CDZ Conservatism and why it's not dead

[GaryDog]

Robber barons simply used their corporate profits to keep a stranglehold on their industries. That's an inevitable outcome of unchecked capitalism, which is what you support. And as much as you hate socialism, I bet you love public schools, roads, national parks, the military, etc. All of those are socialist ideals, and contrary to what you might claim, they're quite new.

I've never said I support unfettered capitalism. I want the free market capitalist system our founders established. Free market capitalism, free enterprise, constitutionally enumerated power of government and minimal government interference.

Public schools are a disaster. Public roads other than post roads are the responsibility of states. I'm fine with national parks and the military but these are NOT socialist ideals. I know you Marxists love to claim that but you're wrong. The military is specifically enumerated in the constitution as a power of government.

Interstate highways are federally funded and maintained. NTSB, FAA, etc. are all federal entities. And it's odd that you're okay with "state government" for millions of people but not "federal government" for millions of people. You make no sense, and your position is unsupported.

Are public schools struggling? Sure, but then that undermines your claim that states know best, doesn't it? Many states do it well. Other states do it poorly. Ironically, the red states (Republican, pro-market states) do it worst. Wonder why that is? Because you cannot spread resources evenly when you rely on private investment and private incentives.

I doubt you're a constitutional scholar. I actually have a law degree, so please don't lecture me on what's constitutional and what's not. The Commerce Clause was left open to interpretation by the judiciary for a reason. Same with the "Welfare" clause. We're not a country that can survive only with postal roads and a militia. It's not 1787, and comparing our economy now to the economy then is like comparing a trip to the grocery store to a trip to the moon.

 

[Boss]

Your claim that the only thing that could've allowed homo sapiens to evolve and other hominids to die off is spirituality is very, very odd, and almost certainly wrong. There are scientific reasons for why certain traits of other species of hominids didn't survive. Spirituality has proven to have nothing to do with it.

Need a citation on this. First, I need to evaluate the evidence of why other hominids died off and we survived and I need to see the "proof" that spirituality had nothing to do with it.

Ultimately, in your crusade to demand others accept spirituality as concrete, you're left with the same argument...

I don't demand you accept anything. I'm just presenting an argument and you're failing to refute my argument. You're rooted in your faith and that's fine... humans have strong faith. It's why we survived and other hominids became extinct.

But it also puts "spirituality" in the same column as the easter bunny and santa claus.

Humans haven't intrinsically believed in an Easter bunny or Santa Clause for all of their civilized existence... so no, it's NOT the same.

 

[Boss]

Interstate highways are federally funded and maintained. NTSB, FAA, etc. are all federal entities. And it's odd that you're okay with "state government" for millions of people but not "federal government" for millions of people. You make no sense, and your position is unsupported.

Well, it's called Federalism. The Federal government is limited with enumerated power, all other power is supposed to be left to the states and people respectively. So yes... I am okay with YOUR state collectively deciding YOUR state needs a bridge or road.

Are public schools struggling? Sure, but then that undermines your claim that states know best, doesn't it?

Well no... because the states are dependent on the Federal government and not the free market. Our education system is a shambles because it is basically run by government and not the free market.

I doubt you're a constitutional scholar. I actually have a law degree, so please don't lecture me on what's constitutional and what's not. The Commerce Clause was left open to interpretation by the judiciary for a reason. Same with the "Welfare" clause. We're not a country that can survive only with postal roads and a militia. It's not 1787, and comparing our economy now to the economy then is like comparing a trip to the grocery store to a trip to the moon.

Again, NO! The Constitution was deliberated for 12 years before it was adopted and ratified. You can't sit here and claim it's open for interpretation. Have you read the Federalist Papers? I have, and they lay out the details of every single word in the Constitution. NOTHING was "left open to interpretation by the judiciary" ...the SCOTUS was established as a judicial protection in the event of a conflict with competing constitutional rights. They were NEVER supposed to redefine what the Constitution means, they were ONLY supposed to rule on what it says.

I never claimed we're a country that can survive with only... anything. You have STATES and PEOPLE and THEY can determine what THEY need to survive. It's not up to the Federal government to provide everything to everyone for survival. You can't simply run to the General Welfare Clause and Commerce Clause to enact ANY government idea you dream up. That was NEVER their purpose or intent.

No... it's not 1787 anymore. The framers understood times would change and we may need to alter the Constitution... that's why there is an amendment process! You want to change something? Adopt an Amendment and have it ratified... Simple!

 

[GaryDog]

Need a citation on this. First, I need to evaluate the evidence of why other hominids died off and we survived and I need to see the "proof" that spirituality had nothing to do with it.

LOL! Really, all I could do was laugh at this. You don't understand the basic precepts of logic, much less how burden of proof works.

