Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Occupy" Protests
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed"Occupy" Protests

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3637383940 49>
Author
Message
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:46
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

I love when people try to call out my academic credentials.  I suppose those several classes in Constitutional Law in law school don't count much as scholarly research, eh?  Probably not from your p.o.v. as law schools are inherently liberal.


I'm not calling out your credentials. I'm calling out what you picked up. I've seen people go through a undergraduate minor in mathematics and have no understanding of something as fundamental as a secant line.

I don't discredit law schools. You just don't seem to know or you are consciously ignoring the powers afforded to the Federal government in the Constitution.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:46
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

If he really thinks states can regulate sexual conduct, this is a point in which I would totally disagree with him. 


He does not if numerous interviews with Lew Rockwell and publications  he's written are to be believed.
That quote was from a Lew Rockwell interview btw.


And that quote is a good example of his opinion that the laws are stupid yet not able to be overturned by Federal edict.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:46
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

If he really thinks states can regulate sexual conduct, this is a point in which I would totally disagree with him. 


He does not if numerous interviews with Lew Rockwell and publications  he's written are to be believed.
Exactly. And the three books I've read from him seem to totally contradict this anyway. He doesn't believe in regulating private conduct in general. 
Then he should be on the side of the feds here in overturning a "ridiculous" state law.  Again, he should put individual rights above states' rights if he were a true libertarian.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:49
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Then he should be on the side of the feds here in overturning a "ridiculous" state law.  Again, he should put individual rights above states' rights if he were a true libertarian.


He does. But he's wary of the power that's given to him. When you allow the government to just be an instrument of the person in power, the country ends up where it does now. This wouldn't be my approach because I think government is a futile and inherently immoral institution anyway.

However, a lot of people believe in a Constitutional government and social contract theory so that's their prerogative.


"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:53
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

I love when people try to call out my academic credentials.  I suppose those several classes in Constitutional Law in law school don't count much as scholarly research, eh?  Probably not from your p.o.v. as law schools are inherently liberal.


I'm not calling out your credentials. I'm calling out what you picked up. I've seen people go through a undergraduate minor in mathematics and have no understanding of something as fundamental as a secant line.

I don't discredit law schools. You just don't seem to know or you are consciously ignoring the powers afforded to the Federal government in the Constitution.
I do not go along with a strict interpretationist view of the Constitution, no.  I believe that the Constitution is there to protect the individual, nothing more, nothing less.  It is not there to necessarily limit the actions of the federal government, nor to give the states' rights to limit individual freedom, no matter what the founders intended it to mean.  The Constitution is there to protect us, the individual from government intrustion into our personal lives and from private power when necessary.  I know that isn't what was intended when the document was written 222 years ago.  But tbh, I do not hold the founders in as high esteem as most libertarians do. 
The Constitution must adapt to serve the people or it must be done away with and replaced with something intended to serve the people.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:57
Though I don't think the constitution is perfect, believe me, when you come from a country with 23 constitutions in its history, the latter of which, supposedly created "by and for the people" by a group of leftists, totally reduces and sacrifices personali liberties, you are quite more ready to embrace the power-limiting US constitution.

The best guarantee for freedom is limiting the power of government. The best "protection" for the individual as you seem to want is a limited government bounded by a stupid piece of paper.  


Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 13:16
@The Doctor

I don't mean my previousish post to be interpreted as me calling you stupid.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 13:19
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

I do not go along with a strict interpretationist view of the Constitution, no.  I believe that the Constitution is there to protect the individual, nothing more, nothing less.  It is not there to necessarily limit the actions of the federal government, nor to give the states' rights to limit individual freedom, no matter what the founders intended it to mean.  The Constitution is there to protect us, the individual from government intrustion into our personal lives and from private power when necessary.  I know that isn't what was intended when the document was written 222 years ago.  But tbh, I do not hold the founders in as high esteem as most libertarians do. 
The Constitution must adapt to serve the people or it must be done away with and replaced with something intended to serve the people.


I don't hold the founders in very high esteem really aside from a few of them. I have trouble with people who preach freedom yet weren't abolitionists. In any case, I don't understand how you can say it is there to do something while acknowledging it was not created with that intent. You can want it to do something, but that's not what the document does nor purports to do. I mean, I think your opinion is a good summation of why I could care less about a Constitution, but I don't really understand how you could reach your view. Again, I'm not trying to be condescending. I just can't follow your reasoning. It seems self-defeating to me.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 13:22
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

@The Doctor

I don't mean my previousish post to be interpreted as me calling you stupid.
I didn't take it as such.  No worries.  Smile
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 13:28
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

I do not go along with a strict interpretationist view of the Constitution, no.  I believe that the Constitution is there to protect the individual, nothing more, nothing less.  It is not there to necessarily limit the actions of the federal government, nor to give the states' rights to limit individual freedom, no matter what the founders intended it to mean.  The Constitution is there to protect us, the individual from government intrustion into our personal lives and from private power when necessary.  I know that isn't what was intended when the document was written 222 years ago.  But tbh, I do not hold the founders in as high esteem as most libertarians do. 
The Constitution must adapt to serve the people or it must be done away with and replaced with something intended to serve the people.


