ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Justices signal possible trouble for Obamacare mandate

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Feb. 12 2013, 10:44 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 11 2013, 9:43 pm

>

>I was more talking about things being Constitutional spending, which he supposedly stands for.

>...why put them in (especially for things he rails against based on the Constitution?)  To me, it's duplicitous.

>Paul's district is requesting their property be returned and they can apply that property in any public manner permitted by their State Constitution.  Now, there are two different points of view involved. The first point of view is that of the Federal Government's, which you seem to be taking over the private property rights of individuals... that once the money is in the hands of the Federal Government, regardless of taxation being (albiet legalized) theft, it should be spent only on Constitutional Programs, as opposed to being returned to the people. But there are problems: first, it assumes the money belongs to the government when the reality is that it is stolen property; secondly, more money is being taken than is Constitutionally required. It would be great if the government returned the money directly to individuals or saved the money for next year's budget, but government deficits prove budgets (much less Constitutional government) to be a flight of fancy. So earmarks become the only way to return the money to the people. That's the duplicity of the system, not of the politiian who has inherited the system. Paul would be duplicit if he voted for the earmarks, but he doesn't. And unfortunately the majority of politicians are doing nothing to change the system by voting for bills, because of the earmarks contained within. 

>Now the second point of view belongs to the individual, who's property has been stolen. They might want to apply their property in a given way... contribute it to a private program that is unconstitutional by government standards. But in the individual's mind, the government has their property and the individual is simply petitioning that the property be returned in a specific manner. It's unconstitutional only because the government is acting as the middle man. The solution is to extract government and make it smaller. But the government is not going to be made smaller by abandoning the property to a slush fund for the executive branch to exploit.

>Ron Paul is putting those earmarks in because he's looking at the situation from the individual's point of view, not the collectivist point of view of a government that has grown unconstitutional. If we end the enumerated power of taxation, we stop the systemic problems, like moral hazard and duplicity, that follow from theft.

>
I understand the logic you're using - I just disagree with how he went about and did it.  If he was for the amendments, then he should vote for them.


I think that the people that got their money stolen should have it returned, not redistributed throughout the district via the government.


We both agree that what the goverment is doing is theft.  If someone broke into my house and stole my stuff, I'd want it back.  But I wouldn't break into the thief's house and steal it back - I'd work with the police and get it back.  The problem is... it's the police doing the stealing.  We need to figure out a way to replace the police with ones that actually follow/enforce the law.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 12 2013, 7:44 pm

As a capitalist, how do you justify restricting politicians from offering a service or corporations from purchasing that service?


Capitalists respect contracts and the Constitution is a contract. The Constitution permits an individual by himself or within the context of a group (a Corporation) to petition government, which includes asking for favoritism. However, the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8, does not authorize politicians to grant government favoritism to petitioners.


If a politician grants favoritism, then the politician has broken the contract, which he swears to uphold before coming into Office.


Additinoally, a politician is contractually obligated to represent his State's constituents within the confines of the Constitution. As it happens today, a politician from one State is beholden to beneficiaries from a completely different State. There is a TN Senator, for example, who only received 2% of his campaign funds from registered TN voters. The rest of his campaign was funded by out of State beneficiaries.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 12 2013, 8:24 pm

I understand the logic you're using - I just disagree with how he went about and did it.  If he was for the amendments, then he should vote for them.


 


Paul is not necessarily for the Amendments, he's just passing along the petitioner's request. Until the bill is voted into law, it's only a request. Voting "no" is how he nullifies the request in accordance to those powers he has been granted by the Constitution. There have been times when he has voted against a bill that he would have otherwise voted for if not for added amendments, which were unconstitutional.


 


I think that the people that got their money stolen should have it returned, not redistributed throughout the district via the government.


I agree, but unfortunately that's how the system operates. You were dead on in your previous post about being glad you're not a politician and having to say one thing while doing another. It's hard to go through a system, which doesn't follow its own Constitution, and not looking like a hypocrit at some point. How does a Libertarian avoid be looked at as a hypocrit for professing the evils of taxation while participating in a government that taxes? Some will say that the Libertarian is betraying his principles by participating in a system that operates in opposition to those principles. 


 


We both agree that what the goverment is doing is theft.  If someone broke into my house and stole my stuff, I'd want it back.  But I wouldn't break into the thief's house and steal it back - I'd work with the police and get it back.  The problem is... it's the police doing the stealing.  We need to figure out a way to replace the police with ones that actually follow/enforce the law.


