Posted on 11/16/2012 3:21:20 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
Check out l4l.org. You could do with a lot of education yourself....
Already proven false.
Before he got the nomination, I swore that I would stay home rather than vote for Wrongney.
When he got the nomination, it took me about an hour to grow the hell up and vote for the guy who was ONE HUNDRED BAZILLION TIMES BETTER THAN THE RETARDED SH!TBAG IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
While I agree Wrongney was a poor choice for America, and that picking a liberal republican to represent conservatives was a losing bet from the start, the time to stand on principle was the primary. After that, you can either side with the guy going to bat for your team, or side with the guy who will absolutely lose... and help hand the country over to someone who is truly, truly evil.
Call it what you want, but a vote for Ron Paul cancels out a republican vote, and THAT is what cost us nine seats in the House.
I have the luxury of being in Oklahoma so my vote didn’t matter anyway. Reddest state in the union! That doesn’t change the fact (to quote the maha rushie) words have meanings! A vote for anyone other than Romney was a vote for whomever the vote was cast. You can argue the merits of the first past the post voting system, but that doesn’t change the fact that A=A.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still putting your stamp of endorsement on evil, and that’s something I won’t ever do.
Also what’s a libertarian bashing thread w/o a lil Ayn Rand?
“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”
There is no such thing as being BOTH not pro-abortion and not anti-abortion. If you allow for abortions then you are pro-abortion. You can’t then turn around and claim to be against abortions.
Non-sequitur. Please try to stay on topic.
I am aware of libertarians for life. What I don’t get is why presumably ‘conservative’ libertarians support dope legalization, gay marriage and abortion.
I saw the consequences of the "substantial effects" doctrine of the New Deal interpretion of the Commerce Clause coming years ago. Didn't you?
“They never gave the power to the government. In fact, that made Religion hands off for regulation in the 1st Amendment.”
Again, read Reynolds.
Heck I’ll even link it to you for your edification.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England, polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. After the establishment of the ecclesiastical
Page 98 U. S. 165
courts, and until the time of James I, it was punished through the instrumentality of those tribunals not merely because ecclesiastical rights had been violated, but because upon the separation of the ecclesiastical courts from the civil the ecclesiastical were supposed to be the most appropriate for the trial of matrimonial causes and offences against the rights of marriage, just as they were for testamentary causes and the settlement of the estates of deceased persons.
By the statute of 1 James I (c. 11), the offence, if committed in England or Wales, was made punishable in the civil courts, and the penalty was death. As this statute was limited in its operation to England and Wales, it was at a very early period reenacted, generally with some modifications, in all the colonies. In connection with the case we are now considering, it is a significant fact that, on the 8th of December, 1788, after the passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the declaration in a bill of rights that “all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,” the legislature of that State substantially enacted the statute of James I., death penalty included, because, as recited in the preamble, “it hath been doubted whether bigamy or poligamy be punishable by the laws of this Commonwealth.” 12 Hening’s Stat. 691. From that day to this, we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of
Page 98 U. S. 166
the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.
In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?
Page 98 U. S. 167
To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does. Here, the accused knew he had been once married, and that his first wife was living. He also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law. When, therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law. And the breaking of the law is the crime. Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed. Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law. The only defence of the accused in this case is his belief that the law ought not to have been enacted. It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion; it was still belief, and belief only.
In Regina v. Wagstaff (10 Cox Crim.Cases, 531), the parents of a sick child, who omitted to call in medical attendance because of their religious belief that what they did for its cure would be effective, were held not to be guilty of manslaughter, while it was said the contrary would have been the result if the child had actually been starved to death by the parents under the notion that it was their religious duty to abstain from giving it food. But when the offence consists of a positive act which is knowingly done, it would be dangerous to hold that the offender might escape punishment because he religiously believed the law which he had broken ought never to have been made. No case, we believe, can be found that has gone so far.