I don't hold the founders in very high esteem really aside from a few of them. I have trouble with people who preach freedom yet weren't abolitionists. In any case, I don't understand how you can say it is there to do something while acknowledging it was not created with that intent. You can want it to do something, but that's not what the document does nor purports to do. I mean, I think your opinion is a good summation of why I could care less about a Constitution, but I don't really understand how you could reach your view. Again, I'm not trying to be condescending. I just can't follow your reasoning. It seems self-defeating to me.
Well, again, I'm not calling out you or T's libertarian credentials, only Paul's.  I do believe that the 9th Amendment is a broad grant of individual liberties, including a right to privacy in sexual relations, which trumps the rights of states mentioned in the 10th amendment.  The enumeration of specific rights found in the Constitution was not meant to mean the people had no other rights than those found in the text of the Constitution.  And yes, that leaves it open to judicial interpretation what those rights specifically are.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 13:32
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Well, again, I'm not calling out you or T's libertarian credentials, only Paul's.  I do believe that the 9th Amendment is a broad grant of individual liberties, including a right to privacy in sexual relations, which trumps the rights of states mentioned in the 10th amendment.  The enumeration of specific rights found in the Constitution was not meant to mean the people had no other rights than those found in the text of the Constitution.  And yes, that leaves it open to judicial interpretation what those rights specifically are.


I agree with that. However, I think the enumeration for the powers of the Federal government are the exclusive rights. I don't see the jurisdiction in there for overturning a State law against sodomy.

I'm not even claiming that Paul is a libertarian. I'm saying he's not a neocon. There's a lot of ground between the two. One of the principles of neoconservativism, indeed really it's origin, is it's foreign policy. Paul represents the antithesis of this foreign policy.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 13:40
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Well, again, I'm not calling out you or T's libertarian credentials, only Paul's.  I do believe that the 9th Amendment is a broad grant of individual liberties, including a right to privacy in sexual relations, which trumps the rights of states mentioned in the 10th amendment.  The enumeration of specific rights found in the Constitution was not meant to mean the people had no other rights than those found in the text of the Constitution.  And yes, that leaves it open to judicial interpretation what those rights specifically are.


I agree with that. However, I think the enumeration for the powers of the Federal government are the exclusive rights. I don't see the jurisdiction in there for overturning a State law against sodomy.

I'm not even claiming that Paul is a libertarian. I'm saying he's not a neocon. There's a lot of ground between the two. One of the principles of neoconservativism, indeed really it's origin, is it's foreign policy. Paul represents the antithesis of this foreign policy.
I do agree with you there.  His foreign policy is not anywhere near neo-con.  But I did mention that in my first post on the subject. 
 
I believe the 9th Amendment when combined with the Supremacy Clause grants that jurisdiction.  A law that conflicts with the rights granted by the Constitution is unconstitutional.  The Court could easily find that the right to privacy in sexual relations is found within that Amendment.  It's been a long time since I've read Lawrence v. Texas, so I can't remember the specifics of the decision, but I'm pretty sure the 9th Amendment was used for that purpose in that case.  Let's look at it this way, if a state passed a law banning gun ownership, wouldn't you say that the Courts had jurisdiction to overturn that law?  Yes, it is a specifically mentioned right in the Constitution, but again, the 9th Amendment makes clear that there are others which are not mentioned.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 13:45
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

I do agree with you there.  His foreign policy is not anywhere near neo-con.  But I did mention that in my first post on the subject. 
 
I believe the 9th Amendment when combined with the Supremacy Clause grants that jurisdiction.  A law that conflicts with the rights granted by the Constitution is unconstitutional.  The Court could easily find that the right to privacy in sexual relations is found within that Amendment.  It's been a long time since I've read Lawrence v. Texas, so I can't remember the specifics of the decision, but I'm pretty sure the 9th Amendment was used for that purpose in that case.  Let's look at it this way, if a state passed a law banning gun ownership, wouldn't you say that the Courts had jurisdiction to overturn that law?  Yes, it is a specifically mentioned right in the Constitution, but again, the 9th Amendment makes clear that there are others which are not mentioned.


I would say no. I think the Constitution is a limit on federal power. The 2nd amendment explicitly limits the ability of the federal government to regulate firearms. I don't think the Constitution says a damn thing about the rights of the people. It doesn't grant any rights. The idea of natural right theory, which the Constitution is based on, is that the government has no power to grant rights. The Constitution only restrains the ability of government.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 13:56
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

I do agree with you there.  His foreign policy is not anywhere near neo-con.  But I did mention that in my first post on the subject. 
 
I believe the 9th Amendment when combined with the Supremacy Clause grants that jurisdiction.  A law that conflicts with the rights granted by the Constitution is unconstitutional.  The Court could easily find that the right to privacy in sexual relations is found within that Amendment.  It's been a long time since I've read Lawrence v. Texas, so I can't remember the specifics of the decision, but I'm pretty sure the 9th Amendment was used for that purpose in that case.  Let's look at it this way, if a state passed a law banning gun ownership, wouldn't you say that the Courts had jurisdiction to overturn that law?  Yes, it is a specifically mentioned right in the Constitution, but again, the 9th Amendment makes clear that there are others which are not mentioned.


