Irreconcilable Differences?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We can't have it both ways. We either give up our liberties and ability to order our own lives and allow the 'king' or whomever to take care of us. Or we value liberty enough to govern ourselves.


Nonsense.


We currently govern ourselves – we have since the advent of the Foundation Era, where no one is advocating anyone 'give up his liberties' and allow government to 'take care of us,' the notion is naïve, simplistic, and wrong.


We are governed solely by the rule of law, as ordained by the people, and codified in the Constitution.

 

[jwoodie]

We can't have it both ways. We either give up our liberties and ability to order our own lives and allow the 'king' or whomever to take care of us. Or we value liberty enough to govern ourselves.


Nonsense.


We currently govern ourselves – we have since the advent of the Foundation Era, where no one is advocating anyone 'give up his liberties' and allow government to 'take care of us,' the notion is naïve, simplistic, and wrong.


We are governed solely by the rule of law, as ordained by the people, and codified in the Constitution.

Please explain.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No. it doesn't..

See Scalia's concurring opinion in McDonald.

While you are quoting your beloved SCOTUS, why don't you explain the Constitutional basis for the Separate But Equal Doctrine?

That Plessy was overturned by Brown is a reaffirmation of the genius of the Framers, the legitimacy of judicial review, and the success of a comprehensive process allowing the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, including the judicial component of government – a power afforded the American people unique in the history of humankind.

As Justice Kennedy observed in Lawrence, overturning Bowers:

"The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ”) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940)))."

Consequently, the argument that because the Supreme Court has erred in the past – and indeed may err again in the future – undermines the authority of the Court, or renders the doctrine of judicial review invalid, fails.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We can't have it both ways. We either give up our liberties and ability to order our own lives and allow the 'king' or whomever to take care of us. Or we value liberty enough to govern ourselves.


Nonsense.


We currently govern ourselves – we have since the advent of the Foundation Era, where no one is advocating anyone 'give up his liberties' and allow government to 'take care of us,' the notion is naïve, simplistic, and wrong.


We are governed solely by the rule of law, as ordained by the people, and codified in the Constitution.

Please explain.

“A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it. “

U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 1995 .

 

[JakeStarkey]

states' rights is a call for going back to the fifties: never.

The millennials are going to stick it to the far right within 10 years.

The reactionary far right will simply die away.

 

[Rikurzhen]

states' rights is a call for going back to the fifties: never.

The millennials are going to stick it to the far right within 10 years.

The reactionary far right will simply die away.

The millenials will grow up, just like the bozo hippies did. You think that the hippies of the 60s would agree the conservative choices they'd be voting 30+ years in their future.

People are young and stupid for only a brief period of their life, that's why liberals exist. Then people grow out of it. That's why conservatives exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who mistakes the great milliennial age group as similar to the outlier hippie group of fifty years ago is merely baying at the moon.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The states do not have the 'right' to violate the civil liberties the of American citizens who happen to reside within the states, as the rights of American citizens are paramount, and immune from attack by the states.


A citizen has the right to live in any state he so desires, knowing that his rights as a citizen are safeguarded by Federal law and the Federal Constitution against state overreach and state excess; one does not forfeit his civil liberties solely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor do the states have the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties.

These facts are beyond dispute, fundamental, accepted, and settled.

 

[jwoodie]

No. it doesn't..

See Scalia's concurring opinion in McDonald.

While you are quoting your beloved SCOTUS, why don't you explain the Constitutional basis for the Separate But Equal Doctrine?

That Plessy was overturned by Brown is a reaffirmation of the genius of the Framers, the legitimacy of judicial review, and the success of a comprehensive process allowing the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, including the judicial component of government – a power afforded the American people unique in the history of humankind.

As Justice Kennedy observed in Lawrence, overturning Bowers:

"The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991) (“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it ‘is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ ”) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940)))."

Consequently, the argument that because the Supreme Court has erred in the past – and indeed may err again in the future – undermines the authority of the Court, or renders the doctrine of judicial review invalid, fails.

