What war? by kaneman

Hell yes.

See, it's not that hard to express an opinion without using the word 'fuck'. Good on ya', Kaneman.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 1, 2007 5:53 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Agreed.

Can we still call it a quagmire though? I like that word.

Nevermind..... I just looked up quagmire, and though I like the definition:

A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament.

It also means:

a situation from which extrication is very difficult, as in "a quagmire of financial indebtedness."

We won't use that word either because we don't want to confuse the proles. By that definition, the only "quagmire" we're facing is here at home on Capitol Hill.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
When my congress declares war....I'll support it or vote 'em out of office if I disagree.....

And if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks...by god that's no duck until Ron Paul says its a duck. Until then lets just call it a duck-like-bird-that-swims.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 5:45 AM

Much as it pains me to agree with Hero on anything, he's got a point.

No sense calling it anything but what it is, a war - an illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional war, but a war all the same.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Much as it pains me to agree with Hero on anything, he's got a point.

No sense calling it anything but what it is, a war - an illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional war, but a war all the same.

Its undeclared. Illegal and unconstitutional are the same thing and in this case Congress passed an authorizing resolution. They are free to withdraw that authorization (I differ with the President on this point), but thus far have chosen not to do so.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
No sense calling it anything but what it is, a war - an illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional war, but a war all the same.

Where's the war? 'Cause I'm not seeing it. If you're referring to our trouble in Iraq, that's an occupation. The war's over. We should leave or claim it as ours.

If you're referring to the "War on Terror", that's just doublespeak. But it's doublespeak designed to sell people insidious changes to our balance of power and justify the "neo"-imperialism of the "neo"-cons. Terrorism is politically inspired crime, not warfare.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 8:15 AM

More doublespeak.

A resolution is meaningless, it is not, and cannot possibly be construed by any logical, thinking person as a formal declaration of war.

And that is what is required for a war to be consitutional, period.

As far as illegal/unconstitutional, doing 70mph in a 55mph is illegal, but not unconstitutional, while violating someones fourth amendment rights may be "legal" but is still unconstitutional.

The UN's regulations about wars of aggression, and remember we ARE still part of the UN and have not withdrawn from it, nor have they kicked us out, although I can't imagine why one or the other hasn't occured by now.. make it illegal.

Violation of the Constitutions requirement for a formal declaration makes it unconstitutional, as does the geneva conventions rules, since the constitution makes any signed treaty equal to itself in authority.

And yes, I know it's more of an occupation, Sarge, but an occupation in and of itself is an act of warfare, and thus part of a war.

I think we should just bug out, but if they want the territory that damn bad, just fucking annex it - and then get ready for all of Asia to stomp our ass for it.

When I called it an illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional war - I meant *exactly* that, I am not some slimy doublespeaking combine lawyer, just a pissed off semi-retired cabbie.

Clear enough ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 8:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

YEEE HAAAAA! to everything Frem said.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 9:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As far as illegal/unconstitutional, doing 70mph in a 55mph is illegal, but not unconstitutional, while violating someones fourth amendment rights may be "legal" but is still unconstitutional.

The Constitution is the foundation upon which the criminal code is based, therefore violation of a criminal law is unConstitutional. That's why a person can be found not guilty of a violation of the law and then retried on Constitutional grounds without violating double jeapordy. In your example State Constitutions vest the right to set traffic laws in the State legislature, which then sets uniform laws for the state (and often allows local jurisdictions to set local laws for themselves).

Quote:

The UN's regulations about wars of aggression, and remember we ARE still part of the UN and have not withdrawn from it, nor have they kicked us out, although I can't imagine why one or the other hasn't occured by now.. make it illegal.

Except that the UN has authorized US military actions in Iraq and Afganistan.

Quote:

Violation of the Constitutions requirement for a formal declaration makes it unconstitutional, as does the geneva conventions rules, since the constitution makes any signed treaty equal to itself in authority.

The President and the Senate cannot by treaty usurp constitutional authority. Treaties have legal standing, but are not the equal of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land. You really think we can sign a treaty with...say Iran and suddenly all women lose the right to vote. I think not. Such a treaty, should it be signed and ratified would by unConstitutional.

Quote:

When I called it an illegal, undeclared, unconstitutional war - I meant *exactly* that, I am not some slimy doublespeaking combine lawyer, just a pissed off semi-retired cabbie.

Yeah, I know what you meant. I understand you may not be a lawyer, but your certainly no Constitutional scholar and have little knowledge, much less sense of the history of the Constitution or legal precedents.

I, on the other hand, note for the record the continued use of authorizing resolutions for undeclared war going back the the Barbury wars which started in 1801.

Quote:

An Act for the Protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States, Against the Tripolitan Cruisers.
"... it shall be lawful fully to equip, officer, man, and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite by the President of the United States, for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.

"...to subdue, seize and make prize of all vessels, goods and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, or to his subjects,... and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify, and may, in his opinion, require."

(Feb. 6, 1802.)

I further note that the Marshall Court fully supported this as a logical part of Congress' implied powers. That actually comes from a decision regarding the undeclared war with France in 1798.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 11:12 AM

"Yeah, I know what you meant. I understand you may not be a lawyer, but your certainly no Constitutional scholar and have little knowledge, much less sense of the history of the Constitution or legal precedents."

Are you shittin me ?

What fucking dope are you SMOKING, Hero ? or has the pressure of being the jackboot of the state finally warped your little mind until it cracked ?

I can practically quote it, tell you who wrote what and why, and then show you in their own words what the fuck they meant, while you spend all day at work shitting on it and trying to warp it's intent and meaning.

Show me where the founders intended us to have a standing army.
Show me where ANY search without a warrant is allowed or encouraged.
Show me where secret tribunals are allowed or encouraged.
Show me where it is acceptable at ANY time to not have a Jury.
Show me where jury loading is acceptable, mister prosecutor!

Explain to me how TWO YEARS of confinement under a bail that constitutes more than 150% of the sum of the assets of the accused, followed by a fine of over 300% of that amount does not effectively violate it.

And while you're at it, show me anywhere in Amendment Two where it specifies specific types of "arms" and allows forbiddance or infringement.

And you dare to preface this... with a statement that proves to me that you've probably never even read that 'goddamn piece of paper' as your heros call it.

"The President and the Senate cannot by treaty usurp constitutional authority. Treaties have legal standing, but are not the equal of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land."

Is that so ?
Perhaps you missed THIS little bit under Article Six.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

And don't bother quoting the Marshall Court to me, a court decision can NOT overturn the Constitution, nor redefine any of it's terms, and the term "implied powers" does not whatsoever exist within the document, which quite explicitly states in Article Ten.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution gives "few and limited" powers to the FedGov, and if it is not expressly stated within the document itself that they have a Power or Authority...
THEY DO NOT HAVE IT.
Period.

This nonsense about "implied" powers is naught more than a dodge based on the ridiculous assumption that the courts can redefine what the constitution or it's terms mean, but they have jurisdiction WITHIN it, not over it, as clearly explained in Article Three, Section Two.

So, in short and summary - Fuck You.

The next time you shoot off your mouth, maybe check the loadout in your head first.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 11:30 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Gentlemen on both sides,

We can attack the arguments without attacking the man.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 1:42 PM

Who you callin a Gentleman? sure as hell ain't me...

We could do that, sure, but in this case I choose not to, I've really had enough of politely listening to this jackboot ramble on about how tyranny is necessary, especially combined with the fact that his career and finances benefit from it, while watching him and his ilk accuse folks of "Ad Hominem" just for pointing that out.

If you wanna get all technical, my tearing a strip off the ole boy isn't even ad hominem... as it is properly an argumentum ad personam and completely justifiable, although likely not in the manner I chose to phrase it, because he is a willing cog in the machinery whos actions he wishes to justify, and therefore any of his testimony to that effect is suspect due to it's source, muchlike a budwiser batch supervisor telling you beer is good for you.

I can be really vicious when provoked, and squatting over the one tattered and failing object that's the only thing between America the Beautiful and Amerika the 4th Reich, intending to take a dump on it, is one thing sure to piss me off in a hurry, as is cheering on those intending to do such a thing.

Given his own former conduct and statements in RWED, I do not feel any obligation whatsoever to be nice to him, or even polite - in fact, I feel a certain *obligation* to be downright crass when addressing him directly, to be honest about it.

Given previous RWED topics and discussions, the first phrase that I quoted was either maliciously disingenuous, or so completely clueless as to be inexcuseable, and truthfully, I do not think he is clueless or stupid and thus took it for the studied and deliberate insult it was.

