"Occupy" Protests

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.

The T wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: 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.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: 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.

@The Doctor

I don't mean my previousish post to be interpreted as me calling you stupid.

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. 

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.

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.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: 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..." 

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.

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: 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.