How bout while I'm working on that you work on "proving" that aliens had nothing to do with it for me.

I don't demand you accept anything. I'm just presenting an argument and you're failing to refute my argument. You're rooted in your faith and that's fine... humans have strong faith. It's why we survived and other hominids became extinct.

You're presenting an argument with zero evidence. There's nothing to refute. Your reasoning is entirely circular.

LOL @ saying I'm "rooted in faith." No, actually, that's you. You're projecting.

Humans haven't intrinsically believed in an Easter bunny or Santa Clause for all of their civilized existence... so no, it's NOT the same.

The nature of the myth doesn't matter. It was conjured up by humans, and there's no evidence of it coming from anywhere else. That's the same for the easter bunny as it is for "spirituality."

 

[GaryDog]

Well, it's called Federalism. The Federal government is limited with enumerated power, all other power is supposed to be left to the states and people respectively. So yes... I am okay with YOUR state collectively deciding YOUR state needs a bridge or road.

Either way, government. Which you believe, apparently, is intrinsically evil and inept. That you would ascribe competence to state govt and not federal is illogical.

Well no... because the states are dependent on the Federal government and not the free market. Our education system is a shambles because it is basically run by government and not the free market.

Uh, they are? Sure, they chip off some funds to some states, but the charter schools (privately run) are actually doing worse in most places. As with spirituality, you seem to put blind faith in "free markets" without bothering to inquire further. Which is the entire problem with faith.

Again, NO! The Constitution was deliberated for 12 years before it was adopted and ratified.

Okay, by that logic we should look to the magna carta to make decisions regarding the constitution. Your arguments -- all of them -- are circular. You don't think the judiciary should treat the constitution as a living document, but you DO think they should look at legislative history dating back for 12 years to the articles of confederation (a document that made the country essentially a loose assemblage of states) and the federalist papers. In other words, you believe all wisdom for democracy was learned from 1776 through 1787, and not a moment after. That's absurd. Our constitution was not handed to us by Jesus. For one example, blacks should not be, and are not, 3/5ths of a person.

You can't sit here and claim it's open for interpretation.

I absolutely can, and the Supreme Court justices have been doing this for over 200 years, since Marbury v. Madison. You can deny that til you're spitting and red-faced, but it won't change the facts, or the law. We've established fundamental nationwide rights to privacy, which most citizens agree are crucial to a civil society, and nowhere is that written plainly in the constitution. The amendment process is so rarely used, and so clunky to navigate, that our government and our citizens would be crippled by such an idea that nowhere can you find rights outside of the exact words of the Bill of Rights, and the Articles 1-8.

I never claimed we're a country that can survive with only... anything. You have STATES and PEOPLE and THEY can determine what THEY need to survive. It's not up to the Federal government to provide everything to everyone for survival. You can't simply run to the General Welfare Clause and Commerce Clause to enact ANY government idea you dream up. That was NEVER their purpose or intent.

I didn't say the government provides everything. I said the Commerce Clause and the Welfare Clause have been interpreted to grant more than you claim. And I'm right. It's really that simple.

No... it's not 1787 anymore. The framers understood times would change and we may need to alter the Constitution... that's why there is an amendment process! You want to change something? Adopt an Amendment and have it ratified... Simple!

No, not simple. And not true. Our government works how it works, not how you wish it works.

 

[Boss]

LOL! Really, all I could do was laugh at this. You don't understand the basic precepts of logic, much less how burden of proof works.

How bout while I'm working on that you work on "proving" that aliens had nothing to do with it for me.

Well I can't prove aliens had nothing to do with it... that's why I've never claimed it's proven aliens had nothing to do with it. I don't think they did but that's my opinion and opinions aren't proof. It seems to me YOU are the one having trouble with the burden of proof and logic.

You're presenting an argument with zero evidence. There's nothing to refute. Your reasoning is entirely circular.

LOL @ saying I'm "rooted in faith." No, actually, that's you. You're projecting.

I presented my evidence and you couldn't refute it. Humans have always been spiritual and it has been fundamental to their survival. You think it's imaginary, I think it's bestowed.

The nature of the myth doesn't matter. It was conjured up by humans, and there's no evidence of it coming from anywhere else. That's the same for the easter bunny as it is for "spirituality."

It's not a myth but the nature of it is important. You believe it was conjured up and I think that is more incredible than it simply being bestowed, because it has been effective. You've shown us no evidence it was conjured up, that's your opinion. It's not comparable to the Easter bunny for the reasons I explained the first time. What you are now doing is repeating your same baseless argument over and over. Sorry, but you can't make your opinions into facts by doing that.

 

[Boss]

Either way, government. Which you believe, apparently, is intrinsically evil and inept. That you would ascribe competence to state govt and not federal is illogical.

