What is it that makes the constitution so sacred to you libertarians?

[editec]

What is it that makes the constitution so sacred to you libertarians?

Their confused thinking about what it really says, would be my guess.

 

[Unkotare]

Well, then maybe you love it enough to take the trouble to understand it better.

Okay, what am I missing out on?

For one thing, you seem to unaware that the personal freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution have never been absolute or without restraint or condition of any kind.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.

Really? Not at all? Can you tell me why countries without a constitution are all have done worse than we have if the constitution makes no difference?

It is my sincerest belief that while personal freedom and a free market are important American ideals, they needs limitations. Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds good on paper, but its actual application as a national system would be crazy.

They "needs" limitations? Why do the need limitations, and what limitations do they need?

I'll be the first to admit that the government doesn't always get it right. However, in the interest of public well-being, sometimes even economic growth does need to be limited by government regulation.

In order to agree with you you would have to prove to me that the government gets it right at least as often as it gets it wrong. I doubt you can manage to find enough examples of the government getting things right to prove to me they only get it wrong 75% of the time.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Can you imagine the implications if we did not have government agencies, like the FDA or FAA? The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, would become dangerous. If drug companies were under no authoritative review, what is to stop them from releasing potentially harmful products? Without the FDA, there would be no legal mandate for these food and drug companies to test the safety and effectiveness of their products.
Self-regulation is a slow process and only works to an extent. There are plenty of things that would slip through the cracks that consumers would not know about. Take the tobacco companies, for instance. There are already additives in cigarettes that make them more addicting. Is it really worth it to have these industries left unchecked? Take a minute and imagine what they could get away with. Imagine what they could do to their products for the sake of more profit.... it's a scary thought.

The FDA? Seriously? Are you even smart enough to know that FDA regulations cause an artificial shortage of many drugs that are needed to keep people healthy? Only a complete nincompoop would argue that the FDA is the only legal reason drug companies make sure that their drugs are safe.

A Hospital Drug Shortage Made In Washington | Cato @ Liberty

As for the FAA, do you know they still require pilots to file flight plans on paper, and that air traffic controllers still use cards on a board to track flights? Do you honestly think that any private company tasked with the same job would still be using such outdated technology?

TAXATION
It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.

That has only been an issue in the monds of people that ignore facts.

Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.

If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.

Can you explain how the budget deficits are the fault of taxes? Do you understand that the only way to run a deficit in a budget is to spend more money than you make? Are you aware that, even if we taxed all the rich at 100% of their income, and that we actually took in as much as the asinine projections of that tactic think we will, we will not reduce the deficit significantly?

This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth. And don't get it twisted -I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.
It isn't just the rich that need to pay taxes, of course. EVERYONE needs to put in their fair share for the sake of the greater good. I have no problem with paying higher taxes, so long as I know that the revenue is intended to make this country better (it doesn't always, I know).

How would it rectify anything? All it would do is take the income from one group and give it to the government.

I really love people who think that a fair share for everyone means that a few people pay and most people skate. Do you have the slightest inkling that most of the real wealth, and most tax revenue, comes from the middle class? That is why the Bush tax cuts "cost" $2.6 trillion. If we counted only the cuts to the rich that you are so paranoid about the total cost would have been $600 billion.

WELFARE/UNEMPLOYMENT/FOOD STAMPS

I do understand that there are a lot of government moochers in this country, but that doesn't mean that these programs are unnecesssary and ineffective. Some people do need help when they are unable to stand on their own two feet. Also, it's not like it's easy to get into these programs. Have you ever seen the applications? They are huge, and leave little room for falsification.
Hell, I support the Republican proposal that people entering these programs should be drug-tested first. I think that it is a great compromise, and more of this government funding will ultimately go to the right people.

Who is supposed to pay for the drug testing? Why are we worried about drugs anyway? We could save more money if we legalized them than we could make by taxing the rich.

Like I said, the government isn't perfect; it certainly does over-reach from time to time. However, I think people have become so black-and-white when it comes to personal freedom. The idea has become over-romanticized in today's politics. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature for people to be selfish. People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.

If is human nature for people to be selfish why do people in disaster ares respond by sharing the little they have with each other?

Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

You are not a freedom hating socialist, you are an ignorant partisan hack who does not know how to think for himself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????

More or less. The Constitution does put some limits on state governments also. I think we should go back to the feds not having any criminal laws other than those mentioned specifically in the constitution, allowing the states to handle that area. I still do not understand why some crimes are federal offenses at all, like carjacking.

