The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't expect Kazoo to pay attention to this because of the source (a logical fallacy), but I found this revealing (well, in the sense of uncovering what we already knew was likely)

That's not really what I said though. I'm tired of these gotcha games. When you look at middle east policy the differences are minor. When you look at wiretapping and law enforcement violations of our privacy the differences are minor. When you look at the real violations of our personal privacy, this is dwarfed by the IRS every day, the drug war every day, the Social Security Administration and Medicare every day. And you add single payer medical care and that would make this look like a grain of sand in the grand canyon regarding our privacy.

Actually this whole topic is something that the Obama election has in particular given me an insight to. The incredible focus of the media and both parties on non-issues. Get people to debate that and they ignore the REAL issues. Not that the thought was new to me, but it's really been a spotlight on that and I'm going to be arguing that a lot more and the nits a lot less. We are arguing nits. That doesn't mean they should be ignored, it means they shouldn't be the focus. And that's what the nits are now, the focus.

So Pulp, to continue with the privacy thing on warrantless wiretapping, if privacy is the issue, besides the IRS, war on drugs, massive Social Security and Medicare programs and proposed single payer, I was thinking of ENDLESS privacy issues. If that's the objective, consider some more.

- If you want to DIE you have no privacy protection, it's illegal.

- You have no privacy to decide to put the drugs of your choice in your own body

- A man and a woman have no privacy when agreeing to trade sex for money

- Try renting a space and selling hats, do you have any idea how much the government requires you to complete and disclose to them?

- You have no privacy right to chose a medical doctor of your own unless government OK's them.

- You have no privacy right to chose a lawyer to represent you unless government OK's them.

- You have no privacy right to chose someone to trim your nails, cut your hair or decorate your house

- You have no privacy right to buy a car from Ford or any other manufacturer, the government forces you to go through a dealer

- You have no privacy to agree to work for a company for a wage of your own choosing

- You have no privacy to grow drugs on your own property

That the Left is concerned about "privacy" violations in the name of protecting the American people while ignoring why we are a target, their own role in that and their hypocrisy dripping demands for cheap gas while being OK with government tracking every dollar we make and how we use it for taxes, every banking and cash transaction for the Drug War and they want a single payer where the government will have every detail of our health as well is just laughable. I don't think you're arguing it to help the Left, I think they are just leading you by the nose like the rest of the country in this complete red herring of an issue.

But Kaz, sure we're ignoring the root cause, the massive privacy invasions of our bodies and wallets and daily intrusion into our lives, but don't you get it? The GOVERNMENT could listen to a phone call trying to stop terrorism! Now THAT should scare you! Right.

Kaz, let's just leave it at this. I find those "intrusions/restrictions" to be less of a concern than the Government being able to tap any of my communications (e-mail, phone, etc.) on little suspicion and without any oversight, and being able to detain people without cause.

For example, I seriously don't mind a licensure requirement for professions (I hold 2 licenses to practice health care and law, so I'm intimately familiar with it). In every case, obtaining a license is a bare minimum floor of competancy; without such a requirement, any old schmo could hold themselves out as competant to perform surgery or law, and the people in the end who would be damaged would be their patients/clients.

Another is that I don't mind a restriction against drugs. I have a license to prescribe medication, and I understand pharmacology and pharmacokinetics. Many of the drugs that are prescription only, or restricted as Scheduled drugs, have side effects and drug-to-drug interactions that require oversight. Now, you can argue where the line should be drawn (i.e., I think it's ridiculous that marijuana is considered in the same line as heroin), but you have to draw a line somewhere. An example why I don't mind drug restrictions: I don't trust barely literate Joe America to do his due diligence on medication before he takes it. However, I trust a licensed prescriber to do so.

Also, I'm a bit confused:

You have no privacy right to chose someone to trim your nails, cut your hair or decorate your house

The last time I wanted to get my hair cut, I was able to choose who cut my hair. I've even gotten my wife to cut my hair. Likewise, I was able to hire the painter I wanted to, and my wife and I have painted my house as well. I'm not sure what you mean here.

You have no privacy right to buy a car from Ford or any other manufacturer, the government forces you to go through a dealer

Is that a law or is that just the way that car companies work (I honestly don't know)?

