Posted on 10/17/2012 9:20:50 AM PDT by GraceG
The one that that stood out for me was the fact that even in the RNC primary we had at least 1 or 2 Libertarian questions a debate from the "peanut gallery". We never even got ONE question like:
"What do you think the role of the Federal Government should be?"
"What percentage of taxes on ANYONE is too much?"
"If the question in tax policy is fairness, and the same percentage of a tax being mathmatically fair, why isn't a FLAT TAX an option in your opinion?"
"We talk about the war on terror, what about the war on drugs and it's failure?"
"At what point if the government telling us what to eat going to far?"
Nothing, of cource "Candy Cruller" did nothing but pick questions that were left leaning...
Granted I am a small L libertarian conservative, but no good questions about the PHILOSOPHY of government, of course someone put it in good contaxt today that all the "undecided" voters at the debate were nothing more than mere liberals that were pissed off Obana didn't go far enough LEFT in his first term....
You are silly to believe the ex-cons would rather be in the joint than walking around without the ability to own a gun.
Who could take you seriously?
The rest of your post seems to be nothing but babble.
What the hell do you think Kelo was? The government literally said "if we can imagine a way that more money would be made by taking your property [and giving it to someone else] that's legit."
There is no such thing as private property, only property the government allows one to hold, under the Kelo ruling.
Even without government you hold property only conditionally. In fact, you hold it more tenuously without government.
Laughable; considering that the government can imagine some 'tax' you were 'evading' and seize your property under that pretext... or, that might be too much work, they can just no-knock raid your house, plant some drug, and bust the baddie [you] to get rid of you.
You asked if I thought that 'second best' option was acceptable.
The rest of your post seems to be nothing but babble.
You're one of those people who has to have every step shown to you before you see the pattern, aren't you?
I guess you never heard of the Vth Amendment “...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” Such things as Kelo were anticipated and accounted for by the Founders.
And private property has been taken and JUST compensation given for centuries. This was only unusual in that the “public use” was controversial. Unfortunately, it is not defined in the constitution.
Your world view is just short of demented. There are no seizures such as you claim. Government “imagines” nothing representatives of the people write the laws.
Nor is there any conspiracy to get rid of certain people. That is totally different than a screw-up or a mistake by law enforcement. Why plant drugs when there are KNOWN drug houses that could be raided at any time with no need to plant anything?
No I asked if you really believed the ex-cons thought that way. But I don’t believe YOU would rather be in prison either.
I don’t pay attention to scrambled thoughts which scatter all over the place.
No, the actual "public use" of Kelo was a projection (read imagining) of "increased taxes." It certainly was an imagining as the private entity which it was to be given to -to develop- was never developed, therefore the entire justification was and remains a nullity, this is independent of whether turning it over to a private entity for development actually is "public use."
Government “imagines” nothing[,] representatives of the people write the laws.
Really? Then explain how the commerce clause, embedded in a list containing foreign countries and Indian Nations, can logically enable the the sort of interstate regulation that is claimed as legitimate by the federal government, considering that the imposition of such restraints upon foreign countries as are placed upon our States are legitimately Acts of Ware (especially if the US tried to enforce such).
Please explain how the Supreme Court can nullify State laws, contrary to the 10th Amendment, which themselves was affirmative of the 14th Amendment: specifically Roe v. Wade.
Please explain how the police have no obligation to protect a [private] citizen (Castle Rock v. Gonzales), yet that private citizen may be compelled to appear in a court, and be disarmed, despite not even being accused of a crime. (That is, jurors and witnesses.)
Only a truly sick mind can justify these.
Circular logic. Taking resources away from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn’t is the very essence of Socialism.
Or, welfare to put it another way.
So, no. I’m not using it as a pejorative. Just an accurate description of your lunacy.
Both. In any real IQ test, there are almost always a number of correct answers. 2+2=4. But so does 5-1and 3+1. The higher the IQ, the greater the ability to not only do the raw calculations quickly, but to find all of the logical connections as well.
Your belief that RKBA is a “collective right”, that the Federal power has no checks on it’s limits, and your advocacy of Socialist welfare policies left little doubt as to the paucity of intellectual tools at your command.
In fact, it pretty much outs you as a troll.
Oh, please. You think Kings did not take resources from those who earned them to use for his own purposes? That is in no way socialism either.
