If Lincoln ushered in big government, then you've got to admit that America became a superpower after becoming a big government state. If FDR ushered in big government, then how do you account for your bitter hatred of Lincoln, TR, and Wilson and how is it that American success continued unabated for decades after FDR?

I can agree that our freedoms have eroded over pretty much our entire history, and that they've been particularly impacted by the Lincoln and FDR revolutions. But as far as becoming a great nation and a superpower, some level of "big government" seems to deserve a lot of the credit.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 08:28 AM
Which is error.

You're not going to address post #179?

pikesome
03-22-2008, 08:36 AM
I can agree that our freedoms have eroded over pretty much our entire history, and that they've been particularly impacted by the Lincoln and FDR revolutions. But as far as becoming a great nation and a superpower, some level of "big government" seems to deserve a lot of the credit.

I'm not sure I buy the "big government" = superpower statement. Other things happened in there that had an effect independent (or mostly independent) of the government. WWI left the US holding debt from all of the participants as well as the only undisrupted industrial capability.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 08:51 AM
Which is error.

You're not going to address post #179?

**crickets**

patteeu
03-22-2008, 08:54 AM
I'm not sure I buy the "big government" = superpower statement. Other things happened in there that had an effect independent (or mostly independent) of the government. WWI left the US holding debt from all of the participants as well as the only undisrupted industrial capability.

I probably shouldn't have gone so far as to say "deserves a lot of the credit". But the fact remains that we've continued to prosper under an ever bigger government at least through the end of the cold war. I can admit that and still favor an intelligent return to smaller government. I just can't see us going all the way back to the nearly powerless federal government of the late 18th century.

pikesome
03-22-2008, 09:01 AM
I probably shouldn't have gone so far as to say "deserves a lot of the credit". But the fact remains that we've continued to prosper under an ever bigger government at least through the end of the cold war. I can admit that and still favor an intelligent return to smaller government. I just can't see us going all the way back to the nearly powerless federal government of the late 18th century.

From the birth of the Fed it's been getting stronger. They were figuring out ways to do new stuff before the ink dried. And I think it's a 100% certainty that isn't going to change short of something monumental and probably bad.

BucEyedPea
03-22-2008, 09:24 AM
**crickets**

Yep! **crickets** All the way!

Not in the mood to rehash the same arguments with you today.

patteeu
03-22-2008, 09:49 AM
Yep! **crickets** All the way!

Not in the mood to rehash the same arguments with you today.

I don't recall hashing the argument about whether you or Thomas Jefferson has a better grip on the meaning of our constitution before.

banyon
03-22-2008, 11:12 AM
I don't know what makes you believe that you're any less an idealogue than she is. The difference is that your small group of malcontented deviants believe in socialism, only they're too chickenshit to be up front it.

Because I'm not. I'm capable of having a rational conversation without having to have fifty qualifying conditions, just like you are capable. And who exactly would this fringe group of malcontents that I continually refer to and rely on be? Are they socialists? When do I refer to them? And there's too many things that I would disagree with socialists about to be considered a socialist. Yes, there is the main condition that i disagree lately with you and BEP, so I must be a socialist by default, but for starters, I have the following policy disagreements:

1) Against withdrawal from Afghanistan
2) Against compelling Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem
3) I am not for Abolishing the CIA
4) I am not for unconditionally disarming the US
5) I am not for disbanding NATO
6) I am not for ending US Arms sales throughout the world
7) I am not for ending the veto power on the Security Council
8) I am not for a constitutional amendment requiring a binding vote of the people on all issues of war or military intervention.
9) I don't support "militant, united labor action including hot cargo agreements, and boycotts, factory committees, secondary and sympathy strikes, sit-down strikes, general strikes, and ultimately the expropriation of workplaces."
10)I am not for the full blown "repeal of the Hatch Act and the Taft-Hartley Act, the "hot cargo" provision of the Landrum-Griffin Act, and all so-called "right-to-work" laws."
11) I am not "for the same benefits for part-time workers as for full-time workers"
12) I am not for "a 30 hour work week at no loss of pay, with six weeks annual paid vacation."
13) I am not for "a call for unions to stop using union funds for electing candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties."
14) I am not for a minimum wage "of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living."
15) I am not for "all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks"
16) I am not for "a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum." and I do not "oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes."
17) I am not for "increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker's previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer.
18) I am not for "tax benefits for renters equal to those for homeowners."
19) I am not for "the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks that benefit corporations and all other forms of corporate welfare."
20) I am not for "the end of all anti-gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBTQ) restrictions in law and the work place, the repeal of all sodomy laws, and the legalization of same-sex marriage."
21) I am not for "call[ing] on all schools to adopt policies and procedures to address and prevent student violence and to ban discrimination against GLBTQ people throughout the educational system."
22) I am not "for a federal ban on all forms of job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."
23) I am not "committed to confronting the heterosexism that provides the fertile ground for homophobic violence, and support all efforts toward fostering understanding and cooperation among persons and groups of differing sexual orientations."
24) I am not "reparations from the federal government for its role in the slave trade and the genocide of Native American nations, with the reparations programs administered by the oppressed communities themselves."
25) I do not "oppose all efforts to declare English an official language, and call for an end to all language discrimination. We demand that all public and private institutions provide services and materials in the languages of their communities."
26) I do not "call for strict legal penalties for the police practice of racial profiling, and we particularly condemn the targeting of Arabs and Muslims since September 11."
27) I am not "for full enforcement of all sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act so that all public and private buildings, facilities, and modes of transportation are accessible to disabled people, and every effort is made to employ persons with disabilities." (If that means tearing down all existing structures).
28) I do not "oppose any effort to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act by restricting the definition of who is considered a person with a disability, and we call for an amendment to the act that would permit punitive damages for the complainants in ADA cases."
29) I do not "oppose any efforts of the federal government to further limit access to SSDI (Supplemental Security Disability Income Insurance) by restricting their definitions of who is considered a person with a disability."
30) I do not "call for a right of retirement at age 55 a minimum annual retirement income of $25,000, tax free, and protected from inflation by cost of living increase."
31) I do not "demand full support for every woman's right to choose when, if, and how to have children, including the right to free abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, without interference or coercion. Clinics providing abortion services must have the full protection of the law."
32) I do not "call for the decriminalization of prostitution and demand that sex workers, just like all women workers, are guaranteed a full range of health, social, and legal services"
33) I do not support affirmative action for women.
34) I do not "call for children's allowances that will help ensure that every child's basic rights and needs are satisfied in a stimulating, empowering, and caring environment."
35) I do not "call for an end to military draft registration, and an end to military recruiting in educational institutions."
36) I do not "call for the lowering of the voting age to 15"
37) I do not "oppose age-based curfew laws"
38) I do not "support guaranteed incomes and grants for artists and performers. "
39) I do not "oppose merit pay for teachers, standardized testing, competition between schools within the same district, the sale of on-campus advertising in order to raise funds, and the increasing dependence of post-secondary institutions on corporate funding."
40) I do not "call a maximum of 15 students per teacher for grades K-12, and a maximum of 50 students per teacher at the post-secondary level."
41) I do not " call for vigorous affirmative action programs so that the faculty and student-body of all schools reflect the community at large in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, and economic background. We support multicultural, multilingual, experimental education at all levels."
42) I do not "call for rent control for all rental units"
43) I do not "call for an end to home foreclosures"
44) I do not "support federally funded auto insurance."
45) I do not "call for public ownership and worker control of the airline industry."
46) I do not "call for the elimination of the Dept.of Homeland Security "
47) I do not "call for the abolition of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
48) I do not "oppose the militarization of the United States/Mexican border, and an increase in the service budget instead of the "military" budget of the INS."
49) I do not "defend the rights of all immigrants to education, health care, and full civil and legal rights and call for an unconditional amnesty program for all undocumented people." Nor do I "oppose the imposition of any fees on those receiving amnesty."
50) I do not want a " a ban on all immigration detentions "
51) I do not "demand an end to police raids in areas where immigrants congregate."
52) I do not "call for full citizenship rights upon demonstrating residency for six months."
53) I do not "oppose representation based on anything other than population."
54) I do not " call for the restoration of the right to vote for all citizens incarcerated in jails and prisons"
55) I do not "call for the immediate closure of all “Supermax” prisons "
56) I do not "call for the right of prisoners to organize unions and cooperative groups to negotiate for better living conditions"
57) I do not "call for the ultimate replacement of the police with community residents trained in conflict resolution who live in and serve the community under community control."
58) I do not "call for the decriminalization of drug use and the regulation of narcotics by doctors through the use of prescriptions rather than by the criminal justice system."
59) I do not "support public funding of newspapers and magazines. Any non-profit organization that publishes a journal would receive public funding in proportion to its paid subscriber list."
60) I did not "call for the repeal of all existing copyright extension laws."
61) I do not "call for public ownership and democratic control of all our natural resources in order to conserve resources, preserve our wilderness areas, and restore environmental quality."
62) I do not "call for public ownership and worker control of existing corporate farms, support exiting state bans on corporate farms, and support a federal ban on the establishment of new corporate farms."
63) I do not "call for a parity system that guarantees farmers a full return on the cost of production"
64) I do not "call for the repudiation of all current farm debts for working farmers. "
65) I do not "call for family farmers whose land was taken in foreclosures to be given their land and equipment back, or be given comparable land and equipment or monetary compensation"
66) I do not "oppose industrial meat production in all its environmentally destructive forms, including hog confinements, cattle feedlots, and industrial poultry production."
67) I do not "call for a ban on irradiation of food. We particularly condemn the 2002 Farm Bill which allows irradiated food to be mislabeled "pasteurized."
68) I do not "call for the elimination of the use of pesticides".
69) I do not " call for the banning of the fur trade."
70) i do not "call for a ban on animal experimentation for product development, and for an oversight board to examine and limit the use of animals in scientific and medical research."