Joe Arpaio seems to be experimenting, training citizens to take responsibility for their community, as opposed to relying solely on the police. I personally like the idea of the entire citizenry voluntarily arming and policing themselves through self-management. 

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Feb. 12 2013, 9:08 pm

Capitalists respect contracts and the Constitution is a contract. The Constitution permits an individual by himself or within the context of a group (a Corporation) to petition government, which includes asking for favoritism. However, the Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8, does not authorize politicians to grant government favoritism to petitioners.

If a politician grants favoritism, then the politician has broken the contract, which he swears to uphold before coming into Office.


So we can petition politicians but they can't do anything we ask them to do because the Constitution doesn't authorize them to do so?


Are you serious? I mean, no matter which way they vote, politicians will always be granting favoritism to one person/group/corporation or another.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 12 2013, 9:42 pm

So we can petition politicians but they can't do anything we ask them to do because the Constitution doesn't authorize them to do so?


 


The right to petition - free speech - is in the First Amendment. I can petition the government to stop Abrams from making films, but I see now enumerated power that permits the politician to seize CBS/Paramount's property. 


 


Are you serious? I mean, no matter which way they vote, politicians will always be granting favoritism to one person/group/corporation or another.


Politicians will be granting favoritism as so described only if they forward and vote in favor of unconstitutional legislation, that which does not align with the enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution or conflict with those in the Bill of Rights. For example, legislation that places a ban on any weapon violates the 2nd Amendment . Voting down a weapons ban does not discriminate against the individual opposed to firearms, because that individual remains free to voluntarily impose that ban upon himself or anyone entering onto his property. 


 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Feb. 13 2013, 9:17 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 12 2013, 8:24 pm

>I agree, but unfortunately that's how the system operates. You were dead on in your previous post about being glad you're not a politician and having to say one thing while doing another. It's hard to go through a system, which doesn't follow its own Constitution, and not looking like a hypocrit at some point. How does a Libertarian avoid be looked at as a hypocrit for professing the evils of taxation while participating in a government that taxes? Some will say that the Libertarian is betraying his principles by participating in a system that operates in opposition to those principles. 
Unless they get voted in with everyone knowing that the representative would only be supporting Constitutional spending.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Feb. 13 2013, 9:19 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 12 2013, 8:24 pm

>Joe Arpaio seems to be experimenting, training citizens to take responsibility for their community, as opposed to relying solely on the police. I personally like the idea of the entire citizenry voluntarily arming and policing themselves through self-management.
I had heard something about that, but haven't looked into it.  I think the idea is correct - I just wonder about the implementation.

Sehlat123

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 496

Report this Feb. 13 2013, 11:19 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 13 2013, 9:19 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 12 2013, 8:24 pm

>

>Joe Arpaio seems to be experimenting, training citizens to take responsibility for their community, as opposed to relying solely on the police. I personally like the idea of the entire citizenry voluntarily arming and policing themselves through self-management.
I had heard something about that, but haven't looked into it.  I think the idea is correct - I just wonder about the implementation.


Well, that is what the Founding Fathers expected, isn't it? "A well-regulated militia being neccesary to the security of a state..." It's hard to replace the police, though.


"Borg. Sounds Swedish."

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Feb. 13 2013, 11:33 am

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Feb. 13 2013, 11:19 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 13 2013, 9:19 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 12 2013, 8:24 pm

>

>

>Joe Arpaio seems to be experimenting, training citizens to take responsibility for their community, as opposed to relying solely on the police. I personally like the idea of the entire citizenry voluntarily arming and policing themselves through self-management.
I had heard something about that, but haven't looked into it.  I think the idea is correct - I just wonder about the implementation.

Well, that is what the Founding Fathers expected, isn't it? "A well-regulated militia being neccesary to the security of a state..." It's hard to replace the police, though.

I don't see this as replacing the police, only enhancing the protection of the community from criminals.


The individual is the first responder.  When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Feb. 13 2013, 2:04 pm

The right to petition - free speech - is in the First Amendment. I can petition the government to stop Abrams from making films, but I see now enumerated power that permits the politician to seize CBS/Paramount's property.

Well, there's the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause but I already know what you'll say about those.

Politicians will be granting favoritism as so described only if they forward and vote in favor of unconstitutional legislation, that which does not align with the enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution or conflict with those in the Bill of Rights.