I'm sorry but they're not the same. It has nothing to do with competence and I never made that claim. It has to do with Federalism. Pay attention! I also never said government is evil and inept. That is your emotion talking.

Uh, they are? Sure, they chip off some funds to some states, but the charter schools (privately run) are actually doing worse in most places. As with spirituality, you seem to put blind faith in "free markets" without bothering to inquire further. Which is the entire problem with faith.

Well charter schools lack the funding of public schools, that's the main problem. In a free market, failing or under-performing schools go out of business and are replaced by better ones. That's why the free market is superior. I don't need to inquire further, the principles of free markets has been working for 250 years.

Okay, by that logic we should look to the magna carta to make decisions regarding the constitution. Your arguments -- all of them -- are circular. You don't think the judiciary should treat the constitution as a living document, but you DO think they should look at legislative history dating back for 12 years to the articles of confederation...

I never said a word about the articles of confederation. Honestly, I am growing tired of you constantly LYING about things I've said. If you can't be honest then move along. This thread is not for you to troll and harass. Stop lying about the things I'm saying. The Constitution is not a living document, it was never intended to be morphed and twisted by SCOTUS to mean whatever it needs to mean at the time. Such a document would be totally pointless.

My logic is simple, if you need clarification on what something in the Constitution means, consult the Federalist Paper that talks about that. I didn't say consult the magna carta or the articles of confederation, I specifically said the Federalist Papers which were written to specifically explain the details of every part of the Constitution.

The amendment process is so rarely used, and so clunky to navigate, that our government and our citizens would be crippled by such an idea that nowhere can you find rights outside of the exact words of the Bill of Rights, and the Articles 1-8.

I'm sorry you feel the process is tough but it's designed to be that way. You can't just start making up rights that aren't in the Constitution... Sorry!

I didn't say the government provides everything. I said the Commerce Clause and the Welfare Clause have been interpreted to grant more than you claim. And I'm right. It's really that simple.

Well, I know they have, that's why I said what I did. You're not right, you're wrong. If the framers intended what you claim, they could have saved a lot of time and writing and simply said... The SCOTUS will determine what rights you have and you will obey. The Federal government will decide what's best for you and you will capitulate. Then, they would have crowned George Washington king and called it a day! Obviously, that's NOT what they intended to do.

 

[GaryDog]

I'm sorry but they're not the same. It has nothing to do with competence and I never made that claim. It has to do with Federalism. Pay attention! I also never said government is evil and inept. That is your emotion talking.

No, that's not emotion talking. That's the position of radical "free market" pushers like you.

Well charter schools lack the funding of public schools, that's the main problem. In a free market, failing or under-performing schools go out of business and are replaced by better ones. That's why the free market is superior. I don't need to inquire further, the principles of free markets has been working for 250 years.

First, the "free market" has hardly been free for 250 years, and there are countless examples of it not working in many areas of our economy (healthcare is a prime example, local utilities are another).

Charter schools fail because they operate free from government oversight to make sure they're being run competently. Many even receive MORE funding than similar public schools, but mismanage it. Of course you don't need to inquire further, you don't lend credence to "evidence."

I never said a word about the articles of confederation. Honestly, I am growing tired of you constantly LYING about things I've said. If you can't be honest then move along. This thread is not for you to troll and harass. Stop lying about the things I'm saying. The Constitution is not a living document, it was never intended to be morphed and twisted by SCOTUS to mean whatever it needs to mean at the time. Such a document would be totally pointless.

You said 12 years before the signing of the Constitution. That encompasses the period of time when they created the Articles of Confederation. I'm not lying. You're just throwing a temper tantrum because someone smarter than you is arguing circles around you.

The "living document" hardly renders the constitution meaningless. To borrow a cliche from you, we've been using that standard of review almost exclusively for nearly 250 years, and the constitution is still alive, as is our government (the oldest practicing democracy on earth). But sure, we're screwing the pooch. Okay.

My logic is simple, if you need clarification on what something in the Constitution means, consult the Federalist Paper that talks about that. I didn't say consult the magna carta or the articles of confederation, I specifically said the Federalist Papers which were written to specifically explain the details of every part of the Constitution.

That's the problem, you take complicated, nuanced points of order about judicial review and assume they're simple. They are not. Sure, judges consult the federalist papers. They also consult today's social norms, and judicial opinions from 2014. That's the way judicial review always has worked.

I'm sorry you feel the process is tough but it's designed to be that way. You can't just start making up rights that aren't in the Constitution... Sorry!

By your logic, homosexuals would need a constitutional amendment to marry. They do not. And the Constitution certainly wasn't written with the intention of limiting rights. Quite the opposite (hence the 9th and 10th Amendments). I'm not the one who's sorry -- much smarter people than you and me actually agree with my vision of how to interpret constitutional concepts. Sorry!