Here's a link to the real socialist party of America's platform. (http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/) I couldn't vote for those guys. Hell, there's probablymore that i agre with n the Republican Party's platform. You adopting BEP's trait of demonizing and conflating anyone who disagrees with you with your most extreme enemy is a silly habit you should drop, lest you become like her and unable to converse with anyone who disagrees with you. You're smart enough to know that people don't always fit into the pigeonholes you try to jam them into.

bango
03-22-2008, 12:18 PM
Bep,

When was the last time that America was pre-big government? Was it a long time ago like I have been saying throughout my posts on this topic? I would rather not go to the Congo. I am not Banyon. You accuse me of not staying on topic while I try to explain to you that your view is outdated and then go off topic to make ill remarks? Like I said some of those policies would be nice, but it is not going to happen and if it does it will be along time from now. Do you really want to go back to the 12 hour a day six day work week? Should little kids go back to the factories? I could go on and on. Can a really small government do this or just a local one? I do agree that there should be less federal governmnet. Government should be more local and maybe statewide. Just because I would like it does not mean that it is going to happen. I have to be realistic. I look around and I see less people who want this type of system and more who would want the status quo. I think that we are going to have the latter again and it will have little to do with who wins the POTUS. You could not give me an example of a recent small government country that is not a shithole.

Taco John
03-22-2008, 01:37 PM
You adopting BEP's trait of demonizing and conflating anyone who disagrees with you with your most extreme enemy is a silly habit you should drop...


Blah blah blah... Looks like a taste of your own medicine makes you pretty bitter...

patteeu
03-22-2008, 01:42 PM
Blah blah blah... Looks like a taste of your own medicine makes you pretty bitter...

How is "BEP's trait of demonizing and conflating anyone who disagrees with [her] with [her] most extreme enemy", a taste of banyon's own medicine? I haven't really noticed that about banyon at all. Although he doesn't care for Dick Cheney so he's probably al Qaeda.

Edit: And I should also say that I don't think you do it nearly as much as BEP does. Probably no more than I do. And I do sympathize with the idea that people pushing for even bigger and more comprehensive government solutions are pushing us in the direction of socialism even if they aren't full blown socialists as defined by the Socialist Party of America.

banyon
03-22-2008, 01:47 PM
Blah blah blah... Looks like a taste of your own medicine makes you pretty bitter...

So you have nothing that shows I am a socialist other than your own confused misappropriation of that term? Color me surprised.

a1na2
03-22-2008, 04:30 PM
1) - 70)


Here's a link to the real socialist party of America's platform. (http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/)


You're smart enough to know that people don't always fit into the pigeonholes you try to jam them into.

To save space I've just hit the mile markers here. Banyon wins the discussion hands down.

No he isn't, otherwise he wouldn't keep putting people there.

keg in kc
03-22-2008, 04:36 PM
I wonder if I just made an FBI watch list for clicking that socialist party link.

I mean, I had to look...

pikesome
03-22-2008, 04:53 PM
I wonder if I just made an FBI watch list for clicking that socialist party link.

I mean, I had to look...

Nobody takes the Socialist Party seriously anymore, probably not even the FBI.

Taco John
03-22-2008, 05:34 PM
So you have nothing that shows I am a socialist other than your own confused misappropriation of that term? Color me surprised.


You mean other than the fact that you push for socialism? No, nothing... :rolleyes:

banyon
03-22-2008, 08:16 PM
You mean other than the fact that you push for socialism? No, nothing... :rolleyes:

Congrats, you are the McCarthy of Chiefsplanet and Socialism. No substance, just wild-eyed allegations.

a1na2
03-22-2008, 08:22 PM
Congrats, you are the McCarthy of Chiefsplanet and Socialism. No substance, just wild-eyed allegations.

Mr. Assistant DA, are you just now getting this down? He's been that way for a very long time.

BucEyedPea
03-22-2008, 09:42 PM
I don't recall hashing the argument about whether you or Thomas Jefferson has a better grip on the meaning of our constitution before.
You have symptons of andropause then. :D Cause I remember. Just different words were used. You're creative like that when you seemingly market a new debate.

Edit: And I should also say that I don't think you do it nearly as much as BEP does. Probably no more than I do. And I do sympathize with the idea that people pushing for even bigger and more comprehensive government solutions are pushing us in the direction of socialism even if they aren't full blown socialists as defined by the Socialist Party of America.