Again, the clauses I mentioned above can be and have been interpreted to permit Congress to regulate the sale of firearms, among other things.


For example, legislation that places a ban on any weapon violates the 2nd Amendment . Voting down a weapons ban does not discriminate against the individual opposed to firearms, because that individual remains free to voluntarily impose that ban upon himself or anyone entering onto his property.


Honestly, at this point you're just making things worse for your side by not letting go of the gun issue. I'm the only person I know that has even suggested repealing the 2nd Amendment. All Obama and the "communist/socialist/Marxist/ProRegressives" in Congress are trying to do is ban assault weapons. No sane person sees anything wrong with that. They know they are not allowed to own tanks, drones, atomic bombs, anthrax, small pox, etc. so why should they be allowed to own assault weapons?

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 8:48 am

Well, there's the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause but I already know what you'll say about those....  Again, the clauses I mentioned above can be and have been interpreted to permit Congress to regulate the sale of firearms, among other things.


The definition of commerce is the interchange of goods on a large scale. The Constitution grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." First, the Commerce Clause was designed so that a State couldn't impede trade from one State to another. For example, Virginia wants to transport cheap tobacco to Alabama through TN, but TN unfairly taxes or even seizes Virginia's export to grant TN tobacco farmers favoritism. The Commerce Clause permits the Federal Government to step in and stop TN from illegally seizing private property. The Commerce Clause was therefore meant to guarantee an open market and a voluntary exhange of goods rather than permit the Federal Government to micromanage or limit trade/competiton within the economy.


Secondly, the Commerce Clause only gives the Federal Government power to regulate interstate Commerce, not intrastate Commerce. For example, the Federal Government is unConstitutionally banning incandescent lightbulbs. South Carolina is well within her Right to manufacture and distribute incandescent lightbulbs within her Territory. Similarly, TN has adopted laws that will permit the manufacturing and distribution of guns within her Territory. Colorado permits the manufacturing and distribution of Marijuana, and the federal government can't find a jury willing to prosecute marijuana users. As the Federal Government grows more tyrannical, the State's are going to practice nullification more and more. 


As to the necessary and proper Clause, I recommend reading it in its entirety... "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 United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Note that "necessary" and "proper" aren't even capitalized, as other words are to suggest their importance. The Constitution is a limit  on the Powers of Government, not the People, and the 10th Amendment states this explicity. Necessary and proper only applies to those powers listed in the Constitution, otherwise the laws aren't proper. And even A. Hamilton admitted that an improper law is null and void.


The Commerce Clause and the necessary and proper Clause were debated in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The Anti-Federalists gave warning to the potential abuses of these Clauses being taken out of context and used to justify unlimited power by the Federal Government. The Federalist were very specific as to their meaning, as I described above, and sold the Constitution to the people with assurances that the Clauses would not be used to expand the Federal Government beyond the enumerated powers. Once the Constitution was ratified, however, the Federalists immediately began reneging on their assurances. The manner of interpretation depends solely on how the Constitution was sold to the people and their understanding thereof at the time of ratification rather than the Supreme Court's interpretation, which fluctuates based on Party Control. Furthermore, the Constitution is not properly amended by the Supreme Court's interpretation. Article 5 is very specific as to how the Constitution can be amended, either by a Congressional Amendment or by State Convention. Article 5 speaks nothing of the Judiciary, because the Judiciary is not compromised of electable officials and therefore does not represent the people. The Legislative body is the direct voice for the people and thus has sole responsibility to provide for Amending the Constitution. 


And even if the Commerce/cecessary & proper Clauses were designed as Liberals & Neoconservatives claim, the Bill of Rights - a proper amendment to the Constitution - would nullify such Commerce/necessary Clauses when in conflict.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 8:57 am

Honestly, at this point you're just making things worse for your side by not letting go of the gun issue. I'm the only person I know that has even suggested repealing the 2nd Amendment. All Obama and the "communist/socialist/Marxist/ProRegressives" in Congress are trying to do is ban assault weapons. No sane person sees anything wrong with that. They know they are not allowed to own tanks, drones, atomic bombs, anthrax, small pox, etc. so why should they be allowed to own assault weapons?


