Originally Posted by garbagemanlb I can't begin to convey how much pleasure I get from Hillary dropping in the polls. As a true progressive, I am disgusted with her pandering and waffling on issues. She is the absolute worst candidate that is running for the Democrats right now, and it ...
12-19-2007, 11:22 AM
| #21 | ||||
| Banned  Progressive Philadelphia, PA 
| Originally Posted by garbagemanlb I think people fail to over-look that Paul would nominate radical right justices...there is the general academic liberalism and the federalist and other right wing groupds...there is no "libertarians united for justice" group of highly qualified judges
he'll pick federalist people who rule like Thomas/Alito to strip away our rights, and say "well it's not in the constitution" enjoy having your right to privacy taken away because it's not written directly in the constitution, also, enjoy having americans all subject to secret prisons, as Thomas would advocate | ||||
     |
|
12-19-2007, 11:25 AM
| #22 | ||||
| Yeah, that guy.  Progressive Oregon
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim I will not vote for a party because of one issue.
| ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 11:41 AM
| #23 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by garbagemanlb Justices decide dozens upon dozens of issues for decades that change the entire course of the country
It's as much of a single issue if Ron Paul said he was going to appoint Kristol and the rest of the neoconservative gang to the WH to direct his foreign policy sure, it's "one issue" but it would change the country forever...and for the worse x100 | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 11:53 AM
| #24 | ||||
| no es mi culpa  Independent Beantown
| still haven't addressed ORIGINAL POINT OF POST. 
__________________ There is small disproportion betwixt a fool who useth not wit because he hath it not and him that useth it not when it should avail him. | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 01:13 PM
| #25 | ||||
| For those about to rock...  libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim Where on Earth are you getting this crap? How many times do people have to say that the Articles in the Constitution outline what the GOVERNMENT can do, not the citizens. The right to privacy isn't outlined in the Constitution, so a constitutional judge would say the gov't has no right to take that away.
Are you seriously THAT misguided? And I would be VERY willing to bet there are lots of judges out there right now who are constitutionalists (as they're all supposed to be, but obviously most of the current judges are not, otherwise they'd have struck down shit like the patriot act from the start). If you think RP couldn't find a good constitutionalist judge, then you're nuts.
__________________ http://www.corruptapedia.com/ You can call me Aaron Burr the way I drop Hamiltons. | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 04:33 PM
| #26 | ||||
| no es mi culpa Independent Beantown
|  beware posters, disagree with OP and get a negative rep!!!!! Last edited by kinggovernor; 12-21-2007 at 10:36 AM. Reason: not adding to the discussion | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 04:45 PM
| #27 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost There is nothing in the consitution that defines the inherent presidential powers, and you never know how someone is going to develop...the only one true axiom is that moderate judges become more liberal, and liberal judges stay liberal...conservative develop all sorts of weird ways (Kennedy doesn't like to decide on a lot of things and writes very broad opinions...Thomas has gotten more bitter as time had gone and and is easily the most right wing judge we've had since McReynolds)
"constitutionalist judge" is exactly what every federalist says he is...that's the problem, he'd be hard pressed not to find one of those guys bending their views to him in private of what they think of libertarian government, only to change their mind once they hit the bent However, a liberal judge, who he would never appoint, who has a +20 year record of liberalism...they never "go conservative" and much more comfortably, they never go fascist Back to your "right to privacy" This is not a state/federal discussion I am bringing up (before this gets incredibly more complicated) I HEAVILY suggest you read Griswold v. Connecticut I don't see how someone looks at a document that gives citizens a right to peacefully assemble, say in their own home, freedom of speech, say in their own home, according to you, right to bear arms, in their own home, says the government can not put it's executive enforces (soldiers) in your home, further protecting your home, that people should be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects in their home, the government is also blocked off from your thoughts: you can't be forced to reveal information about yourself, also your home is secure in that the government can't just take it and tell you to go live in a ditch... Look at ALL OF THAT, which is CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THE CONSITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS, now, look at how they topped it off:
They clearly laid out a system where unenumerated rights are retained by the people, and can be found by...anyone, as long as they don't go against the constitution The judiciary has looked at all the rights clearly spelled out, and thought, just as I did "doesn't this all clearly point to founding fathers who all believed in privacy at home" I believe it's clear that they did...after dealing with the English, much of what they said had to do with keeping that kind of privacy violation from ever coming back...nothing else came to their minds, they couldn't imagine the internet or picture cell phones or whatever new gadget comes out next week, and we shouldn't try to amend the constitution everytime a new gadget comes out, it's impractical and would never pass anyway because of partisan bickering They've looked at all our rights, and seen a common purpose of privacy, and just put it into judicial terms that aren't rigid enough as an amendment, so that they can be changed (indeed, J. Douglas's methods were not a lasting tradition) The legislature and executive made it basically a right that any American child can go to a school and learn...if they even tried to make an amendment, it'd be partisanly viewed and never pass, but no one can deny that a little 5 year old girl who has a single working mom can't spend her mom's work time going someplace to learn how to read...in the 21st century it's an american right It's not enumerated, I'm sure you'll say...but that's why we have the 9th amendment...the founders wanted us to have evolving standards of deceny and wanted to give us room to grow for the future | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 05:16 PM
| #28 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Education aside, because bringing up a 5 year old girl with a single working mother is a logical fallacy (appeal to emotion), if it's the job of the SC to defend the constitution and make sure no laws are passed that are unconstitutional (among other things, but whatever), and they look at the constitution just as you have, that the constitution enumerates some personal rights and then leaves it open for future interpretation, then they haven't cracked open any writings by the founders that explicitly describe intent. The federalists lamenting over the Bill of Rights changing the appearance of the document, the anti-federalists who were so afraid of an encroaching government that they wanted rights important to them at that time enumerated... hell, Hamilton was one of the most brilliant writers of that era... had ANY of that been read, it's so easy to see that the intent of the BoR wasn't meant to give the federal government more power, even though it's been used that way. Understand, it may be a supreme court decision that they will use the Bill of Rights in this manner, but that does not make it right, and it most CERTAINLY is not a constitutionalist viewpoint. The Supreme Court didn't toss back the Patriot Act, does that make it right? Does that make it Constitutional? You may not agree with requiring the government's responsibilities be changed through amendment, but I'll tell you one thing, they'd be hard pressed to add an amendment that allowed the government to tap people's phones, or pull information from ISPs, or any of the other atrocities to privacy we've been subjected to over the past decade. Sure you might not get something like federally funded school, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be state schools... it doesn't mean that cities couldn't try to raise money to help their homeless. It only means the federal government could not be put in charge of such things without MAJOR national agreement. | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 06:56 PM
| #29 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| appeal to emotion isn't a logical fallacy, its a logical fallacy to state what you are saying is a logical proof based purely on emotion: "I know there's a videotape I beat my daughter, but I'm a vietnam veteran, obviously that means I'm not guilty of beating my daughter" i dont know what more government power has to do with my right to privacy, but moving on I don't see why you think the supreme court is prohibited from granting a fundamental right of privacy as they see layered through the various amendments, using the 9th amendment to say "This was not an enumerated right, but it is a right and should be protected just like the 9th amendment gave us room to do..." Where does it say that's unconstitutional? The constitution was written so vague to allow for things just like this... The constitution DID NOT say "any right that is not amended to this constitution is not a right, anything not enumerated here is not a right" which is what you are hinting at | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 07:22 PM
| #30 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| all that made me think we're saying essentially the same thing. I'm saying the Articles themselves guarantee our right to privacy because they don't say that the gov't can spy on us. You're saying it's a right because the SC says it is because the 9th gives them the power to say it is. Either way, it is. The difference is when you flip over to something the government does that on a basic level people tend to want, like education. You say, by the same logic, that the SC can allow it because the 9th gives them the room to see education as a right, I say the articles don't say that's a responsibility of the federal government, and without amendment cannot see how that is constitutional. Now, in that case again, we aren't necessarily saying different things. If the SC decides the right to an education falls into the 9th, sure, I think education isn't restricted by the Articles... so again, same argument. We differ in execution. People may have the right to become educated, but does that make it a federal responsibility? Additionally, a right can be refused, so shouldn't people also have the right to turn down an education? Both of these questions make the execution of our current system nonsensical. If you turn down an education, the cops come get you. And the federal government DOES spend federal dollars to control education at the national level. From the way I see it, enumeration only REALLY matters when talking about the responsibilities and allowances (not restrictions) of the government itself. The rights of the people don't NEED to be enumerated because they're implied by the Articles. If we decide that the federal government DOES, in fact, need to take responsibility of educating the citizens (and I can't express the word 'federal' enough here), then we need to change the constitution to allow them to do that. And I know it's difficult to change the Constitution, and I know that pisses you off (or any expansionist, I'm certainly not picking on you here), but it was created that way for a reason. The founders didn't WANT the federal government in our lives. It was merely a glue to hold together some mostly-independent states. And when it comes to what a state can and can't do, I'm a lot more open... they do each have their own constitutions. | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 07:38 PM