Well, you did say one time that most Americans are socialist-lite, which I agreed with. It's true. The thing is most of them aren't aware if it. That was the agenda by them all along. It's Fabianism. I happened to have a read more than the average person on this subject so my awareness of it is higher. We are more than half socialist now. I'd say 3/5ths. The problem I have is that more keeps being pushed. Where will it end? This IS the reason why I left the Democratic party. Most of them are aware of it though and will admit it because I have socialist friends. Then some are in denial.

But its a micharacterization to call it demonizing the person...it's dislike of the idea. I don't do it just because the person is disagreeing, I do it because I disagree with the idea. They just keep pushing for more and I like to point where things are headin' and that many of our problems they complain about are stemming from this idea so it's not the solution. That's why I do it.

BucEyedPea
03-22-2008, 09:48 PM
Nobody takes the Socialist Party seriously anymore, probably not even the FBI.

Why should they, it's mainstream now. Just no one recognizes it. Probably half the FBI supports it too.

banyon
03-22-2008, 10:17 PM
But its a micharacterization to call it demonizing the person...it's dislike of the idea. I don't do it just because the person is disagreeing, I do it because I disagree with the idea. They just keep pushing for more and I like to point where things are headin' and that many of our problems they complain about are stemming from this idea so it's not the solution. That's why I do it.

This almost sounds reasonable if it weren't consistently done in such absolutist black-or-white terms.

ROYC75
03-22-2008, 10:25 PM
Damn, It's late night 03/22/08 and I have to go pop some popcorn for this one........already 14 pages long. :eek:

Taco John
03-22-2008, 10:37 PM
Congrats, you are the McCarthy of Chiefsplanet and Socialism. No substance, just wild-eyed allegations.


It's not like you're alone or anything. There are plenty of people who favor socialist security programs as well as a socialist healthcare system. It's just that in your view, you shouldn't be called a socialist for being in favor of such things. But not liking the word "socialism" isn't going to change the fundamentals of the things you support.

I don't know how I become a bad guy for calling it what it is. Especially if you're going to sit there and attack Austrian Economics. At least I have the guts to admit that I'm in favor of free market economics. Instead of getting mad at me for calling socialist programs "socialism," you should examine why you're so ashamed of admitting that they are.

BucEyedPea
03-22-2008, 10:46 PM
Instead of getting mad at me for calling socialist programs "socialism," you should examine why you're so ashamed of admitting that they are.
It means you're hitting on the truth and he can't confront it. It's a mechanism. When someone's not taking full responsibility for what they're advocating they get hostile. He reads the Nation. You see what they advocate over there? Granted they're terrific on Iraq but then it's govt day care so women can work. The list doesn't end. After then it will be something else.

ChiefaRoo
03-22-2008, 10:47 PM
So you have nothing that shows I am a socialist other than your own confused misappropriation of that term? Color me surprised.

How do you feel about Donkey shows? Wheee :)

Taco John
03-22-2008, 10:48 PM
This almost sounds reasonable if it weren't consistently done in such absolutist black-or-white terms.

You mean like calling Austrian economists and anyone who disagrees with the public education version of history "malcontented deviants?" If we could only all show this kind of rational and even-keeled demeanor in our political discourse. Imagine what the world could be! :rolleyes:

I've seen you fly off the handle just for having to suffer the suggestion that there are free market solutions that could address the problems that we face. Your high horse proclimations about reason is being delivered from the back of a shetland pony.

Logical
03-22-2008, 11:49 PM
I find it hard to believe that we have nothing better to do than rag on BEP and TJ for having the courage to believe in something. I do think they take it a little far some times but would not the world be a better place if people were as passionate about their convictions as TJ and BEP?

Taco John
03-23-2008, 12:07 AM
Even more so if they were passionate about the same ones... ;)

:D

banyon
03-23-2008, 08:07 AM
It's not like you're alone or anything. There are plenty of people who favor socialist security programs as well as a socialist healthcare system. It's just that in your view, you shouldn't be called a socialist for being in favor of such things. But not liking the word "socialism" isn't going to change the fundamentals of the things you support.

I don't know how I become a bad guy for calling it what it is. Especially if you're going to sit there and attack Austrian Economics. At least I have the guts to admit that I'm in favor of free market economics. Instead of getting mad at me for calling socialist programs "socialism," you should examine why you're so ashamed of admitting that they are.

I'm not ashamed of anything. There's a middle ground that you deny exists. That's the black-or-white I'm referring to. Either you believe in totally unregulated free market policies or you want Soviet sytle command and control policies. Hell, you denied shades of gray in your next post too:


I've seen you fly off the handle just for having to suffer the suggestion that there are free market solutions that could address the problems that we face. Your high horse proclimations about reason is being delivered from the back of a shetland pony.