 

[manifold]

What is it that makes the constitution so sacred to you libertarians?

You misspelled 'Americans' assbonnet.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????

Libertarians would not want unlimited state authority any more than unlimited federal authority.

The whole idea is to have a government with the smallest footprint possible and still protect the rights of individuals.

It's pretty simple really.

Well, the US Constitution primarily limits Federal Control, but it does not limit the States from their own control.....imo.

Let's not forget that the states have constitutions too.

 

[Gadawg73]

I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????

More or less. The Constitution does put some limits on state governments also. I think we should go back to the feds not having any criminal laws other than those mentioned specifically in the constitution, allowing the states to handle that area. I still do not understand why some crimes are federal offenses at all, like carjacking.

Most Federal criminal laws are there because many times a state will not have jurisdiction and the state someone fled to will not prosecute because their jurisdictional criminal procedure laws are different than the other state.
Bickering.
Uniformity is the main reason as the states each have their own different criminal code.
And politics plays a large role in who gets indicted and who doesn't in the state courts. Without an indictment, from a state district attorney who is an ELECTED official, there is never a case. Seen this many a time in my 32 year career.
When the Constitution was written carjacking was not on the radar as no one knew what a car was. Same with many other laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????

More or less. The Constitution does put some limits on state governments also. I think we should go back to the feds not having any criminal laws other than those mentioned specifically in the constitution, allowing the states to handle that area. I still do not understand why some crimes are federal offenses at all, like carjacking.

Most Federal criminal laws are there because many times a state will not have jurisdiction and the state someone fled to will not prosecute because their jurisdictional criminal procedure laws are different than the other state.
Bickering.
Uniformity is the main reason as the states each have their own different criminal code.
And politics plays a large role in who gets indicted and who doesn't in the state courts. Without an indictment, from a state district attorney who is an ELECTED official, there is never a case. Seen this many a time in my 32 year career.
When the Constitution was written carjacking was not on the radar as no one knew what a car was. Same with many other laws.

List all the states that cannot prosecute carjacking, or drug offenses. Have you ever heard of extradition? Are you aware that allows one state to have a person that flees their jurisdiction sent back even if the state that the alleged criminal is located in does not consider the action charged a crime? That tha\t is actually in the constitution, and does not involve the federal government at all unless the suspect elects to appeal the extradition to the federal courts for som valid reason?

I think you need to find another reason to rationalize federal criminal statutes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is it that makes the constitution so sacred to you libertarians?

An impossible question to answer, given there’s no evidence the Constitution is ‘sacred to libertarians,’ all they’ve exhibited is contempt for the Founding Document and its case law.

I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????

The Bill of Rights is incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment on a case by case basis – the most recent incorporation was the Second Amendment in McDonald.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI and an abundance of case law make clear that the states and local governments are subject to Federal law, rulings of Federal courts, and decisions of the Supreme Court by its authority to interpret the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment and Supremacy Clause seem the biggest problems for libertarians – they either don’t understand the doctrines or reject them in defiance, in addition to the supporting case law.

Some adhere so blindly to their contrived fantasy of what they wish the Constitution to be, that any debate is pointless.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, debate can only exist in the context of the case law, to reject the case law altogether makes debate impossible.

Even the likes of Justice Scalia supports incorporation doctrine:

Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

The libertarian rejection of the doctrine of judicial review and the Supreme Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution is wholly without merit.

 

[WatertheTree]

I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,

All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????

Federal governments role is to protect the people's freedom and liberty from the states, and to provide a national defense.

that about sums it up.

 

[westwall]

You sound like you would be happier somewhere else.

No, I love America.

Then why do you wish to destroy it? The Constitution protects you the individual, and your rights, from others who would take them away from you.....of course you seem to be one of those who wishes to take rights from people so why do you want to take rights away from people?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Bill of Rights is incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment on a case by case basis – the most recent incorporation was the Second Amendment in McDonald.

Wrong again, quite an accomplishment. The Supreme Court ruled that the clear language of the 14th Amendment did not apply, and that the Bill of Rights could not be incorporated against the states. (Barron v Baltimore) They have slowly been correcting that mistake, but that does not mean that is a case by case basis because the 14th applied them all at once.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI and an abundance of case law make clear that the states and local governments are subject to Federal law, rulings of Federal courts, and decisions of the Supreme Court by its authority to interpret the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment and Supremacy Clause seem the biggest problems for libertarians – they either don’t understand the doctrines or reject them in defiance, in addition to the supporting case law.

It was not libertarians who said that the 14th does not apply to states. As a matter of fact, libertarians have filed many amicus briefs supporting incoporating the bill of rights against the states over the years.

Some adhere so blindly to their contrived fantasy of what they wish the Constitution to be, that any debate is pointless.

That sounds like you and your belief that SCOTUS writes the constitution.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, debate can only exist in the context of the case law, to reject the case law altogether makes debate impossible.

See what I mean? Why shouldn't I reject case law when it is clearly wrong? I have asked you this many times, yet your only response is that without case law we would not have the constitution. Should I point out that, without the constitution, we would still be living under case law of Dred Scott?

Even the likes of Justice Scalia supports incorporation doctrine:

Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

[

Another instance of him being wrong, despite the fact that he supports something that is right.

The libertarian rejection of the doctrine of judicial review and the Supreme Court’s authority to interpret the Constitution is wholly without merit.

Which libertarians reject the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the constitution? I think you are confusing your delusions with the real world again.

 

[Amelia]

<snipped>

Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

I don't accuse you of being a freedom-hating socialist, but I do wonder about the term "moderate" in your custom user title.

 

[Billy000]

<snipped>

Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

I don't accuse you of being a freedom-hating socialist, but I do wonder about the term "moderate" in your custom user title.

Clearly you do not understand what a "moderate" is. Extreme liberalism is socialism.

 

[Big Fitz]

You sound like you would be happier somewhere else.

No, I love America.

Fooled me cold. But then again, double thinking and double standards are a staple for liberal philosophical thought.

War is peace
Ignorance is strength
Slavery is freedom

And apparently, the reverse is true for Orwell's creepy little commie cultural conundrum.

Peace is war
Strength is ignorance
Freedom is slavery.

 

[Douger]

You sound like you would be happier somewhere else.

No, I love America.

List the reasons why.

 

[BlindBoo]

I think we need a method to put national referendumns dealing with national issues on the ballot every two years.

 

[AmericanFirst]

While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.

It is my sincerest belief that while personal freedom and a free market are important American ideals, they needs limitations. Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds good on paper, but its actual application as a national system would be crazy.

I'll be the first to admit that the government doesn't always get it right. However, in the interest of public well-being, sometimes even economic growth does need to be limited by government regulation.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Can you imagine the implications if we did not have government agencies, like the FDA or FAA? The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, would become dangerous. If drug companies were under no authoritative review, what is to stop them from releasing potentially harmful products? Without the FDA, there would be no legal mandate for these food and drug companies to test the safety and effectiveness of their products.
Self-regulation is a slow process and only works to an extent. There are plenty of things that would slip through the cracks that consumers would not know about. Take the tobacco companies, for instance. There are already additives in cigarettes that make them more addicting. Is it really worth it to have these industries left unchecked? Take a minute and imagine what they could get away with. Imagine what they could do to their products for the sake of more profit.... it's a scary thought.

TAXATION

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.
If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.
This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth. And don't get it twisted -I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.
It isn't just the rich that need to pay taxes, of course. EVERYONE needs to put in their fair share for the sake of the greater good. I have no problem with paying higher taxes, so long as I know that the revenue is intended to make this country better (it doesn't always, I know).

WELFARE/UNEMPLOYMENT/FOOD STAMPS

I do understand that there are a lot of government moochers in this country, but that doesn't mean that these programs are unnecesssary and ineffective. Some people do need help when they are unable to stand on their own two feet. Also, it's not like it's easy to get into these programs. Have you ever seen the applications? They are huge, and leave little room for falsification.
Hell, I support the Republican proposal that people entering these programs should be drug-tested first. I think that it is a great compromise, and more of this government funding will ultimately go to the right people.


Like I said, the government isn't perfect; it certainly does over-reach from time to time. However, I think people have become so black-and-white when it comes to personal freedom. The idea has become over-romanticized in today's politics. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature for people to be selfish. People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.

Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

Your socialist side is showing. Taxing the rich more to support the poor is not appropriate. The Constitution is not perfect but has been improved on properly with amendments. The problem with our country now is too many regulations, too many gov't. agencies regulating our lives.

 

[DiamondDave]

You sound like you would be happier somewhere else.

No, I love America.

No.. you love what you aspire to change it to.. while destroying the principles it was founded on

 

[DiamondDave]

While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.

that's the wrong question, billy... the right question is why they pretend to think the constitution is important, but don't respect the Court... unless of course the justices agree with their narrow world view.

Just try with the view set forward in the constitution specifically... not whatever way they can squeak more power (though now specified within the constitution itself) and expand their heavy handed influence