A Sane and Moral Choice for Prez

[MichaeltheGreat]

Given the ability of the Framers to communicate screeds contrary to the King anonymously, it is not particularly hard to follow why requiring Facebook log ins in order to express oneself in the newspaper would be unconstitutional.

Newpaper websites are privately owned properties. Their login policies are not within the scope of constitutional review, unless they do something really obscure that manages to violate some recognized civil right. Your analogy is so flawed it's laughable. The poor kids whose intellects you shutter. Nobody had the "right" to break in and use someone else's printing press to produce his screed. If a printer didn't want to print your screed, you could go somewhere else or print it yourself. That's pretty much the way it works now. Ask Gene Ray.

The same regarding the second amendment. One can scarcely fathom how the right to bear arms morphed into the ability of the state to regulate how many clips you can own.

That little concept of the "well-regulated" militia, coupled with the threshold of what constitutes infringement.

This is judicial tyranny and contrary to what the constitution actually says. The Constitution is in itself the highest law of the and the rulings of the Supreme Court are suborned to the constitution not the constitution to the court.

Interpretation, dear child. What is a reasonable search? When does jeopardy attach? What is threshold "public use?" What threshold is necessary to satisfy due process? Can a purportedly religiously derived social tradition be used to thwart equal protection? The judiciary court interprets both the scope and meaning of the Constitution itself, as well as whether given statutes or other state actions conflict with the limits on state power within the Consitution.

There is a reason the constitution states what it does. You would have me believe that the whole thing is an antiquated document unworthy for the enlightened people of 21st century America. And you accuse me of hubris for suggesting that is not so? Liberty is not a foreign concept doomed to represent one generation of the 18th century. I suspect Jefferson would have a few words about that.

I don't frankly give a **** what a shrill whiner on an internet forum, a foreigner no less, thinks about his personal vision of the US Constitution, unless you're writing me a healthy retainer check related to handling an actual appeal worth pursuing. Then I still don't give a flying **** for your views, but I might do something with your case, if you (a) had one, and (b) sat down and shut up. Perhaps English is not your native language? "Liberty" is neither equivalent to, or relevant to, a notion that an 18th century legal document should or must be interpreted in a arbitrary and rigid manner when it uses general terminology and is by design and necessity devoid of specific factual background.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Only if one does not see how the principle is intended to restrain government not expand it.

So you're admitting eminent domain authority existed at the time and the just compensation clause was to restrain that authority?

Indeed, one of the reasons I keep stepping in and speaking up for it.

And the world at large gives a **** not.

Stripping private property without monetary compensation is tyrannical.

Ever heard of easements and benefit setoffs? There are all sorts of mechanisms. If your think it's tyranical, pack your ass up and move back to Canuckistan.
You'll have to take that up with Aeson, when he's finished weatherstripping his bunkers in anticipation of a Libertarian victory.[/QUOTE]

[Ben Kenobi]

Newpaper websites are privately owned properties.

And yet, forcing newspapers to reveal anonymous contributors is a well-worn tactic that continues to be employed today.

Their login policies are not within the scope of constitutional review, unless they do something really obscure that manages to violate some recognized civil right. Your analogy is so flawed it's laughable. The poor kids whose intellects you shutter. Nobody had the "right" to break in and use someone else's printing press to produce his screed. If a printer didn't want to print your screed, you could go somewhere else or print it yourself. That's pretty much the way it works now. Ask Gene Ray.

Why then does the government want to identify it's critics?

That little concept of the "well-regulated" militia, coupled with the threshold of what constitutes infringement.

Shall not be infringed seems pretty broad to me. If you can located where the constitution refers to clips I'd love to see it.

Interpretation, dear child. What is a reasonable search? When does jeopardy attach? What is threshold "public use?" What threshold is necessary to satisfy due process? Can a purportedly religiously derived social tradition be used to thwart equal protection? The judiciary court interprets both the scope and meaning of the Constitution itself, as well as whether given statutes or other state actions conflict with the limits on state power within the Consitution.

