Florida State Seminoles

[Saint]

t may be stupid, it may be detrimental to the fiscal well being of my business, but it is my business to run as I see fit.

but if you owned the only food store in town, then the jews would starve and that ain't right

[eCat]

Barry Goldwater was also against the '64 civil rights because of the wording ignoring the rights of an individual to decide about how to conduct business on their own property.

Yeah, thank God to high heaven he lost. I can say in history, because it was in history that people banded together to collectively decide to disenfranchise groups. Some states decided to privatize their elections because they were informed under the law that they couldn't disenfranchise African-Americans. So they decided not to have any primary elections. All elections in Texas were then done by the Democratic Party, a private organization.

Individual liberites, you have them, until you operate in commerce. You can be as biased or racist as you want, until you engage in commerce. The primary purpose for the Constitution as opposed to the Articles of Confederation was to promote Commerce. Like everything else in the Constitution, such as the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and every other Amendment of the Constitution which are not absolute, individual liberties are also not absolute. Idealists deal in absolutism which is why pure libertarians like Ron Paul would be terrible for the country.

I don't agree. Commerce between states, or the contract to run the federal government as a third party representing the common interest among states is a separate issue, and more so in the fact, makes the constitution a document tied to states rights as opposed to the individual - but that doesn't exclude the individuals rights. The civil war then went on to determine that the states rights were secondary to the federal government. The whole idea that a state must participate as part of the federal government is commerce based - or based on that idea that the federal government would not allow revenue to be lost by secession. The idea of states rights being secondary to the federal government is where libertarians take exception.

The idea that anything federally mandated is absolute is in itself not absolute. A shift in the entire country to libertarianism would change that. We see the cracks of this now in Arizona, where the federal governments beliefs are detrimental to the well being of the state regarding immigration. Therefore they are actively rejecting the federal government mandates. A large % of the country does not agree with the federal governments stance on immigration which further bolsters Arizona's ability to put its individual rights ahead of a federal agenda.

[Bklyn]

Does it matter what a large % of the country believes is Constitutional wrt to states' rights, or what the court does?

[Owlman]

IThe whole idea that a state must participate as part of the federal government is commerce based - or based on that idea that the federal government would not allow revenue to be lost by secession. The idea of states rights being secondary to the federal government is where libertarians take exception.

No, it is the province of the federal government to regulate commerce, specifically given to the federal government to do. This was acknowledged early in our history in a number of cases and specifically in Gibbons v. Ogden. And the Constitution specifically states the Supremacy Clause. The federal government is one of only enumerated powers and as such may only act within those powers. In our dual soveregnty system, what is not given to the federal government automatically belongs to the states. But where they conflict, unless there is a violation of a specific part of the Constitution, the Federal law preempts the state law.

civil war then went on to determine that the states rights were secondary to the federal government.

Not true. Part of the civil war was fought by the South against state's rights. Some of the Northern states were using state's rights as an argument not to return their escaped slaves (specifically alleged by the Confederacy). Then under the Slaughterhouse case and the civil rights cases of the 1870's, the SCOTUS confirmed that the 13th and 14th Amendment didn't apply to individuals unless they violate section V of the 14th Amendment (NOTE: the ruling on the 13th Amendment was quickly overturned, since ruling that indivduals can own slaves but just the state can't didn't make sense).

[eCat]

not if that belief overrides the individual rights.

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

lib·er·ty/ˈlibərtē/Noun
1. The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.

[eCat]

IThe whole idea that a state must participate as part of the federal government is commerce based - or based on that idea that the federal government would not allow revenue to be lost by secession. The idea of states rights being secondary to the federal government is where libertarians take exception.

No, it is the province of the federal government to regulate commerce, specifically given to the federal government to do. This was acknowledged early in our history in a number of cases and specifically in Gibbons v. Ogden. And the Constitution specifically states the Supremacy Clause. The federal government is one of only enumerated powers and as such may only act within those powers. In our dual soveregnty system, what is not given to the federal government automatically belongs to the states. But where they conflict, unless there is a violation of a specific part of the Constitution, the Federal law preempts the state law.

civil war then went on to determine that the states rights were secondary to the federal government.

