Why do you want more government in your life?

[Vanquish]

And for ****'s sake...there IS a constitutional doctrine called The Right to Travel. I've cited a source to an explanation...I studied it in law school and have even referenced it in memoranda...

this isn't some crazy liberal "everthing is a right" deal...it's an actual doctrine.

 

[drsmith1072]

Actually there is no "right to travel". Where would you get the idea there is such a thing?

No one can prevent me from traveling, without cause. Therefore it's my right.

Uhhhh.. no

You can be prevented from traveling for various reasons.... it is not a right.. you have no more a right to travel than you have a right to health care.. nobody can 'stop' you for paying for healthcare, though you can be restricted by the choice of another/provider or by the the need in a given situation... you do not have the 'right' to be on a bus or to drive a car on a road or to board an airplane, etc

You seem to be focused on priveledges where as the author seems to be talking about his rights and freedoms. The constitution lists these rights and how the government cannot take them away without cause.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

Preventing someone from leaving one state and going to another would seem to qualify as an unreasonable seizure to me. You have a right to certian liberties and freedoms that you on the right seem to be ignoring in order to make a point.

This argument, of course, excludes any example in which the person is a felon and/or has had certain rights revoked due to this section of the 5th amendment of the constitution.

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

 

[drsmith1072]

Uhhhh.. no

You can be prevented from traveling for various reasons.... it is not a right.. you have no more a right to travel than you have a right to health care.. nobody can 'stop' you for paying for healthcare, though you can be restricted by the choice of another/provider or by the the need in a given situation... you do not have the 'right' to be on a bus or to drive a car on a road or to board an airplane, etc

All rights are limited. You can't name a right, even the enumerated ones, that isn't limited. I said 'without cause', for a reason.

This is where lefties really go wrong... expanding almost everything into being a 'right'... right to health care, right to travel., right to smoke dope, right to minimum wage, right to whatever else.... when in fact, while someone has the personal freedoms to do things, it does not make it a right inherently... there are very few and distinctly listed rights as recognized by government... travel is not one of them, bub... it is a privilege that most enjoy without much hindrance

WOW did he say all of those were rights in his two sentence post or are you merely presenting a strawman bs argument that is meant as a distraction and avoids the real debate?

define liberty.

n. pl. lib·er·ties
1.
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference

It seems to me that RIGHT is defined quite well within the constitution, don't you think?

 

[drsmith1072]

This is where lefties really go wrong... expanding almost everything into being a 'right'... right to health care, right to travel., right to smoke dope, right to minimum wage, right to whatever else.... when in fact, while someone has the personal freedoms to do things, it does not make it a right inherently... there are very few and distinctly listed rights as recognized by government... travel is not one of them, bub... it is a privilege that most enjoy without much hindrance

So you think that my state could constitutionally, by law, prevent me from leaving NY state?

Yes. That's what Dave is getting at. Merely having the ability to do something doesn't make it a right. It is a right when the state cannot forbid it without some scrutiny.

He clearly stated several times "without cause" so it's hilarious that you ignore it now.

It's has already been proven based on history that the rights presented in the bill of rights can be stripped from individuals as long as cause is shown tio justify it. So based on your spin doesn't that mean that we have NO rights since the state can forbid them when they have cause?

the right to life can be taken.
the right to bear arms can be taken.
the right to liberty can be taken.

History shows that there are limits to almost every right within the bill of rights so based on your spin they are not rights.

 

[drsmith1072]

Actually there is no "right to travel". Where would you get the idea there is such a thing?

Yes...there is a right to travel. It's a firmly established constitutional doctrine.

This is why I love people who argue on forum boards without legal degrees. It's funny.

US Constitution Annotated - The Right to Travel

The Right to Travel

The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1858 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one State who is temporarily visiting another state the "Privileges and Immunities" of a citizen of the latter state.1859 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before taking advantage of the benefits of that state's citizenship.

Thanks for playing.

Don't let the parts about the uncertainty fool you...this gets actual use all the time when combined with the full faith and credit clause so that when you move to a new state you dont get discriminated against.

The premises they use are about laughable

The Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, or even a mention of any explicit right to travel

The constitution references many freedoms and there are indeed laws that lay out freedoms specifically.... but again, just because something is a freedom, law, or privilege does not make it an inherent right

The right to "locomotion" (I.E. walking, crawling, etc under your own power) as it is sometimes called, has been attempted to be used to define a 'right to travel' in many cases including cases of driving without a license... and this is mainly unsuccessful because there is not constitutional right to travel

So please explain how a state can legally prevent a person from travelling to another state knowing that this person has committed NO crime and that there is no just cause for seizing them and/or preventing them from leaving??

BTW i believe it has already been established that driving is a priveledge not a right so there really is NO need to bring that up AGAIN.

 

[drsmith1072]

ones state CAN NOT prevent someone from leaving the state UNLESS they are on bail....have allegedly committed a crime.

*or on parole.

or state of emergency... for public safety concerns... because of public inebriation.. etc

There are times when the state can and does prohibit travel... but as stated, it is rare to lose the freedom or privilege to travel about

Again you are trying to present just causes to prevent someone from traveling to another state but how about the instance where no such cause exists?? How do you propose that a state can legally prevent the person from travelling?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It is interesting but a bit sad too watching Socialists/Progressives spinning and justifying clear over-reaches by our Government. It seems they're ok with the Government over-reaching as long as it's their fellow Socialists/Progressives doing the over-reaching. These same Socialists/Progressives had a completely different take on Government over-reaching when they didn't have the power. The same can be said about Neocon/Progressives too. It seems both fully support Government oppression as long as it's their own brethren doing the oppressing. Neither stand for real Freedom & Liberty in the end. This country desperately needs change. It's time to boot the Socialists and Neocons. Lets hope more Americans start to understand this.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

ones state CAN NOT prevent someone from leaving the state UNLESS they are on bail....have allegedly committed a crime.

*or on parole.

or state of emergency... for public safety concerns... because of public inebriation.. etc

There are times when the state can and does prohibit travel... but as stated, it is rare to lose the freedom or privilege to travel about

Which are all for cause. Which can be invoked against any right you believe you have, speech, assembly, religion, guns, etc.

Travel is still a right.

True...but when you break the law you lose that right....among many others.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Neocon/Progressives

Again, there is no such animal. I love how the right is trying to sneak neocons in with what they deem the leftist bugaboos of socialism/communism, even when they don't even know the definitions or realities of those two ideologies. So now that you guys have disowned neocons (which you haven't... you just renamed them conservatives...), you now think you can lump them in w/ progressives? This oughtta be good...

 

[Vanquish]

As I understand it...a neocon is a big government republican.

So anti-gay but pro patriot act (big government wiretapping, control of citizens) = neocon

big government leftist = radical left

they obviously share a belief in super-big government.

 

[tunit0395]

people dont want more govt in their life. its like a drug. theres that fake feeling that someone will make everything okay and once you allow yourself in that cycle, then its life alterring to get out of it. people who rely on the govt feel they need to in order to "survive". its hard to imagine that at one time people didnt "rely" on the govt and the nation prospered. its a perpetual lie that liberals and 99%of politicians perpetuate

 

[drsmith1072]

What you're noticing is my FRUSTRATION.

I've ALREADY proven what I asserted...

a) that there is a "right to travel" constitutional doctrine
b) that not every law is verbatim in the constitution

They wont respond with anything of substance...but they keep talking trash.

that gets me frustrated and I start insulting. Yep.

I ran into a similar response from rabbi on another thread. he tried to put words into my mouth so I called him out for it and his response was to attack me personally and avoid the debate.

The thing is that after you return to them what they have been dishing out they use your attacks as justification for claiming you were wrong, that you lied and that you can't debate the facts (which they continue to avoid).

 

[Mr. Peepers]

And conservatives value big government as long as the spoils go to the MIC and the already wealthy/corporations via tax breaks and corporate welfare. They may not care as much about moral control, but they damn sure want to keep money out of the hands of the unwashed masses just the same. Otherwise, what is the diffrence from a neocon? Same stinky product... new (well, refurbished) name.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

its hard to imagine that at one time people didnt "rely" on the govt and the nation prospered.

And just when was this, exactly?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Neocon/Progressives

Again, there is no such animal. I love how the right is trying to sneak neocons in with what they deem the leftist bugaboos of socialism/communism, even when they don't even know the definitions or realities of those two ideologies. So now that you guys have disowned neocons (which you haven't... you just renamed them conservatives...), you now think you can lump them in w/ progressives? This oughtta be good...

Neoconservatives are in fact Democrats in their political roots. There is no disputing that fact.

The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman. A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick,[citation needed] were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA.

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ooooops!

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Neoconservatives are in fact Democrats in their political roots. There is no disputing that fact.

But most progressives are independents. We're not talking about Democrats.

 

[Vanquish]

So like I said...big government republicans.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Neoconservatives are in fact Democrats in their political roots. There is no disputing that fact.

But most progressives are independents. We're not talking about Democrats.

I would say that some progressives are independents...not most. Most independents may have broke for Obama in the last election but that doesn't make them progressives.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Both the Socialists/Progressives and Neocon/Progressives seem completely ok with absurd Government over-reaching just as long as it's their own brethren doing the Government over-reaching. The Socialists/Progressives had a completely different take on Government when they didn't have the power. This is true of the Neocons as well. Now all these Neocons are suddenly against Big Government? Where were they the previous eight years? I guess it just comes down to who has the power at the time. Socialists and Neocons change their philosophies on Government depending on whether or not they have the power at the time. Government oppression is completely ok with both if it's their own doing the oppressing. Only one solution left. Boot the Socialists and Neocons.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

But conservatives are also big government republicans as long as the spoils to not go to the citizenry, but to the MIC and corporations. What's the difference from a neocon other than where you think the taxpayer's money should go?