Well, I know they have, that's why I said what I did. You're not right, you're wrong.

LMAO, wha? You just said "I know (you're right)" and then "you're wrong."

I seriously am beginning to think you have a mental illness. Yes, federal courts interpret the Commerce Clause differently than you believe. Period.

If the framers intended what you claim, they could have saved a lot of time and writing and simply said... The SCOTUS will determine what rights you have and you will obey. The Federal government will decide what's best for you and you will capitulate. Then, they would have crowned George Washington king and called it a day! Obviously, that's NOT what they intended to do.

Marbury v. Madison cemented judicial review and used the federalist papers and other legislative history to support its interpretation. We would actually be closer to totalitarianism and a "king"-like situation WITHOUT the ability of the courts to engage in judicial review, because such a philosophy would handcuff the judiciary.

Do you have any legal training at all? How do you come by these whacked-out theories? Facebook? Google?

 

[GaryDog]

LOL! Really, all I could do was laugh at this. You don't understand the basic precepts of logic, much less how burden of proof works.

How bout while I'm working on that you work on "proving" that aliens had nothing to do with it for me.

Well I can't prove aliens had nothing to do with it... that's why I've never claimed it's proven aliens had nothing to do with it. I don't think they did but that's my opinion and opinions aren't proof. It seems to me YOU are the one having trouble with the burden of proof and logic.

You're presenting an argument with zero evidence. There's nothing to refute. Your reasoning is entirely circular.

LOL @ saying I'm "rooted in faith." No, actually, that's you. You're projecting.

I presented my evidence and you couldn't refute it. Humans have always been spiritual and it has been fundamental to their survival. You think it's imaginary, I think it's bestowed.

The nature of the myth doesn't matter. It was conjured up by humans, and there's no evidence of it coming from anywhere else. That's the same for the easter bunny as it is for "spirituality."

It's not a myth but the nature of it is important. You believe it was conjured up and I think that is more incredible than it simply being bestowed, because it has been effective. You've shown us no evidence it was conjured up, that's your opinion. It's not comparable to the Easter bunny for the reasons I explained the first time. What you are now doing is repeating your same baseless argument over and over. Sorry, but you can't make your opinions into facts by doing that.

Spirituality is "bestowed" by people like you, from your imaginations. At last we agree.

The evidence that it is conjured up is that people have been able to accomplish the same benefits of supposed "spirituality" through tangible techniques with proven scientific benefits (mainly, meditation and yoga). Spirituality is that, but with a fairy tale involved. Pretty simple.

 

[oldsoul]

Hey, Boss, have you noticed how Gary's tone has changed from calm disagreement to outright anger and name-calling? I find it rather interesting...

 

[oldsoul]

Now watch as Gary attacks me....

 

[Boss]

I'm sorry but they're not the same. It has nothing to do with competence and I never made that claim. It has to do with Federalism. Pay attention! I also never said government is evil and inept. That is your emotion talking.

No, that's not emotion talking. That's the position of radical "free market" pushers like you.

We're founded on free market principles, free enterprise and a Constitution. Colloquially, we refer to this as "the free market system". I don't have to "push" it because it's what we ARE. It's what you Socialists want to destroy.

Well charter schools lack the funding of public schools, that's the main problem. In a free market, failing or under-performing schools go out of business and are replaced by better ones. That's why the free market is superior. I don't need to inquire further, the principles of free markets has been working for 250 years.

First, the "free market" has hardly been free for 250 years, and there are countless examples of it not working in many areas of our economy (healthcare is a prime example, local utilities are another).

Charter schools fail because they operate free from government oversight to make sure they're being run competently. Many even receive MORE funding than similar public schools, but mismanage it. Of course you don't need to inquire further, you don't lend credence to "evidence."

The free market system has been the free market system for 250 years. No one has ever said that it is, or should be, 100% unfettered free market capitalism. There are several areas where "free market" is inadequate to address our needs collectively as a nation. These are addressed in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and generally referred to as the "enumerated powers" of Federal government. Health care and local utilities are not mentioned in Article I Section 8.

Charter schools that fail, do so because they're mismanaged. In a free market system, this happens often. In a public school system, poor and underachieving mismanaged schools are propped up by ever-increasing government funding. There is no accountability and no competition. If we eliminated federal funding of public schools and returned that money to the states who used it to promote privately-owned schools, the better schools would succeed and the poorer schools would fail... the result would be a better product for the consumer.

I never said a word about the articles of confederation. Honestly, I am growing tired of you constantly LYING about things I've said. If you can't be honest then move along. This thread is not for you to troll and harass. Stop lying about the things I'm saying. The Constitution is not a living document, it was never intended to be morphed and twisted by SCOTUS to mean whatever it needs to mean at the time. Such a document would be totally pointless.