Not true. Part of the civil war was fought by the South against state's rights. Some of the Northern states were using state's rights as an argument not to return their escaped slaves (specifically alleged by the Confederacy). Then under the Slaughterhouse case and the civil rights cases of the 1870's, the SCOTUS confirmed that the 13th and 14th Amendment didn't apply to individuals unless they violate section V of the 14th Amendment (NOTE: the ruling on the 13th Amendment was quickly overturned, since ruling that indivduals can own slaves but just the state can't didn't make sense).

you know that many strict constitutionalists object to the broad application of the commerce clause, especially when applied with the Necessary and Proper Clause, and we're not talking about interstate commerce or navigation of waterways. An individuals business owners right to refuse service is not a monopoly on the business or commerce taking place. This is the same supreme court that gave us Plessy Vs Ferguson, no?

[BigRedMan]

It is cute how everyone thinks that Obama will do this, or Paul will do that, or BLAH BLAH is about this.

ALL national politicians are paid for and run by whomever help get them there. There is no illusion to it. They are all crooks and only out for themselves or their "legacy".

You want change. Elect someone that has actually had to work for a living. That worries about paying the mortgage and keeping their cars maintained. Someone that has actually gotten dirty for a living and actually changed the diapers on their kids instead of the nanny.

If not, then burn it to the ground and ask the Queen of England if we can join back in with them and hopefully they forget about that pesky revolution some years back.

[Owlman]

Does it matter what a large % of the country believes is Constitutional wrt to states' rights, or what the court does?

The SCOTUS has no coercive power, unlike the Executive and the Legislative Branches. It actually operates only as far as the combined other branches of government are willing to follow it. That being said, we have a number of years of following the rulings of the SCOTUS (of course Jackson and his legislature ignored the ruling of the SCOTUS relative to the Central Bank).

[Owlman]

you know that many strict constitutionalists object to the broad application of the commerce clause, especially when applied with the Necessary and Proper Clause, and we're not talking about interstate commerce or navigation of waterways. An individuals business owners right to refuse service is not a monopoly on the business or commerce taking place. This is the same supreme court that gave us Plessy Vs Ferguson, no?

First off, Scalia will laugh at your use of the term strict constitutionalists. It really doesn't mean anything. Conservative politicians all loved the McDonald's v. Chicago case (from July 2010), but that case made into law something that has never been true before in the history of the country, namely that the second Amendment applies to the States and not just to the federal government. As for the same court that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you asking if I always agree with the SCOTUS? The answer is no.

As for the broad application of the commerce clause, even with the narrower interpretation of the commerce clause by this conservative court, businesses selling or open to the public are covered under the commerce clause is constitutional since any thing (according to Thomas) that is a channel of interstate commerce, an instumentality of commerce or that has is commercial or economic in nature is ok. Those things that are noncommercial or noneconomic are not. This really isn't about the SCOTUS anyway. The Court has said that under the Constitution, individuals have a right to discriminate. They've also ruled that the Congress had the right to regulate commerce. Congress did, saying that if you are in commerce, you may not discriminate against race. Discriminate all you want, just don't do it in commerce.

That being said, Congress at anytime can say that we will not regulate these areas and we end up back under Jim Crow.

[eCat]

Scalia is no fan of the abuse created by the commerce clause.

I have no idea if he equates its abuse to a denial of individual rights but he finds issue in the wide scope of its adherence.

I'm not asking you if you agree with SCOTUS, I'm just pointing out that just because SCOTUS make a ruling that is reflective of the current state of a nation does not making it forever binding. If the mood of the nation swings to a focus on individual rights as the baseline for interpreting all constitutional rights, then over time the supreme court will reflect that mood in its rulings. I honestly believe this is a bigger issue than referencing case law can support, especially in light of us seeing that when it comes to individual freedoms, SCOTUS has changed its views.