That's of course bunk. There are plenty of situations where market mechanisms are well suited to handle things, just not every situation 100% of the time. If you read my disagreement with the Socialist Party's platform, you would probably realize that many of the policies I disagreed with was because they went too far and didn't allow for enough free exchange and market innovation/efficiency. I also favor cap and trade systems for CO2 emissions, deposits/refunds for recycling (those are market solutions if you didn't know). Markets exist to do 1 thing: allocate resources efficiently. That's it. That's all they do. They do that job very well. They also assume that people have perfect access to information and that prices are negotiated from a level bargaining position, both of which are rarely true in the real world. They also tell you little about other factors we may want to include, moral, environmental, or otherwise.

My views are really left of center, buy when you paint them as extreme left Socialist (or Stalinist) then you are dragging down the conversation in just as silly a way as if I called you "anarchists" or "antiprogress" which if you can't drop it, I will just return the favor I guess.

Anyway, this thread has gone on so long that somehow I wound up getting - ahem, shut your mouth -'s support, so it's probably time to end my participation in this thread.

a1na2
03-23-2008, 12:31 PM
I find it hard to believe that we have nothing better to do than rag on BEP and TJ for having the courage to believe in something. I do think they take it a little far some times but would not the world be a better place if people were as passionate about their convictions as TJ and BEP?

How is it that you have a problem with ragging on BEP and TJ when you rag on people for their differing beliefs?

Amnorix
03-23-2008, 03:08 PM
For amnorix...if he's brave enough. :eek: :D
History of the weird.
Yes, land was also bought from the Indians.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/guide.jpg


From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods

and is now resident scholar and senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute) (LvMI), as well as a member of the editorial board for the institute's Journal of Libertarian Studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Libertarian_Studies).

so, thanks anyway, but no.

Amnorix
03-23-2008, 03:16 PM
So you have nothing that shows I am a socialist other than your own confused misappropriation of that term? Color me surprised.


From waaaaay over on the edge of that socio/political/economic/historic shelf that she stands on, everybody to the left of her is a socialist, with no gradations. It has to do with the angle of the view.

Amnorix
03-23-2008, 03:17 PM
You mean other than the fact that you push for socialism? No, nothing... :rolleyes:

You understand that there is a difference between a true socialist system, and a capitalist system with some socialistic aspects or programs within it, yes?

a1na2
03-23-2008, 04:10 PM
You understand that there is a difference between a true socialist system, and a capitalist system with some socialistic aspects or programs within it, yes?


If that were actually the case this thread wouldn't have gotten off the ground!

Taco John
03-23-2008, 07:31 PM
I'm not ashamed of anything. There's a middle ground that you deny exists.


Only for people who are too embarassed to admit that they're socialists.

When you take money from people in order to "spread the wealth" that's called socialism. It's pretty black and white. There's not too much gray area in that concept, no matter how embarassed you are of the word.

Amnorix
03-23-2008, 07:40 PM
Only for people who are too embarassed to admit that they're socialists.

When you take money from people in order to "spread the wealth" that's called socialism. It's pretty black and white. There's not too much gray area in that concept, no matter how embarassed you are of the word.

A program may be socialistic. A person may be a socialist. A government may be socialist.

But a person may support a few programs that have socialistic elements, or in fact be completely socialistic, without supporting a COMPLETELY socialist government.

If you fail to understand that, or admit that, then there's hardly any point in ever conversing with you about anything relating to economics.

alanm
03-23-2008, 08:00 PM
Nobody takes the Socialist Party seriously anymore, probably not even the FBI.
They wouldn't tell you if they did or not regardless. :)

banyon
03-23-2008, 08:01 PM
A program may be socialistic. A person may be a socialist. A government may be socialist.

But a person may support a few programs that have socialistic elements, or in fact be completely socialistic, without supporting a COMPLETELY socialist government.

If you fail to understand that, or admit that, then there's hardly any point in ever conversing with you about anything relating to economics.

pretty much

Taco John
03-23-2008, 10:08 PM
How many children does a person have to molest before they get branded a child molestor?

How many socialist programs does a person have to support before I can call them a socialist?

If you support taking my money to spread it around for the social welfare of all, you are a socialist. Period. There's not a lot of gray area there. You can pretend that there is gray area there. You can kick and scream and whine and demand that you don't believe in socialism... But the bottom line doesn't change here. When you advocate for things like social security and nationalized healthcare, then you are advocating for socialism. When a system forces me to give up 5-6 months of my pay in order to spread it around for "the good of society," that's socialism.

I don't know where you get the idea that there is absolutely no capitalism in a socialist system. Socialism was never meant to be an end. It was a means to an end: communism. It's a transitionary state.

Marx saw capitalism is a huge part of the socialist progression to communism. It's practically the fuel that stokes the engine.

Honestly, for as smart as you guys are, I don't think that you fully understand socialist theory. Blows me away that you think that there's absolutely no capitalism in socialism.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 06:22 AM
How many children does a person have to molest before they get branded a child molestor?

How many socialist programs does a person have to support before I can call them a socialist?

