Accomplishments of Liberalism

[jillian]

You might think that, but that is because you don't understand how the law works.

You know what always amuses me? People who have no understanding of our common law system and the ways in which statutory provisions are construed by courts always claim to have all the answers in black and white. Yet, brilliant jurists have debated these issues and agonized over them.

But Rush Limbaugh tells armchair constitutionalists what the *law* is and they think they know more than great justices.

Kind of mind-boggling.

 

[ReillyT]

You flatter me.

A state? Or the Federal government? Presumably, we have the right to life, liberty...yadda, yadda. So it seems that allowing murder would be a violation of the social contract, if not the Constitution. But I've never thought about the issue before. It's an intersting question. Certainly there are types of killing that are legitimate, like self defense, defense of others and defense of property, within certain guidelines.

My thought was that general police powers are entrusted to the states, so ultimately, it up to them to delineate what constitutes murder and ultimately whether to prohibit it. Same with theft, speeding laws, etc. Have you ever heard of the Constitution being invoked to structure relations between citizens of a single state, absent state government regulation (e.g., redefining property rights)?

 

[ReillyT]

You know what always amuses me? People who have no understanding of our common law system and the ways in which statutory provisions are construed by courts always claim to have all the answers in black and white. Yet, brilliant jurists have debated these issues and agonized over them.

But Rush Limbaugh tells armchair constitutionalists what the *law* is and they think they know more than great justices.

Kind of mind-boggling.

We have had another fine example today. The idea that disagreeing with the law somehow makes it less valid escapes me, but some people hold pretty tightly to the idea.

 

[jillian]

My thought was that general police powers are entrusted to the states, so ultimately, it up to them to delineate what constitutes murder and ultimately whether to prohibit it. Same with theft, speeding laws, etc. Have you ever heard of the Constitution being invoked to structure relations between citizens of a single state, absent state government regulation (e.g., redefining property rights)?

Well, Federal anti-discrimination laws apply to relations between citizens of a single state, no? (unless I'm misunderstanding what you're asking). And the states can't give any less protection to individuals than the federal constitution. But yes, I would suppose that it's possible to define terms like murder, theft, assault, etc., in such a way that the burden for proving them becomes virtually insurmountable.

 

[jillian]

We have had another fine example today. The idea that disagreeing with the law somehow makes it less valid escapes me, but some people hold pretty tightly to the idea.

I suppose it's comforting. Beyond that, they're being encouraged to do that by their pundits and even their politicians.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We have had another fine example today. The idea that disagreeing with the law somehow makes it less valid escapes me, but some people hold pretty tightly to the idea.

Wow.
Are you so desperate that you need to misrepresent my position?
I mean, Jillian does it all the time, but she's pathetic.
But you?

Tell me:
When you knew your mom was wrong, was her saying "because I said so" good enough for you?

 

[ReillyT]

Well, Federal anti-discrimination laws apply to relations between citizens of a single state, no? (unless I'm misunderstanding what you're asking). And the states can't give any less protection to individuals than the federal constitution. But yes, I would suppose that it's possible to define terms like murder, theft, assault, etc., in such a way that the burden for proving them becomes virtually insurmountable.

Good point about anti-discrimination laws. However, I believe those fall under the Commerce Clause, and required positive legislation. One couldn't just point to the Commerce Clause and claim discrimination. Absent specific legislation to the contrary (which would probably be equally valid under the Commerce Clause), does the federal Constitution prohibit murder (which would then suggest that the states must offer at least the same protection)? I don't think that it does - there is certainly no general federal statute prohibiting it.

 

[ReillyT]

Wow.
Are you so desperate that you need to misrepresent my position?
I mean, Jillian does it all the time, but she's pathetic.
But you?

Tell me:
When you knew your mom was wrong, was her saying "because I said so" good enough for you?

As I said before, if you want to argue that the USSC decided wrongly, then that is a fine argument to have. If you are arguing that secession isn't unlawful because you think that the decision wrongly decided, then you are just demonstrating a profound ignorance as to how the law works. I am okay with either path you take.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I said before, if you want to argue that the USSC decided wrongly, then that is a fine argument to have.

In case you hadn't noticed, that's the dicussion here.

 

[ReillyT]

In case you hadn't noticed, that's the dicussion here.

Actually, the discussion here was about morality and the law (at least lately). The discussion in the other threads was about secession.

I asked you while ago if you were just arguing that the decision was wrongly decided. You didn't answer, so... on and on we went.

If all you are arguing is that the decision was wrongly decided, please carry on. I am not interested in partaking in that discussion, but it is an interesting one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If all you are arguing is that the decision was wrongly decided, please carry on. I am not interested in partaking in that discussion, but it is an interesting one.

Of course you aren't -- you know you cant win that one.

 

[ReillyT]

Of course you aren't -- you know you cant win that one.

Perhaps. I don't know that I would want to. I don't think I have a position on it at all.

 

[jillian]

Good point about anti-discrimination laws. However, I believe those fall under the Commerce Clause, and required positive legislation. One couldn't just point to the Commerce Clause and claim discrimination. Absent specific legislation to the contrary (which would probably be equally valid under the Commerce Clause), does the federal Constitution prohibit murder (which would then suggest that the states must offer at least the same protection)? I don't think that it does - there is certainly no general federal statute prohibiting it.

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that anti-discrimination laws were made applicable to the states by way of the 14th amendment. So I suppose an argument can be made that permitting murder could be prohibited by the 14th amendment as violative of the equal protection clause.