And yes, I felt he deserved a boot to the yarbles for it, and so I gave him one, or two, or six...

Making a crack like that in my direction is right up there with "My grandma, what big teeth you have!" and what happens soon after is both very similar and every bit as predictable.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 2:11 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Making a crack like that in my direction is right up there with "My grandma, what big teeth you have!" and what happens soon after is both very similar and every bit as predictable.

-F

If I recall, what happened next was a woodsman burst into the house and killed the wolf.

My point is, if we're just going to insult each other, we'll accomplish nothing. If we use well-reasoned logic and avoid personal attacks, we may make progress. At the very least imagine the potential converts to your cause that are lost because all they see is a raving, rude, lunatic.

It is a lesson I was never able to teach Piratenews.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 2:27 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Yeah, I know what you meant. I understand you may not be a lawyer, but your certainly no Constitutional scholar and have little knowledge, much less sense of the history of the Constitution or legal precedents.

Hoooooo boy!

I knew that one was going to set you off Frem. Kudos to your replies.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 2:36 PM

You know, Anthony, I'm with you on the call for civility and all, but I'm also seeing something in what Frem is saying and doing here that desperately needs to be happening. It needs to be happening everywhere. Those of us who aren't quite ready to throw in the towel on the American dream need to start fighting for it or we're going to lose it. Foul language isn't much compared to taking up arms in violence, but we need to be ready to do that as well if that's what it takes to wrest our country back from these bastards.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 2, 2007 4:52 PM

In my opinion, I tend to think we are no longer 'at war'. Congress authorized use of force against two nations; Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush then launched an attack against these two nations; like as not, we are then 'at war'. Both governments fell; and now we are on 'friendly terms' with the new government.

Assuming these governments last for any length of time, I'm confident that the wars will both have been deemed over for a while. For Iraq, for instance, I'm sure folks will pick one of these dates for when the war was won:
1) The fall of Baghdad
2) The capture of Saddam
3) The election of the new government

What we are doing now is 'peacekeeping' or something like that. Of course the question is, can we 'win the peace'?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"Yeah, I know what you meant. I understand you may not be a lawyer, but your certainly no Constitutional scholar and have little knowledge, much less sense of the history of the Constitution or legal precedents."

Are you shittin me ?

Yeah. What I meant to say is that your arguments display a childish or willfull ignorance of law, the Constitution, and civil discourse.

Quote:

I can practically quote it, tell you who wrote what and why, and then show you in their own words what the fuck they meant, while you spend all day at work shitting on it and trying to warp it's intent and meaning.

I notice you very little quoting it, you tell us what you think it means and then cry about how corrupt the system is for not bowing to your ignorant ravings.

Your questions, for example, are easily answered by someone with a passing understanding of Constitution law. I, on the other hand, have studied the subject extensively.

Quote:

Show me where the founders intended us to have a standing army.

Article 1, § 8- The Power to raise and support armies and a navy, while limiting a given apporiation of funds to two years.

You'll say..."two years means no standing army" because the founders thought such armies evil. Publius then replies:

"It is not said, that standing armies SHALL NOT BE kept up, but that they OUGHT NOT to be kept up, in time of peace…The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence…The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation."- Publius, Federalist No. 26.

Thanks Publius (either Adams, Jay, or Hamilton since they were all Publius to some extent.)

Quote:

Show me where ANY search without a warrant is allowed or encouraged.

Any 1st year law student or repeat criminal offender can answer. Here's a sample:

1. Consent- no warrant is needed when the person consents to the search. And consent can be implied, for example if you have an Ohio drivers license you have consented to certain tests, including blood tests for alcohol content upon request by an Officer with reasonable articulable suspicion that you are intoxicated (and driving). If you are unconcious in a hospital following an accident, you will be tested. You have a right to revoke the consent if your concious, but doing so results in harsher penalties and is itself a crime if you have a prior OVI within 20 yrs.

2. Search incident to arrest, if your being arrested the Officer can search you.

3. Inventory search, if your being arrested the officer can search your belongings, such as your car if its being towed, to inventory the contents before transport.

4. Pat downs...aka stop and frisk, the officer can do a cursory pat down in certain circumstances (like if your being all crazy like).

5. Plain sight. If the Officer see's a dead body through your window...they can enter and do a limited search.

And on and on and so forth and with exceptions...there is so much law on search and seizure it takes an expert...like myself...to keep it all straight.

Quote:

Show me where secret tribunals are allowed or encouraged.

The general reasoning is that the Due Process Clause is the legal basis for allowing such hearings...as long as they comply with Due Process, anything goes.

The Congress can authorize them under the Elastic Clause and the President can do it under his power as Commander-in-Chief, but ultimately they both must be subject to Due Process. I suppose your talking about the detentions at Gitmo and I suppose I could get into a big review of tribunals and talk about Roosevelt and the Nazi sabatuers and I suppose the idea is to limit public knowledge of sensitive information that comes from these kinds of cases (terror, intellegence, spies and such)...but thats too hard for you to follow.

So instead, how about Juvenile Court. I'm sure you were in one after you exposed yourself to your classmates in middle school or something similar. They are closed hearings and the parties, lawyers, witnesses, and press are admonished from revealing the proceedings. The idea is to limit public knowledge of sensitive information that comes from these kind of cases (families and children).

Quote:

Show me where it is acceptable at ANY time to not have a Jury.

The obvious answer is when a person signs a Jury waiver. The less obvious answer is when there is no risk of liberty such as minor misdemeanor offenses punishable by fine only.

Quote:

Show me where jury loading is acceptable, mister prosecutor!

I'm not sure what you mean. I can't disqualify jurors based upon race, sex, or religion. I can disqualify them for bias. And I note for the record that just because a jury finds you guilty does not mean they were biased against you. It usually means your guilty. Funny how that seems to work out.

Quote:

Explain to me how TWO YEARS of confinement under a bail that constitutes more than 150% of the sum of the assets of the accused, followed by a fine of over 300% of that amount does not effectively violate it.

Bail is based on many factors...a person's inability to pay is not one of them (although the opposite is not true). Generally its risk of flight, severity of the crime, evidence, danger to self/public/witness/victim, and prior record.

Fines are set by statute and are based on prior record and type of offense.

Excessive fines or bail can be Constitutional issues. But it has to be excessive based on the factors I mentioned, not the Defendant's assets.

Quote:

And while you're at it, show me anywhere in Amendment Two where it specifies specific types of "arms" and allows forbiddance or infringement.

The general argument is it comes from the "Well regulated" part. I'm pro-gun so I want my AR-15 legal. But your suitcase nuke or that Russian T-72 you bought on Ebay seem to be reasonable limitations.

Quote:

And you dare to preface this... with a statement that proves to me that you've probably never even read that 'goddamn piece of paper' as your heros call it.

"The President and the Senate cannot by treaty usurp constitutional authority. Treaties have legal standing, but are not the equal of the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the land."

Oh, I dare.

Quote:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

I am very aware of the Supremacy Clause, but you don't want to hear how the Marshall Court explained that it means the laws of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT are supreme to the states. Meaning the States cannot have laws that conflict with US Laws, Treaties, or the Constitution. Nobody considers the clause to mean that treaties can overturn Constitutional rights. Were the two conflict the Constitution always trumps.

Quote:

And don't bother quoting the Marshall Court to me, a court decision can NOT overturn the Constitution, nor redefine any of it's terms, and the term "implied powers" does not whatsoever exist within the document, which quite explicitly states in Article Ten.

Then you've been unhappy a LONG time. The Supreme Court's power to define and redefine the Constitution has been around since...right around their first cases. The implied powers come right from a fair reading of the document. For example, the Constitution does not say the President can give awards for military service, its implied by his power to command and Congress' power to make rules. There is no provision for having bills go through committee process and then going to the floor for procedural votes, its implied by Congress' power to make its own procedural rules.

Quote:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Generally the 10th Amendment is limited to issues of health, safety, welfare, education, and morals. And alcohol...but thats a special case.

Quote:

The Constitution gives "few and limited" powers to the FedGov, and if it is not expressly stated within the document itself that they have a Power or Authority...
THEY DO NOT HAVE IT.
Period.

Except they do. Period.

Lots of folk over the years have argued otherwise. But they've been unsuccessful.

Quote:

So, in short and summary - Fuck You.

Ahhh...the intellectual basis of your argument.