If you support taking my money to spread it around for the social welfare of all, you are a socialist. Period. There's not a lot of gray area there. You can pretend that there is gray area there. You can kick and scream and whine and demand that you don't believe in socialism... But the bottom line doesn't change here. When you advocate for things like social security and nationalized healthcare, then you are advocating for socialism. When a system forces me to give up 5-6 months of my pay in order to spread it around for "the good of society," that's socialism.

I don't know where you get the idea that there is absolutely no capitalism in a socialist system. Socialism was never meant to be an end. It was a means to an end: communism. It's a transitionary state.

Marx saw capitalism is a huge part of the socialist progression to communism. It's practically the fuel that stokes the engine.

Honestly, for as smart as you guys are, I don't think that you fully understand socialist theory. Blows me away that you think that there's absolutely no capitalism in socialism.

How absurd.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 09:14 AM
How absurd.

Hahaha!

You didn't answer the question. How many socialist programs does a person have to support before they can legitimately (in your eyes) be called a socialist?

How absurd indeed.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 09:24 AM
Hahaha!

You didn't answer the question. How many socialist programs does a person have to support before they can legitimately (in your eyes) be called a socialist?

How absurd indeed.

42. Isn't that always the right answer?



Let me give a serious answer -- in your mind there is apparently no distinction between Karl Marx and myself. Socialists both. And, furthermore, that extends to probably 90% of the population of the United States, because that's probably the percentage that supports the Social Security system.

And, as a result, your statement is absurd. Absolutely, without a doubt, absurd.

Finally, I'm amazed that you and BEP can categorize people to within the n'th degree of perfection with your various labels, and yet apparently everyone who is not an ultra-doctrinaire libertarian is automatically a socialist. Well done. You must work hard to come up with such silliness.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 09:30 AM
Let me give a serious answer -- in your mind there is apparently no distinction between Karl Marx and myself.


Hahaha! Yeah, that's what I said... You and Karl Marx... :rolleyes:

Your argument is so weak that you have to stretch mine beyond recognition in order to counter it.

Sully
03-24-2008, 09:34 AM
Hahaha! Yeah, that's what I said... You and Karl Marx... :rolleyes:

Your argument is so weak that you have to stretch mine beyond recognition in order to counter it.

I have no dog in this fight, but I wonder...
When you say there is no gray area, what do you expect people to think you mean?

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 09:36 AM
Your argument is so weak that you have to stretch mine beyond recognition in order to counter it.
I notice that it's the lawyers, or lawyer trained, that do that the most. Not just here but across several boards. Out of the 9 lawyers on this board 6 of them do it regularly, but Amnorix does it the most. To banyon's credit I don't recall seeing him do that or much. Baby Lee, trndobrd don't do it much either but I have trndobrd do it a bit. Just an observation. I think it's because they're trained to have to win an argument more. So it seems to get into re-creating an argument, even if it's just to have one.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 09:42 AM
I have no dog in this fight, but I wonder...
When you say there is no gray area, what do you expect people to think you mean?

That taking money from people and spreading it around for "the good of society" is socialism. Where's the gray area? Point that out to me. I'd be happy to entertain the argument if someone can show me where the gray area there is.

But this red herring that I'm calling people "Karl Marx" because they support socialism-- What a waste of time and a chickenshit way of trying to subvert what's at issue here.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 09:45 AM
That taking money from people and spreading it around for "the good of society" is socialism. Where's the gray area? Point that out to me. I'd be happy to entertain the argument if someone can show me where the gray area there is.

But this red herring that I'm calling people "Karl Marx" because they support socialism-- What a waste of time and a chickenshit way of trying to subvert what's at issue here.

Were the drafters of the constitution socialists? Even pre-16th amendment, the constitution authorized the central government to take money from one group of people for the benefit of society (even though the authorized ways in which the government was allowed to benefit society were much more restrained at that point in our history).

I'm largely on your side on the idea that our country is moving further toward socialism like the proverbial frog in boiling water, but you're marginalizing the argument by setting the bar so high that not even James Madison can pass the test. It's better, IMO, to talk about people trying to move us more toward or away from socialism and recognizing that some people can favor more socialism on some issues and less on others.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 09:48 AM
Were the drafters of the constitution socialists? Even pre-16th amendment, the constitution authorized the central government to take money from one group of people for the benefit of society (even though the authorized ways in which the government was allowed to benefit society were much more restrained at that point in our history).

Where did our founders advocate taking money from one group of people in order to spread it around to others "for the good of society?"

banyon
03-24-2008, 09:53 AM
Where did our founders advocate taking money from one group of people in order to spread it around to others "for the good of society?"

The Power to tax is in the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. (pre-Bill of Rights) Whiskey and excise taxes were expected to fund the new government.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 09:55 AM
Hahaha! Yeah, that's what I said... You and Karl Marx... :rolleyes:

Your argument is so weak that you have to stretch mine beyond recognition in order to counter it.