Hoisted on your own petard, eh? According to your circular argument, the Constitution says whatever the SCOTUS says it says. Thus, the Constitution said Separate But Equal was OK. Oops is not an excuse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jwoodie, no circular argument exists at all. The argumentation is clear and precise.

The Court, per Article III, is the final arbiter of matters Constitutional.

Plessy and Brown demonstrate that the Constitution is so framed that it can affirm citizens' liberties through the generations.

To suggest that it should remain static is to endorse the legitimacy of slavery and second class citizenship for women and minorities.

 

[jwoodie]

jwoodie, no circular argument exists at all. The argumentation is clear and precise.

The Court, per Article III, is the final arbiter of matters Constitutional.

Plessy and Brown demonstrate that the Constitution is so framed that it can affirm citizens' liberties through the generations.

To suggest that it should remain static is to endorse the legitimacy of slavery and second class citizenship for women and minorities.

The 13th and 14th Amendments were already ratified when Plessy ignored them. SCOTUS should sit below the Constitution, not above it.

 

[Rotagilla]

states' rights is a call for going back to the fifties: never.

The millennials are going to stick it to the far right within 10 years.

The reactionary far right will simply die away.

Ahhh..a clairvoyant. Good.

Got the lottery numbers for next week?

 

[Rotagilla]

jwoodie, no circular argument exists at all. The argumentation is clear and precise.

The Court, per Article III, is the final arbiter of matters Constitutional.

Plessy and Brown demonstrate that the Constitution is so framed that it can affirm citizens' liberties through the generations.

To suggest that it should remain static is to endorse the legitimacy of slavery and second class citizenship for women and minorities.

The 13th and 14th Amendments were already ratified when Plessy ignored them. SCOTUS should sit below the Constitution, not above it.

14th amendment is unconstitutional. Wasn't legally ratified.
Go look it up

 

[jwoodie]

jwoodie, no circular argument exists at all. The argumentation is clear and precise.

The Court, per Article III, is the final arbiter of matters Constitutional.

Plessy and Brown demonstrate that the Constitution is so framed that it can affirm citizens' liberties through the generations.

To suggest that it should remain static is to endorse the legitimacy of slavery and second class citizenship for women and minorities.

The 13th and 14th Amendments were already ratified when Plessy ignored them. SCOTUS should sit below the Constitution, not above it.

14th amendment is unconstitutional. Wasn't legally ratified.
Go look it up

OK, but that's a different subject.

 

[Foxfyre]

. . .

But power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth are heady temptations for the best of people, and over time a permanent political class, something the Founders would have abhorred, has developed blurring the lines between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and has given away to an increasing totalitarianism that the Constitution was supposed to prevent.

The only difference between Republicans and Democrats, both populated with the permanent political class these days, is that they represent different constituencies and each throws enough bones to their own base to keep the people voting them into office. When that no longer works for them, I'm pretty sure they would figure out a way to do away with the vote.

Returning all the power and resources to the states other than that necessary for the states to function as one nation would remedy the whole thing.

I agree in principle, but current state borders would probably need to change; i.e., rural states with sparse populations and relatively low mean incomes like Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. could never support themselves.

And in principle, I am against the very concept of forced taxation by any government; then again, taxation is absolutely necessary to support modern infrastructure and social economics.

It's an interesting question . . . but there is no doubt that Kansans have no business making laws for Californians, and contrariwise.

If we believe in liberty, it would be up to the people to decide if and how they were able to support themselves in any given area. If they cannot, then liberty allows them to go where they can.

For sure Kansans have no business making laws for Californians, but then if we believe in liberty and self governance, Kansans should not expect Californians or anybody else to support them simply because they made choices that make it difficult to support themselves. So let the people work that out.

Kansas and Nebraska, for instance, or Kansas and Oklahoma, are very similar in culture, economy, resources etc. If they find themselves unable to manage effectively on their own, they might decide to merge and share resources for the benefit of all. But let the people work that out as they know their situation and needs far better than some distant government officials can dictate those for them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jwoodie, no circular argument exists at all. The argumentation is clear and precise.

The Court, per Article III, is the final arbiter of matters Constitutional.

