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

[Avatar4321]

The government is corrupt, but do you know what is more corrupt? Corporations. That has become increasingly evident these last couple of decades.

More all or nothing thinking with you people. Yes, freedom is important. It is vital to happiness. But like I said, it needs limits. More limits than libertarians are willing to give.

And how on earth have you concluded that corporations are more corrupt than the government is?

Are you aware that unless a corporation produces something that people want, either goods or services, they have no power, right?

Government has power regardless of what they do or don't produce. They have power even if they give us things that we don't like. And moreover, they can "lawfully" murder us if we don't like what they force us to take from them. What business can do that?

The corporations don't steal my money. They have to persuade me to part with it. Government can force me to part with my money.

 

[Avatar4321]

Your all or nothing thinking refers to your assumptions about my own beliefs.

If it weren't for the federal government, those cigarette companies wouldn't be giving those warnings.

Why? Do you think State governments are incapable of doing that?

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do you even come here if you do not want actual answers or real debate?

Same reason more than half the people here post: Pride.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.....????

Sure it does. Keeping power closer to the people always gives people more power.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Assuming you mean Federal government when referring to ‘central government,’ remember also that state and local governments can be just as oppressive, if not more so. Consequently the Constitution places restrictions on Congress, state governments, and local governments with regard to civil liberties.

Otherwise, libertarians confuse the concepts of individual rights with ‘individual property owner rights,’ in that business owners should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit, even if that business is run in an irresponsible manner, even if such business practices result in the injury or death of consumers.

I was going to let you slide this time, but you shoved your foot so far down your throat I wanted to take the time to laugh while you choke to death. Can you point to anyone that ever said that business owners should have the right to kill people? Are you aware that common law allows people to sue a business that is so so irresponsible that it amounts to maliciousness?

What libertarians actually believe is that property rights include such arcane ideas as being able to challenge government edicts on the use of land in court, which is why libertarians support the Sacketts in Sackett v Epa.

Libertarians naïvely believe that ‘free market forces’ will drive such irresponsible concerns out of business, once the market community learns of the unscrupulous practices. The problem is libertarians fail to tell us what is an acceptable number of injured or dead patrons before a criminal business is indeed put out of business.

And you can certainly prove that the market never would do anything like that, despite the fact that Verizon backed down on their convenience fee after their customers objected, or that no company in America currently routinely kills its customers, unless they are the government.

In any event, the issue is moot. Since 1824 the case law as been clear and consistent: Congress has broad regulatory authority granted it by the Commerce Clause, Congress has powers, both enumerated and unenumerated, granted it by the Constitution to regulate markets in the National interest.

The case law for those interested:

Commerce Clause – The Commerce Power of Congress

In any case, the issue is never moot until we rach the point where the Supreme Court hands down its final decision and declares that all law is now settled, until then we are free to debate, and amend, the law in ways that can increase, or decrease, the regulations on commerce, and everything else.

 

[California Girl]

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.

Mo chara, since you are not right wing, it is a tad ridiculous for you to announce what we do or do not 'think'. Unlike the left, we are not borg. We do not march to one drum.... and many of us have substantially more experience of the 'world' than many on the left.

 

[Big Fitz]

Eliminating FDA, EPA, and other Federal Departments may seem extreme at first, but look into it.

FDA and EPA are tools of crony capitalists who want the benefits of capitalism, but want to close the doors to entry into the marketplace. As well as the ones who lobby the government are the ones who receive the rewards and those who do not are fined and purged out of the market by the regulators. It is a racket from both sides of political spectrum.

They have driven up costs, limited choices, and held back development of cheaper / safer products with their barriers to entry. It is a racket.

Don't forget the USDA.

 

[Avatar4321]

Human rights and personal freedoms should be sacred to every American. The Constitution is the basic covenant between us and the gov't to protect those rights and freedoms, as opposed to limiting them. Gov't is supposed to be limited, it is supposed to serve it's citizens. And every citizen should be careful about surrendering those rights and freedoms, we should be opposed to a more powerful central gov't that eventually controls us instead of the other way around.

I dont know that it's a covenant between us and the government as much as a covenant between one another to form a goverment that will maximize our liberties and protect us.