You have no privacy to agree to work for a company for a wage of your own choosing

What does that mean? You negotiate your salary when you hire on...or at least I have.

Also, many of these restrictions you've listed are not Federal restrictions, but state ones (i.e., licensure is purely a state issue; I'm barred to practice law in MD and DC, there are no federal licenses to practice law or medicine. Employment law is overwhelmingly at the state level.)

The car dealer rules are also largely state rules, they prevent manufacturers from selling directly, they have to use a dealer. I agree it's insane but it's more cronyism than some assault on our rights. I'd like to see it changed, for the record.

Kaz, gotta say that much of your "privacy" argument is a red herring. The bulk of your examples are areas which are regulated by state governments. Even the most ardent Constitutional constructionist or literalist will concur that those are areas which the Federal government has no business regulating, but states are free to regulate. That states require licensure for Doctors, Lawyers, even plumbers and electricians, is not only within their rights, but a required function of STATE government.

The problem occurs when the Feds stick their noses where they have no Constitutional permission to tread... declaring certain drugs illegal, and federal bans on laws restricting abortions.

I am not anti abortion (which is not the same thing as being "pro-abortion"... I find the practice reprehensible and the ultimate liberal hypocracy)... however, I do believe that the Federal Government has no authority to require that states permit it, and the Supreme Court has perverted the Constitution in stating that it does. If my state bans abortions, and I don't like it, there is a mechanism for me to change that... it's called the "Ballot Box". Any court which assumes the authority to take into it's own hands the determination of right or wrong in this case is not only erroneous, but, in my opinion, criminally in violation of the US Constitution. They should have been impeached, and ejected from their positions. The Congress of the United States is in violation of their oaths every time they fail to remove judges for cause when they assume authority that they DO NOT HAVE. Ultimately, the failure is on the citizens for their failure to act responsibly to protect their Constitution at the ballot box, by removing federal legislators who do not act according to their oaths.

The Tenth amendment means nothing to the Supremes. If you are not going to comply with it, at least have the guts to overturn it through the deliniated process, not through these arrogant and illegal short cuts which violate my rights as a citizen.

Do not forget, the function of the Constitution is not to "grant" the rights of states and citizens, but to deliniate and limit the authortity of the Federal government. Any authority not granted the Federal government by the Constitution DOES NOT EXIST, AND CANNOT BE ASSUMED by the Federal government. If libs want the Feds to have a power it is not Constitutionally authorized, there is a process to change that. Why do they not use it?

Fios wrote:The car dealer rules are also largely state rules, they prevent manufacturers from selling directly, they have to use a dealer. I agree it's insane but it's more cronyism than some assault on our rights. I'd like to see it changed, for the record.

You're right that it's State law, I was discussing privacy and government in general. Last I heard, which was probably at least 5 years ago, it added about 1K to the price of a car. Think about that. You pay 1K for nothing, it's another form of government enabled welfare. In New Jersey unless they changed the law since left the NY area a couple years ago, you had to pay someone to pump your gas for you to provide "jobs." The Garden State parkway was LOSING money, they kept it there for jobs for the toll agents, pathetic.

From an economic perspective, it is not creating a real job because you take the money away from someone else to provide a job with no economic productivity. Another way to put that is the sum of the economy is what every person and collection of people (companies) in the economy produce. Some "investment" like education, may not provide economic production, but you are at least investing in the engine (presumably). With the military and police you are protecting the economy. But when you create jobs like car dealers people don't want or make work like pumping gas, you are not increasing the economies production, you are paying for nothing. There is no difference then that and any other form of welfare for that exact reason.

Companies only create jobs that create value or they would eliminate them. Only government can directly or indirectly through the power of guns confiscate money or mandate that people/companies create make work jobs that produce no economic value and are therefore equivalent to welfare.

That you create work/overhead with no economic production is also the major benefit of the Fair Tax. You dump all the economic waste of CPAs, Tax Lawyers, decisions that are driven by tax avoidance over economic productivity. None of those jobs make our economy more efficient and in fact because of the poor decision making taxes drive they make it less so. The fair tax dumps all those jobs that add zero to the economy, the cost of redundant tax collection infrastructures since all taxes are from the sales of products anyway. We are truly stupid for doing this to ourselves.

PulpExposure wrote:Kaz, let's just leave it at this. I find those "intrusions/restrictions" to be less of a concern than the Government being able to tap any of my communications (e-mail, phone, etc.) on little suspicion and without any oversight, and being able to detain people without cause.

That the government tracks each and every aspect of your financial life, can dictate what you do with your body and is going towards a single payer healtchare system where they will know every aspect of your health as well is a lesser concern to you? My point with the rest of it was just the sweeping range of government intrusions into our privacy.

The government is not trustworthy to without oversight know who you're talking to, but they are trustworthy to know everything about your money, your body and DICTATE to you what you can do with your own body? How on earth if you're that terrified about what they might be monitoring in your communications can you dismiss the endless list of wide and deep continual invasions of our privacy? If you're really that fear ridden over your phone calls, the stuff I listed should require you to be institutionalized. But you just brush it off? Their intrusion into every aspect of your money, your body and your life you just brush off? No biggie? You have no sense of perspective.

Pulp wrote:The last time I wanted to get my hair cut, I was able to choose who cut my hair. I've even gotten my wife to cut my hair. Likewise, I was able to hire the painter I wanted to, and my wife and I have painted my house as well. I'm not sure what you mean here.

You chose from people who were government approved. Your wife wasn't a business deal. If you hired your neighbor to do it and paid her, it's illegal. On the painting, I was referring to home decorators, not painters.

You have no privacy right to buy a car from Ford or any other manufacturer, the government forces you to go through a dealer

Fios is right, it's State law. I wasn't particularly just referring to Federal law though.

You have no privacy to agree to work for a company for a wage of your own choosing

That's because you make over minimum wage. I read about a homeless guy who swept the front sidewalk of a business for a free lunch and the owner had to "fire" him (or stop hiring him) because of minimum wage. Nice privacy there between the guy and the owner. EVERYTHING is government's business...

Countertrey wrote:Kaz, gotta say that much of your "privacy" argument is a red herring. The bulk of your examples are areas which are regulated by state governments. Even the most ardent Constitutional constructionist or literalist will concur that those are areas which the Federal government has no business regulating, but states are free to regulate. That states require licensure for Doctors, Lawyers, even plumbers and electricians, is not only within their rights, but a required function of STATE government.

I was just discussing "Government" intrusion into our "privacy." I didn't make a Constitutionality argument or say it was just the Federal government. I was saying, if PRIVACY is really, truly your issue, then the depth (taxes, drug war, health care) and breadth (everything else) of government intrusion into your privacy should go WAY beyond just fear of the pursuit of terrorists in communications. I'm not seeing how that's a "red herring."

CounterTrey wrote:I am not anti abortion (which is not the same thing as being "pro-abortion"... I find the practice reprehensible and the ultimate liberal hypocracy)... however, I do believe that the Federal Government has no authority to require that states permit it, and the Supreme Court has perverted the Constitution in stating that it does. If my state bans abortions, and I don't like it, there is a mechanism for me to change that... it's called the "Ballot Box". Any court which assumes the authority to take into it's own hands the determination of right or wrong in this case is not only erroneous, but, in my opinion, criminally in violation of the US Constitution. They should have been impeached, and ejected from their positions. The Congress of the United States is in violation of their oaths every time they fail to remove judges for cause when they assume authority that they DO NOT HAVE. Ultimately, the failure is on the citizens for their failure to act responsibly to protect their Constitution at the ballot box, by removing federal legislators who do not act according to their oaths.

I totally agree. I am pro-abortion (which is not the same as not anti-abortion), but Roe v. Wade is a Constitutional abomination. It's more personal ideology made up by corrupt lawyers who have appointed themselves dictators and believe that the Constitution says whatever 5/9 of them wanted it to say with no rational basis in the document itself.

The power to detaining without cause appears to me to be more tyrannical than everything you cited, Kazoo. If you look at the history of police states, this plays the key role in their worst atrocities. Taxes are bad, but less dangerous to the average person.

Irn-Bru wrote:The power to detaining without cause appears to me to be more tyrannical than everything you cited, Kazoo. If you look at the history of police states, this plays the key role in their worst atrocities. Taxes are bad, but less dangerous to the average person.

What protects us is not relying on the grace of politicians, but checks and balances. I'm only aware of the one guy the Bush administration held in the US without charges. Padilla or something like that. The courts forced them to charge him or release him and they did, they convicted him. That is the difference, not trusting politicians. So, one guy was held and Bush was forced to stop and that should scare me more then every person in this country having every aspect of their financial life tracked from cradle to grave. Sure, let's go with that.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:The power to detaining without cause appears to me to be more tyrannical than everything you cited, Kazoo. If you look at the history of police states, this plays the key role in their worst atrocities. Taxes are bad, but less dangerous to the average person.

What protects us is not relying on the grace of politicians, but checks and balances. I'm only aware of the one guy the Bush administration held in the US without charges. Padilla or something like that. The courts forced them to charge him or release him and they did, they convicted him.

I'm aware of another. Jose Padilla and Yassar Hamdi. It's not that it's only 1 person who was detained (or 2, or whatever), it's that this had never been done before to a US citizen. If this practice hadn't been stopped by the Supreme Court, it would not have stopped at 2. I can't even fathom how far Executive power would have been expanded had this practice not been stopped.

That they held Hamdi for 3 years, claiming he had no recourse to the court system, and forcing the case to the Supreme Court before releasing him, should honestly shock you to the core as an American. As Irn-bru noted, this is the type of behavior exhibited by some of the worst regimes in history. And now, the United States joins that group.

As Blackstone once said:

Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper … there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. … To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten; is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.

That practice goes to the very core of what our Constitution stands for and exactly the type of tyranny that our founding fathers left England to avoid.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Kaz, let's just leave it at this. I find those "intrusions/restrictions" to be less of a concern than the Government being able to tap any of my communications (e-mail, phone, etc.) on little suspicion and without any oversight, and being able to detain people without cause.

That the government tracks each and every aspect of your financial life, can dictate what you do with your body and is going towards a single payer healtchare system where they will know every aspect of your health as well is a lesser concern to you? My point with the rest of it was just the sweeping range of government intrusions into our privacy.

I could care less if they track what I spend my money on (and they actually do not, only the large purchases over 10k are reportable to IRS). It's money...it's there to be spent. To me, money is the least interesting thing in the world.

As for regulations against what I can and cannot do with my body, I don't intend to commit suicide any time soon. And I don't intend to take illicit drugs, either. I can get elective surgery whenever I want, however, like the LASIK I got a few years ago, and I can get the health care procedures that I want, when I need them. Shrug. So, I can't smoke crack or commit suicide...this impacts me exactly ZERO.

Finally, the day they actually move to a single payor health care system in the US, I'll consider moving out. I'm more than cognizant about the pitfalls with socialized health care, and I don't find it to be the panacea that some have proposed. I'm also fairly sure that due to the extensive lobbying system in the US, particuarly the extremely powerful insurance lobby, this will never happen. The insurance industry has too much to lose (read...everything).

But the idea that the Bush administration could have listened to all of your communications, including e-mail, and then detain you on a "reasonable suspicion" without any recourse to the Courts, I do care about. Thankfully, Bush's idea of executive power isn't the one that has won out.

PulpExposure wrote:Thankfully, Bush's idea of executive power isn't the one that has won out.

It will. It just might take a little more time. The U.S. government has never scaled back the scope of its powers in more than a nominal and/or ephemeral way.

Irn-Bru wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Thankfully, Bush's idea of executive power isn't the one that has won out.

It will. It just might take a little more time. The U.S. government has never scaled back the scope of its powers in more than a nominal and/or ephemeral way.

Thankfully, this appears to be one issue where the liberals and conservatives in the Supreme Court agree, and represent one very simple and substantial roadblock to expansion of Executive power. For example, Scalia's brilliant dissenting opinion in Hamdi, which took Bush's administration to the woodshed, was joined by...Stevens.

Kaz, the more I think on it, the more it appears to me is that you just hate the idea of a government. Looking practically at today's world, the US has one of the least-intrusive governments, but you still find it overly burdensome. I can't imagine how you'd complain about one of the more socialist European nations, or hell, even Canada.

Perhaps it's time to buy an island and establish the neoanarchistic Nation of Kazoo?

Looking practically at today's world, the US has one of the least-intrusive governments

That this is acceptable to anyone is truly sad. "Oh... our government isn't 'as bad' as so many others... we should count our blessings... " The Constitution is designed, not to "grant" rights to individuals (as it assumes that those are already extant), but to LIMIT the power of the Federal Government. In successive generations of politicians and judges, however, clever bypasses and shortcuts, sleight of hand and outright lies, have been used to increase the power of government while ignoring the intent. The Tenth Ammendment is NOT ambiguous in the least when it says "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."

I cannot understand why any individual with the intelligence to articulate the law cannot grasp the simplicity of this concept... If the Constitution DOES NOT SAY that the Federal Government has any particular power, THEN IT DOES NOT HAVE that power... PERIOD. One does not need to be a lawyer with a specialty in Constitutional Law to grasp this. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the intrusiveness of the US Government... it's foundational document says that it may not be so intrusive... it HAS NO RIGHT.

If you have a problem with that, then stop trampling the law by taking shortcuts (read as twisting and perverting the letter and intent), and amend the freaking Constitution, as it requires is done, and as has been done many times.

Countertrey wrote:

Looking practically at today's world, the US has one of the least-intrusive governments

That this is acceptable to anyone is truly sad. "Oh... our government isn't 'as bad' as so many others... we should count our blessings... " The Constitution is designed, not to "grant" rights to individuals (as it assumes that those are already extant), but to LIMIT the power of the Federal Government. In successive generations of politicians and judges, however, clever bypasses and shortcuts, sleight of hand and outright lies, have been used to increase the power of government while ignoring the intent. The Tenth Ammendment is NOT ambiguous in the least when it says "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."

I cannot understand why any individual with the intelligence to articulate the law cannot grasp the simplicity of this concept... If the Constitution DOES NOT SAY that the Federal Government has any particular power, THEN IT DOES NOT HAVE that power... PERIOD. One does not need to be a lawyer with a specialty in Constitutional Law to grasp this. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the intrusiveness of the US Government... it's foundational document says that it may not be so intrusive... it HAS NO RIGHT.

If you have a problem with that, then stop trampling the law by taking shortcuts (read as twisting and perverting the letter and intent), and amend the freaking Constitution, as it requires is done, and as has been done many times.

You have articulated your position well, and I do think it's perfectly valid. In full disclosure, I do not hold the same view; I believe the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted as times change, and we evolve as a nation. For example, the 2nd Amendment, broadly read, means that citizens have the right to bear arms "necessary to secure a free state." When the 2nd Amendment was written, such arms were hunting shotguns and rifles, as those were sufficient for that purpose. These were the weapons that lead to the overthrow of British rule, after all. However (Heller decision aside), nowadays, rifles and shotguns are not sufficient for this purpose; if you want to read the 2nd Amendment literally, in order for civilians to be able to "secure a free state," civilians today would have to own commensurate weaponry as that fielded by today's armies; i.e., tactical nuclear weapons, M1 Abrams tanks, and F22 Raptors. That strawman has been brought up multiple times by the anti-gun nuts as the potential boogeyman if the 2nd Amendment was ever affirmed by the Supreme Court; however, even originalist Scalia stated in Heller:

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Things change. Even the interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights must necessarily change as the times change.

Additionally, I suppose I just look at things more practically. We live in a world where the federal government has been the foremost power since the Marshall court of the 1800s, and the Civil War eliminated the idea of a Confederacy. You can complain all you want, and please, feel free to do so, and I encourage it. I will not be joining you, as I can see a losing cause from the getgo, and I don't have the energy to complain about something that will not be changing.

To be clear, we will not in our life time revert to a country where the federal government is not preeminent, or they withhold from using power they have exercised for centuries.

PulpExposure wrote:I could care less if they track what I spend my money on (and they actually do not, only the large purchases over 10k are reportable to IRS). It's money...it's there to be spent. To me, money is the least interesting thing in the world.

OK, money's not a privacy issue, got it. If I PM you my fax number, can you fax me your 1040 and I'll post the information on your sources of income, how much and who you give to, what your deductions are for and how much? I won't post anything personally identifiable other then just continue to refer to you as PulpExposure. BTW, can you fax me your medical records too since we're heading towards a single payer system? Same deal, nothing personally identifiable will be posted.