| #31 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| the thing is, the Constitution doesn't explicitly say "the government shall not post pictures of you outside a gay night club" But the courts directly tackle issues, which means we should support, not condemn them for putting what we all agree upon into words that are both logical, constitutional, and avoid the partisan crisis in regards to education, ill make the old argument: The constitution sets up an elaborate voting system, even the founders wanted educated persons to vote for their house rep...how can people with no education (because they were shit poor) vote properly? Especially when they go "I don't understand how exactly to vote for...because I can't grasp the concepts because I haven't been educated" That's hurting someone's right to vote, its a neccesary element to have SOME BASIC education to vote... thats my two cents, and the courts have said similiar things, although they have NOT ruled that there is a fundamental right to education, because they are not as "activist" as some may think, although I think that day is coming in 10-20 years You're talking about education...you have rights where if you don't take them, no one cares...not everyone demands to be heard in free speech, or a jury in his trial, or even a warrant to search his house so your fears about the police forcing people into big federal schools is not something that is on the table the only issues the "piss me off" is when the government WON'T leave you alone...like privacy...like detainees...etc I'm not for an easier amendment system (we'd have gay marriage outlawed by now if that were the case, it works both ways), but we do have an unbroken tradition of judicial review, it should be respected, not just laughed at as "activist judges" | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 08:17 PM
| #32 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| But will you agree that they have dropped the ball on numerous occasions? I mean, how on Earth could they allow The Patriot Act go through? | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 08:27 PM
| #33 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost They have to have a valid challenge...name me a valid challenge made by a specific individual that was turned down?
The Supreme Court can't strike a law down if a specific individual can't come forward with a documented complaint... People in Gitmo had their fathers in foreign countries writing on their behalf | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 08:32 PM
| #34 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| There were THOUSANDS of people who challenged the Patriot Act and they let it ride. | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 08:39 PM
| #35 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost as far as im aware, they didn't have a valid case or didn't pursue the matter
and i should note, on the small cases that actually did get some valid documented complaints, federal judges struck down sections of the patriot act and others made it clear to the GOP government that the newer patriot act had to be redueced, which it was... long way from victory, but it's our judicial system doing a good job as can be expected You can't have judges running around after a bill is passed and declaring laws to be invalid just because someone shows up and starts whining that they don't like it and feel it COULD be abusing them...there has to be actual abuse that is linked to the bill itself, not just a government employee who didn't act correctly | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 08:51 PM
| #36 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| imo, they ruin the whole "checks and balances" thing if they're not sending bills back in their entierty. And it took them YEARS to even strike down anything in the Patriot Act... plus, a lot of that was in reference to what had already been sunset, so it had been active for 4 years at that point. Dudes are dropping the ball. We're a country run by 2 branches of the government for the most part. | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 09:01 PM
| #37 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost court system moves slow, it works out better that way for the purposes of justice
you want instant results? the 2002 elections were only a year away, make a huge bloc that demands the patriot act be repealed...ah...there is the problem...despite all the libertarians on the internet's free market, that never caught on...the marketplace of ideas failed...drowned out by panic and fear, and a little cash | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 09:07 PM
| #38 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| We all know the Patriot Act got through because of the state of fear in the nation. It was the people who voted 'no' on the Patriot Act that were the only decent congressmen. | ||||
| |
|
12-19-2007, 09:20 PM
| #39 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Ardentfrost Considering RP is a libertarian, and the other two republicans who voted against it are in jail or changed their view...
I'd say you should vote 100% Democratic if RP isn't nominated, since it's the only party with memberS who would stand up to it | ||||
| |