Ron Paul makes a passionate case for individual rights that many Americans can relate to.

That said, in the last week the man has said that he'd legalize heroin use, prostitution and will always be backed into a corner on individual rights versus civil rights. Even though I will vote for him in principle, there is no realistic chance he'll ever garner any significant vote for the presidency. What he has done however is opened many peoples eyes to the power the federal government wields over their individual liberty, and when the federal government makes a huge misstep - as in the Patriot Act, then it opens the questioning of all federal acts and governance that has infringed on a person's liberty in the past, no matter how norm or accepted it is.

It wasn't libertarians as a political party that gave the country segregation or Jim Crow laws or the whiskey tax, prohibition , or the 16th and 17th admendments . I could go on and on. Libertarians deal in absolutes because placing the ability to make distinctions or nuances within the liberties of an American has always failed at the federal level (or within a group of states that which is then mandated nationwide). Certainly its an absurd premise to make the case for the legalization of heroin, however that isn't the case being made, the case being made is that an individual has the right to access drugs as they see fit for their own personal consumption. The government isn't created to protect us from ourselves or to be our nanny, and that same mindset extends to what I do with my property I own - beyond the extent of how I choose to conduct commerce or lack thereof.

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual” - Jefferson

[Owlman]

Certainly its an absurd premise to make the case for the legalization of heroin, however that isn't the case being made, the case being made is that an individual has the right to access drugs as they see fit for their own personal consumption. The government isn't created to protect us from ourselves or to be our nanny, and that same mindset extends to what I do with my property I own

But that is the case being made and that's the problem with ideologues. They live their ideology to the nth degree, regardless of the problems inherent. They have a fictionalized view of what the forefathers themselves wanted and did. You mention the Whiskey tax (and Shay's rebellion as a response), but it was the forefathers and George Washington, "the father of our country" who passed that tax. Jefferson was one of our greatest leaders, yet the power of the Presidency that he railed against, he profoundly utilized. We have a federalist society that purports to rely on the federalist papers, but the federalist papers were largely an argument about what the Constitution meant. Now we have ideologues who swear they know what it meant when the forefathers weren't sure what it meant themselves. So they throw around words such as strict constructionalist and then cheer as the conservative majority on the court overturns a basic understanding of the Constitution since 1791 (a ruling that I agreed with by the way).

[eCat]

do I think they are 100% aligned with the intent of the framers of the constitution as a whole? no, I don't think its possible but not for one second would I ever say they have a fictionalized view of what they intended. Its not like they are basing their beliefs on an oral history told thru the generations that becomes a bastardized version over time, their beliefs are well documented.

The reality is that if you deal in absolutes there is going to be collateral damage. The family that is tore apart because their son is an addict - but that happens today with laws on the books that make it illegal to use heroin. I feel silly arguing the merits of legalizing heroin as I see none, but I have to remind myself that I'm arguing the merits of a bigger issue and that is a federal mandate against my personal liberty.

The example of you gave of Washington just bolsters the argument being made. Here was a man who dedicated his life from oppression of government, from taxation to religion and then shortly after the war ends and independence has won, he enacts a tax against the citizenship to pay for his expanded version of government. If anyone understood the value of liberty it was Washington but in a position of power, or as Jefferson would equate to tyranny, he went the same route as his oppressors before him. Hamilton's insistence that the whiskey tax was a luxury tax afforded by the citizenry led to the creation of the republican/democratic party that Jefferson joined and won the election with.

[Owlman]

not like they are basing their beliefs on an oral history told thru the generations that becomes a bastardized version over time, their beliefs are well documented.

No, they are basing their views on selected texts and ignoring others. From the inception, there was an argument over what the Constitution was supposed to be. To say now that politicians understand what the forefathers meant it to be when the forefathers in their writings were arguing about it contemporaneously is ludicrous in the extreme.

Give me a politician that uses an ideology as a basis for his views but knows when following that ideology to its extreme is a wrong application

[eCat]

not like they are basing their beliefs on an oral history told thru the generations that becomes a bastardized version over time, their beliefs are well documented.