You're the one claiming I"m a doctraine socialist, apparently. If not, feel free to clarify your prior statements.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 09:56 AM
The Power to tax is in the Enumerated Powers of the Contitution. (pre-Bill of Rights) Whiskey and excise taxes were expected to fund the new government.

And that answers my question how?

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 09:57 AM
I notice that it's the lawyers, or lawyer trained, that do that the most. Not just here but across several boards. Out of the 9 lawyers on this board 6 of them do it regularly, but Amnorix does it the most. To banyon's credit I don't recall seeing him do that or much. Baby Lee, trndobrd don't do it much either but I have trndobrd do it a bit. Just an observation. I think it's because they're trained to have to win an argument more. So it seems to get into re-creating an argument, even if it's just to have one.

I don't even know that there's 9 lawyers on this board. Do you keep count?

Anyway, he said there's no shades of gray. I'm a socialist. Did I misinterpret that?

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 09:58 AM
Were the drafters of the constitution socialists? Even pre-16th amendment, the constitution authorized the central government to take money from one group of people for the benefit of society (even though the authorized ways in which the government was allowed to benefit society were much more restrained at that point in our history).
Please provide specifics.

As far as I know the general welfare had a different meaning than it does in our society today. It was discussed by them at the time. It meant only things the nation needed as a whole and not private needs of citizens or needs of special interest groups: the poor, activists for the poor being special interest groups just as much as any other. It was Hamilton that had a more expansive notion of what the general welfare would be and the battle started immediately after ratification and so it went back and forth. Hamilton was the corporation's and aristocrat's man. But Hamilton's ideas were rejected in the CC. There was way too much fear of a central govt in the hearts of the rest of them at that convention.

But I say we even went further than Hamilton too.The Butler case allowed the progressive (socialists) to get their ideas implemented and centralized more power at the fed level. They had a few such people back in the days of the founding but they were criticized harshly by all of them. They were just called "levelers" back then. In fact Madison was very critical of democracy—the vehicle that implements socialism.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 10:00 AM
Where did our founders advocate taking money from one group of people in order to spread it around to others "for the good of society?"

In Article 1 Section 2 they granted Congress the power to tax the people and in Article 1 Section 8 they granted Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce among other things.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 10:03 AM
Please provide specifics.

As far as I know the general welfare had a different meaning than it does in our society today. It was discussed by them at the time. It mean only things the nation needed as a whole and not special interest groups: the poor, activists for the poor being some. It was Hamilton that had a more expansive notion of what the general welfare would be and the battle started immediately and so it went back and forth. Hamilton was the corporation's and aristocrat's man. But Hamilton's ideas were rejected in the CC. There was way too much fear of a central govt in the hearts of the rest of them at that convention.

Your argument is very strange. He did propose a parliamentary system, but that was rejected, and then became a leading proponent, supporter and drafter of the ACTUAL Constitution.

You keep acting like everything he says about the REAL Constitution is automatically wrong becuase he previously supported -- at a time when everyone was submitting proposals -- a different plan than that which was subsequently adopted. That's not true, and his prior advocacy of a different system is irrelevant.

Also note that he and Madison wrote nearly all of the Federalist Papers, and that everyone (other than you apparently, in the libertarian party) gives him high credit for Constitutional knowledge, etc.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 10:05 AM
In Article 1 Section 2 they granted Congress the power to tax the people and in Article 1 Section 8 they granted Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce among other things.

The missing piece of the puzzle on this is that these are read today to back up the left's view but back then, if you read the notes on the convention or the Federalist they weren't intended to apply as they are today. So that's doesn't do it. Particularly when you skip the whole of the document with words "specific and enumerated powers." The federal constitution was written primarily as a restraint on the federal govt so those clauses are not an adequate defense.

I was asking for specific pieces of legislation back in the days of the early republic that showed a general grant to give money to others in the vein we're discussing.

Taco John
03-24-2008, 10:06 AM
You're the one claiming I"m a doctraine socialist, apparently. If not, feel free to clarify your prior statements.


I haven't claimed anyone is a docrtaine socialist. In fact, I pretty much let you off the hook by showing that you have a lot of ignorance about what a doctraine socialist even is.

You're more of the hapless socialist. You just happen to be a socialist, not because you partiularly want to be... But just because you happen to support socialist ideas. That's where a good majority of Americans are. It's not like people are making well informed decisions to become socialist. Not at all. They are like frogs in a pot, slowly becoming reliant on the socialist paradigm that has been introduced into the country piece by piece in the name of "security" and "equality."

Very few people in America think of themselves as socialists. No. They think of themselves as defenders of the poor! They want to empower the working man to have the same benefits as the rich man. Fairness and equality and all that.

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 10:06 AM
Also note, of course, that Madison's Virginia Plan was heavily modified through the process. Are we then to infer that Madison's opinions regarding the Constitution should be rejected.