Our liberty is not maximized when we outsource our responsibilities and our power to the government. The more power and responsibility we outsource to the government, the less we will be able to accomplish with our lives and the more we will face sin and oppression.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

List how many criminal cases you have worked on in the last 33 years. Mine is over 5000 and I took in 5 today.
If you believe any state extradites a carjacking case these days I have some beach front property in Macon, Ga. for sale for you.

You live in lah lah land.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

List how many criminal cases you have worked on in the last 33 years. Mine is over 5000 and I took in 5 today.
If you believe any state extradites a carjacking case these days I have some beach front property in Macon, Ga. for sale for you.

You live in lah lah land.

That would be because they are indicted by the Feds who supercede the State's jurisdiction because of the Supremecy Clause.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

List how many criminal cases you have worked on in the last 33 years. Mine is over 5000 and I took in 5 today.
If you believe any state extradites a carjacking case these days I have some beach front property in Macon, Ga. for sale for you.

You live in lah lah land.

C'mon, is that the best you can do? If a state chooses not to extradite a suspect in a case it is usually because they think the potential return on doing so is not worth the effort. Believe it or not it actually costs money to extradite someone, so most counties, which is who actually has to pay for the travel cost, let anything but a serious crime slide. They will extradite murderers but do not have the budget to extradite everyone.

Want to try and make me look stupid again?

 

[Gadawg73]

Reality is that the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with current criminal practice in the state orFederal level these days. Those of us that work daily in those courts know what is really going on.
NO state goes to extradite anyone other than the worst hard core criminals due to the time and expense and if they do a plea is already on the table. Why? Because of the differences in the criminal procedures in each state give any 1st year criminal defense attorney enough to tie it up forat least 6 months if the defendant does not waive extradition. And with the criminal docket of EVERY state and Federal jurisdiction in the land bogged down with over 50% of their criminal docket with petty drug cases and another 25% with speedy trial demands what else can prosecutors do?
Politics and the spoils that go with it end many an extradition and local prosecution also. Without the Federal statutes many indictments would ever be seen on many criminal cases.

 

[Gadawg73]

In a perfect world you guys would be right.
That is not what is going on. Lack of uniformity in the criminal codes in each individual state GIVES DEFENSE ATTORNEYS the ammo they need to stall, stall, stall.
This is real world folks. Do I like it? Hell no.
But I can tell all of you 1st hand, it is the petty drug cases that have FUCKED THE ENTIRE court system in the land.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reality is that the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with current criminal practice in the state orFederal level these days. Those of us that work daily in those courts know what is really going on.
NO state goes to extradite anyone other than the worst hard core criminals due to the time and expense and if they do a plea is already on the table. Why? Because of the differences in the criminal procedures in each state give any 1st year criminal defense attorney enough to tie it up forat least 6 months if the defendant does not waive extradition. And with the criminal docket of EVERY state and Federal jurisdiction in the land bogged down with over 50% of their criminal docket with petty drug cases and another 25% with speedy trial demands what else can prosecutors do?
Politics and the spoils that go with it end many an extradition and local prosecution also. Without the Federal statutes many indictments would ever be seen on many criminal cases.

Is that supposed to be an argument in favor of federal criminal charges? I wonder how much of that backlog you just pointed out would be eliminated if we ended the federally mandated war on drugs. Do you think that might free up resources for prosecutors to pursue other charges, even if the suspect is out of state?

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

List how many criminal cases you have worked on in the last 33 years. Mine is over 5000 and I took in 5 today.
If you believe any state extradites a carjacking case these days I have some beach front property in Macon, Ga. for sale for you.

You live in lah lah land.

C'mon, is that the best you can do? If a state chooses not to extradite a suspect in a case it is usually because they think the potential return on doing so is not worth the effort. Believe it or not it actually costs money to extradite someone, so most counties, which is who actually has to pay for the travel cost, let anything but a serious crime slide. They will extradite murderers but do not have the budget to extradite everyone.

Want to try and make me look stupid again?

Not trying to make anyone look stupid.
Potential return has nothing to do with it.
You think you are telling me something new that it costs $$$ to extradite??
That is old school there.
MOST crimes are not serious these days brother. Wake the hell up. 65% of folks in prison, the big house, are for petty drug crimes or non violent crimes.