No, they are basing their views on selected texts and ignoring others. From the inception, there was an argument over what the Constitution was supposed to be. To say now that politicians understand what the forefathers meant it to be when the forefathers in their writings were arguing about it contemporaneously is ludicrous in the extreme.

Give me a politician that uses an ideology as a basis for his views but knows when following that ideology to its extreme is a wrong application

but you can't even get aligned agreement from SCOTUS on it, why hold a politician basing a belief tied to limited government to a higher standard? I've seen enough of your views to know that you have some beliefs in limited government, and therefore the concept has merit in your eyes.

[Owlman]

I'm not holding him to a higher standard. I am holding politicians to the same standard I want the SCOTUS to use. I am basically a modified originalist with great but not total deference to tradition (two of the 6 theories in evaluating the Constitution). Tease out to the best of your ability what generally the theme of the Constitution was meant to be by our forefathers, but recognize that there are things that they just couldn't understand, couldn't respond to and disagreed with each other about. Therefore, one must be a pragmatists in in reviewing the constitution based upon precedent and development. I do not trust ideologues. That was the problem with Bush Two. Bush One (and it seems Jeb) are pragmatist. My problem with Paul, he's an ideologue. They are dangerous for the country, imo.

[Owlman]

And while I was a huge deficit hawk in 1992 (and why I voted for Perot in 1992 and 1996), I don't believe in massive cuts in the deficit during a recession or immediately after a recession, especially one as bad as the one we just had. You want the budget cut, you cut spending, you raise taxes, neither of which should be done during a recession. But in 1992 by the time of the election, the economy was humming. The only President, in my lifetime, to decrease spending and increase taxes when things were going well was Clinton.

I'm also for political realities. You aren't going to cut services to the elderly. Therefore, develop a longtime plan for it to phase in changes until the baby boomers die off. The price of oil is primarily based on world demand, not domestic production. Therefore, recognize that with the growth of China and India, it will largely be out of our hands. It irritates me that the politicians know this to be the case and they still lie about domestic production to the American people knowing that it will have no effect.

Invest now in alternative resources and development (that may meant natural gas and electric gas stations, wind power etc). Just heard that Germany gets 20% of his energy use from renewable energy sources; because they invested in that infrastructure (my primary complaint about Obama is that he didn't put any of the stimulus into alternative energy sources.)

[Bklyn]

(my primary complaint about Obama is that he didn't put any of the stimulus into alternative energy sources.)

Well, in fairness, most of the money of the stimulus went to tax cuts and to local governments, to keep them from going belly up (congrats Virginia, you get to save your Commonwealth and claim that the stimulus did not work).

Only a small fraction of the stimulus actually went to infrastructure (or "shovel-ready" projects). The thing is, the situation was so dire, I still can't really blame the decision to dump cash directly down to the states to pay workers, teachers and police.

[eCat]

I agree 100% that we should make independence on energy, food and military our priority as a hedge against the future diminished role we will have in the world. Its a security issue that IMO, bypasses any rational discussion for free trade in those areas.

I've been pushing that for awhile as well as a pet project of mine which is massive water conservation and containment.

[Hizzy III]

Does it matter what a large % of the country believes is Constitutional wrt to states' rights, or what the court does?

In the short term, no, because SCOTUS is going to make rulings based on the court's political makeup at that specific point in time. Where the % of the country's belief begins to matter, IMO, is in the longterm, when presidents have to choose additions to the court. Wet your finger and stick it in the air and that sort of thing.

[Hizzy III]

Does it matter what a large % of the country believes is Constitutional wrt to states' rights, or what the court does?

The SCOTUS has no coercive power, unlike the Executive and the Legislative Branches. It actually operates only as far as the combined other branches of government are willing to follow it. That being said, we have a number of years of following the rulings of the SCOTUS (of course Jackson and his legislature ignored the ruling of the SCOTUS relative to the Central Bank).

Heh. I missed your response to Brook's question. I've basically parrotted what you just wrote.