The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[manifold]

I gotta disagree with this. There was a certain intent when crafting the constitution, and if we're not going to accept the framers' own explanations after the fact then why even bother deferring to the document at all?

Because he's not alive to tell us how to apply it on a case by case basis.

Very true, but in many cases there's an obvious common sense application that STILL isn't applied.

If they're telling us that general welfare wasn't intended to provide hand outs to anyone willing to show up at the office, then we're obviously not applying it correctly because we're handing out money like candy these days.

Vote for Gary Johnson then. That's what I'm doing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And you'd be wise to do so. And you can also disagree with him about what it meant then, and what it means now. The fact that he wrote it in no way makes his subsequent editorial about it the final word.

I gotta disagree with this. There was a certain intent when crafting the constitution, and if we're not going to accept the framers' own explanations after the fact then why even bother deferring to the document at all?

Because he's not alive to tell us how to apply it on a case by case basis.

That is the whole problem, they aren't actually trying to figure out how to apply it, they are trying to figure out how to get around it. Almost every single bit of constitutional case law is about how the constitution doesn't apply to something. If we simply applied it across the board things would be a lot easier.

 

[Polk]

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47

If the people are the ultimate arbiter of the constitution, my guess is that the General Welfare clause means something different than most libertarians believe.

Well, I guess you could defer to the guy who actually wrote the clause, as to what he meant by it:

The Federalist #41

Either you consider the people the arbiters of meaning or you don't. You don't get to change the standard depending on how people feel relative to your position.

 

[Polk]

Romney will nominate whoever the "Moral Majority"/"Tea Party"/whatever they're calling themselves these days want him to nominate.

I sorta doubt it. And it strikes me as sort of pathetic that the limited government folks pin their hopes for constitutional restraint on Romney. But I don't want to spoil the party: Romney is severely conservative!!! and Obama is a Socialist!!! Got it.

Romney will do whatever those groups want him to do, because the alternative is Republican caucus taking him out behind the barn.

 

[Polk]

Well, I guess you could defer to the guy who actually wrote the clause, as to what he meant by it:

The Federalist #41

Perhaps, but Jefferson said the final arbiter should be the people. If you invoke Jefferson to hold up people and slap down judges, be careful what you wish for. After all, correct me if I'm wrong, but your disdain for democracy seems to arise from the power of the people to vote themselves wealth distribution.

Correct...The final arbiters were meant to be the people, via fully informed and properly empowered juries.

Unfortunately, today's judicial oligarchy is very good at concealing these powers/responsibilities and actively persecuting those who know and exercise them.

Fully Informed Jury Association

Also, Google "Laura Kriho".

Jury nullification is one of the worst ideas ever.

 

[manifold]

Perhaps, but Jefferson said the final arbiter should be the people. If you invoke Jefferson to hold up people and slap down judges, be careful what you wish for. After all, correct me if I'm wrong, but your disdain for democracy seems to arise from the power of the people to vote themselves wealth distribution.

Correct...The final arbiters were meant to be the people, via fully informed and properly empowered juries.

Unfortunately, today's judicial oligarchy is very good at concealing these powers/responsibilities and actively persecuting those who know and exercise them.

Fully Informed Jury Association

Also, Google "Laura Kriho".

Jury nullification is one of the worst ideas ever.

Fail.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps, but Jefferson said the final arbiter should be the people. If you invoke Jefferson to hold up people and slap down judges, be careful what you wish for. After all, correct me if I'm wrong, but your disdain for democracy seems to arise from the power of the people to vote themselves wealth distribution.

Correct...The final arbiters were meant to be the people, via fully informed and properly empowered juries.

Unfortunately, today's judicial oligarchy is very good at concealing these powers/responsibilities and actively persecuting those who know and exercise them.

Fully Informed Jury Association

Also, Google "Laura Kriho".

Jury nullification is one of the worst ideas ever.

Yeah, because the people actually having a voice n the law is absurd.

 

[Polk]

Correct...The final arbiters were meant to be the people, via fully informed and properly empowered juries.

Unfortunately, today's judicial oligarchy is very good at concealing these powers/responsibilities and actively persecuting those who know and exercise them.

Fully Informed Jury Association

Also, Google "Laura Kriho".

Jury nullification is one of the worst ideas ever.

Yeah, because the people actually having a voice n the law is absurd.

The people already have a voice. It's called elections.

 

[Samson]

Jury nullification is one of the worst ideas ever.

Yeah, because the people actually having a voice n the law is absurd.

The people already have a voice. It's called elections.

I'd rather simply vote for legislation myself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Jury nullification is one of the worst ideas ever.

Yeah, because the people actually having a voice n the law is absurd.

The people already have a voice. It's called elections.

Not in the world you are building where the only people that win elections are the ones that are approved by your masters.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If we simply applied it across the board things would be a lot easier.

liberals are opposed to the basic intent of the Constitution so of course they want it to mean something different than intended.

The main problem with the Constitution is that it didn't explicitly make liberalism illegal; rather it did it implicitly and that has proved to be our undoing.

 

[Polk]

Yeah, because the people actually having a voice n the law is absurd.

The people already have a voice. It's called elections.

I'd rather simply vote for legislation myself.

That's not really practical.

 

[Polk]

Yeah, because the people actually having a voice n the law is absurd.

The people already have a voice. It's called elections.

Not in the world you are building where the only people that win elections are the ones that are approved by your masters.

That's the system you're arguing for. So that a government of, by, and for the oligarchs shall not perish from the earth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The people already have a voice. It's called elections.

Not in the world you are building where the only people that win elections are the ones that are approved by your masters.

That's the system you're arguing for. So that a government of, by, and for the oligarchs shall not perish from the earth.

Jury nullification leads to oligarchy?

 

[Polk]

Not in the world you are building where the only people that win elections are the ones that are approved by your masters.

That's the system you're arguing for. So that a government of, by, and for the oligarchs shall not perish from the earth.

Jury nullification leads to oligarchy?

No, your belief in unlimited corporate spending on elections will lead to oligarchy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's the system you're arguing for. So that a government of, by, and for the oligarchs shall not perish from the earth.

Jury nullification leads to oligarchy?

No, your belief in unlimited corporate spending on elections will lead to oligarchy.

why???? corporations compete with each other so they will cancel each other out just as unlimited personal spending would.

And in any case what corporations want is to please their customers so the more power they have to do that the better off we all are anyway. Did you think the Girl Scouts provided your food clothing and shelter?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's the system you're arguing for. So that a government of, by, and for the oligarchs shall not perish from the earth.

Jury nullification leads to oligarchy?

No, your belief in unlimited corporate spending on elections will lead to oligarchy.

My beliefs about elections are irrelevant to a discussion about jury nullification.

Once again, how does jury nullification lead to oligarchy?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jury nullification leads to oligarchy?

No, your belief in unlimited corporate spending on elections will lead to oligarchy.

My beliefs about elections are irrelevant to a discussion about jury nullification.

Once again, how does jury nullification lead to oligarchy?

mabe he feels the jury would then go out and form an oligarchy, somehow?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, your belief in unlimited corporate spending on elections will lead to oligarchy.

My beliefs about elections are irrelevant to a discussion about jury nullification.

Once again, how does jury nullification lead to oligarchy?

mabe he feels the jury would then go out and form an oligarchy, somehow?

That is what I am trying to figure out.

 

[manifold]

The point where juries are forced by law to vote against their conscience is the point where final say no longer rests with 'the people'. If a jury's vote nullifies a law then that law is probably unjust.