Plessy and Brown demonstrate that the Constitution is so framed that it can affirm citizens' liberties through the generations.

To suggest that it should remain static is to endorse the legitimacy of slavery and second class citizenship for women and minorities.

The 13th and 14th Amendments were already ratified when Plessy ignored them. SCOTUS should sit below the Constitution, not above it.

That's why your group continues to lose the battle: constitutional interpretation is not static.

 

[JakeStarkey]

14th amendment is unconstitutional. Wasn't legally ratified.
Go look it up

I emailed SCOTUS for you, they are on it.

 

[jwoodie]

jwoodie, no circular argument exists at all. The argumentation is clear and precise.

The Court, per Article III, is the final arbiter of matters Constitutional.

Plessy and Brown demonstrate that the Constitution is so framed that it can affirm citizens' liberties through the generations.

To suggest that it should remain static is to endorse the legitimacy of slavery and second class citizenship for women and minorities.

The 13th and 14th Amendments were already ratified when Plessy ignored them. SCOTUS should sit below the Constitution, not above it.

That's why your group continues to lose the battle: constitutional interpretation is not static.

Group Mentality at its finest...

 

[konradv]

jwoodie, no circular argument exists at all. The argumentation is clear and precise.

The Court, per Article III, is the final arbiter of matters Constitutional.

Plessy and Brown demonstrate that the Constitution is so framed that it can affirm citizens' liberties through the generations.

To suggest that it should remain static is to endorse the legitimacy of slavery and second class citizenship for women and minorities.

The 13th and 14th Amendments were already ratified when Plessy ignored them. SCOTUS should sit below the Constitution, not above it.

14th amendment is unconstitutional. Wasn't legally ratified.
Go look it up

The 14th was legally ratified. Don't pay attention to fairy tales. The SC is the final arbiter, not some conspiracy theory blog.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfire, you said:

"The federal government was intended and needs to have very little involvement in infrastructure. What infrastructure is necessary will be provided by the states, local communities, and the private sector."

Well, that's part of my point. The rural red states of the midwest and the the south have NEVER been able to support themselves in terms of infrastructure. Even when there was a population "boom" in the midwest, for example, the Rural Electrification Act was needed simply to provide power. The entire nation paid telephone fees on their bills to enable Nebraskans to have telephone access, as another example.

"And, because very few of us pay that much in federal taxes per capita, a huge chunk of it was borrowed and was added to the national debt for us or future generations to pay plus enormous amounts of interest."

It's not "debt" in the normal sense of the word; in our FR system, it is how the money supply is created/expanded when the GDP grows. But I don't have time to explain that to you.

"For instance, New Mexico is near the top in the federal spending per capita, but remains at or near the top in poverty too. Apparently the federal spending isn't benefitting the man on the street all that much, yes?"

No argument there, working people don't get rich from federal spending (aristocrats and corporate shareholders might, but that's another story). Higher wages cut poverty. We (and New Mexico) need higher wages if the economy is going to get better.

"So what if the federal government collected only the amount needed to fultill its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and left all the rest of all that money with the various states?"

Sure, go ahead . . . imagine Oklahoma without federal aid--LOL.

I still say it is--or at least it was not the constitutional intent--that the federal government support the people of Oklahoma. That should be their problem and their problem alone, because you cannot force Texas or California or Rhode Island to support Oklahoma without stripping all liberty and right of determination from the people in the states forced to support them. If Oklahomans had not been self supporting when they joined the Union, they would not have been eligible to join.

There are legitimate roles for the federal government to plan and assist with infrastructure. A working electric grid would be one of them as it would benefit all people, rich and poor, alike without any prejudice or favored status given to any. The interstate highway system was that kind of project.

If Oklahoma is unable to support itself, then the people simply have to pull up stakes and move elsewhere as Americans did for centuries before the welfare state was invented. But I guarantee that if the federal government sticks to its intended constitutional authority and otherwise leaves the people of Oklahoma alone to live their lives, they'll figure out ways to support themselves. They sit on a great chunk of land with oil and other resources and some of the nation's richest farm and ranch land. They would figure out how to support themselves.