I'll leave this here

[Flash]

But not to decide who it is to be, naturally! I call people uneducated not when they lack academic qualifications but when they allow themselves to be brainwashed by their masters and vote against their own interest, arrogant when when they compensate themselves for their serfdom with racism and chauvinism.

People should be allowed to decide what is in their own interest. For others to decide someone acted against their own interest is somewhat paternalistic. Everybody does not think acting in their own interest means getting more government benefits.

It is also being brainwashed by their masters when they think those living under capitalism are less educated than others--you just have a different master telling you what is better.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

People should be allowed to decide what is in their own interest. For others to decide someone acted against their own interest is somewhat paternalistic. Everybody does not think acting in their own interest means getting more government benefits.

It is also being brainwashed by their masters when they think those living under capitalism are less educated than others--you just have a different master telling you what is better.

I completely agree here. However, despite how the extremist assholes have twisted it, the main reason for government is to protect the unalienable rights of citizens. This most commonly comes into play when the rights of citizens conflict.

Examples: I have a natural right of self-defense and owning guns is common form of defense. No one should interfere with those rights. Conversely, my owning of firearms doesn't allow me to actively endanger others by shooting into the air over my neighborhood or shooting at squirrels with a 45-70 and risk hitting others in the area. Same goes for a factory that dumps its waste into community drinking water.

Likewise, people should be able to keep the fruits of their labor, meaning capitalism. A private shop owner should be able to deny service to whomever they please - government shouldn't dictate that service. That said, government should be free to entourage "the General Welfare" of the nation by making requirements for small business loans, business taxes and other protections. The only requirement is the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment: the rules should be accessible by anyone who chooses to follow the requirements.

 

[Flash]

I completely agree here. However, despite how the extremist assholes have twisted it, the main reason for government is to protect the unalienable rights of citizens. This most commonly comes into play when the rights of citizens conflict.

Examples: I have a natural right of self-defense and owning guns is common form of defense. No one should interfere with those rights. Conversely, my owning of firearms doesn't allow me to actively endanger others by shooting into the air over my neighborhood or shooting at squirrels with a 45-70 and risk hitting others in the area. Same goes for a factory that dumps its waste into community drinking water.

Likewise, people should be able to keep the fruits of their labor, meaning capitalism. A private shop owner should be able to deny service to whomever they please - government shouldn't dictate that service. That said, government should be free to entourage "the General Welfare" of the nation by making requirements for small business loans, business taxes and other protections. The only requirement is the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment: the rules should be accessible by anyone who chooses to follow the requirements.

I agree with most of what you say; however, I support using the interstate commerce power to make civil rights laws prohibiting racial (or other types) of discrimination by businesses. Although the commerce clause has been stretched too much, I think it is appropriate in this case.

Assuming those small business loans and taxes are federal, I don't think the 14th Amendment would apply since it only limits states.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I agree with most of what you say; however, I support using the interstate commerce power to make civil rights laws prohibiting racial (or other types) of discrimination by businesses. Although the commerce clause has been stretched too much, I think it is appropriate in this case.

Assuming those small business loans and taxes are federal, I don't think the 14th Amendment would apply since it only limits states.

Not a lawyer, but Interstate Commerce is certainly within Federal jurisdiction.

Again, not a lawyer, but my understanding is that States can do as they please within the confines of the Constitution. For example; the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. All states can do what they want, but they have to apply their laws equally.

As for taxes; yes there are State taxes and Federal taxes. Only Federal would apply in this case.

 

[Flash]

Not a lawyer, but Interstate Commerce is certainly within Federal jurisdiction.

Again, not a lawyer, but my understanding is that States can do as they please within the confines of the Constitution. For example; the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. All states can do what they want, but they have to apply their laws equally.

As for taxes; yes there are State taxes and Federal taxes. Only Federal would apply in this case.

Yes, interstate commerce is a delegated congressional power. It has bee interpreted to mean anything that "affects" interstate commerce which gives the government greatly expanded powers in that area.

State policy cannot violate equal protection; examples are like state mandated racial or sexual discrimination, or sex discrimination in state marriage laws. The 14th Amendment only applies to state government policy and not private entities.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, interstate commerce is a delegated congressional power. It has bee interpreted to mean anything that "affects" interstate commerce which gives the government greatly expanded powers in that area.

State policy cannot violate equal protection; examples are like state mandated racial or sexual discrimination, or sex discrimination in state marriage laws. The 14th Amendment only applies to state government policy and not private entities.

Obviously since 1865 Federal powers have been "greatly expanded".

The Federal laws you imply are not in the Constitution and your comment is more complex than it appears.

Let's cut to the chase: I believe everyone has natural, unalienable rights. I believe the Constitution limits government, not citizens. Do you agree or disagree? If disagree, why?

