Posted on 01/15/2002 6:27:04 AM PST by tberry
No, no no =) FEDGOV says so. And you already have accepted it in both law and Constitutional principle.
Therefore, you believe in absolute democracy. Hope you enjoy your VW bug! Maybe we will "allow" you a bicycle.
[Am Prism, howdy!]
Source:God (and the fact that it is non-violent behavior)
What I want to know, is where the people ceded this right, that should be easy for you to source. Give me one clause of a state constitution that cedes that right.
Then, if you find one you think applies, describe its bounds -- list for me the extremes possible given its mandate. I bet you will find them unending.
Then you can explain why I ceded a boundless bundle of "rights".
If you can declare prostitution illegal because of its auxillary effects, then you could declare McDonalds illegal because of the litter it generates.
Hint:Illegalize the causing of harm, NOT what you deem the 'cause of the cause'.
No, the FEDGOV is not to interfere with any state law that is not in confliction with the Constitution. If California were to gather up enough environmental wackos, it could Constitutionally outlaw SUV's especially on public roads.
Guilty, as charged, your honor. It comes from thinking too much, I guess.
Now the polygamy question... In today's times such a figure [5%] would be far less, because the need is far less, if at all. IMHO.
One could always make the claim that God gave section 132 to Joseph because it was the thing that would, for sure, get the saints driven out of Nauvoo and into Deseret -- er, Utah.
But it's clear that the church leadership was determined to fight the government, tooth and nail, on the polygamy question, until the Supreme Court cited "tradition" as being the reason why the evil LDS shouldn't be allowed to do what the Constitution said they were allowed to do (or, at the very least, didn't prohibit). Must have been one of those "hidden in the penumbra" kinds of things...
Anyway, the church leadership sure wasn't letting on that the Lord was planning to change His mind any too soon on the polygamy question (and there are even some purported revelations, depending on who you ask, that make it clear the Lord had no intention of revoking said law).
From a revelation to Wilford Woodruff in 1880 as copied from the Journal of Wilford Woodruff, about 1908, by Joseph W. Musser, at the request of his father, A. Milton Musser, the Assistant Historian of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A portion of it reads as follows:
And I say again, woe unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying the Patriarchal law of Abraham, which leadeth to Celestial Glory, which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant Joseph, for whosoever doeth these things shall be damned, saith the Lord of Hosts, and shall be broken up and wasted away from under heaven by the judgments which I have sent forth, and which shall not return unto me void.
Prism? Have you found God? Because if you are still an atheist, you just admited that without God, we have no rights, but those which we perceive.
What I want to know, is where the people ceded this right
When they chose to live or remain in a state that outlawed it.
describe its bounds
The Constitution. That don't seem too unending to me.
Then you can explain why I ceded a boundless bundle of "rights".
By living in the state of your choice. You can't own all the rights to your land, you cannot have the right to break the constitutional laws of the state. so....
If you can declare prostitution illegal because of its auxillary effects
A state can declare prostitution illegal for whatever the people therein wish. I see it as obscene, and a detriment to society, 100 fold over anything McDonalds does.
legalize the causing of harm, NOT what you deem the 'cause of the cause'.
Well see, here is the problem with that: Just as there can still be stupid, destructive laws that are well within the bounds of the Constitution, there can be shattered communities within a free society. Just because your society is free, does not necessarily mean that it will be any better off. People free to waste their lives on hard drugs and sleep around for money can be a great risk, if not the very destroyer of a community. Just as if you were to take away all corporate bylaws and allow them to reign freely, you would usher in the destruction of your economy. Complete freedom, is not always a good thing. We must have structure. For large groups of people to be able to function in communities they need to have common beliefs and values. The anarchical base of a Libertarian society would be the author of its own demise.
NO where, in the federal, or in any state constitution will you find the power ceded to prohibit private, non-violent behavior, or to prohibit peaceful possession of any type of property.
In fact, there are many restrictions on such police powers in every constitution.
Public behaviours or possessions can be regulated, using due process. NOT prohibited.
You have been told that outright bans/prohibitions are NOT constitutional, by many freepers
Actually I think you are pretty much the only one that said that. Others such as OWK, admit that it can be quite constitutional to do such, but they just think it morally wrong.
You claim to think? - Nope, -- you simply ignore, [as is evidenced by your answer] many things you refuse to think about.
-- How do you rationalize away a 'republican form of government' having the absolute police power to prohibit peaceful, private behavior & possessions?
Do you ever 'think' about the moral hypocrisy inherent in such a stance? --- It appears not, imo.
Why do you keep saying that? That is totally subjective. Smoking crack is not a peaceful behavior, and I DARE you to PROVE me wrong. You can't because it is subjective. You apparently lack the intellect tpaine to grasp the bigger picture. State constitutions absolutely come into play, however, that is completely separate from the FED. Even in the first year of our very nationhood did states prohibit material such as witchcraft paraphernalia. If the founders intended what you have stated, they would have said it in the Constitution.