I have no response. I have endeavored to take my time with this so as to make it simple enough for you to understand. That may be an impossible task since I'm using english and you need pictures and perhaps a monkey put it all together for you.

I would suggest that the proof is self evident. If you are right about all you've said you are at this moment under arrest and being held without trial at my order. Since your not being held accountable for your passionate defense of liberty, perhaps you might want to consider that your basic premise...that the evil government is out it get you...is wrong. And if that is wrong then perhaps your wrong about everything.

The government is not the bad guy. Your ignorance is the real enemy here.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 9:21 AM

JUDITH

In which Shakespeare play was "...first we kill the lawyers..."? Just asking is all. We hate 'em 'til we need 'em. Kind of like a spouse/significant other. Lawyers just frustrate those of us that don't like pickers of nits - that's all deary. It's really nothing personal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
In which Shakespeare play was "...first we kill the lawyers..."?

Henry VI, Pt. 2.

They are plotting rebellion and the means for their tyranny to succeed and what they shall do to accomplish that end. Its a compliment to lawyers. The characters are ackowledging that the law and those who are sworn to uphold it stand in the way of those would would take away liberty.

The line is:

CADE
I thank you, good people, there shall be no money;
all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.

DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 11:05 AM

JUDITH

Thank you, Hero. If I knew where you live, I'd send you some cookies. I really don't know why we dislike lawyers so much, but it is the truth. Until we need one - then the more disreputable the better it would seem.

TTFN!
Judith

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 3, 2007 4:06 PM

Re: Standing Armies.

Adams - Who put forth the Alien and Sedition Acts, showing his true character.

Hamilton - Who turned on the Federalists when their true colors were revealed by those acts.

Jay - Who was the nimrod who originally espoused that the constitution as written, could be re-interpreted to mean whatever the hell the supreme court thought it should mean, up to and including violation of states rights and sovereignity.
See Also: Chisholm v. Georgia
And then went on to fully and deliberately misinterpret Article Three, Section Two.

Not, given their conduct once power came to them, the most trustworthy of public servants.

I cite to you BRUTUS, commonly acknowledged as likely Robert Yates.

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp24.html
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp25.html

On the topic of standing armies and the dangers associated.

And while we're at it you might also reference Hamiltons own comments on the dangers, posted in another thread here by me - as well as ponder that one of our primary bitches against king george was keeping a standing army among us in times of peace.

"And on and on and so forth and with exceptions...there is so much law on search and seizure it takes an expert...like myself...to keep it all straight."

Not what I asked you - I asked you where in the US Constitution does it at any point, anywhere, even allow for a warrantless search much less encourage one.

The right to be presented with a warrant naming speficially the things to be searched and what is being looked for is an absolute right, guaranteed by the supreme law of the land, which all other law is subordinate to and thus cannot overturn.

ANY warrantless search is a constitutional violation of the first order, and no amount of doublespeak or legalese is going to change these words in form or meaning.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

You can't just say "Oh, well, they don't really MEAN that." and just go ahead and violate it, the FedGov cannot, a State cannot, no law enforcement of any kind can - to do so is to just piss on the whole document as irrelevant to their will.

And to even attempt to propose that a law written under and within it's jurisdiction can overturn it's basic principles is as ridiculous as saying the mail room clerk of a large corporation can, at will, overturn the CEO's policies.

Re: Due Process, Elastic Clause.

Legalese catch-alls, let me restate the "Few and Limited" principle to you again, as held by the folks that wrote it - if they are not expressly and undeniably allowed to do something, they CAN NOT DO IT.

Picking a few words like "to regulate commerce" and then just bending them to the point of utter ridiculousness is where the supreme court is supposed to step in and stomp your ass back onto the straight and narrow - these kinds of abuses and usurpations are why the founders wrote the document in such absolutist terms and intended they be applied so.

"Excessive fines or bail can be Constitutional issues. But it has to be excessive based on the factors I mentioned, not the Defendant's assets."

No, that doesn't fly - the purpose of bail is to ensure someones presence at the trial, it is NOT to arbitrarily confine them for the purposes of intimidation, rape and abuse, all the while holding a plea bargain in front of them in an attempt to force a plea of guilty.

And let's cut the bullshit here, that IS how it is used much of the time - by setting it higher than a defendant can possibly afford, it is effectively denying them bail.

It's a bullshit dodge when the court has no right or reason to revoke bail, and wishes to do so regardless of that fact - a complete abuse of the entire process and one that has become so common that it has created a niche industry (bail bondsmen) around that entire violation.

Just because it's been codified by endless abuse to the point where folk take it for granted, makes it no less the violation that it is.

"The general argument is it comes from the "Well regulated" part. I'm pro-gun so I want my AR-15 legal. But your suitcase nuke or that Russian T-72 you bought on Ebay seem to be reasonable limitations."

Again with an absolute distortion of the meaning - well regulated in the useage of the day it was written, meant well trained and disciplined, and the militia of course meant every able bodied person of our nation.

And they said "arms".. not "sporting weapons only"... not a specific type of weapon, but arms, specifically of a military nature as the militia was intended to either function as a reserve to the raised army in war, or in extremis, cut it to pieces were it used as an act of tyranny.

I don't see the words "Reasonable Limitation" in there, I see "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" - where the hell you can get the idea of some permission to LIMIT that right is beyond me, and probably beyond any sane person as well.

"I am very aware of the Supremacy Clause, but you don't want to hear how the Marshall Court explained that it means the laws of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT are supreme to the states. Meaning the States cannot have laws that conflict with US Laws, Treaties, or the Constitution. Nobody considers the clause to mean that treaties can overturn Constitutional rights. Were the two conflict the Constitution always trumps."

Except when YOU want it to, right ? like limiting the right to bear arms, like not bothering with a search warrant, yes ?

The CONSTITUTION is superior and above the FedGov, what part of "Supreme law of the land" slid by you ?

The FedGov has no authority but what the Constitution gives it, period - and should it usurp power and authority that it is not given, then the states are fully within their right to ignore it, something that *monster* Lincoln decided to cause a vicious slaughter over, which is something that nearly happened earlier because a states final bulwark against abuse and usurpations is secession from the VOLUNTARY union thereof.

If the FedGov writes a law, that they have the authority TO write, which is within it's constitutionally limited powers to enforce, THEN the states are bound to it, yes - but if the law itself violates any principle of the US Constitution, it's stillborn, dead as a doornail, null and void - and to pretend otherwise is to crap on the whole document as irrelevant.

Also true is that a Treaty cannot trump the Constitution - but that isn't what I said, I said violation of a signed treaty was a violation equal to a constitutional violation in and of itself, and then proved it in the documents own words... you have NO argument on that respect, and it showed your knowledge of the document to be severely lacking besides.

"Then you've been unhappy a LONG time. The Supreme Court's power to define and redefine the Constitution has been around since...right around their first cases."

Exactly, the immediate usurpation and violations the Anti-Federalists warned us of, which have now finally, after many years of piling up unchecked, have brought us to the very despotism that the Anti-Federalists warned us of, and the Federalists blithely assured us would never happen because no one would ever dare stoop so low.

Lest anyone think I jest about them stating "no one would ever dare" as an excuse for NOT properly embedding such protections ? I cite also from the very Federalist Paper #26 that Hero quoted above, WITH a convenient link so you can read the WHOLE thing and make up your own mind.

"Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person."

Link - http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/
northamerican/TheFederalistPapers/chap26.html
(spaced to avoid screen stretch)

I think our keeping of a standing army in times of peace and as of late, violating posse commitatus in using it to threaten the citizenry, and recently (Katrina) even taking it so far as to deprive the citizens of their arms by threat of force - most certainly qualifies as the "continued conspiracy for a series of time" mentioned above which Publius was soooo sure would never, ever happen that he felt we needed no specific protection against it.

He also mentions the role of the Militia in stomping flat a kingmaker who's acted beyond the pale, but this is a little hard to do without "arms" of a military nature, is it not ?

"As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent."

I can also cite Madisons comments I quoted in THIS thread as well.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30754

As for the doctrine of implied powers, again, the phrase does not exist within the document and it is a complete usurpation as evidenced by Amendment Ten

"Generally the 10th Amendment is limited to issues of health, safety, welfare, education, and morals. And alcohol...but thats a special case."

That is not what it says, it SAYS...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

To be exact, it states beyond any doubt that any powers not given to the FedGov to NOT belong to them, they belong to the states, or the people as a whole... how the HELL you can get the idea that those words limit the rights of the states and people to specific things is beyond me.

"Except they do. Period."