6. As to that part of the charge which directed the attention of the jury to the consequences of polygamy.
The passage complained of is as follows:
“I think it not improper, in the discharge of your duties in this case, that you should consider what are to be the consequences to the innocent victims of this delusion. As this contest goes on, they multiply,
Page 98 U. S. 168
and there are pure-minded women and there are innocent children — innocent in a sense even beyond the degree of the innocence of childhood itself. These are to be the sufferers; and as jurors fail to do their duty, and as these cases come up in the Territory of Utah, just so do these victims multiply and spread themselves over the land.”
While every appeal by the court to the passions or the prejudices of a jury should be promptly rebuked, and while it is the imperative duty of a reviewing court to take care that wrong is not done in this way, we see no just cause for complaint in this case. Congress, in 1862 (12 Stat. 501), saw fit to make bigamy a crime in the Territories. This was done because of the evil consequences that were supposed to flow from plural marriages. All the court did was to call the attention of the jury to the peculiar character of the crime for which the accused was on trial, and to remind them of the duty they had to perform. There was no appeal to the passions, no instigation of prejudice. Upon the showing made by the accused himself, he was guilty of a violation of the law under which he had been indicted, and the effort of the court seems to have been not to withdraw the minds of the jury from the issue to be tried, but to bring them to it; not to make them partial, but to keep them impartial.
So apparently drug legalization is of greater priority to you than the fiscal health of the United States.
That doesn't sound like a conservative. I must not belong here. Shall we hit the abuse button, call up the Viking Kitties, and get my account suspended?
First goal has to be dismantling Obamacare. Then you go after welfare and social security.
I don’t really see why dope legalization is in the top 100 issues facing America today.
The first two are all part an parcel of the same abuse of the Commerce Clause. Fix the problem, don't screw around with one symptom at a time. It won't work.
I don’t really see why dope legalization is in the top 100 issues facing America today.
Dope legalization doesn't have anything to do with it. This is about federal elections, and the federal government doesn't have the authority to legalize dope, so they couldn't if they wanted to.
This states that marriage is a civil contract and not religious.
Congratulations dumbass, you just made the case for gay marriage.
Better to have left it in the province of Religion and out of the hands of the State.
So why are you pushing dope legalization to the forefront again?
You haven’t answered my question as to why I should care.
Obamacare first.
“This states that marriage is a civil contract and not religious.”
Reynolds explicitly states that the federal government has the power to regulate marriage contracts according to the English Common law, to ban polygamy and bigamy and to enforce said contracts.
What does the English Common law say about marriage? One man, one woman. The state cannot change this, because the common law predates the establishment of the United States - but the state can enforce this standard. And the power is given to the federal government - to regulate the definition.
I’m not for abortion, as stated.
I’m not for your asinine government over-writing my Religions prohibition on gay marriage because of your oft touted Reynolds decision establishing it as a mere civil contract.
As for the war on drugs, it has cost more than having drug addled zombies roaming around. Both in taxes and in a reduction in our overall freedom.
As has also been pointed out repeatedly to you, ending the unconstitutional Federal war in no way negates a single State law. As it should be...
Wrong. The civil contracts are secular and State level. That’s why each State has different criteria for being able to perform marriages.
Since you insist it’s a civil contract, government cannot refuse to license gay marriage under the equal protection clause.
If it was a religious contract, the various faiths could tell the gays to piss up a rope and there’d be nothing the government could do to force them to marry gays...
I'm not, but if you want to make that case, call up a mod. I'll defend everything I've said. You willing to do the same?
“I’m not for your asinine government over-writing my Religions prohibition on gay marriage because of your oft touted Reynolds decision establishing it as a mere civil contract.”
Again, re-read Reynolds. It’s all there in the decision. The English Common Law defines marriage - not the federal government or the states.
It’s the same definition that underpins trial by jury and habeous corpus.
Libertarians are simply wrong on this issue about federal regulation on marriage, and by propagation error have brought about the result we see today.
The sooner Libertarians understand why the English Common Law is so important to their own rights and freedoms, the sooner we can move beyond suicidal ideologies that would insist we concede every bulwark of civilization.
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.