And I think you need to speak to Prism on the 14th issue. You are a lone gunman on that issue, and we have pointed that out over and over again.
Well you are surely the authority on that matter huh?
Good grief. -- This is sheer unadultrated communitarian propaganda.
They teachng this bullcrap at Texas A&M?
God -> You -> State -> Fed. That is the flow of surrender of 'rights'.
Under your model (The fed dispensing rights, or the state dispensing them) the fed could say, via amendment:
Everyone has the 'right' to use drugs, or kill defective infants.
Or, a state could say: All SUV's will be confiscated as compensation for the damage they have caused the environment.
Or, California could just 'become' communist, since enough people wanted to change thier constitution. Or, they could impose a state religion-- all states could.
Now, how does one call such a world 'free'?
What you are saying is that we have no guarantees of freedom, really, because everything is dependent on constitutions, and there are no inalienable rights at all.
Freedom is eternal. The price for your freedom or the price for the consequences of your freedom may be high, yet eternal none the less. High prices for freedom are not a good thing.
We must have structure.
True freedom requires it.
For large groups of people to be able to function in communities they need to have common beliefs and values.
True. Local libertarian government is classic liberal in application. The right to contract and the right to property will naturally produce a community of common beliefs and values, totally absent the force of government. Freemen will voluntarily assemble to common beliefs.
The anarchical base of a Libertarian society would be the author of its own demise.
Libertarian government is not anarchy. Defending the sovereign against initiatory force is not possible in an anarchial form of government. Anarchy, badly exercized, can be the extreme abuse of freedom.
LOL.
Why do you keep saying that? That is totally subjective.
They are not subjective. They are proveable to a jury of peers, if a complaint comes to that.
Smoking crack is not a peaceful behavior, and I DARE you to PROVE me wrong.
Prove to me, or a jury, that such behavior is unpeaceful..
You can't because it is subjective.
-- Silly, circular argument.
State constitutions absolutely come into play, however, that is completely separate from the FED. Even in the first year of our very nationhood did states prohibit material such as witchcraft paraphernalia. If the founders intended what you have stated, they would have said it in the Constitution.
Disjointed & illogical statement. In the underlined, what do YOU 'think' I've stated?
Given that it is clear, looking at the writings of the time, that when the phrase "celestial marriage" was stated it was understood to mean plural marriage, it seems to me that celestial marriage has, indeed, been revoked, in favor of something else that was redefined as celestial marriage. For example, here's a sample quote from "The Contributor" (November of 1884), by B. H. Roberts:
The fact that the Saints sacrifice so much for celestial marriage—run the risk of fines and chains, take upon themselves all the extra cares and anxiety which attaches to it—increasing the hatred of bigots, and the oppression of government—is an evidence to the thoughtful that they cling to their principle from other motives than amorous gratification, as nothing but a deep and sincere belief that they are doing the will of heaven will induce men to adhere to a principle banned by law, condemned by popular sentiment, and which is so fruitful of care, anxiety, and even of fines and imprisonments.
Nobody ever threatened anybody with jail time over being married in the temple to only one wife.
The church actually ended up redefining the term "celestial marriage" in order to placate the government.
No, not exactly. I was graciously using a placeholder you would understand. My rights come from being a rational, concious, accountable creature.
The Constitution. That don't seem too unending to me.
The Constitution(s) can be changed, and that is my point.
. I see it as obscene, and a detriment to society, 100 fold over anything McDonalds does.
The degree is not the issue, can you enumerate this degree? In another post you were harping on 'subjectivity', are not your feelings of obscenity the ultimate in subjectivity?
Complete freedom, is not always a good thing. We must have structure
Definately. Here is the structure: The law is (has to be) constricted in its purpose to protecting people from harm, it is only allowed to do this mandate by punishing those who cause harm AFTER harm has occurred.
Any other methodology places no expressible limits on 'what may be done to prevent harm'. The result is an incremental erosion of freedom and the vast regulatory scheme and police/fascist state we have now.
It creates a society that drives its members insane. It bogs down with a topheavy, self-preserving bureaucracy that ultimately requires violent revolution to remove.
You seem to think, Im guessing, that the brakes can be applied, that we can tread water at 'just the right level of freedom'...
Look at reality, look at the past 100 years, are we becoming more free? Are we even slowing the tide? No. Because we have made a fatal mistake, we let the law be used for whatever motive we wish. THAT is a cancer, and picking away at parts of it is not going to work. It needs to be EXORCISED.
How would I know? I'm not there. But I would think that common sense was a required prerequisite.
It seems so pointless to argue over what something is, which never was and never shall be. One might as well be arguing over whether the marble floors of Oz are green or purple.
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.