You said 12 years before the signing of the Constitution. That encompasses the period of time when they created the Articles of Confederation. I'm not lying. You're just throwing a temper tantrum because someone smarter than you is arguing circles around you.

No, I did not say "12 years before the Constitution" ...I said the Constitution was deliberated for 12 years. The Articles of Confederation was a temporary agreement between the 13 colonies in order to prosecute the Revolutionary War. It was never intended to be permanent or designed to be some sort of guideline for the Constitution.

You're clearly not smarter than me. If you were, you'd understand what the Federalist Papers said and the arguments they laid out for every single sentence found in the Constitution, and you'd KNOW that it was certainly NOT intended to be a "living" document.

The "living document" hardly renders the constitution meaningless. To borrow a cliche from you, we've been using that standard of review almost exclusively for nearly 250 years, and the constitution is still alive, as is our government (the oldest practicing democracy on earth). But sure, we're screwing the pooch. Okay.

But it certainly does render it meaningless. To claim it's a "living" document, you are claiming the court has the power to change it as it sees fit. To alter it in order to make it mean things it never intended. So why didn't the founding fathers simply install a SCOTUS to dictate our laws on the fly as they saw fit? What was the purpose of laying it all out as they did in a Constitution? Why not just establish a king and court and leave everything up to them to decide what is best for the people and if you don't agree, you can just fuck right off? It's because that was precisely what they were escaping in England!

Modern Progressives run to the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause to justify all their nonsensical ideals. The SCOTUS has become packed with Progressive thinkers who share this philosophy and it's destroying our Constitutional freedoms and our nation.

My logic is simple, if you need clarification on what something in the Constitution means, consult the Federalist Paper that talks about that. I didn't say consult the magna carta or the articles of confederation, I specifically said the Federalist Papers which were written to specifically explain the details of every part of the Constitution.

That's the problem, you take complicated, nuanced points of order about judicial review and assume they're simple. They are not. Sure, judges consult the federalist papers. They also consult today's social norms, and judicial opinions from 2014. That's the way judicial review always has worked.

No... "social norms" are not supposed to have a thing to do with a SCOTUS ruling. The SCOTUS, again, was intended ONLY to settle disputes over legitimate constitutional rights whenever there was a conflict of said rights. They're not supposed to legislate from the bench or change the meaning and intent of the Constitution. That power is left to the people and states respectively and there is a process for which the "social norms" can be considered... it's called the Amendment process.

I'm sorry you feel the process is tough but it's designed to be that way. You can't just start making up rights that aren't in the Constitution... Sorry!

By your logic, homosexuals would need a constitutional amendment to marry. They do not. And the Constitution certainly wasn't written with the intention of limiting rights. Quite the opposite (hence the 9th and 10th Amendments). I'm not the one who's sorry -- much smarter people than you and me actually agree with my vision of how to interpret constitutional concepts. Sorry!

Homosexuals have always had the right to marry but most homosexual men don't wish to marry a woman and most homosexual women don't wish to marry a man... and that's what marriage is. There is nowhere in the Constitution where marriage is articulated as a "right" and nowhere does it say "marriage" can be whatever the hell you want to call it.

I was opposed to Gay Marriage but it had nothing to do with discriminating against homosexuals. I don't feel the government should have the power to tell anyone what marriage is or who they can or can't marry. I think that should be a personal right left to individuals and government shouldn't be involved. At the absolute MOST, it should be a right of the state to determine among the citizens of said state through the ballot box. I feel the same way about legalization of pot and abortion. I'm very much a Libertarian on these things and don't feel the FEDERAL government has any authority to dictate policy for the individual.

Well, I know they have, that's why I said what I did. You're not right, you're wrong.

LMAO, wha? You just said "I know (you're right)" and then "you're wrong."

I seriously am beginning to think you have a mental illness. Yes, federal courts interpret the Commerce Clause differently than you believe. Period.

I know they do... it doesn't mean they SHOULD! Federal courts once ruled that slaves were property... didn't make them RIGHT! Didn't mean they SHOULD have!

If the framers intended what you claim, they could have saved a lot of time and writing and simply said... The SCOTUS will determine what rights you have and you will obey. The Federal government will decide what's best for you and you will capitulate. Then, they would have crowned George Washington king and called it a day! Obviously, that's NOT what they intended to do.

Marbury v. Madison cemented judicial review and used the federalist papers and other legislative history to support its interpretation. We would actually be closer to totalitarianism and a "king"-like situation WITHOUT the ability of the courts to engage in judicial review, because such a philosophy would handcuff the judiciary.