14th explicitly refers to protected classes. All the protected classes not explicitly covered in the actual content of the 14th are unconstitutional. You've gone from the realm of 'interpretation' to wholesale rewriting of amendments outside of the amending formulas. In short, there is no constitution, merely judicial fiat. This is not what the constitution meant by checks and balances.

I don't frankly give a **** what a shrill whiner on an internet forum, a foreigner no less, thinks about his personal vision of the US Constitution, unless you're writing me a healthy retainer check related to handling an actual appeal worth pursuing. Then I still don't give a flying **** for your views, but I might do something with your case, if you (a) had one, and (b) sat down and shut up. Perhaps English is not your native language? "Liberty" is neither equivalent to, or relevant to, a notion that an 18th century legal document should or must be interpreted in a arbitrary and rigid manner when it uses general terminology and is by design and necessity devoid of specific factual background.

Others of a sterner stock died for that principle, MtG. You can't have one without the other. You cannot claim that the 18th century is irrelevant backwards nonsense and then talk about how you love liberty. The concept itself only makes sense if you have an understanding of the principles behind it - the same principles you've discarded. I find it amusing that you don't discard liberty so readily.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ever heard of easements and benefit setoffs? There are all sorts of mechanisms. If your think it's tyranical, pack your ass up and move back to Canuckistan.

It is tyrannical. Many others agree with me on that.

So you're admitting eminent domain authority existed at the time and the just compensation clause was to restrain that authority?

Given that your argument is that eminent domain can permit the state to provide non-monetary inducements for private property? Hardly a 'restraint' if they can set their price.

[MichaeltheGreat]

And yet, forcing newspapers to reveal anonymous contributors is a well-worn tactic that continues to be employed today.

Why then does the government want to identify it's critics?

Since you want to make vague claims, get your answers from infowars.com

Shall not be infringed seems pretty broad to me. If you can located where the constitution refers to clips I'd love to see it.

Newsflash: Your interpretation is irrelevant. Paperclips? Hair clips? Oh, you main ammunition magazines? Something that didn't exist at the time. If you want to play that pedantic game, then you're stuck with the the definition of the time of "arms." Muzzle loading flintlocks, I think even Pelosi could go for that.

14th explicitly refers to protected classes. All the protected classes not explicitly covered in the actual content of the 14th are unconstitutional. You've gone from the realm of 'interpretation' to wholesale rewriting of amendments outside of the amending formulas. In short, there is no constitution, merely judicial fiat. This is not what the constitution meant by checks and balances.

And you're as unqualified to comment on the subject matter as you are about heterosexual sex. Neither the term "protected class" in singular or plural appears in the 14th Amendment, nor does the term "checks and balances" appear in the body of the constitution. You can't even quote the thing, and you think you're competent to interpret it?

Others of a sterner stock died for that principle, MtG. You can't have one without the other. You cannot claim that the 18th century is irrelevant backwards nonsense and then talk about how you love liberty. The concept itself only makes sense if you have an understanding of the principles behind it - the same principles you've discarded. I find it amusing that you don't discard liberty so readily.

You're babbling. Your Scalia blowup doll deflate on you again?

[MichaeltheGreat]

It is tyrannical. Many others agree with me on that.

Many people think it's tyranical that white kids have to go to school with ******s, and that you can't make 'em stay on the back of the bus. What many people think isn't particularly relevant. Feel free to take some of your freedumb loving Angrywhitemenistanis with you when you leave.

Given that your argument is that eminent domain can permit the state to provide non-monetary inducements for private property? Hardly a 'restraint' if they can set their price.

Everybody sets their price and conditions. If you don't like it, negotiate or sue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Many people think it's tyranical that white kids have to go to school with ******s, and that you can't make 'em stay on the back of the bus. What many people think isn't particularly relevant. Feel free to take some of your freedumb loving Angrywhitemenistanis with you when you leave.