Prove it - all you have proven here is that the Gov is completely off the leash, that they usurp authority far beyond what was given to them and abuse it as a matter of course - and we should accept that just because they have been doing it for years ?

I reject that, categorically, in the same fashion that I would reject accepting a man beating his wife just because he's done it for years with no one really stopping him - it doesn't make it valid, it doesn't make it right, if anything, it makes it MORE intolerable because if unchecked, any form of abuse will continue to get worse, as our Governments abuse has become as of late unignorable even by the masses.

And as for my "Intellectual Basis" ?
Then what IS the proper response to Tyranny then, ehe ?

Molon Labe ?
Don't Tread on Me ?

I have nothing nice to say to tyrants and even less nice things to say to their cheerleaders, so blinded by their own agendas that they fail to realize that one day they may be on the short end of the chain themselves, I meant both words exactly as spoken, and the sentiment behind them wholeheartedly.

"I would suggest that the proof is self evident. If you are right about all you've said you are at this moment under arrest and being held without trial at my order."

FIRST off - Molon Labe!

Secondly, I doubt I am in your jurisidiction, and thus you have no power over me, and certainly not the ability to enforce your will in a state who's people are as a general rule hostile to the very principles you espouse here.

"Since your not being held accountable for your passionate defense of liberty, perhaps you might want to consider that your basic premise...that the evil government is out it get you...is wrong."

Now you've even got my basic premise wrong - Government doesn't give a shit ABOUT me save as a potential source of income, or as an annoying little speedbump in the path of it steamrollering our rights, and having watched what happens to other annoying little speedbumps, I make damned sure to bury myself in smoke and mirrors as well or better than our Federalists and Anti-Federalists did when they came at odds, because there are always people within the system, who benefit from it, who may take personal issue with you and turn it's machinery against you.

I cite the character Roy Miro from Dean Koontz's novel "Dark Rivers of The Heart" as a classic example of how badly that can go for someone who dares stick their head up.

Government always devolves into serving itself above all, and gettin in the way of that is a dangerous thing, as history shows - I just simply refuse to be afraid of em, cause that is what they want, as shown by holding up all these so-called-threats (See Also: "We have been told of phantoms") because scared people who do not know better cling to Government to protect them, especially when that very selfsame Government has deprived them of the means to defend themselves.

As for lawyers, if our legal system wasn't such a convoluted joke of a mess, we really wouldn't need em - like Government, they are a problem masquerading as it's own solution.

If I needed one tho, I concur with Judith... prolly be summonining mine with a bloody goat from a pentacle on the floor of my library, given the nature of the system we'd be up against, he'd prolly understand it better than anyone I could summon with a telephone.

-Frem

LINKS.

Federalist Papers.
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/northamerican/TheFede
ralistPapers/toc.html

Anti-Federalist Papers.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 4, 2007 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
ANY warrantless search is a constitutional violation of the first order, and no amount of doublespeak or legalese is going to change these words in form or meaning.

You can't just say "Oh, well, they don't really MEAN that." and just go ahead and violate it, the FedGov cannot, a State cannot, no law enforcement of any kind can - to do so is to just piss on the whole document as irrelevant to their will.

And to even attempt to propose that a law written under and within it's jurisdiction can overturn it's basic principles is as ridiculous as saying the mail room clerk of a large corporation can, at will, overturn the CEO's policies.

Oh, I understand now. You cite the founding fathers...but only the ones who agree with you. The others you dismiss with casual personal attacks.

As for the law and the Constitution, you write the way you WANT it to be. Not the way its been interpreted and applied for the last couple hundred years.

For example, there is no Constitutional provision for garbage collection...so all garbage trucks are unconstitutional. There is no constitutional provision for highways...so highways are illegal. Never once does the Constitution mention an Air Force, so an Air Force is illegal. Not one mention of product safety, so Consumer Protection, the FDA, and other consumer regulatory agencies are illegal. Its a dark and smelly world were you live...if for no other reason then no public utilities. I feel bad for the people in your world that die because there were no vaccines, no hospitals, and nobody to protect us from exploding Pintos. Except the rich of course...who can pay people to do that sort of thing...

Hmmm...your approach to life might be good. Hey, I want a million dollars. I'm fairly certain that my not being given a million dollars is unconstitutional. Lets see, the 10th Amendment specifically says powers not given the states and the govt go to the people...aka me. That means I get a million dollars. Thomas Jefferson wrote somewhere that I should get a million dollars. Its what I want and the real world be damned.

Quote:

No, that doesn't fly - the purpose of bail is to ensure someones presence at the trial, it is NOT to arbitrarily confine them for the purposes of intimidation, rape and abuse, all the while holding a plea bargain in front of them in an attempt to force a plea of guilty.

And let's cut the bullshit here, that IS how it is used much of the time - by setting it higher than a defendant can possibly afford, it is effectively denying them bail.

The factors I noted for bail are the factors used. A person with a clean record, strong ties to the community, and charged with a lessor offense is more likely to get low bail. A person charged with murder, with a long history of violent crime, with a history of not showing up to court, and who is threatening to kill witnesses if he gets out is likely to get high bail. The ability to pay is simply not an important condition under those circumstances.

Quote:

Except when YOU want it to, right ? like limiting the right to bear arms, like not bothering with a search warrant, yes ?

The CONSTITUTION is superior and above the FedGov, what part of "Supreme law of the land" slid by you ?

Again your not reading the WHOLE Constitution. The 14th Amendment says the govt. can deprive you of your rights provided you get Due Process. The Supreme Court has said this means limited intrusion, narrowly tailored, and for reasonable purposes.

In Ohio you can carry a concealed weapon. That weapon cannot be a suitcase nuke (reasonable). You can't carry it in limited areas like schools and govt buildings (limited) or private property which does not want it (hey, that their business, not the govts), and you have to have a license (again reasonable and limited) and anyone can have a license unless they fail the safety course or the background check.

If you are not open to reasonable limits then start working on repealing the 14th Amendment. Whining about the way you think it outa be isn't going to change the way it is. Of course the 14th Amendment is probably the most important Constitutional provision there is for protecting you rights, but hey, what does any of that matter to you? You KNOW and thats good enough.

Till then, the rest is crazy talk.

I note for the record that the Constitution says nothing about Congress making it illegal for a person to listen to you speak, for you to be able to buy ammunition, to protect you from private persons seizing and searching you and handing stuff to the police, or beating a confession out of you...or holding you in a private jail, and not once does it say you can't have sex with a goat (so have at it).

Edited to add: All that stuff is implied...so don't do it, although I'd never stand between you and your love of barnyard animals...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:11 PM

"Not the way its been interpreted and applied for the last couple hundred years."

Just because you been doin somethin wrong for a hundred years does not automatically make it right.

The potential for abuse was there, the dangers were clear, and the Anti-Federalists were very much aware of how human nature would virtually guarantee those abuses, while the Federalists (many of whom were actually PLANNING such abuses, even at the time, like Adams) dismissed those claims under the auspice that no one would dare, and thus no protection was needed - and yet, in the end, here we are.

You're damned right I am suspicious of their motives, given much of their conduct through the very loopholes they refused to close.

"For example, there is no Constitutional provision for garbage collection...so all garbage trucks are unconstitutional."

Not under the jurisdiction of the Fedgov, certainly, this would according to Amendment Ten, make them under that of the state or the people, respectively - my waste pickup services are managed by the city I live in, and paid for by the property taxes I pay that city, something I have a very active (as mentioned elsewhere) hand in, as is my civic duty.
Water and Waste water services are handled more directly, and I pay them directly as these services are something I desire and am willing to pay for - and the FedGov has no involvement, nor should they, in either one.

"There is no constitutional provision for highways...so highways are illegal."

Highways likewise are under the jurisidiction of the state, anything to do with them on a Federal level is both unconstitutional and wasteful, as it involves paying greater federal taxes into a system that siphons off most of the money and wastes it before it is ever applied if it even is - while I am less than fond of toll roads like 80-90 or the PA Turnpike(70/76), I can see the logic of those actually using the road being more responsible for payment - but as I say, a state issue, rather than a federal one.

"Never once does the Constitution mention an Air Force, so an Air Force is illegal."

Air power, a technology developed after it's writing, is simply an extension of an Army or Navy, we have aircraft carriers, and they have aircraft on them, and it is within congressional authority to equip and maintain a navy - other air power should be part and parcel of the army rather than a seperate branch, yes.

"Not one mention of product safety, so Consumer Protection, the FDA, and other consumer regulatory agencies are illegal."