Do you have any legal training at all? How do you come by these whacked-out theories? Facebook? Google?

You need to stop the smarmy insults before you get a reprimand from a mod. I've warned you already and I'm dead serious... this is not a forum for that. Debate cleanly or move along.

You will note, in Marbury v. Madison, one of those names refers to the man who actually WROTE most of the Constitution. James Madison. You might be interested to know, when this ruling was made, most of the framers of the Constitution thought it was a huge overstep of authority by the court... even Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democrat Party. They essentially gave themselves supremacy in what was supposed to be, and intended to be, a co-equal branch of government.

The judiciary is supposed to be handcuffed... to the Constitution! If the Constitution says it, they are supposed to uphold it. If that causes some problem, the Legislature is supposed to pass legislation to address the problem or adopt an Amendment to change the Constitution and have it ratified by the States. It was NEVER intended for the SCOTUS to enact legislation from the bench through re-interpreting the intent of the Constitution.

 

[Boss]

Spirituality is "bestowed" by people like you, from your imaginations. At last we agree.

The evidence that it is conjured up is that people have been able to accomplish the same benefits of supposed "spirituality" through tangible techniques with proven scientific benefits (mainly, meditation and yoga). Spirituality is that, but with a fairy tale involved. Pretty simple.

No... we DON'T agree. Spirituality in humans comes from a power greater than self. It's not imagined, it's not conjured up, it's not fantasy or make-believe. IF so, it's even more miraculous and incredible than if it's legitimately from a power greater than self.

Now, I WILL agree that most organized religions are "fairy tales" conjured up by humans who grapple with understanding of this intrinsic, incontrovertible and unquestionable spiritual awareness they have.

For many people, in order to "rationalize" this spiritual awareness they have, things have to be viewed through a prism of human understanding... things they can relate to. This leads to the creation of various incarnations of Deities and Gods to "explain" the perceptions in a way man can relate. All of these precepts can be debated and they are... they have been for centuries... but the fundamental foundation for them all is our intrinsic spiritual awareness as humans.

 

[GaryDog]

Hey, Boss, have you noticed how Gary's tone has changed from calm disagreement to outright anger and name-calling? I find it rather interesting...

Please point out where I called him names.

Stop trolling.

 

[GaryDog]

No... we DON'T agree. Spirituality in humans comes from a power greater than self. .

That's an assertion based on nothing but imagination. End of discussion.

 

[GaryDog]

I'm sorry but they're not the same. It has nothing to do with competence and I never made that claim. It has to do with Federalism. Pay attention! I also never said government is evil and inept. That is your emotion talking.

No, that's not emotion talking. That's the position of radical "free market" pushers like you.

We're founded on free market principles, free enterprise and a Constitution. Colloquially, we refer to this as "the free market system". I don't have to "push" it because it's what we ARE. It's what you Socialists want to destroy.

Well charter schools lack the funding of public schools, that's the main problem. In a free market, failing or under-performing schools go out of business and are replaced by better ones. That's why the free market is superior. I don't need to inquire further, the principles of free markets has been working for 250 years.

First, the "free market" has hardly been free for 250 years, and there are countless examples of it not working in many areas of our economy (healthcare is a prime example, local utilities are another).

Charter schools fail because they operate free from government oversight to make sure they're being run competently. Many even receive MORE funding than similar public schools, but mismanage it. Of course you don't need to inquire further, you don't lend credence to "evidence."

The free market system has been the free market system for 250 years. No one has ever said that it is, or should be, 100% unfettered free market capitalism. There are several areas where "free market" is inadequate to address our needs collectively as a nation. These are addressed in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and generally referred to as the "enumerated powers" of Federal government. Health care and local utilities are not mentioned in Article I Section 8.

Charter schools that fail, do so because they're mismanaged. In a free market system, this happens often. In a public school system, poor and underachieving mismanaged schools are propped up by ever-increasing government funding. There is no accountability and no competition. If we eliminated federal funding of public schools and returned that money to the states who used it to promote privately-owned schools, the better schools would succeed and the poorer schools would fail... the result would be a better product for the consumer.

I never said a word about the articles of confederation. Honestly, I am growing tired of you constantly LYING about things I've said. If you can't be honest then move along. This thread is not for you to troll and harass. Stop lying about the things I'm saying. The Constitution is not a living document, it was never intended to be morphed and twisted by SCOTUS to mean whatever it needs to mean at the time. Such a document would be totally pointless.

You said 12 years before the signing of the Constitution. That encompasses the period of time when they created the Articles of Confederation. I'm not lying. You're just throwing a temper tantrum because someone smarter than you is arguing circles around you.

No, I did not say "12 years before the Constitution" ...I said the Constitution was deliberated for 12 years. The Articles of Confederation was a temporary agreement between the 13 colonies in order to prosecute the Revolutionary War. It was never intended to be permanent or designed to be some sort of guideline for the Constitution.

