Free Republic

Yes, arrest shot clearly shows right arm tattoo, but the myspace guy in question clearly has a very prominent upper left arm tattoo on in his profile.

Look closely. The guy in the MySpace profile is using a camera phone in a mirror. So his left arm looks like his right arm, and vice-versa.

Very happy to hear from you once again, ZM. Sorry about all the pain and difficulty you're enduring.

Prayers going up for the Lord's healing and grace for you and your family.

Prayers continue to go up for Zac's Mom.

Until there's a better alternative to Bush that is FEASIBLE, conservatives have to settle for the half-a-loaf...

This is where I find myself, also. It's a pragmatic approach. It's understanding the realities of politics -- you're not going to get everything you want, there's a lot of compromise.

He's still my President, and I'll still support him. But I will make my extreme discontent on many issues known, especially through the representatives that I vote to send to Washington. I'd love to have so much more, and the old carrot that used to get dangled in front of us ("if you'll put Republicans in power in the White House and Congress, you'll see conservative ideas advanced") has now gotten into our mouths, and doesn't taste anything like we were expecting. It's somewhat bitter, and disappointing -- but still better than the alternative ('Rats in power).

Well, that's just the opposite of federalism. The Founding Fathers believed the states to be much more powerful than than the federal government -- the powers given to the newly formed federal government were "few and defined".

I understand what you mean, and this is where my simple analogy breaks down somewhat (after all, we're attempting to use a simple thing to illustrate a much more complex thing). But if you'll indulge me a little and allow me to return to this analogy, I'd like to try and understand your view.

So, we have the box in the middle of the room, and inside that box, is the federal government, strictly contained as defined by the Constitution. Are you saying that federalism dictates that ALL SPACE outside this box belongs inherently to the states? I know that the constitution of each of those states defines the size, shape, and scope of the box that each state's government exists in, but does this mean that in your view, there is no space inherently reserved for the individual people that make up those states, exclusive of the state's power to infringe? I know, as we discussed earlier, that the courts have not ruled that the 14th Amendment includes the Bill of Rights as being fully incorporated on the States. But it sounds like you're saying that federalism could allow for an individual state constitution to say in essence, "We own ALL SPACE outside the federal government box for the people in our State, and intend to place extreme restrictions on those people because that's what the people want", and that if it really was what the people wanted in that state (by way of their representatives of course, and notwithstanding the Supremacy Clause, due process, etc) then the state is absolutely free to do so. Is that correct? If so, does that disturb you at all? (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but my guess is that you'll say "No, because I trust the States to protect liberty", or something to that effect).

The U.S. Supreme Court today dictates how we live our lives, not the state in which we live.

And as I noted early on in our discussion, this is why, as somebody who values liberty, I do see the appeal of federalism to a certain degree. You sound like you're agreeing that the federal "Blob" has escaped from its box and is infringing all over the space reserved for the states and the people. I guess I'm trying to determine how extensively you view the Constitution as permitting each state to regulate the individual liberties of the people in that state (and it sounds like you're saying "To whatever extent they wish, since the federal government is over there in the box and can't stop it"). I concede that it does seem to follow, that if you are going to call on federal powers to exclude the states from infringing on certain parts of the space outside the federal box, then you are granting the federal government additional powers outside the box. Is that correct?

My "principle" is based on constitutionality -- in these two areas, I happen to agree with the courts.

And if I may boil this entire debate down to a simple point, it would be that I do not agree with the courts, or their interpretation of the Constitution. I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar -- I know that many men of good conscience have mulled over these issues through the years. Some have reached conclusions similar to yours, and some have reached conclusions similar to mine.

You actually seem to have a much better grasp of history and Constitutional law than many of the people debating with you give you credit for. I simply disagree with your conclusions, and prefer a much more libertarian application of law.

My view is that the Founders were saying something like this: "Let's design a box. Inside this box, government will exist. Everything outside this box cannot and shall not be touched by government. Let's name some specific instances of things government shall not touch, just to be clear about it. But remember these are only examples -- ideally government shall not touch anything outside this box."

Technically, the "government" they would have been referring to was the federal government, because that's what the Constitution was specifically addressing. But by logical extension, my libertarian preference is that the State governments exist inside boxes that are even smaller and less intrusive than the federal government box, and contain the same explicitly named limitations as the federal box, as a baseline minimum.