Absolutely - The FedGov has no permission or authority to do so, and thus they cannot, such powers are reserved to the states and people respectively.

I can see the wisdom of that, they had their reasons.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
You do not give a limited government the ability to expand itself, it is unwise in the extreme.

I will also note that most of those agencies are up to their ass in corporate lobbyists pockets digging for more without much concern for the folk they were intended to protect, and so distant from the authority and oversight of the people that they're almost completely insulated from such.

Look at any list of Gov offices and what they cost, and you have a good idea why that power was NOT given to them, it is more properly done at the state level where the people of that state have a say in how much regulation and inspection, how much they're willing to pay for it, and a degree of control over it by those people most directly affected.

International trade regarding inspections and regulation should effectively be part of a trade treaty with the nation in question, and the FedGov properly does have that authority within the bounds of the constitution.

That is in part WHY they reserved that stuff for the state level, if even that, so it would be decided and paid for by those directly affected - neither the fedgov nor even the state of michigan has any say or business in my waste pickup, snow removal or water supply.

My city handles these, I want them to handle them and I pay them to do it - and if the city did not, or us people of this city chose not to allow them to, then I would engage such services privately if I did not wish to do them myself, the same way I would hire someone to shovel my walk or mow my lawn if I desired to.

The city does not even own the waste removal services for example, but contracts the work from a selection of companies that bid on it, with the oversight and approval of the city council, which is of itself overseen and supervised by us people - who just fired the city manager for corruption and incompetence, and his secretary is soon to follow.

This is a far, far more efficient process than some politically appointed hack who's never even BEEN to my town, much less my state, eight hundred miles away in his cushy federal office built on my dime, making those decisions - virtually immune to the oversight of the people whom his decisions directly affect, and THAT problem was forseen and addressed by Amendment Ten.

"A person charged with murder, with a long history of violent crime, with a history of not showing up to court, and who is threatening to kill witnesses if he gets out is likely to get high bail. The ability to pay is simply not an important condition under those circumstances."

Then you remand them, and deny bail - all too often setting a high bail is applied as a means to deny it when the court has no legal right to, you know it, I know it, and pretending otherwise is a fiction I will not be a willing participant of.

Setting a massive bail on a first time offender with no criminal record in order to keep them incarcerated as an attempt to punish them into a pleading guilty is so common in our system that it has become an expected tactic, and holding them for nearly two years (I cite Drake vs State of MD, 1991) for their refusal does not in any way constitute a speedy trial, especially when the state prosecutor demands countless postponements for the express purpose of extending that incarceration in retaliation for them not pleading guilty.

And I won't even go into violations of the discovery process on behalf of prosecutors, as they are as common as raindrops in spring, and almost never punished.

"Again your not reading the WHOLE Constitution. The 14th Amendment says the govt. can deprive you of your rights provided you get Due Process. The Supreme Court has said this means limited intrusion, narrowly tailored, and for reasonable purposes."

The Supreme Court can say the sun is green, if they like, they cannot overturn basic rights without so much as a trial - have they then, put the entirety of the american people on trial ?
Where then is the "Due Process" in denying rights under the Second and Fourth Amendments to people never convicted of a crime ?

"In Ohio you can carry a concealed weapon. That weapon cannot be a suitcase nuke (reasonable). You can't carry it in limited areas like schools and govt buildings (limited) or private property which does not want it (hey, that their business, not the govts), and you have to have a license (again reasonable and limited) and anyone can have a license unless they fail the safety course or the background check."

It says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED even in your example, unless someone has been criminally prosecuted and convincted in a manner relative to such bearing of arms, the supreme law of the land, above and superior to state or local laws, utterly forbids every single one of those restrictions but one.

That being on someones private property when they do not wish it - that is between them and you, with no involvement or interest on behalf of the government whatsoever.

Licensing, in my opinion, and as discussed elsewhere, should be an issue of commerce between the manufacturers, gun shops, and the customer - if naught else it would serve as a bulwark against certain liability issues, I would see no issue with the manufacturer or shop demanding you have some evidence of competence before selling you a tool so potentially dangerous - but it is not, and should not ever be, the governments business or baliwick.

"I note for the record that the Constitution says nothing about Congress making it illegal for a person to listen to you speak, for you to be able to buy ammunition, to protect you from private persons seizing and searching you and handing stuff to the police, or beating a confession out of you...or holding you in a private jail, and not once does it say you can't have sex with a goat (so have at it)."

If some private citizen eavesdrops on me, that is between me and them - the Fourth Amendment protects my person and effects from the Gov, and under that, my conversation is one of those effects save in the case of public property - and even then if I wanted to be an ass, I could sandbag them under the ridiculous renditions of copyright law they've illegally saddled us with... and if I really wanted a private conversation I would encrypt it, as the Gov has no power or authority to forbid or outlaw encryption.

As for buying ammunition, that is between me and the manufacturer of that ammunition, they may be able to regulate commerce but they cannot forbid it.

As far as a private person seizing a suspect and handing evidence to the police - imma cite to you a link relative to that, since at the bottom of it, police ARE private citizens, and any citizen who directly witnesses you commit a substantive crime can arrest you.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

As for beating a confession out of you, or holding you in a private jail, that's a state issue, and while under your viewpoint "Due Process" might include that (look up Wackenhut Security for a long history of such exact things) I'll note that there's also no proviso against your friends springing you from said treatment or installation.

As for goats, well, being that my family line hails from west virgina to begin with, imma hide behind the Fifth Amendment on that one, thanks.

You can call it crazy talk all you like - King George prolly said much the same about the Declaration of Independance.

Anarchist I may be, but my goal is Constitutional Compliance, and if you think that's crazy, the idea that we should actually obey the document that is our governments foundation, then why have a government at all ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 5, 2007 1:52 AM

I appreciate the exchange, Hero and Frem; and with FFF down last night, I only have time to give a limited scan; I'll read the whole thing later, but I'm going to comment on a few items that caught my eye.

Quote:
Frem posted and quoted Hero...
"For example, there is no Constitutional provision for garbage collection...so all garbage trucks are unconstitutional."

Not under the jurisdiction of the Fedgov, certainly, this would according to Amendment Ten, make them under that of the state or the people, respectively - my waste pickup services are managed by the city I live in, and paid for by the property taxes I pay that city, something I have a very active (as mentioned elsewhere) hand in, as is my civic duty.
Water and Waste water services are handled more directly, and I pay them directly as these services are something I desire and am willing to pay for - and the FedGov has no involvement, nor should they, in either one.

"There is no constitutional provision for highways...so highways are illegal."

Highways likewise are under the jurisidiction of the state, anything to do with them on a Federal level is both unconstitutional and wasteful, as it involves paying greater federal taxes into a system that siphons off most of the money and wastes it before it is ever applied if it even is - while I am less than fond of toll roads like 80-90 or the PA Turnpike(70/76), I can see the logic of those actually using the road being more responsible for payment - but as I say, a state issue, rather than a federal one.

Frem makes a huge point; remember the constitution allows that anything not enumerated in the constitution is held to be for states and individuals. There's no point getting into things like garbage collection. If the fed gov tries to get into that business, someone should chop it off at the knees. In some areas, the local citizens have expressed an interest in have their community do garbage collection via the local government; that is their right, as the constitution does not state the federal government can legislate on the matter. Other communities merely have put in place laws like 'you can't have a garbage heap in your front yard' and private businesses step in to 'help' folks comply to the law. Other places have no laws on the matter, and you can have garbage heap in your front yard.

The Highway system; remember why the system was put in place -- to allow the army to efficiently move about. And look at how it is managed; the fed gov only supplies money to the states to 'make it so', the fed gov does not so much as place a rock or lay the tar; state government does it. Because it is done this way, I believe it is constitutional.

The FDA item is a bit murkier (I didn't quote that item, so see Frem's last post). I have to agree with Frem, it's unconstitutional. Problem is, I like it; at least, I like that someone requires the testing to be done; and somehow makes the information available. I'm not sure I agree with the 'hows and wherefores' of it. It is important to recognize the difference between what politicians have rammed through Vs what is 'proper' from a constitutional perspective; and simply because a thing is not permitted by the constitution does not mean the thing is inherently evil (though I'm sure Frem will disagree, and I will agree it is problematic), nor does it mean the thing is not wanted and popular. Question gets to be; do we change the constitution or get rid of the program; or change the program to fit the constitution... or just ignore the detail it is not constitutional?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
The Highway system; remember why the system was put in place -- to allow the army to efficiently move about. And look at how it is managed; the fed gov only supplies money to the states to 'make it so', the fed gov does not so much as place a rock or lay the tar; state government does it. Because it is done this way, I believe it is constitutional.

But the feds also uses that funding as a leverage point to project power. It's worth noting that there was a serious ulterior and political motive behind the federal highway system, some say it was the whole point. Namely to replace the railroad network, which had become increasing defiant of government demands, with a transportation networked controlled by the government.

Quote:
It is important to recognize the difference between what politicians have rammed through Vs what is 'proper' from a constitutional perspective; and simply because a thing is not permitted by the constitution does not mean the thing is inherently evil...

True enough, but it's important to remember that the constitution is a carefully balanced set of checks and balances. Stepping outside that system, even if the isolated occurrence is well-intended and worthwhile, runs a serious risk of allowing excesses elsewhere in the system, or at some other time, that can cause the balance to tip.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
The Highway system; remember why the system was put in place -- to allow the army to efficiently move about. And look at how it is managed; the fed gov only supplies money to the states to 'make it so', the fed gov does not so much as place a rock or lay the tar; state government does it. Because it is done this way, I believe it is constitutional.

But the feds also uses that funding as a leverage point to project power. It's worth noting that there was a serious ulterior and political motive behind the federal highway system, some say it was the whole point. Namely to replace the railroad network, which had become increasing defiant of government demands, with a transportation networked controlled by the government.

All good points. For example, denying states fed fund if they didn't modify their laws to raised the drinking age. But does that make the highway system funding unconstitutional (possibly, for meddling in state affairs, and I'd support that; but it is not the base issue raised) on a fundamental basis? I think not. Also, you can tell your reps you think doing such is wrong and cowardly. But that's a (mostly) political discussion.

Quote:

Quote:
It is important to recognize the difference between what politicians have rammed through Vs what is 'proper' from a constitutional perspective; and simply because a thing is not permitted by the constitution does not mean the thing is inherently evil...

True enough, but it's important to remember that the constitution is a carefully balanced set of checks and balances. Stepping outside that system, even if the isolated occurrence is well-intended and worthwhile, runs a serious risk of allowing excesses elsewhere in the system, or at some other time, that can cause the balance to tip.

Agreed, which is why I think 'ignoring it' is a bad idea...

All: so, who wants to take lead on getting the FDA declared unconsitutional...

====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
All: so, who wants to take lead on getting the FDA declared unconsitutional...

Ignoring the implied powers and meanings of the Constitution leaves so much uncovered. How about the CDC. Or the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (do you really want Pennsylvania deciding it can build dozens of Nuke plants...on the New Jersey border...just in case), and the Federal Govt. has no business desegregating private property like resturants and clubs (it comes from the Equal Protection Clause AND the Interstate Commerce Clauses).

Who will inspect your food, make sure your drugs work? Remember snake oil salesmen. Pirate News and his elixer of good health guarrantteed to cure all manner of ailments and infirmiries.

Katrina overwhelmed State and local official and the Consitution is silent on emergency disaster relief...in fact Constitutional limitations helped prevent the President and the military from simply taking over on Day 1 since they could not intervene without state approval.

Who will regulate air travel...its crowded up there. I don't want Delaware allowing insider trading, tainted products, slave labor, and so on the way they give other breaks to corporations.

There is so much thats done by the Federal govt and it all comes from fair readings of the Constitution and its intent. If you don't care for it change it.

Its funny that when its something you like in the Constitution you want to make it more then it is and when its not you want as strict a reading as you can. I'm the same way...although I'm joined by the vast majority of Americans both now and those who came before as well as the overwhelming majority of legal precedent on this subject.

Your out there on the fringe...with the lunatics. I'm not saying your a lunatic, cause there's some true blue patriots out there with you...misguided, but patriots none the less.

In the meantime...I'm off to put a young lady in jail...DUI with some pot...and I love a good Friday "forthwith" this time of year.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:07 AM

Given what happened with Gardasil (The VAERS report now reads like a regular catalog of horrors, I won't even describe it here *shudder*) and recent skullduggery with the CDC almost with massive conflict of interest relative to pharmaceutical companies... hell yes dismantle em.

But as you point out, the function they serve is potentially useful, and there's no prohibition at a state level, nor against it's coordination with other states agencies of the same type.

The closer you put such a function to the very people most served and effected by it, the better the oversight and the more efficient it winds up being - one reason the founders wanted the states to run most things for thier people, as this problem was compounded at the time by transportation and distance issues.

There's also the question of what it's worth, addressed directly to the folk actually paying for it and recieving benefit - none of this nonsense about the Gov stripping tax monies from your state and using it to benefit a state more supportive of the cabal in power than yours is, a common phenomenae with federal funding.

I cite for example our city trash pickup... the company we have contracted is not so very efficient, in that said pickup can occur any time between 7am and 7pm, but they're CHEAP, and it does get picked up within that span, and this is acceptable to us cause to improve on that efficiency (which is, to us "good enough") would require an increase of almost 170% of what we currently pay and this is unacceptable for such.

We people of the city chose to go with the lowest bidder, who meets our minimum acceptance, rather than pay more for a more efficient provider of that service for more money - WE made that decision, not those morons in Lansing, not some political Hack 800 miles away, US, the people directly affected by the outcome of that decision, and if we want to, enough of us, we can change it.

As the scale becomes larger, the efficiency drops exponentially, corruption and waste enter the process and the pure inertia of making change becomes so significant as to make things nearly unalterable.

It's a hell of a lot easier to get 20 people, or even 200, to agree on something than it is 2 million.

Get my point ?

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:25 AM

"There's no point getting into things like garbage collection. If the fed gov tries to get into that business, someone should chop it off at the knees."

The problem with that is when folk start letting courts re-interpret and distort the meanings with the help of lawyers who make arguments like this...

The FedGov has the power to "Regulate Commerce".

Waste disposal is technically "Commerce".

Therefore the FedGov can interfere to it's hearts content.

Stuff like that was intended to be clearly forbidden but that was almost immediately trashed by Jay, Hamilton and other proto-fascist Federalists who immediately pounced on the loopholes they spent so much time expounding on how no one would ever dare misuse.

The someone who should chop it off at the knees was the supreme court, but instead they have become a de-facto forum by which to warp and bend the meanings of the document into whatever their political friends currently desire it to mean.

I will note that the phrases "implied powers" and "elastic clause" do not whatever appear in the Constitution, and the wording of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is expressly against even the concept of such things, obviously intended to forbid such misuses.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 5, 2007 10:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"There's no point getting into things like garbage collection. If the fed gov tries to get into that business, someone should chop it off at the knees."

The problem with that is when folk start letting courts re-interpret and distort the meanings with the help of lawyers who make arguments like this...

The FedGov has the power to "Regulate Commerce".

Waste disposal is technically "Commerce".

Therefore the FedGov can interfere to it's hearts content.

Actually they can't interfere to their heart's content. In one example the Federal Govt. was forced to get involved because of garbage from one state being dumped in another. Another good example came from contaminated water from garbage dumps leaching into the water table of a neighboring state. Those make garbage collection Federal issues...not what time or what company picks up your trash.

Quote:

Stuff like that was intended to be clearly forbidden but that was almost immediately trashed by Jay, Hamilton and other proto-fascist Federalists who immediately pounced on the loopholes they spent so much time expounding on how no one would ever dare misuse.

I note for the record that facism was a 20th Century invention. Hamilton favored a strong executive...perhaps even a monarch, but not a dictator, that was feared by all of them.

I noted that you lumped Adams into that lot in an earlier post. Now there was a great man. He invented one of the most important parts of our Constitutional process...the peaceful transition of power after losing an election.

Quote:

The someone who should chop it off at the knees was the supreme court, but instead they have become a de-facto forum by which to warp and bend the meanings of the document into whatever their political friends currently desire it to mean.

Yet you refuse to even try to comprehend the legal reasoning that goes into such decisions. You just blanket denounce them without saying what specifically they have said you disagree with or on what legal reasoning you rely. At least they take the time to explain their rulings. You would just seek to rule.

Quote:

I will note that the phrases "implied powers" and "elastic clause" do not whatever appear in the Constitution, and the wording of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is expressly against even the concept of such things, obviously intended to forbid such misuses.

Both come from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 which says:

"The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

You may prefer the term 'Necessary and Proper' clause. This means that if the govt can 'coin money' then its implied in this clause they can build a mint. If they can regulate interstate commerce then they can create an FCC to regulate airwaves because airwaves cross state lines.