You're clearly not smarter than me. If you were, you'd understand what the Federalist Papers said and the arguments they laid out for every single sentence found in the Constitution, and you'd KNOW that it was certainly NOT intended to be a "living" document.

The "living document" hardly renders the constitution meaningless. To borrow a cliche from you, we've been using that standard of review almost exclusively for nearly 250 years, and the constitution is still alive, as is our government (the oldest practicing democracy on earth). But sure, we're screwing the pooch. Okay.

But it certainly does render it meaningless. To claim it's a "living" document, you are claiming the court has the power to change it as it sees fit. To alter it in order to make it mean things it never intended. So why didn't the founding fathers simply install a SCOTUS to dictate our laws on the fly as they saw fit? What was the purpose of laying it all out as they did in a Constitution? Why not just establish a king and court and leave everything up to them to decide what is best for the people and if you don't agree, you can just fuck right off? It's because that was precisely what they were escaping in England!

Modern Progressives run to the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause to justify all their nonsensical ideals. The SCOTUS has become packed with Progressive thinkers who share this philosophy and it's destroying our Constitutional freedoms and our nation.

My logic is simple, if you need clarification on what something in the Constitution means, consult the Federalist Paper that talks about that. I didn't say consult the magna carta or the articles of confederation, I specifically said the Federalist Papers which were written to specifically explain the details of every part of the Constitution.

That's the problem, you take complicated, nuanced points of order about judicial review and assume they're simple. They are not. Sure, judges consult the federalist papers. They also consult today's social norms, and judicial opinions from 2014. That's the way judicial review always has worked.

No... "social norms" are not supposed to have a thing to do with a SCOTUS ruling. The SCOTUS, again, was intended ONLY to settle disputes over legitimate constitutional rights whenever there was a conflict of said rights. They're not supposed to legislate from the bench or change the meaning and intent of the Constitution. That power is left to the people and states respectively and there is a process for which the "social norms" can be considered... it's called the Amendment process.

I'm sorry you feel the process is tough but it's designed to be that way. You can't just start making up rights that aren't in the Constitution... Sorry!

By your logic, homosexuals would need a constitutional amendment to marry. They do not. And the Constitution certainly wasn't written with the intention of limiting rights. Quite the opposite (hence the 9th and 10th Amendments). I'm not the one who's sorry -- much smarter people than you and me actually agree with my vision of how to interpret constitutional concepts. Sorry!

Homosexuals have always had the right to marry but most homosexual men don't wish to marry a woman and most homosexual women don't wish to marry a man... and that's what marriage is. There is nowhere in the Constitution where marriage is articulated as a "right" and nowhere does it say "marriage" can be whatever the hell you want to call it.

I was opposed to Gay Marriage but it had nothing to do with discriminating against homosexuals. I don't feel the government should have the power to tell anyone what marriage is or who they can or can't marry. I think that should be a personal right left to individuals and government shouldn't be involved. At the absolute MOST, it should be a right of the state to determine among the citizens of said state through the ballot box. I feel the same way about legalization of pot and abortion. I'm very much a Libertarian on these things and don't feel the FEDERAL government has any authority to dictate policy for the individual.

Well, I know they have, that's why I said what I did. You're not right, you're wrong.

LMAO, wha? You just said "I know (you're right)" and then "you're wrong."

I seriously am beginning to think you have a mental illness. Yes, federal courts interpret the Commerce Clause differently than you believe. Period.

I know they do... it doesn't mean they SHOULD! Federal courts once ruled that slaves were property... didn't make them RIGHT! Didn't mean they SHOULD have!

If the framers intended what you claim, they could have saved a lot of time and writing and simply said... The SCOTUS will determine what rights you have and you will obey. The Federal government will decide what's best for you and you will capitulate. Then, they would have crowned George Washington king and called it a day! Obviously, that's NOT what they intended to do.

Marbury v. Madison cemented judicial review and used the federalist papers and other legislative history to support its interpretation. We would actually be closer to totalitarianism and a "king"-like situation WITHOUT the ability of the courts to engage in judicial review, because such a philosophy would handcuff the judiciary.

Do you have any legal training at all? How do you come by these whacked-out theories? Facebook? Google?

You need to stop the smarmy insults before you get a reprimand from a mod. I've warned you already and I'm dead serious... this is not a forum for that. Debate cleanly or move along.

You will note, in Marbury v. Madison, one of those names refers to the man who actually WROTE most of the Constitution. James Madison. You might be interested to know, when this ruling was made, most of the framers of the Constitution thought it was a huge overstep of authority by the court... even Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democrat Party. They essentially gave themselves supremacy in what was supposed to be, and intended to be, a co-equal branch of government.