Indeed, whose opinion would then matter?

Taco John
03-24-2008, 10:07 AM
In Article 1 Section 2 they granted Congress the power to tax the people and in Article 1 Section 8 they granted Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce among other things.


Like Banyon, you're only addressing half of the equation.

I didn't think that I'd have to dumb it down for such smart people... But here goes:

Where did our founders advocate taking money from one group of people in order to spread it around to others "for the good of society?"

Amnorix
03-24-2008, 10:09 AM
I haven't claimed anyone is a docrtaine socialist. In fact, I pretty much let you off the hook by showing that you have a lot of ignorance about what a doctraine socialist even is.

You're more of the hapless socialist. You just happen to be a socialist, not because you partiularly want to be... But just because you happen to support socialist ideas. That's where a good majority of Americans are. It's not like people are making well informed decisions to become socialist. Not at all. They are like frogs in a pot, slowly becoming reliant on the socialist paradigm that has been introduced into the country piece by piece in the name of "security" and "equality."

Very few people in America think of themselves as socialists. No. They think of themselves as defenders of the poor! They want to empower the working man to have the same benefits as the rich man. Fairness and equality and all that.


You are, effectively, blinded by your ideological outrage. You simply brand everyone that doesnt' follow your arch-libertarian ideals as a socialist. That's fine, but it's fairly silly.

Call me whatever makes you happy. It makes no difference to me. As I recently said, from your angle waaaay out there on the edge of libertarian nutjobism, all of us over here likely do look like we all stand in the same place on the spectrum of economic thought -- it's the angle of your view.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 10:15 AM
The missing piece of the puzzle on this is that these are read today to back up the left's view but back then, if you read the notes on the convention or the Federalist they weren't intended to apply as they are today. So that's doesn't do it. Particularly when you skip the whole of the document with words "specific and enumerated powers." The federal constitution was written primarily as a restraint on the federal govt so those clauses are not an adequate defense.

I was asking for specific pieces of legislation back in the days of the early republic that showed a general grant to give money to others in the vein we're discussing.

I don't care what you were asking, I'm pointing out that the drafters of the Constitution were socialists according to the extremely stringent standard that you and Taco seem to be setting. You guys have given me no reason to read into your standard an exemption for socialistic elements contained in the original US constitution.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 10:19 AM
I don't care what you were asking, I'm pointing out that the drafters of the Constitution were socialists according to the extremely stringent standard that you and Taco seem to be setting. You guys have given me no reason to read into your standard an exemption for socialistic elements contained in the original US constitution.

They were not—at all. And our standard does not do that—at all.
You can't back up your assertions, as you accused me of, with any acts of congress that redistributed wealth of the society for the good of society in the early days of the Republic. IOWs, it's just your opinion.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 10:21 AM
Like Banyon, you're only addressing half of the equation.

I didn't think that I'd have to dumb it down for such smart people... But here goes:

Where did our founders advocate taking money from one group of people in order to spread it around to others "for the good of society?"

When the founders taxed a whiskey maker's product and gave the money to a marine who was defending US interests off the Barbary Coast in an undeclared war against muslims, they were doing so for the good of our society (even though some paleo-isolationists might have objected and blamed it all on our own imperialistic merchant ships who had no business sailing in such far flung seas).

BucEyedPea
03-24-2008, 10:23 AM
Defense spending is enumerated in the Constitution though as something that belongs under the general welfare.

That is not the type of thing TJ and I mean. That's a different category of thing and a point of illogic. Apples and oranges.

Once again, you redefine the argument on your own terms to claim you won it.

banyon
03-24-2008, 10:24 AM
Like Banyon, you're only addressing half of the equation.

I didn't think that I'd have to dumb it down for such smart people... But here goes:

Where did our founders advocate taking money from one group of people in order to spread it around to others "for the good of society?"

You also might want to read the first sentence of the Constitution.

patteeu
03-24-2008, 10:24 AM
They were not—at all. And our standard does not do that—at all.
You can't back up your assertions, as you accused me of, with any acts of congress that redistributed wealth of the society for the good of society in the early days of the Republic. IOWs, it's just your opinion.

I've already backed it up by pointing out that the constitution really did say what I said it said. Let's face it, you don't really have a good grip on your argument. You don't like the socialistic measures that you don't like (e.g. food stamps) but you ignore those that you don't have as much problem with (e.g. those authorized by the drafters of the constitution).

banyon
03-24-2008, 10:25 AM
Defense spending is enumerated in the Constitution though as something that belongs under the general welfare.

That is not the type of thing TJ and I mean. That's a different category of thing and a point of illogic. Apples and oranges.

Once again, you redefine the argument on your own terms to claim you won it.


The illogic occurred when the ridiculously overbroad blanket statements were made by you and TJ. Pointing out how overly broad the statements are isn't illogic.