 

[Bill]

I bet Father's Day is the most confusing day of the year for you peckerwoods.

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

People should be allowed to decide what is in their own interest. For others to decide someone acted against their own interest is somewhat paternalistic. Everybody does not think acting in their own interest means getting more government benefits.

It is also being brainwashed by their masters when they think those living under capitalism are less educated than others--you just have a different master telling you what is better.

Your masters tell you what your interest is, as well you know. The weird bit is that you believe them!

 

[Flash]

Obviously since 1865 Federal powers have been "greatly expanded".

The Federal laws you imply are not in the Constitution and your comment is more complex than it appears.

Let's cut to the chase: I believe everyone has natural, unalienable rights. I believe the Constitution limits government, not citizens. Do you agree or disagree? If disagree, why?

I agree the Constitution limits government when it comes to constitutional rights. The Constitution also grants government many powers since the reason it was written was to give the central government more powers than existed under the Articles.

I do have some problems with the concept of unalienable rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are too vague to translate into actual rights. Does it include abortion, liberty to use drugs, does pursuing happiness allow me to marry a 16-year old (not unusual for much of our history)?

I didn't say federal laws are not in the Constitution, they are based on the commerce clause which is clearly in the Constitution, but the interpretation of that clause has been expanded to allow the government to tell a farmer how much grain he can grow to feed his pigs and prohibit a grandmother from buying pot because that purchase affects interstate commerce.

I think your interpretation of the general welfare clause may be more generous than it has been interpreted.

 

[Flash]

Your masters tell you what your interest is, as well you know. The weird bit is that you believe them!

But you alone determine what is in your interest? In a socialist system that allows a much greater power for government. Who does that benefit more than the masters who control that government? And you believe them.

Do you work for the government or private company?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

PEOPLE vote. And 3,000,000 more people voted for Hillary Clinton than voted for that fat, classless abomination in the White House.

seriously, as soon as this election is over and you have lost again, it is time for you fucking idiots to learn how our election system works.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

te.

We just gotta live with it. The 600,000 people of Wyoming get 3 votes in the EC...1 vote for every 200,000 people...and the 40,000,000 people of California get 55 votes...1 vote for every 730,000 people. So each person in Wyoming gets almost 4 times the voting power of each person in California.

no fool......both the people of Wyoming and the people of California are represented equally.......one vote for each 530k people and two votes per state......its how it works......if you don't like it, change the fucking law........you've only had 250 years to do it........if you don't change the law it is time to shut the fuck up.......

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I agree the Constitution limits government when it comes to constitutional rights. The Constitution also grants government many powers since the reason it was written was to give the central government more powers than existed under the Articles.

I do have some problems with the concept of unalienable rights. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are too vague to translate into actual rights. Does it include abortion, liberty to use drugs, does pursuing happiness allow me to marry a 16-year old (not unusual for much of our history)?

I didn't say federal laws are not in the Constitution, they are based on the commerce clause which is clearly in the Constitution, but the interpretation of that clause has been expanded to allow the government to tell a farmer how much grain he can grow to feed his pigs and prohibit a grandmother from buying pot because that purchase affects interstate commerce.

I think your interpretation of the general welfare clause may be more generous than it has been interpreted.

Most liberals do have a problem with the rights of citizens. They think they know what is best for everyone and seek to dictate those ideas to everyone else.

Yes on abortion, but to a scientific point. 24 weeks seems to be the consensus. Yes on drugs, alcohol, suicide, whatever. As for sex, that has to do with consent which is why the state shouldn't recognize a man marrying his horse or his 13 year old neighbor. Pelosi said she backs 16 year olds voting, so why deny them the right to consent to sex? https://thehill.com/homenews/house/434115-pelosi-says-she-backs-lowering-voting-age-to-16

FWIW, if it was up to me, I'd raise the age for everything to 21.

Why do you think my view on the General Welfare clause is too generous? https://www.encyclopedia.com/histor...res-and-press-releases/general-welfare-clause

In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.

 

[Flash]

Most liberals do have a problem with the rights of citizens. They think they know what is best for everyone and seek to dictate those ideas to everyone else.

Yes on abortion, but to a scientific point. 24 weeks seems to be the consensus. Yes on drugs, alcohol, suicide, whatever. As for sex, that has to do with consent which is why the state shouldn't recognize a man marrying his horse or his 13 year old neighbor. Pelosi said she backs 16 year olds voting, so why deny them the right to consent to sex? https://thehill.com/homenews/house/434115-pelosi-says-she-backs-lowering-voting-age-to-16

FWIW, if it was up to me, I'd raise the age for everything to 21.

Why do you think my view on the General Welfare clause is too generous? https://www.encyclopedia.com/histor...res-and-press-releases/general-welfare-clause

In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.