And extending this silly little analogy ad nauseam, I believe that today, we find that the government that was placed inside that box looks a lot like The Blob (the monster from all those old movies). It has escaped from the box, is invading everywhere, and is entangled in places it never should have been. Its enablers and accomplices have been many, and they are not necessarily conspiratorially involved -- but for whatever reason, they allowed it to escape, and it continues to grow.

I understand that this is a very "philosophical" analogy, that has a limited relationship to the reality of legal issues, but I think it at least provides an overview of how I view the role of government as intended vs. the role of government as practiced.

If you're a true libertarian, you'll thump your Bible but not make me do it with you

Then I'm certainly a libertarian (small "l").

As much as I want to see all people come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, I believe that this is achieved through personal one-on-one evangelism, not state-enforced religious legalism. As we've been discussing (at length) on this thread, the Constitution strictly limits the power and scope of government, to the benefit of all who live in the God-given liberty this provides.

If the personal morality of the nation's individuals has decayed so badly that they cannot handle the responsibility of living freely in self-governance and self-determination, then all the nanny-state totalitarian force in the world isn't going to change their hearts anyway.

So .. if somebody came up to your mother or father in a public restaurant and started calling them names .. would you react ..?? Or would you just sit there and take it - because after all .. they only did it for a reaction.

With all due respect (and I mean that, I'm being sincere), I think there is a difference between your analogy and what this is really all about... I'll try to explain it as I see it.

If you were in a restaurant and somebody disrespected your parents to their faces, then that is a direct face-to-face attack on the actual person you are trying to offend.

Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father in Glory, and all authority on Heaven and Earth is His. He is not trapped in a piece of paper with a couple of dollars worth of water colors on it, or in a printed publication with a few cents worth of ink on it. Just because the "artist" says that his picture is depicting Jesus, doesn't make it so. It's having no effect on Jesus personally at all. His feelings aren't even hurt by it, except His feeling of love for the people doing this, who He longs to save and heal. By that, His heart is broken.

The biggest problem facing the misguided people doing this is not that they are trying to offend Christians -- it's that they need Jesus Christ to forgive their sins. They need to acknowledge Him as Lord. We should be praying for their souls, because ultimately no sin they are committing is as bad as the ultimate sin of not accepting Him as Lord and believing in the sacrifice He made on their behalf.

But again -- I hope you won't misunderstand my explanation. If you still feel angry with these people, so be it. You're still a believer and I'll still love you in the Lord.

This is why the Republicans will lose votes from the right-of-center libertarian crowd, whom I think really represent the majority in this country, not Bible thumpers...

Where does this leave right-of-center libertarian Bible thumpers, like me? :-)

The U.S. Constitution does not enumerate rights.

You quoted Madison earlier -- please allow me to do so also. His comments before the House of Representatives when he was arguing in favor of a Bill of Rights:

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

He was referring to the text that would eventually become the 9th Amendment:

-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(Wait a minute -- that's the 9th Amendment verbatim, saying that the Constitution enumerates rights? Yes, with the express caveat that rights not enumerated were still retained by the people. That's a good thing.)

Yes, the Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution. But an amendment like the 14th (which supposedly applied the BOR to the states) was totally contrary to the original intent of the Founders!

Bite your tongue. If you read the full text of Madison's previously quoted (by both you and me) speech to the House, you'll hear several times a distinct wink and a nod to the effect that he hopes all the States will incorporate the equivalent of the Bill of Rights in their own Constitutions and laws. Madison again:

"If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the rights of the people."

So I would disagree that the 14th Amendment was some sort of gross aberration to the intent of the Founders. In reality, it was the logical extension to the spirit of the Constitution, because it settled once and for all that the rights enumerated in the Constitution (yes, enumerated in the Constitution, I said it again) applied to the People in all the States. (Okay, I apologize -- I'm just tweaking with you a little with the whole "enumerated" thing, even though I'm right. The Constitution actually enumerates very limited powers to the government, and reserves all others for the States and the People, I realize that. But the Bill of Rights is commonly said to "enumerate rights" -- you were merely arguing semantics to say otherwise).

You'll have to be more specific when you talk about my inconsistencies -- I don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry, I thought I was clear about that. I'm simply saying that you seem to be in favor of strong, even extreme federalism when it is convenient for a political position you support (gun control laws), but in favor of the Supremacy Clause and federal intervention when that allegedly supports a different political position you hold (drug laws, which is a case where I would argue that ironically, the federal government has actually overstepped its Constitutionally enumerated powers, by using "regulation of commerce" as a baldfaced phony excuse to restrict activities which should in fact fall under the control of the States' police powers. I know you'll cite case law to support your position, and I'll still tell you you're wrong -- the standard application of Constitutional law in this area is "well-intentioned" but wrong). You seem to engage in a la carte principle selection, depending on which one suits your political position, rather than taking a consistent stand on principle and letting the political results of that position flow naturally from the principle.

Furthermore, every federal court in every court decision (save one court in one decision) has stated that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution only protects a collective RKBA (ie., as part of a state militia). In other words, the federal government may not infringe the states' ability to arm the citizens and form a state militia. That's all the second amendment does.

Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, the U.S. Department of Justice position on the issue. Hope you'll take the time to actually read that -- it's lengthy but very in-depth in examining the issue. From that page:

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.

One last goody for you, too. Even though you don't like the 14th Amendment, it's part of the Constitution. Despite mixed interpretations in case law regarding its effect on the 2nd Amendment, the original drafter of the 14th Amendment, John A. Bingham (R., Ohio), had absolutely no doubt as to its intended application:

Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows:

ARTICLE I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

ARTICLE 2

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Amendments III-VIII, also listed by Bingham, are here omitted.]

"These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the Fourteenth Amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union."

Made me think of this:

My complaint about Sen. Edward M. Kennedy

My complaint about the Democratic Party

 

 

 

 

 

 (Compliments of Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator)

Maybe I'll move to San Francisco. You know *closes eyes* they're a lot more progressive and open than the midwest.

SMUG ALERT!

They can prohibit the sale of sex toys, for example. Since Congress has chosen to regulate marijuana, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to comply.

Are you saying that, despite federal action in this area, states should still be allowed to regulate marijuana as they please?

I didn't say that at all -- I simply asked you a question. I can't get past your logical inconsistencies. When you agree with a federal law (War on Drugs), you invoke the Supremacy Clause, i.e. that the Constitution and federal statutes are the Supreme Law of the Land, and states are bound to uphold the federal law as supreme. But in the case of RKBA, you take a clearly enumerated Constitutional right, and subjugate it to the control of each state legislature without regard to the Supremacy Clause.

Do you feel the same way about the states' ability to regulate the legalization of marijuana?

I have no idea what that means.

It means that I believe the Constitution provided for a much more libertarian republic as the default, meant to limit government to the bare minimum necessary to protect and defend our liberties -- but that we find ourselves today in an entirely too statist and socialist state of being, that has crept in incrementally over many years.

The Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution, making them deliberately difficult to pass (so that people wouldn't tinker with the fundamentals every time they wanted to win a political battle). I believe you are being disingenuous by suggesting that any Amendment that was not part of the Bill of Rights somehow goes against the intent of the Founders, when they purposely made provisions for these Amendments as legitimate additions to the Constitution.

The Constitution is there to limit government and protect rights, both delineated and undeliniated.

Agreed. Sloppy word usage on my part.

Are you sure that the second amendment applies to the states? Or is each state guided solely by its State Constitution?

The Second Amendment as I understand it applies to individuals, not states. It is an express Constitutional right granted to individuals, and IMHO the states are bound by it as a fundamental right granted to individuals. But as for regulation of our individual rights, and restrictions that various states have placed on those rights -- this is where I believe we have ceded huge amounts of territory from the original intent of the Founders, so much so that what we currently have in place bears little resemblance to what they had in mind.

But pragmatically, it is what it is, so we do the best we can with where we find ourselves today. The Supreme Court decisions of the past have led to the battleground for such rights being fought on a state-by-state basis, and slowly but surely, the battles in the courts have turned increasingly in favor of RKBA liberties (in most states). So even though I don't consider this the ideal, it is where we find ourselves today.

It's your understanding that, basically, any town-council, of any state, could enact and enforce such a ban without any serious legal obstructions?

As long as the Constitution is not being violated, either in its due process for passing the legislation, or its adherence to individual rights expressly protected in the Constitution, then local government bodies can and do place such restrictions on business all the time. There are plenty of dry counties, Blue Laws, and all sorts of laws governing business behavior that localities have passed, and have never been overturned as unconstitutional as far as I know.

Do I personally agree with and support such laws? No. I would not want to live in such a place, and would either work to change the laws or move to a place that didn't have such restrictions. But my personal distaste for such regulations does not prohibit a group of people, who wish to freely associate and voluntarily live by certain restrictions and codes, from passing them.