I would say no. I think the Constitution is a limit on federal power. The 2nd amendment explicitly limits the ability of the federal government to regulate firearms. I don't think the Constitution says a damn thing about the rights of the people. It doesn't grant any rights. The idea of natural right theory, which the Constitution is based on, is that the government has no power to grant rights. The Constitution only restrains the ability of government.
So it comes down to that pesky 14th Amendment which is a limit on the states' power.  And, whether you agree with it or not (I'm assuming not), has been used numerous times to limit the states' power over its citizens when applied to a specific provision of the Bill of Rights.  I personally think this is not only a fair and just usage of the 14th Amendment but that it should be specifically applied to cover all of the Bill of Rights as a limit on the states' power. 
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 13:59
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

I do agree with you there.  His foreign policy is not anywhere near neo-con.  But I did mention that in my first post on the subject. 
 
I believe the 9th Amendment when combined with the Supremacy Clause grants that jurisdiction.  A law that conflicts with the rights granted by the Constitution is unconstitutional.  The Court could easily find that the right to privacy in sexual relations is found within that Amendment.  It's been a long time since I've read Lawrence v. Texas, so I can't remember the specifics of the decision, but I'm pretty sure the 9th Amendment was used for that purpose in that case.  Let's look at it this way, if a state passed a law banning gun ownership, wouldn't you say that the Courts had jurisdiction to overturn that law?  Yes, it is a specifically mentioned right in the Constitution, but again, the 9th Amendment makes clear that there are others which are not mentioned.


I would say no. I think the Constitution is a limit on federal power. The 2nd amendment explicitly limits the ability of the federal government to regulate firearms. I don't think the Constitution says a damn thing about the rights of the people. It doesn't grant any rights. The idea of natural right theory, which the Constitution is based on, is that the government has no power to grant rights. The Constitution only restrains the ability of government.
By that natural right theory the government (all governments - not just the federal) also have no power to take those rights away.  And I'm confused by your statement that the Constitution says nothing about the rights of the people.  Back to the 2nd Amendment.  "The rights of the  people to keep and bear arms..." 
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 14:10
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

So it comes down to that pesky 14th Amendment which is a limit on the states' power.  And, whether you agree with it or not (I'm assuming not), has been used numerous times to limit the states' power over its citizens when applied to a specific provision of the Bill of Rights.  I personally think this is not only a fair and just usage of the 14th Amendment but that it should be specifically applied to cover all of the Bill of Rights as a limit on the states' power. 


It's not the worst one in the world. Not like it's the 16th.

I think the 14th is rather specific in the intervention allowed by the feds.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 14:13
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

By that natural right theory the government (all governments - not just the federal) also have no power to take those rights away.  And I'm confused by your statement that the Constitution says nothing about the rights of the people.  Back to the 2nd Amendment.  "The rights of the  people to keep and bear arms..." 


Finish the ellipse, "... shall not be infringed." That's a limit on the government's power. Not a granting of rights.

No governments have the ability to take rights away. If they didn't, there would be no point in establishing one. That's the point of government. The State governments also don't grant rights with their Constitutions. Again, they only limit the power of the state government.

The idea is that the government cannot remove rights without due process.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 20:17
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

By that natural right theory the government (all governments - not just the federal) also have no power to take those rights away.  And I'm confused by your statement that the Constitution says nothing about the rights of the people.  Back to the 2nd Amendment.  "The rights of the  people to keep and bear arms..." 


Finish the ellipse, "... shall not be infringed." That's a limit on the government's power. Not a granting of rights.

No governments have the ability to take rights away. If they didn't, there would be no point in establishing one. That's the point of government. The State governments also don't grant rights with their Constitutions. Again, they only limit the power of the state government.

The idea is that the government cannot remove rights without due process.

You know, quoting just part of the second amendment really takes it out of context.  It's more about a militia than it is about the right to have muskets to defend the country against invaders at a time when we didn't have a big military that could protect us all over the place from invaders.  We now have a national guard at least we did until they all got shipped overseas for Agnafistan and Irate.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2011 at 20:19
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

By that natural right theory the government (all governments - not just the federal) also have no power to take those rights away.  And I'm confused by your statement that the Constitution says nothing about the rights of the people.  Back to the 2nd Amendment.  "The rights of the  people to keep and bear arms..." 


Finish the ellipse, "... shall not be infringed." That's a limit on the government's power. Not a granting of rights.

No governments have the ability to take rights away. If they didn't, there would be no point in establishing one. That's the point of government. The State governments also don't grant rights with their Constitutions. Again, they only limit the power of the state government.

The idea is that the government cannot remove rights without due process.

You know, quoting just part of the second amendment really takes it out of context.  It's more about a militia than it is about the right to have muskets to defend the country against invaders at a time when we didn't have a big military that could protect us all over the place from invaders.  We now have a national guard at least we did until they all got shipped overseas for Agnafistan and Irate.


Not really.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 23 2011 at 11:33
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3637383940 49>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.