The Federal Government taking property and providing zero compensation to the land owners is tyrannical. Open and shut. I didn't realize you regarded private property as the property of whites only. That's a bit racist, no?

Newsflash: Your interpretation is irrelevant. Paperclips? Hair clips? Oh, you main ammunition magazines? Something that didn't exist at the time. If you want to play that pedantic game, then you're stuck with the the definition of the time of "arms." Muzzle loading flintlocks, I think even Pelosi could go for that.

I'd like to see you try. The amendment is crystal clear and you'd deny it was an amendment altogether because it offends your dainty sensibilities.

Neither the term "protected class" in singular or plural appears in the 14th Amendment

You don't say. Ergo, it is unconstitutional to fine businesses for refusing to serve people because they are homosexual.

If you want it in there - there's an amending formula not judicial fiat. Though I guess it doesn't matter if they support the things you believe.

Will be interesting to see how you respond to sharia law though. Is it good? The supreme court said so, so I must believe it is.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The Federal Government taking property and providing zero compensation to the land owners is tyrannical. Open and shut. I didn't realize you regarded private property as the property of whites only. That's a bit racist, no?

Play your pre-adolescent word games with someone else, boy. "Zero" compensation and compensation which may be non-monetary in nature are not the same. You're just jerking off. As for racism, the Constitution as originally written only regarded white males as human beings.

I'd like to see you try. The amendment is crystal clear and you'd deny it was an amendment altogether because it offends your dainty sensibilities.

Then go try to purchase a fully automated weapon or a FIM-92 and you can challenge your arrest and imprisonment in court. Maybe the Bundy clan will run a train on you.

You don't say. Ergo, it is unconstitutional to fine businesses for refusing to serve people because they are homosexual.

Good luck with that argument. Ever heard of the Interstate Commerce Clause? And states are free to regulate commerce within the state.

Will be interesting to see how you respond to sharia law though. Is it good? The supreme court said so, so I must believe it is.

[/quote]

Ah, the good ol' sharia law bugaboo. Selling fear and loathing to undereducated whiteys everywhere.

[Ben Kenobi]

Play your pre-adolescent word games with someone else, boy. "Zero" compensation and compensation which may be non-monetary in nature are not the same.

What, offering magic beans wouldn't qualify as non-monetary? I'm shocked, shocked, to see that MtG agrees with confiscation of property, presumably because a), he doesn't own any and b), it would take some of that evil white man's property.

As for racism, the Constitution as originally written only regarded white males as human beings.

Which explains why you're rewriting the Fourteenth after the evil republicans passed it. What's next, dogs? Cats?

Then go try to purchase a fully automated weapon or a FIM-92 and you can challenge your arrest and imprisonment in court. Maybe the Bundy clan will run a train on you.

I don't see an exception for 'other than full automatic weapons' in the US Constitution. Perhaps you can point out that clause. I don't see it. Just because the government wants it to be there doesn't believe it's constitutional. Did you pass an amendment adding that clause to the 2nd? No? Well then.

Good luck with that argument. Ever heard of the Interstate Commerce Clause? And states are free to regulate commerce within the state.

Oberfell argues from the 14th's concept of equal protection. The problem is that it's not actually there, so they are making up law out of whole cloth. There is an appropriate method to alter the constitution. Until that is, 50k fines of businesses fall afoul of the 8th amendment.

Ah, the good ol' sharia law bugaboo. Selling fear and loathing to undereducated whiteys everywhere.

As I said, it will be an interesting day when you realize that your preferred rights are set aside because judicial force is a double-edged sword.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I forgot how much of a game playing idiot you are.

[Berzerker]

The problem with Libertarians is their platform includes stuff like an end to all forms of welfare, (effectively ... see court congestion) no environmental protections, no imminent domain. Application of their platform would mean children and elderly living on the street and starving ... except there are no streets because building a road of any appreciable length without imminent domain is often impossible. And everyone wearing gas masks/radiation suits if they're brave enough to venture out of their bunkers.

Welfare used to be run by states and localities and libertarians dont think it should be legal to pollute your neighbor's land. As for eminent domain, I imagine libertarians are skeptical of the power but I've never heard of any libertarian movement to abolish it.

The courts would be eternally clogged no matter how many courts you have. For instance, the state can't force parents to immunize their children. So some child gets sick and starts an epidemic, at which point each individual affected has claims against all other individuals who were infected.

And "justice" ... which invariably ends up with someone not being able to pay their obligations ... ends up waiting for hundreds years to see court because there's 300 million * 300 million cases already on the books where everyone is suing everyone for destroying their air quality ... because air quality controls have been dropped in favor of individuals suing other individuals if they harm other individuals air quality. Repeat for water quality. Repeat for food quality. Repeat for manufacturing defects. Repeat for every last little niggling detail in life. Effectively there are no laws because the courts can never get around to trying even a very small % of the cases that would be required for such a system to have a chance in hell of working.

You just argued libertarians wouldn't have any environmental protections but now the courts would deal with pollution? Would you rather trust politicians to deal with it?

Uh, if you remember, there's that other branch of government called the Congress. Funny how the liberterrarium mirrors the Berniverse - the occupants of both seem to think their guys can just wave a magic wand and everyone in DC will hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya while watching Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

Yeah, nobody said Congress doesn't exist. But they'll have to over ride libertarian vetoes whereas the Dems and Repubs in the WH are much more cooperative. Strawmen are not indicative of greatness, perhaps Michael the Puny will serve you better.

[Ben Kenobi]

How about that, Berz and I on the same side?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Michael the Puny. Lol, I like it from the guy who carries the LP flag up the hill one more time in a display of futility. How very Sisyphean.

Other than the fact that the LP ticket won't pull two percent come November, if they did get elected, Congress would thrash them. First thing is they'd have to appoint Article II and Article III officials who would pass Senatorial approval - there is no veto power there, so it's a straight majority approval. Second, a lot of core spending (that where lobbyists and Wall St. types have heavy interests) would easily override veto. The stuff that passes filibuster now.

It's the same short-sightedness as the Bernistas. Figure your guy can be Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc and Gandhi all rolled into one and everyone else will just magically step in line.

[Aeson]

Welfare used to be run by states and localities ...

And it failed spectacularly. Not to mention that Libertarians want to get rid of ALL redistribution at all levels of government.

https://www.lp.org/platform

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

---------------------------

As for eminent domain, I imagine libertarians are skeptical of the power but I've never heard of any libertarian movement to abolish it.

Opposing it is a fundamental part of the platform:

https://www.lp.org/platform

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

----------------------------

You just argued libertarians wouldn't have any environmental protections but now the courts would deal with pollution?

I was very clear from the outset that the courts would be in charge of handling it, and outlined why using the courts to deal with it will not work. If you want to address that, feel free. It's not about trust. It's about reality. You simply can't try all the cases that would have to be tried for such a system to work. The number of cases is too immense. Every last person on Earth negatively affects others in multiple ways every day. To try every instance where someone has been negatively affected by someone else would result in nearly infinite number of cases.

Would you rather trust politicians to deal with it?

For courts to work there have to be laws to make decisions off of. That means government making laws. That means government enforcing the decisions of the court. Those things are decided by politicians. You can't get away from that unless you're going full on Anarchy.

All Libertarians are doing is pretending that courts are some magical place where justice happens for no reason whatsoever ... and that there are no costs or laws involved in trying cases.

[kentonio]

It's the same short-sightedness as the Bernistas. Figure your guy can be Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc and Gandhi all rolled into one and everyone else will just magically step in line.

Although there are indeed a lot of naive Bernie fans, there's also an awful lot who are approaching it from a very different POV. Electing a President who aims for the stars obviously doesn't mean you're going to get everything you want, but its a much better starting negotiating position (when you have a national mandate) than starting from wanting tiny change and bidding down from there. Also its an opportunity to kick the Third Way Democrats in the nuts, which is always nice.