If a county was heavily Amish, for example, and as a matter of conscience the leaders and representatives (with the support of the people) wanted certain legal restrictions passed -- as long as the Constitution is the base document they abide by in the process of drafting the laws, and protection of individual rights under the Constitution is not violated, then they should be free to create a legal and moral environment to their liking, should they not?

I realize there are many gray areas where individual rights collide with legal restrictions, and this is where many court battles related to Constitutionality are fought -- so it's not a cut and dry situation, just a general principle that has been established through the years.

Glad you're consistent about guns. -- Too bad we have no right to possess dildos, though. -- Seems this would be in conformity with bearing arms.

I think my earlier statement regarding a state regulating legal and moral tone may have been somewhat misunderstood in the overall context of the debate here, so I should have qualified it with a lot of subtext that I didn't provide. My approach is an attempt to be pragmatic with the current state of affairs we find ourselves in today, as opposed to what I consider the ideal.

I believe that our current form of government bears no resemblance to the one intended by the Founders. I believe that the Constitution was intended to restrict forcibly the power of government in the lives of citizens in all areas. In an ideal, fully functional libertarian republic, people would be responsible for the consequences of their own actions -- always and inherently. That would be part of dealing with the "harm to society" and "other taxpayers bailing you out of your own stupidity" angles that people try to use to justify government regulation. But once we (the American people, many years ago) began crossing certain lines in legislation and Supreme Court decisions, and accepting certain compromises in previous generations as it relates to the original Constitutional intent of the Founders, we accepted statism, socialism, regulation of personal behavior for societal good, and a whole host of cascading ill effects that have brought us to the place, very badly off course, where we find ourselves today.

So, a Constitutionally limited form of federalism seems like a reasonable compromise for now. (Sorry to be a cynic, but it's hard to envision enough collective awareness among our citizenry to turn the tide completely back the other way and return to the ideal). Some states will have weak-minded and feeble citizens, and will send representatives to office that will protect the People from themselves, because that's what the People indicate they want. There will constantly be horns locking over where the Constitution provides individual liberty vs. where the state may regulate personal behavior for the common good, but that will be the tone set by the government in that state, blessed by the voters who send those sorts of representatives to office.

Hopefully, you will also have states that decide to allow greater personal freedom, and the People will elect like-minded representatives to office. Ideally, people living in restrictive nanny-like states would see how much better the citizens of libertarian states have it, and would either elect representatives to office to pass the same laws in their state, or will move to a state with greater personal freedom.

But unless you can find in the Constitution where a dildo is a protected individual right, I'll pragmatically reckon it to be something that the People in some states may choose to regulate, whether it's to save themselves from temptation, or prevent others from having fun -- or from some perceived societal benefit to the overall moral tone of the place.

Personally, if the guy who proposed such legislation was my representative, I'd let his office know in no uncertain terms that I vehemently disagree with it, and consider it nanny-state legislation of the worst kind. I think some others indicated that this bill has no cosponsor, and I'd like to believe that it will never see the light of day. But I'm just not so sure that it's a specific right in the Constitution that would stop such legislation, so much as the will of the People, as expressed through their representatives. I don't think that even a strongly Southern Baptist/Fundamentalist state like South Carolina would have enough state reps that would be willing to go along with such a bill -- hopefully it wouldn't even be close. But many local governments may choose to make similar restrictions, and likely could muster enough political will among the People there to restrict such things as sex shops and other types of businesses. And if it can be regulated locally through a Constitutional means of elected representatives doing the will of the people, then I suppose if such restrictions can also reach a consensus at the state level, it should still be acceptable.

Do you agree or disagree with a state being able to restrict abortion? On what Constitutional basis?

Ryan, does this mean you support State prohibitions on guns? Paulsen claims CA's 'assault weapon ban' is perfectly Constitutional.

No, that would be a case where the state is imposing an unconstitutional restriction on something that is Constitutionally protected -- RKBA.

Individual rights are Constitutionally protected, and RKBA falls under that. Any law that the states pass must be Constitutional. I agree with federalist ideas in general, within the bounds of the Constitution protecting individual liberties first and foremost. I think the 10th Amendment has been ignored, in the sense that states should primarily be in charge of themselves without federal intrusion.

The idea of the feds regulating commerce was originally meant as a way to ensure a level playing field between different states, but the feds have long since used it to encroach terribly on areas of governance which should be determined by the states (e.g. drug laws).