As long as there has been organized society there has been welfare or one sort or another. You think 19th century England was socialist?
Learn a little about ancient Athens. Or Rome. Neither of them were socialist.
The Founders would have shot you if you had tried to take Private property for Private gain. The very antithesis of the 5th Amendments takings clause.
Wow you really don’t understand these matters at all, do you?
Your first paragraph makes not sense.
States are part of a Union not sovereign states. They never really were even under the Articles. So there is nothing which would compare to an “act of ware (sic)” with sovereign nations.
Where does the idea that the 10th amendment changes the fact that the constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land come from? The only reason the amendment is even there (as far as its practical purpose has been so far) is as a rhetorical sop to the anti-Federalists.
Are you asking me why jurors are forced to come to court disarmed?
Not true, but the truth would escape a mind that isn’t very subtle and prefers insults to discussion.
In fact, the militia is defined as the body of able bodied persons hence it includes all individuals of age.
Illinois’ constitution actually defines the militia in those terms. This does not stop the state from preventing concealed carry by law-abiding citizens.
Federal power is limited to those things which are not explicitly denied the fed government, those things which do not violate the spirit of the constitution or those things which are not means for achieving the specified ends. See Hamilton’s Essay on the National Bank for the most elegant discussion of this issue.
Do you just make up any crap you want and claim your antagonists believe it? The three pieces of crap you claim are my beliefs are totally foreign to my thought.
What is true is that I do not support wild, unsupported and ridiculous charges or excessively verbose rhetorical outbursts. This rules out much agreement with you.
I don’t recall the Founders shooting anyone not shooting at them. In fact, it was the attacks on the courts by Shay’s Rebellion that provoked the writing of the Constitution BY the Founders.
The idea of attacking the courts absolutely appalled them.
Only tangentially; the major point is that it is a hideous injustice. But I would love to hear you try to justify it.
Where does the idea that the 10th amendment changes the fact that the constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land come from? The only reason the amendment is even there (as far as its practical purpose has been so far) is as a rhetorical sop to the anti-Federalists.
Hm, so the Constitution, at least in part, is mere rhetoric. Good to hear your position here.
States are part of a Union not sovereign states. They never really were even under the Articles. So there is nothing which would compare to an “act of ware (sic)” with sovereign nations.
According to numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the 50 individual states and the United States as a whole are each sovereign jurisdictions.
Example: In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress's authority, under Article One of the United States Constitution, could not be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity.
Your first paragraph makes not sense.
Let me put it this way: the court used a false premise to determine an outcome.
Wow you really don’t understand these matters at all, do you?
Sure I do: the federal government is powerful and corrupt, and that corruption drives it to further claim powers [which are not legitimate] which lends itself to more corruption.
I do notice how you are quite unable to give a good reason for what [inconsistencies/injustices] I'm pointing out; the reason is simple: to do so is impossible, defending the indefensible.
Given the rulings of some of our contemporary courts I would think they would quickly change their revulsion to a killing rage.
That is because you are hysterical.
Exactly backwards; the States's power is only limited to that explicitly prohibited via Constitution, and any power not expressly given to the Federal Government is either that of the States or the people:
Amendment XYou, my boy, are a Statist and the government your little tin god.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So you think the founders would have stood such as:
Wickard (establishing that non-commerce is really intrastate commerce is really interstate commerce),
Raich (stripping any pretext of commerce from the authority claimed under the commerce clause),
Kelo (establishing that a 'projection' [for tax] is public use),
Roe (establishing that the States cannot, as mandated by the 14th amendment, protect the lives of its citizens under "equal protection of the laws"),
Lawrence v. Texas (establishing as unconstitutional a [State] anti-sodomy law)?
And you say I'm out of touch? You really are arrogant.
ar·ro·gant - adjective
1. - making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.
2. - characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims.
Not a surprise that you are grasping at every possible straw to support your idiocy.
Ancient Greece had Kings. The early beginnings of Democracy as well, but the King was still the King. In Lacedaemonia, they actually had Two Kings.
The Founders had a rather famous debate in the first Congress over setting up a pension fund for an Admiral's widow. The idea of the FedGov provided individual welfare was resoundingly rejected.
Makes you a liar. Again.
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.