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:The power to detaining without cause appears to me to be more tyrannical than everything you cited, Kazoo. If you look at the history of police states, this plays the key role in their worst atrocities. Taxes are bad, but less dangerous to the average person.

What protects us is not relying on the grace of politicians, but checks and balances. I'm only aware of the one guy the Bush administration held in the US without charges. Padilla or something like that. The courts forced them to charge him or release him and they did, they convicted him.

I'm aware of another. Jose Padilla and Yassar Hamdi. It's not that it's only 1 person who was detained (or 2, or whatever), it's that this had never been done before to a US citizen. If this practice hadn't been stopped by the Supreme Court, it would not have stopped at 2. I can't even fathom how far Executive power would have been expanded had this practice not been stopped.

That they held Hamdi for 3 years, claiming he had no recourse to the court system, and forcing the case to the Supreme Court before releasing him, should honestly shock you to the core as an American. As Irn-bru noted, this is the type of behavior exhibited by some of the worst regimes in history. And now, the United States joins that group.

As Blackstone once said:

Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper … there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. … To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten; is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.

That practice goes to the very core of what our Constitution stands for and exactly the type of tyranny that our founding fathers left England to avoid.

I agree and always have that US citizens detained w/o charges or courts is Unconstitutional. As you pointed out it was stopped. Bush was trying to thwart terrorists and pushed the envelope, the courts stopped him. But you're still obsessed with this and brush off my endless list of intrusions the government has into our daily lives. You trust government except when you hysterically don't. This explains so much of the history of man ending up as slaves to government that someone as intelligent and educated as you are still can't see beyond the issues the Left and their lap dog media say are the issues.

PulpExposure wrote:I believe the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted as times change, and we evolve as a nation

We agree that it is a living document, we just disagree on the method of change. I advocate 2/3 of the two houses of congress and 3/4 of the State legislatures, you advocate the opinion of 5/9 self appointed dictators that things have changed and the Constitution needs to be rewritten through judicial fiat.

PulpExposure wrote:Kaz, the more I think on it, the more it appears to me is that you just hate the idea of a government

I'm not an anarchist, I hate the idea of a government that isn't limited. We need to have a military for defense, we don't need a military that's an activist political tool as we have today. We need to have police. We need to have a tort system, though one that actually begins with personal responsibility and you only win money when you are actually wronged, not the farce we have today. We need a government to control natural monopolies (e.g., water). A government that recognizes land ownership, that sort of thing. None of those require a government that's in every aspect of our business. A government that tracks our money and our bodies and is in our face when we get a job, make a business deal, ... That is what I am advocating. And I'm consistent in that I'm concerned about ALL government invasion in our privacy. Apparently you're a one trick pony for privacy. You ONLY care about this one and you argue it totally conveniently to the left that it's just a Bush issue.

PulpExposure wrote:Looking practically at today's world, the US has one of the least-intrusive governments, but you still find it overly burdensome. I can't imagine how you'd complain about one of the more socialist European nations, or hell, even Canada.

I can't top Trey's reply to this. Well done, CT.

PulpExposure wrote:Finally, the day they actually move to a single payor health care system in the US, I'll consider moving out. I'm more than cognizant about the pitfalls with socialized health care...

This is the sort of thing that makes me completely doubt that privacy is a real issue to you. Even when I pointed out several times the incredible invasion of our privacy that a single payer system is, they pay, they know EVERYTHING about your body, you whiff on that and argue the merits of it. While obviously I agree there are no merits, this was a privacy discussion. Seriously, the government knowing all your business about your money and your body doesn't scare you, but two guys, even you admit the Bush administration LOST on still scare the snot out of you? Government COULD listen to your phone scares you, government DOES track all your business doesn't?

An issue again I totally agree with you on and I'm just saying that's the scratch the surface of government intrusion in our business. And the rest you don't care, it's money and you don't care, you don't care about things you don't plan to do, you don't care about government telling you who you can do business with, just two guys and communication policies even you admit Bush lost on.

PulpExposure wrote:But the idea that the Bush administration could have listened to all of your communications, including e-mail, and then detain you on a "reasonable suspicion" without any recourse to the Courts, I do care about. Thankfully, Bush's idea of executive power isn't the one that has won out.