 

[Gadawg73]

Reality is that the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with current criminal practice in the state orFederal level these days. Those of us that work daily in those courts know what is really going on.
NO state goes to extradite anyone other than the worst hard core criminals due to the time and expense and if they do a plea is already on the table. Why? Because of the differences in the criminal procedures in each state give any 1st year criminal defense attorney enough to tie it up forat least 6 months if the defendant does not waive extradition. And with the criminal docket of EVERY state and Federal jurisdiction in the land bogged down with over 50% of their criminal docket with petty drug cases and another 25% with speedy trial demands what else can prosecutors do?
Politics and the spoils that go with it end many an extradition and local prosecution also. Without the Federal statutes many indictments would ever be seen on many criminal cases.

Is that supposed to be an argument in favor of federal criminal charges? I wonder how much of that backlog you just pointed out would be eliminated if we ended the federally mandated war on drugs. Do you think that might free up resources for prosecutors to pursue other charges, even if the suspect is out of state?

We are on the same page on war on drugs. But the states have no mandate. Where is that?

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

You clearly do not understand why our Constitution is so unique and great. Before the United States of America Governments supposedly got their Power from God, Through a Noble class for the most part. The US constitution was the first time since greece at least that people said you know what, a government can exist with out god, or a Monarch. Because true government should derive all it power from, and exist for, the people it governs.

Other nations have documents and Constitutions that tell you what the government can do to you. Our Constitution is all about what our government can not do to you. It's about Limiting government because our founders knew Government was necessary, but Not to be trusted, or allowed to become all powerful.

It saddens me that the state of our education system is so poor were turning out millions of Grads today with no proper understanding or Respect for our founding Documents and Principles.

No wonder we are where we are today.

 

[Care4all]

The government is corrupt, but do you know what is more corrupt? Corporations. That has become increasingly evident these last couple of decades.

More all or nothing thinking with you people. Yes, freedom is important. It is vital to happiness. But like I said, it needs limits. More limits than libertarians are willing to give.

And how on earth have you concluded that corporations are more corrupt than the government is?

Are you aware that unless a corporation produces something that people want, either goods or services, they have no power, right?

Government has power regardless of what they do or don't produce. They have power even if they give us things that we don't like. And moreover, they can "lawfully" murder us if we don't like what they force us to take from them. What business can do that?

The corporations don't steal my money. They have to persuade me to part with it. Government can force me to part with my money.

Really? Well, that's not true for me....the heating oil company does not have to persuede me to spend my money....I HAVE TO buy it, in order to keep warm in my house in the winter and in order to have hot water year round.... The gasoline companies to not have to persuede us to buy gasoline....we HAVE TO BUY IT in order to get to work, or the doctor or the Dentist or to go buy food..... the electric company does not persuede me to buy their electricity either...I HAVE TO BUY IT in order to cook, in order to have lights etc....so I don't agree that corporations have to persuede us to purchase their goods....the important ones, with a lot of government control over us, don't have to persuede us to buy their goods....we have no viable choices, in many many cases....

And please tell me what you mean by the government can murder us for not doing or liking their rules or laws?

MURDER US? Isn't that a tad of dramatization on your part Avatar? Are you talking about cops that can kill a 15 year old kid in a school because he banished a gun? Please give an example of the government being able to legally murder us for not following a rule? I truly do not understand?

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Now that is something I could agree with, but I detect a small problem with that. It could not be a simple majority win. Reason, because mob rule is so easy to run amok and destroy protections to liberty, and we should not end up as a nation like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

I agree. Majority (Mob) rule would suck. Maybe 3/4 majority of states approving?

 

[truthsaga]

That is the power of a Republic, Individuals have the rights not the majority.

If 94% wanted the Oranges that were on your property and you said, "No, this is my property and my oranges. You can't have them!" The government steps in and says, "Ok. We will have a debate and then vote if you have a right to your Oranges!" That is a democracy.

A republic is where the government defends an individuals right and says "This is his property and he has a right to the fruits of his labor!" The Republic of the United States