Essentially the framers wanted to limit government as much as possible by being as specific as possible...BUT they understood that they could not enumerate every conceivable power that Congress would need. So they built some elasticity into the document to allow it to stretch and accomodate particular unforseen needs that could arise...hence the term "Elastic clause".

Might want to read McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

"In McCulloch v. Maryland, 5 Marshall rejected the proffer of a Tenth Amendment objection and offered instead an expansive interpretation of the necessary and proper clause 6 to counter the argument. The counsel for the State of Maryland cited fears of opponents of ratification of the Constitution about the possible swallowing up of states' rights and referred to the Tenth Amendment to allay these apprehensions, all in support of his claim that the power to create corporations was reserved by that Amendment to the States. 7 Stressing the fact that the Amendment, unlike the cognate section of the Articles of Confederation, omitted the word ''expressly'' as a qualification of granted powers, Marshall declared that its effect was to leave the question ''whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair construction of the whole instrument."-- A good explanation of the conflict between the 10th Amendment and the Elastic clause as decided by Marshall.

Marshall's argument is pretty good and I encourage everyone to read it. If you don't you'll just have to take my word for it.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 5, 2007 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
All: so, who wants to take lead on getting the FDA declared unconsitutional...

Ignoring the implied powers and meanings of the Constitution leaves so much uncovered. ...

Who will ... make sure your drugs work?
...
Who will regulate air travel...

There is so much thats done by the Federal govt and it all comes from fair readings of the Constitution and its intent. If you don't care for it change it.

...

Your out there on the fringe...with the lunatics. I'm not saying your a lunatic, cause there's some true blue patriots out there with you...misguided, but patriots none the less.
...

I've chopped out a few items to keep the list manageable. First you say 'change it you don't like it'... Ok, I'd like to amend the constitution such the powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved for the states... how do we need to phrase that?

Who will make sure your drugs work? I'm prepared to let that be the state. I will also say that if the Federal Government wanted to act as a clearing house, and the states agreed to share information, that might be acceptable, I'd have to ponder that a bit. That might be a reasonable approach given that drugs will often be part of interstate commerce.

Air travel? With the state, the state. Again, for interstate travel (interstate commerce),and it might be reasonable to reserve the higher altitude for interstate flights; and again the states would likely want to conform to the national standards for savings, but it would be at their discretion on how to handle in-state flights.

Wow, for a minute there, I thought we might have a civil discussion; but ok, say I'm out on 'fringe ... with the luntics' if it makes you happy. But I'll caution you, most folks think I'm pretty much a middle of the road, conventional kind of guy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:19 PM

HOSTILE17NOW

It's not a war. I call it their plans for profit

iran's next

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 5, 2007 5:20 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I second that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2007 5:17 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

But what about North Korea,... hey wait.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 4:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I've chopped out a few items to keep the list manageable. First you say 'change it you don't like it'... Ok, I'd like to amend the constitution such the powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved for the states... how do we need to phrase that?

First you'll need to get rid of the Elastic Clause, then the Due Process Clause, then you might want a specific prohibition about Supreme Court taking state cases...thats a start.

Now see how many States you can get to sign on to that one.

Actually the States would love it. Imagine, one state putting tolls on interstate commerce, seizing property of out of state corporations, eliminating the whole trial by jury thing, eliminating the right of certain folk to vote in state elections (like women or blacks...). The people might have a problem with that sort of thing...but their right to appeal to the Fed Govt is gone in your world. They can just move to Delaware...unless their state makes it a crime to move.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 4:57 AM

Ok, not interested in -eliminating- the Elastic clause, thus I'd be aiming to put some boundaries on it... that might be painful without then enumerating a number of items. However, I do see how it applies.

Due process? I know I'll regret asking this, but how does that hook in?

State cases... would you be willing to give an example of a state case taken by the supreme court? I thought they only took cases relating to federal or constitutional issues.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 7:09 AM

FLETCH2

Actually Hero, wouldn't the Feds just declare that such a state no longer pursued a republican form of government? In that case they have the right to invade to change it dont they?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I thought they only took cases relating to federal or constitutional issues.

They also take cases arising out of conflicts between states. A good example is Gideon v. Wainright, the right to counsel case. Another less obvious example is PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS ET AL v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. (2007) a case talking about school assignments (not homework...assignments meaning you go here and they go there).

In the grand old days before the Incorporation Doctrine of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause you had a 6th Amendment right to a lawyer in FEDERAL CASES. In state cases it depended on what your state law was. Then the 14th Amendment said that everyone was a citizen of the US and the State they live in so they get equal protection and if that's true then they get Due Process and if that's true Due Process must include...and then there a case that incorporates each of the Bill of Rights rights under the 14th Amendment meaning you get them regardless of what state you live in.

Thus, without Due Process and Equal Protection, your free speech can be removed by your local state law.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Actually Hero, wouldn't the Feds just declare that such a state no longer pursued a republican form of government? In that case they have the right to invade to change it dont they?

No. As long as the state was duly enacting laws pursuant to its elected officers and following procedure...it'd be ok. Plus the Feds tend to avoid squabbles like this.

I note for the record that for a time Rhode Island had two governments. This led to Luther v. Borden (1849) which said that the Guarantee Clause was a political question and thus enforcible by the President and Congress...but NOT by the Courts. Since then the issue has been revisited, especially on issues of legislative districting...but on 14th Amendment grounds.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 8:41 AM

Hero,
Thanks for you insights on this matter; have to ponder a day or two on this before replying further; just wanted to thank you for the information for the time being.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2007 11:52 PM

You know he's shovelling a load though, right ?

"eliminating the whole trial by jury thing"

Nope, Constitution, supreme law of the land, above and beyond the state, and within it's jurisdiction, utterly guarantees it within the Fourth Amendment - so that's just FUD.

"eliminating the right of certain folk to vote in state elections (like women or blacks...)."

Nope, Amendments Fifteen and Nineteen handle this, more FUD.

"but their right to appeal to the Fed Govt is gone in your world."

Nope, Amendment One, last line.

Folks like Hero would have you believe that all would fall apart if the FedGov relaxed it's stranglehold on us from cradle to grave, even for an eyeblink, but that is not at all true.

It's the self same logic used to stick us with the Patriot Act, and related abuses and usurpations, the rules get in their way, you see, and thus they play this Fear card, every time - and notice how the will of the people never once enters the picture in Heros little world cause it doesn't count with him - could you really see those things being ALLOWED by the populace of a state without violent resistance ?

And lets us talk about those pesky "Rights" Hero seems to hate so very much.

Fire up the wayback machine a bit and...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That's right, unalienable - present when born, present till death, irrevocable by earthly enterprise of any kind save as an act of Tyranny.

"among these" as in, there's more but we didn't have room for them.

Now, these folk, many of em, later framed the US Constitution - are you with me ?

They chose to specify and enumerate some of those unalienable, irrevocable rights because certain Anti-Federalists pointed out that the FedGov would eventually seek to deny them, and a compromise gesture was reached where the most important of them WERE enumerated and articulated in the new Constitution.

But they hedged their bets in a vain and futile attempt to prevent the FedGov from denying anything not specifically listed, with Amendment Nine.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Which, I think it fair to say was prettymuch immediately and consistently violated since day one.

And don't let yourself be snookered with that vague "Due Process" charade either.
What it SAYS is thus.

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

That means, if tried and convicted, they can hang you, they can imprison you, or they can fine you and/or impound your property - but they CAN NOT REVOKE YOUR RIGHTS.

Those are absolute, unalienable, irrevocable, whatever word you wish to use, they are not given to you as a gift from the FedGov, nor can they be at any time revoked by such, there's no provision for it whatsoever in the Constitution, and for very good reason.

That's one reason Hero and I have different views on what a "Convicted Felon" once released at the completion of his sentence, should be allowed to do - let's leave aside the fact that we've created so MANY laws that no one can even understand, much less enforce, all of them, and also that many "Felonies" are petty things that would not and should not, even be criminal....

But the meat of the matter, a person, a citizen, serves out their time, and is released.
At that point they're done - the FedGov has no business, nor authority, to revoke those unalienable rights, to remove their right to vote, to bear arms, not a whit they don't.

And yet they do, the very worst act of Tyranny that can possibly happen under said document, happens every single day in an entire system built upon it's violation, and when you understand that, you understand why I don't care for folks who are part of that.

Constitutional Compliance isn't Anarchy, it's simply not ignoring the rules whenever they become inconvient to keeping us peons in line.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 1:55 AM

Frem,
Since you ask; I was careful to ask Hero a particular question, and was this:
What would it take to amend the constitution so that folks such as himself would find themselves bound to more tightly adhere to what a 'lay person' might expect "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" to mean. This is nothing more than a recognition that there's a ship in motion with a huge momentum. This is not a ship that can be turned on a dime; and it is not one that will be turned by subtle action (unless one is willing to wait a century or so).
There's at least two ways to turn the ship; and both can be used. One is working inside the system; recognizing the powers that are in place and how they work. The other is working outside the 'system', and in this case I define by getting folks to recognize that things are not as we might wish them to be and to start pushing where they can.
So I ask Hero what he thinks it would take to turn the ship 'within the system'. I'm willing for the moment to assume he's sincere in his analysis, and that the 'system' interprets the constitution as he indicates. There's two ways to work this, at least; one is to attack the interpretations, but means getting court precedents overturned with targeted. The other is the amendments; which will require a whole new set of precedent to be established.
Of course, the another solution is purely political; simply because the constitution is interpreted to 'permit' a thing, doesn't mean congress must 'do' the thing.
Like the FDA, we can always go to congress and get them to make it 'more states rights' oriented as has been suggested here and there. But obviously, getting congress to move is challenging; and that leaves nothing in place to prevent them from putting it back.
In any case, I find Hero's perspective interesting, and may well typify some of the power struggles to be faced in trying to reign in the powers of the fedgov.
I suspect it may suffice to simply reign in the elastic clause to significantly change the 'system' as I envision; but I'm not sure how to do that without having to enumerate everything. I believe Hero's point was that some of the constitutional statements which provide some of the freedoms you mention -also- permit the fedgov to get it's sticky fingers deeper into the state's processes. I don't disagree with that; I'm just not sure that the area where I want to reign in the fedgov would require those sections to be amended.

And I'll probably comment more later; all I have time to address this morn.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 4:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And don't let yourself be snookered with that vague "Due Process" charade either.
What it SAYS is thus.

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

That means, if tried and convicted, they can hang you, they can imprison you, or they can fine you and/or impound your property - but they CAN NOT REVOKE YOUR RIGHTS.

Those are absolute, unalienable, irrevocable, whatever word you wish to use, they are not given to you as a gift from the FedGov, nor can they be at any time revoked by such, there's no provision for it whatsoever in the Constitution, and for very good reason.

You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Once that idea came about then it was recognized that there are reasonable limits to speech and if there are reasonable limits to speech then there are reasonable limits to every other right in the Bill of Rights. What's reasonable...thats a question determined by Due Process.

Without the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause the rights in the Federal Constitution apply only to the Federal Govt. Thus the right to vote, would be the right to vote in Federal Elections...states could and have tried to limit state voting rights.

Then came the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Acts and some others...all of which would have been unconstitutional without the 14th Amendment to make them applicable to the States.

Again, your arguing the way you think it should be by throwing out unsupported statements that lack legal reasoning. I on the other hand continue to explain how it is and the reasoning behind it. Its perfectly acceptable to be against the present interpretation. But you have to be able to argue it in detail, not simply paint with broad strokes.

For example, segregation is wrong. It was, however, the reasoned law of the land. It was not overturned by a broad statement condeming its wrongness but rather by reasoned argument backed up by careful analysis of the argument against AND the argument for it.

Abortion is the same way. I'm pro life and I've been arguing that Roe v. Wade is a pro life decision, but folk are so caught up in the abortion right and wrong argument that they never looked at the ruling. It establishes the notion that the State's interest begins at viability. If that's true then scientific development means that Roe must be periodically examined to push viability back towards conception. Eventually the two meet and Roe outlaws abortion. Reasoned analysis, however, is something many people lack the patience for.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 4:41 AM

Umm.. Leadb ?

I notice a little flaw in that concept - the idea that you are asking a direct beneficiary of those abuses of power, how to end them... a man who, by his own repeated comments on these very boards, revels in the power over others that the system gives him with that handily pre-stacked deck to play from.

That'd be like asking a crack dealer how to stem the flow of drugs, or asking an Anarchist to help you figure out ways to drum up support for the Patriot Act, once they get done looking at you like you've lost your mind, and the wheels start turning in their heads, are you really sure you wanna put any particular trust in the answers you'd get at that point ?

I myself don't think it's possible to change it within the system because the system works only in one direction, and furthering abuse of court re-interpretation in order to end that re-interpretation just doesn't seem like a sound plan, it strikes me much like bending a piece of metal back and forth rapidly... it heats up, and then snaps in half.

As the man said "For tomorrow shall never come to that purpose."

First, you'd have to get politicians to admit to being wrong, then you would have to get them to hand back excesses of power, and IF by some fortunate stroke of divinity, you get those two outright miracles to occur, THEN you would still need the unified support of the Executive AND Legislative branches, along with the will of the people, to start forcing the Judicial branch to go back and strike out even the more obvious abuses.

I just cannot see that happening - your better bet is to strike at the roots of unconstitutional programs and agencies, the budget.

And aim that axe right for the worst offenders right up front.. FEMA, ever so useful in new orleans... CHOP!.... Dept Of Homeland Sec, so deluged in dragnet data and false positives that they wind up both wholly ineffective AND harrass the public at large... CHOP!
The BATFE, an agency built around rights-denial, not to mention needless duplication, CHOP!
Outright payments to foreign militaries... CHOP!

Wow look, there goes the budget crisis too.

Stuff like the FDA should be converted over time to state functions with the FedGov acting only in a supervisory/advisory role to help coordinate data sharing between state agencies, a process that could eventually be fully automated in time.

In extremis, one possible thought is for State Governors to demand a line-item detailed bill for what the FedGov wants the money for, and have them start refusing payment for services that are unconstitutional, duplication of effort and counterproductive - it would send a clear message, if naught else, but yes there's the risk of Federal jackbootery, which would probably speed the process if they were stupid enough to do something like that instead of leaving it in the realm of politics... but remember, you're dealing with folks who throw the rulebook out the window as not applicable to them when those rules start getting in THEIR way, folks who have this strange concept that they're the lords and we're the peons.

Of course, the French had a solution to THAT problem, they called it the guillotine, but I don't think we needs be going that far.... yet.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 4:43 AM

You find me one single occurance of "unalienable" being expressly defined as "reasonably limited", then.

One.

Anywhere.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 4:53 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You find me one single occurance of "unalienable" being expressly defined as "reasonably limited", then.

One.

Anywhere.

-F

As far as I remember the word means cannot be removed or transfered, it doesn't say anything about limited. You are supposed to keep these things through eternal vigilance you know? You stop paying attention to them and they fade away.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
There's at least two ways to turn the ship; and both can be used. One is working inside the system; recognizing the powers that are in place and how they work. The other is working outside the 'system', and in this case I define by getting folks to recognize that things are not as we might wish them to be and to start pushing where they can.

Ways to turn the ship:

1. Rebellion, but thats a dangerous prospect, since rebellions can tend to get a bit out of control.

2. Civil War. While there was no Constitutional provisions for things like the forced partition of West Virginia, the seizing of southern property without compensation, the whole succession question, the military occupation of whole states, etc...just the doing of it created a measure of legitmacy that can be argued in court. I note for the record that some abuses, particularly involving property and constitutional rights were addressed by the Supreme Court in post-war decisions.

3. Five Supreme Court Justices. The ultimate authority of what's Constitutional is what the Supreme Court says is or isn't. That's the de facto truth of how the system works. If you can get five justices to agree, then you can do ANYTHING. Roosevelt knew this and planned to pack the Court to get the New Deal passed by adding three new Justices for a total of 13, but the Court, split 5-4 against the New Deal had a change of heart becoming 5-4 in favor, hence the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine". I note for the record you could achieve partial success with as few as two.

4. A Constitutional Amendment. This can be done in the specified manners. Acts of Congress, a certain number of states...you could even call a convention. I mean a real convention with duly recognized representatives of the legitimate state governments...not so and so from the 'Lets Have a Convention with All the Other Crazy Talkers Association of America'.

5. An iceberg. Turn or don't turn, either way things are going to get bumpy.

6. You could declare your independence with the support of Congress and your local State. Its a long shot, but write your Congressman. I for one would be glad to give PirateNews the boot...if for no other reason then to invade him for his oil.

7. Get your party a majority in Congress. Here is a place to look at history and the Republican Party as a great example. The party started up around 1850 and with eight years it had control of Congress and in 1861 took the Presidency all on virtually a single issue.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 9, 2007 8:06 AM