I don't have any problems with the rights of citizens, I would give the widest discretion and accept the constitutional interpretation given most of the Bill of Rights.

My only point is claiming we have unalienable rights that don't come from the Constitution because that makes those rights completely subjective; especially the pursuit of happiness thing. Many conservatives would not accept your view that abortion is an unalienable right because they would say "life" supersedes that freedom. So, it does not come down to an unalienable right but to a political decision about whether the law allows it. The 24 weeks is a political decision that does not devolve from any natural law.

If we have unalienable rights they should apply to all humans and not just those over 21.

Your explanation about the general welfare clarifies your position and I agree with it. It does not allow Congress to pass any program they choose because they think it is in the general welfare (healthcare), but to tax and spend for programs which do so; especially those programs which are the constitutional authority of states (education).

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't have any problems with the rights of citizens, I would give the widest discretion and accept the constitutional interpretation given most of the Bill of Rights.

My only point is claiming we have unalienable rights that don't come from the Constitution because that makes those rights completely subjective; especially the pursuit of happiness thing. Many conservatives would not accept your view that abortion is an unalienable right because they would say "life" supersedes that freedom. So, it does not come down to an unalienable right but to a political decision about whether the law allows it. The 24 weeks is a political decision that does not devolve from any natural law.

If we have unalienable rights they should apply to all humans and not just those over 21.

Your explanation about the general welfare clarifies your position and I agree with it. It does not allow Congress to pass any program they choose because they think it is in the general welfare (healthcare), but to tax and spend for programs which do so; especially those programs which are the constitutional authority of states (education).

Correct on Republicans not recognizing abortion which is why they are like authoritarian Democrats, not Goldwater conservatives.

You are wrong to imply our rights come from the Constitution. That is a common Democrat mistake and, unfortunately, becoming a common Republican mistake too. Unalienable Rights isn't vague. It's wide open. The only caveat is to not deprive others of their Unalienable Rights.

 

[Flash]

Correct on Republicans not recognizing abortion which is why they are like authoritarian Democrats, not Goldwater conservatives.

You are wrong to imply our rights come from the Constitution. That is a common Democrat mistake and, unfortunately, becoming a common Republican mistake too. Unalienable Rights isn't vague. It's wide open. The only caveat is to not deprive others of their Unalienable Rights.

The only rights which are legally enforceable are contained in the Constitution or through constitutional interpretation. For example, you think drug use is an unalienable right but you can be prosecuted for it because it is not a constitutional right.

That makes it irrelevant for drug use to be an unalienable right when you are in prison for exercising that right. Or, having an abortion at 26 weeks is no less an unalienable right than 24 weeks in the abstract but it can be prohibited at 26 weeks and not 24.

 

[Flash]

Correct on Republicans not recognizing abortion which is why they are like authoritarian Democrats, not Goldwater conservatives.

Do you think Goldwater conservatives would have approved of abortion? I don't.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The only rights which are legally enforceable are contained in the Constitution or through constitutional interpretation. For example, you think drug use is an unalienable right but you can be prosecuted for it because it is not a constitutional right.

That makes it irrelevant for drug use to be an unalienable right when you are in prison for exercising that right. Or, having an abortion at 26 weeks is no less an unalienable right than 24 weeks in the abstract but it can be prohibited at 26 weeks and not 24.

That's not the way the Founders saw it but you are correct that the authoritarians in both parties see it that way.

Do you think Goldwater conservatives would have approved of abortion? I don't.

They supported the right, but didn't condone the action. It's akin to the Voltarian saying (although he never said/wrote the words): "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-08-07-mn-4874-story.html
“You have to say that he (Bush) is honest, he lets people know where he stands,” Goldwater said in his letter to Crisp.

“But abortion is not something the Republican Party should call for the abolition of, by legal means or by any other means.

“There is no way in the world that abortion is going to be abolished. It has been going on ever since man and woman lived together on this earth,” he said.

 

[Flash]

That's not the way the Founders saw it but you are correct that the authoritarians in both parties see it that way.

The rights listed by the Founders only restricted the federal government. While, for example, the federal government would pass no laws restricting drug use the states could still do so. That would leave a person free to exercise his unalienable right to use drugs under federal law but be prosecuted under state law. That right is hardly unalienable if it can be prosecuted.

How would the Founders have handled viewed this right which cannot be exercised?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The rights listed by the Founders only restricted the federal government. While, for example, the federal government would pass no laws restricting drug use the states could still do so. That would leave a person free to exercise his unalienable right to use drugs under federal law but be prosecuted under state law. That right is hardly unalienable if it can be prosecuted.

How would the Founders have handled viewed this right which cannot be exercised?

There is truth in that view. So you agree the Feds have overstepped their bounds?