The Constitution guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution does not forbid ownership of tanks, drones, atomic bombs, etc... to the people. The right to limit these items remains with State Governments. Your argument further ignores the fact that some of these items are of such speciality that they are cost prohibitive for the average buyer. In fact, those items are only profitable for the manufacturer given the government's position to buy them. If the manufacturers had to rely solely on individuals, not the government, the manufacturers would most likely be driven out of business. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 12:38 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 15 2013, 8:57 am

>The Constitution guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution does not forbid ownership of tanks, drones, atomic bombs, etc... to the people. The right to limit these items remains with State Governments
So, here's a question for you.... if the right is not to be infringed, how does the right to limit these items remain with the state governments?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46297

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 12:50 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 15 2013, 8:48 am

>

>Well, there's the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause but I already know what you'll say about those....  Again, the clauses I mentioned above can be and have been interpreted to permit Congress to regulate the sale of firearms, among other things.

>The definition of commerce is the interchange of goods on a large scale. The Constitution grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." First, the Commerce Clause was designed so that a State couldn't impede trade from one State to another. For example, Virginia wants to transport cheap tobacco to Alabama through TN, but TN unfairly taxes or even seizes Virginia's export to grant TN tobacco farmers favoritism. The Commerce Clause permits the Federal Government to step in and stop TN from illegally seizing private property. The Commerce Clause was therefore meant to guarantee an open market and a voluntary exhange of goods rather than permit the Federal Government to micromanage or limit trade/competiton within the economy.

>Secondly, the Commerce Clause only gives the Federal Government power to regulate interstate Commerce, not intrastate Commerce. For example, the Federal Government is unConstitutionally banning incandescent lightbulbs. South Carolina is well within her Right to manufacture and distribute incandescent lightbulbs within her Territory. Similarly, TN has adopted laws that will permit the manufacturing and distribution of guns within her Territory. Colorado permits the manufacturing and distribution of Marijuana, and the federal government can't find a jury willing to prosecute marijuana users. As the Federal Government grows more tyrannical, the State's are going to practice nullification more and more. 

>As to the necessary and proper Clause, I recommend reading it in its entirety... "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 United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Note that "necessary" and "proper" aren't even capitalized, as other words are to suggest their importance. The Constitution is a limit  on the Powers of Government, not the People, and the 10th Amendment states this explicity. Necessary and proper only applies to those powers listed in the Constitution, otherwise the laws aren't proper. And even A. Hamilton admitted that an improper law is null and void.

>The Commerce Clause and the necessary and proper Clause were debated in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The Anti-Federalists gave warning to the potential abuses of these Clauses being taken out of context and used to justify unlimited power by the Federal Government. The Federalist were very specific as to their meaning, as I described above, and sold the Constitution to the people with assurances that the Clauses would not be used to expand the Federal Government beyond the enumerated powers. Once the Constitution was ratified, however, the Federalists immediately began reneging on their assurances. The manner of interpretation depends solely on how the Constitution was sold to the people and their understanding thereof at the time of ratification rather than the Supreme Court's interpretation, which fluctuates based on Party Control. Furthermore, the Constitution is not properly amended by the Supreme Court's interpretation. Article 5 is very specific as to how the Constitution can be amended, either by a Congressional Amendment or by State Convention. Article 5 speaks nothing of the Judiciary, because the Judiciary is not compromised of electable officials and therefore does not represent the people. The Legislative body is the direct voice for the people and thus has sole responsibility to provide for Amending the Constitution. 

>And even if the Commerce/cecessary & proper Clauses were designed as Liberals & Neoconservatives claim, the Bill of Rights - a proper amendment to the Constitution - would nullify such Commerce/necessary Clauses when in conflict.

>
Lone Star - If I may, I'd like to add one thing - the word "regulate," at least when it was written into the US Constitution, basically meant "to make regular."  As you described, they wanted regular commerce between the states.  Additionally, we could say that regular, also meant uniform - much like a pound (weight) in TN is the same thing in NY, the rules would be uniform - no favoritism or discrimination.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 1:00 pm

So, here's a question for you.... if the right is not to be infringed, how does the right to limit these items remain with the state governments?


I probably should've inserted "...would arguably default to State Governments", assuming the authority exists at all. But State Governments don't truly have that authority (to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment) since the State ratified the Constitution and agreed to uphold those principles so long as it is a Union member. Rather for the State to resume that power to limit such items, a State Convention would have to be called and the Constitution deratified so that the State could secede from the Union. 

Post Reply

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum