Posted on 08/04/2014 5:37:03 PM PDT by chuckles
So far you have said zero to me in regard to the facts I posted, you haven’t said anything at all about them.
The laws and policies of the federal government have a huge role, for instance abortion and gay marriage, and homosexual policy in regards to the military, federal employment and immigration, etc.
Never support a social liberal, non God fearing candidate at ANY level of office, because not only will he be pushing left wing social politics, but he might someday reach the Congress, or Senate, or Presidency and be making federal policy.
Also with Romney, part of the purpose of Romney was to help blend the rinos and libertarians in their fight against conservatism.
You realize there are multiple levels of government don’t you?
1. So which government entity are you talking about vis-a-vis dope laws?
2. Unless there this a spending cut there is no tax cut.
3. Are you nuts? What does tax policy have to do with drug laws?
Not really; they could adopt a no benefits
policy; or a benefit to one designated survivor for 20-years
policy.
and abortion also have to be decided on,
It was already decided federally: Roe v. Wade.
and immigration and foreign policy.
This is about the only one that actually is justified under the Constitution; congress has the authority to make a uniform law for immigration
.
By supporting drug control you are accepting Wickard v. Filburn as correct, as well as expansions thereof such as Raich, and therefore are at least endorsing tyrannical authoritarianism if not fully a big government type. (But it is natural that such a authoritarian government will expand and so you are functionally a big-government type.)
Government power has given us legal abortion and even pays for it. So your solution is more government power. You are a fool.
But the premise is flawed — dope is already legal, or more accurately the federal government does not have the legitimate authority to illegalize it. Even taking precedence *spit* the 18th Amendment had to be passed to give the federal government the authority to regulate alcohol; no such amendment exists with respect to drugs.
I’m not here to play fantasy with you and all the things you can imagine, we are dealing with a reality right now, and your politics are in opposition to rolling back the left’s and libertarian gains.
There was federal policy on abortion before Roe v Wade, and federal abortions being performed, and we have federal laws and policies supporting abortion right now just as we have alterations to federal marriage law that was written at the time of the constitution and even before it by the Continental congress, we conservatives oppose them and want to stop them, and you oppose us and our fight.
And I'm not saying that; what I am saying is that if your concern is rampant immorality then the answer is not the law, but Jesus.
I've had this discussion w/ Ansel12 several times, but he refuses to see the point insisting that the answer is more law… and law at the federal level.
How do you figure government power created abortion?
Do you think free market forces are what prevents it?
Abortion is either legal or illegal.
That's quite probable; however, we don't have a living Constitution that means whatever we want it to say — this is to say that we must respect the limits imposed by Constitution even, especially, when it hinders our own desires.
Most of these problems still aren't properly addressed in law; but in the lives of Christians.
As an example: do you think we would have half the problems [divorce, infidelity, homosexual-marriage, etc] if those that said that they were Christians treated marriage like something special/sacred in their own lives? Even if that is flawed and would have little impact on those numbers, do you think that such a moral stance would be a hindrance or a help in life WRT witnessing? (A single candle is more appreciated at midnight than in the noonday sun.)
No we haven't had that discussion many times, but as far as abortion and gay marriage etc. at the federal level, you oppose rolling back the recent federal laws on those, and changing to pro-life pro-marriage policies for the feds.
There is no state that tells the feds about marriage and abortion policy within it's own areas.
And never, never, never support a politician at any level, who fights like you do to protect social liberalism, no matter what level of office he is running for.
Now, lately it has become fashionable to promise to reduce government spending. So, the trick is to promise to reduce government spending in as general a way as possible without ever being specific enough to make any voter feel that his benefits are threatened because, again, the vast majority of voters do not want to cut any of the programs that benefit them or programs that they like.
There aren't many low-income food stamp mothers who want to cut food stamps. There aren't many unemployed folks who want to cut unemployment benefits. There aren't many Tea Party seniors who want to cut senior benefits.
People are people and politicians are politicians. It's no mystery why we are where we are.
There is nothing in the constitution that is forcing you to support abortion and gay marriage and homosexuality at the federal level, that is your own passionate politics.
You are fighting for the recent status quo of the left and libertarian gains at the federal level, and fighting us who want regain the lost ground against such things at the federal level.
Remember that the Congress was passing laws regarding marriage in federal employment in 1780, 1794, and 1798, and 1802.
The thing that takes discernment is Obama's social idea's are exactly libertarian, but his economics are straight out of Marx. Ergo, people say he's a socialist/Marxist. All the economic libertarianism in the world, can't save a country that murders people in the name of freedom, or economics. If we are forced to keep ObamaCare, you will soon see it going broke and to conserve money, we will start withholding treatments and drugs to certain people that don't "deserve" the largess from the "real" needy people. Social libertarianism is the same thinking of economic liberalism. Economic theory from Milton Freedman and social theory from the Bible is what works. Social libertarianism will break down and require laws to regulate it,...it's inevitable. All the trans- bathrooms for children at school, Heather has 2 mommies, now they want multiple wives, children have 3 parents, and on and on, it's all from "What do you care as long as it doesn't affect you". Man's heart is continually evil, who can know it. Eventually, it will affect you.
Some libertarians invoke the Founders, as if they believe the Founders were on their side. The foundation of the country was on individual freedom and freedom to worship God. Atheists weren't elected or revered much in those days. The laws were ALL based on Scripture. The founders wanted people left alone until they sinned against God and nature. None were libertarian to my knowledge.
Great!
This'll be fun.
If that be the case, then shouldn't the 2nd Amendment also be left to the States?
Traditionally the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government [read its prolog] — however, the construction of the Second is in the passive voice where the action being prohibited is the subject and therefore the actor is irrelevant. By the reading of the 10th Amendment infringing on the right to bear arms is thereby prohibited by it to the States
.
Another interesting fact is that the Bill of Rights amends the Constitution as further declaratory and restrictive clauses
— this means that the power of Congress is limited thereby and, logically, there can be no legitimate weapons/munitions tax.
How about the First Amendment?
The First amendment explicitly limits Congress
.
None of the several states have a Congress, but rather a legislature, assembly or somesuch as the legislative-branch; the application of the first amendments ought, therefore, to be a nullity — by accepting that the 14th Amendment makes the First amendment applicable to the States is to assert that there is some magic in incorporation
which alters the text to suit whims.
Since the equal protection clause will be used to support Gay Marriage contracts in the states that have outlawed the practice constitutionally at the state level, does it not cry out for a federal constitutional amendment remedy?
Interestingly the Fourteenth amendment isn't valid [alt doc]; but let's assume for a moment that it is — how would allowing States to define marriage themselves be denying equal protection? If the definition is applied uniformly then there is no error; only when exceptions are made does the protection become unequal.
Libertarians know that gay marriage at the federal level guarantees that they will get their gay marriage at the state level in time.
We were not going have a situation where Marines and Sailors and FBI men and millions of federal employees and immigrants were going to have to deal with being “family”, or “not family” during their careers of transfers and duty stations for very long, and libertarians know that.
I'm not supporting abortion or homosexual marriage at the federal level — you are a fool if that's what you think, as what I said federal government has no authority there
is not equivalent to the federal government should support them
.
Like that's not happening now?
You must not have been paying attention when Prop 8 hit the USSC and they dismissed it as the people of California have no standing
despite that the State's own Supreme Court had certified their standing. So, in essence the USSC said that the people have no interest in seeing their own state's Constitution upheld and that the federal judges declaring he amendment unconstitutional was right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.