Social Conservatives and Corporatists.

Read the post.

I can't think of any other language in the whole document that gives that much power to any body of government.

__________________
It really is that simple.

You are striving very hard to not only be an arrogant asshole, but pompous as well. What gives you any insight into anyone's beliefs when you cannot even articulate your own beliefs? You have never had a discussion with me, or anyone else I have seen, where you did not resort to quoting someone else rather than actually articulate a cogent defense of any position you espouse. The thing I find most amazing is that your threads are not relegates to conspiracy theories sub forum, you exhibit all the classic signs of a conspiracy nut, or a pundit. You are no different than Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, except they actually know they are crazy, and have the money to prove it.


Confirmation Bias « You Are Not So Smart

I only hope that I can keep others from falling into your warped world where one side is always right, and the other is always wrong, and anyone who disagrees with you is on the side that is always wrong.

Tell me something, have you ever publicly admitted you were wrong? Privately? Are you to self serving to even recognize when someone is being sarcastic?

__________________

Ah, yes. Hamilton's exploit is classic. And I'm always so tempted to show just how idiotic the 'implied general power' interpretation really is, but let's not and say we did, eh? Frankly, the levels of delusion necessary to defend it are simply too embarrassing to wade through yet again.

Funny thing, Bush signed the law that you say would have prevented him from being elected. How do you explain the fact that he got reelected?

__________________

Only if you neglect to read the rest of the sentence.

That might actually be your problem here, you read so far and then stop because you got to the part you like. The part of the sentence you glossed over explains why, when Congress passed an income tax, it was ruled unconstitutional.

Please, don't let actual history and the English language get in the way of your beliefs though, no one else does. Why think for yourself when others can think for you?

__________________

I agree with the quoted portion of the article. I don't buy books by any of the right wing pundits. I have half a dozen written by "our people." One of them I have read twice.

Is this a good thing? Hell no. I know that I should read as much as I can from the other side. So why don't I? I'm not sure it is just that I like to hear what I already believe. I think it's more that I know in advance that much of what comes at me from the conservative side is - well, let's just say I don't believe it. I know, I know - maybe if I read it, I might change some of my views.

I can't ever imagine changing my views on torture, the Patriot Act, abortion, or any number of the major issues we love to kick around here. It is not a matter of rational argument. Rather, it is a matter of fundamental values, the way I was educated and raised, etc. That is not to say that I am right an "they" are wrong. There are two sides to every issue. I recognize that those who oppose my views are equally committed to theirs - based largely on the same thing I was talking about previously, i.e. fundamental values.

Let's face it. If your version of patriotism involves torturing suspected terrorists, have at it. I respect your motivation and your commitment to that, or any other, subjective issues such as that. And let's face it - virtually all of this stuff involves a subjective decision.

You raise a hell of an issue here. More later. Right now, my wife wants me to do stuff. Shit!

__________________
"I was in the pool! I was in the pool!"

Kudos for seeing that you are biased.

I will be honest, I have to remind myself every day that I fall into the same trap. It is impossible to read everything the people I disagree with say, but I do try, and have found myself occasionally learning from the experience and changing my mind. One of the issues that I was particularly wrong about was gay marriage. I let my personal bias against some of the more radical activists influence my position on the whole issue.

__________________

And as already addressed, the Supreme Court has established over 200 years of case law explaining what Congress may do and what it may not, starting with McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), where the Court ruled ‘[t]he States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution.’

This was reaffirmed in United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), where the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was upheld as Constitutional pursuant to the Commerce Clause:

The Tenth Amendment therefore never authorized states to ignore Federal statues, enact laws which in of themselves violated the Federal Constitution, or otherwise violate the civil rights of their citizens.

It is not a matter of ‘crowing’ about anything – it’s a matter of libertarians’ and others on the extreme right providing justification for their position in the context of the rule of law.

Historically it has been the states and local jurisdictions that have violated the civil rights of Americans, not the Federal government. For 57 years the Supreme Court has addressed various cases of civil rights violations by the states and other jurisdictions from Brown v Board of Education in 1954 to Lawrence v Texas in 2003. These and other cases have addressed violations including but not limited to privacy rights, equal protection rights, and due process rights.

It’s troubling and inconsistent on the part of libertarians to be overly concerned about the government excess in fiscal matters yet unconcerned with regard to government excess in civil liberties issues.

It’s also not a matter of ‘thinking for yourself,’ rather, it’s an understanding of the Constitution in the context of the rule of law, of understanding the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Founding Document authorized by the rule of law, and that the original intent of the Framers was diverse and mutable at the time, never realizing consensus.

__________________
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

Well, as I've stated and you've ignored, I believe the Supreme Court was wrong on this. Appeals to authority don't resolve whether said authority is right.

Both states and the federal government are guilty of expanding government power beyond the limits set by the Constitution and the Supreme Court has largely ignored both. But in reality, it's voters who have failed to uphold the values of limited government. In the end, quibbling over the intent and meaning of the original text of the constitution is meaningless if voters don't care. If most people want an intrusive, caretaker government, that's what we'll get. It's up the rest of us to figure out how to fight back.

Now you're simply fantasizing. Libertarians are far more adamant defenders of our liberties than any other political party.

RW hacks love corporatism and the state.

Roderick Long explains it nicely here: Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now | Roderick Long | Cato Unbound

Well the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War should have convinced the "State Rights" types that "State Rights" only go so far.

But go on chief. Bray ad nauseum about Federal Limits. The whole argument was lost essentially when we stopped relying on a militia based military and moved to a professional one.

__________________
It really is that simple.

We go on.

Find that limits.

Most of them have to do with what the Federal Government can do to the individual. Not what power they have over the states.

And conservatives? Heck..that's what they have a problem with.

They WANT the federal government to be able to torture people, to hold people without a way to defend themselves, and to give corporations the right to grab land if there is a profit in it.

__________________
It really is that simple.

I love a professional military and paying blood money for cold-blooded killers. Give this man a Purple Heart.

Then what are you replacing the Supreme Court with? Who makes the final determination as to the meaning of the Founding Document, if the Framers themselves were unable to do so?
And if the majority of the people elect to violate the rights of the minority, what is the injured party’s means of redress? Or are they simply forced to have their Constitutional rights violated?

Examples? How can liberty be retained if the rule of law is abandoned? Or do you, unlike the Framers, believe men are capable of ruling justly?

__________________
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

And, as I recently pointed out to you, SCOTUS recently ruled unanimously that the powers of the federal government are not only not unlimited, individuals can actually challenge laws under the 10th Amendment. Please feel free to continue ignoring reality, current case law, and anything else that contradicts you if it interferes with your pretense you actually know what you are talking about.

Libertarians are not the extreme right.

What universe are you from? SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment did not give Congress the power to force states to honor civil rights. You can twist that to mean that states violated those tights if you want, but the fact is that the federal government did it first.

Yet you think it is perfectly consistent to do the opposite.



Thank you for proving my point.

__________________