The judiciary is supposed to be handcuffed... to the Constitution! If the Constitution says it, they are supposed to uphold it. If that causes some problem, the Legislature is supposed to pass legislation to address the problem or adopt an Amendment to change the Constitution and have it ratified by the States. It was NEVER intended for the SCOTUS to enact legislation from the bench through re-interpreting the intent of the Constitution.

You're whining about the state of judicial review in the United States. You think the constitution should be rigid and unchanging, even though the constitution denied women the vote and black people their freedom. It was VERY CLEARLY designed to be malleable based on the votes of the people, and their representatives' decisions to appoint justices. Your libertarian, free-market fantasy has never existed. End of discussion. You're an ideologue, much like Trump, who thinks his imagination trumps (no puns here) reality.

And STFU about "smarmy insults." It was a legit question. You're making false assertions about the separation of powers and the Constitution, and you have zero credentials. None. I do.

It used to mean something that people who had no expertise deferred to people who do. Now that's out the window. Apparently you want "facts" to be part of the free market as well. Some "fail" due to being unpopular, so we prop up new facts. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

And finally, K-12 education is NOT a commodity to be consumed by the public. It's in the national interest. And no democracy can survive without a well-educated public. We can't take chances with free market experiments, and education is not intended to turn a profit. To believe it should be subject to the free market is beyond foolish. The only reason education is not an enumerated power in the Constitution is because they confined voting to men over 21 who owned land (and therefore they presumed a level of education and knowledge). We rightly rid ourselves of that rule, thus necessitating that we educate our voting bloc. Charter schools are a terrible idea, and they will eventually bungle themselves out of existence (if our democracy survives Trump).

 

[Boss]

You're whining about the state of judicial review in the United States. You think the constitution should be rigid and unchanging, even though the constitution denied women the vote and black people their freedom. It was VERY CLEARLY designed to be malleable based on the votes of the people, and their representatives' decisions to appoint justices.

Hold on a minute... The women's right to vote and freedom of slaves were NOT done by the Supreme Court! They were done by Constitutional Amendments. That's the process you follow if you want to change what's in the Constitution. It was very clearly NOT designed to be malleable or we wouldn't need an Amendment process. Hell, we wouldn't even need a Constitution, we could have simply appointed a court and king.

Your libertarian, free-market fantasy has never existed. End of discussion. You're an ideologue, much like Trump, who thinks his imagination trumps (no puns here) reality.

It's not "libertarian" it's actually classical liberal. Our founding fathers were radicals. I'm not an ideologue, I'm a Constitutionalist. YOU are an ideologue. You want to use the progressive SCOTUS to push your agenda on the rest of society against their will.

And STFU about "smarmy insults." It was a legit question. You're making false assertions about the separation of powers and the Constitution, and you have zero credentials. None. I do.

It used to mean something that people who had no expertise deferred to people who do. Now that's out the window. Apparently you want "facts" to be part of the free market as well. Some "fail" due to being unpopular, so we prop up new facts. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

I don't give a damn what credentials you claim to have you're not going to insult me in this forum and get away with it, so stop doing it. I've presented facts and you can't refute them. It makes you angry and you get emotional and start hurling insults. I hate that for ya... but I'm not going to keep putting up with it.

And finally, K-12 education is NOT a commodity to be consumed by the public. It's in the national interest. And no democracy can survive without a well-educated public. We can't take chances with free market experiments, and education is not intended to turn a profit. To believe it should be subject to the free market is beyond foolish. The only reason education is not an enumerated power in the Constitution is because they confined voting to men over 21 who owned land (and therefore they presumed a level of education and knowledge). We rightly rid ourselves of that rule, thus necessitating that we educate our voting bloc. Charter schools are a terrible idea, and they will eventually bungle themselves out of existence (if our democracy survives Trump).

Well Mr. Credentials, we don't have a Democracy, we have a Republic. And you are right, the Constitution doesn't enumerate the Federal government any powers to control education. That is precisely why you have STATE boards of education. If you want to change the Constitution, there is a process... we've been over it.

Our education system would be exponentially better if left to the free market system. There are no "chances taken" with a free market system. Consumers will demand an adequate product and capitalists will provide it. Competition will ensure they provide the consumer the best product at the best price. Just because you lack faith in the free market capitalist system doesn't mean everyone has to be a socialist. Again, this should be an issue left up to the States and people to decide. The Federal government shouldn't be involved.

 

[Boss]

No... we DON'T agree. Spirituality in humans comes from a power greater than self. .

That's an assertion based on nothing but imagination. End of discussion.

No, it's an assertion based on the evidence I presented that you simply reject. And yes, we need to end that discussion because we're never going to agree.