Right, it didn't win out, it shouldn't win out. But the IRS lives on, the war on drugs lives on, single payer is imminent, government control of who does business, how, salary, benefits, choice lives on. But we dealt with the only issue, Bush and the War on Terror, rejoice and be free, don't mind the chains, they aren't there if you ignore them.

PulpExposure wrote:Perhaps it's time to buy an island and establish the neoanarchistic Nation of Kazoo?

Actually that's Irn-Bru who argues against all government. If you read the discussions between him and me, I'm always advocating having a government. He seems to oppose it all.

Pulp, in defense of your "living document" argument, you said...

Things change. Even the interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights must necessarily change as the times change.

Look, I really don't have an issue with changing as circumstances change. My issue is that of simply "reinterpreting" the clear intention of the framers. There is a mechanism to change the Constitution if, in fact, it is obsolescent or not effective for changing times. It is called "amending". Any act to "reinterpret" without using this process is a perversion of the intent. The reason this is done in this manner is not because it's inefficient (which, I agree, is to some extent, true) but because in many of these cases, there is no way they would reach the ratification threshold needed. This, then, is an end around to usurp power that is due, not the Federal government, but the people.

It is, in my mind, a criminal act of tyranny, for which there is no mechanism to punish except through, as Thomas Jefferson once suggested, revolution.
I certainly do not advocate such actions, but I can understand the motivation of those who do.

Countertrey wrote:Pulp, in defense of your "living document" argument, you said...

Things change. Even the interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights must necessarily change as the times change.

Look, I really don't have an issue with changing as circumstances change. My issue is that of simply "reinterpreting" the clear intention of the framers. There is a mechanism to change the Constitution if, in fact, it is obsolescent or not effective for changing times. It is called "amending". Any act to "reinterpret" without using this process is a perversion of the intent. The reason this is done in this manner is not because it's inefficient (which, I agree, is to some extent, true) but because in many of these cases, there is no way they would reach the ratification threshold needed. This, then, is an end around to usurp power that is due, not the Federal government, but the people.

It is, in my mind, a criminal act of tyranny, for which there is no mechanism to punish except through, as Thomas Jefferson once suggested, revolution.
I certainly do not advocate such actions, but I can understand the motivation of those who do.

I found this in the Constitution:

The Founding Fathers wrote:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

What I'm not finding is that 5/9 Supreme Politburo justices can decide "things change" and the Constitution needs to be modified by them in the way that they chose. I'm hoping Pulp can find that part for us...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:What I'm not finding is that 5/9 Supreme Politburo justices can decide "things change" and the Constitution needs to be modified by them in the way that they chose. I'm hoping Pulp can find that part for us...

Why? That's your strawman, not mine.

If you want to argue with Marbury v. Madison be my guest. I don't have the power to travel back to 1803, though.

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:What I'm not finding is that 5/9 Supreme Politburo justices can decide "things change" and the Constitution needs to be modified by them in the way that they chose. I'm hoping Pulp can find that part for us...

Why? That's your strawman, not mine.

If you want to argue with Marbury v. Madison be my guest. I don't have the power to travel back to 1803, though.

My strawman? You argued the supreme court can change the Constitution by simple majority vote because "things change." How is it "my" strawman?

I love the (lack of) logic practiced by lawyers.

- When I argue the Court is changing the Constitution, you argue Judicial review of the Constitution. I see Pulp, your argument is that enforcement of law is equivalent to the right to unilaterally change the law? As a logical exercise, your logic gives Bush the right to warrantless wiretap. I bet you don't even see that. You're plenty smart, but it's brains (you have) versus religion (you also have), religion always wins that war.

- But let's ignore that logical fallacy and assume that enforcement does equal right to "reinterpret" (:roll:). Your argument the Supreme Court has it is based on that...the...Supreme Court...gave it to themselves!



I hate religion. I bet in no other subject, including non political aspects of the law would you make such retarded arguments. But harrykirshna, harrykirshna..

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:What I'm not finding is that 5/9 Supreme Politburo justices can decide "things change" and the Constitution needs to be modified by them in the way that they chose. I'm hoping Pulp can find that part for us...

Why? That's your strawman, not mine.

If you want to argue with Marbury v. Madison be my guest. I don't have the power to travel back to 1803, though.

My strawman? You argued the supreme court can change the Constitution by simple majority vote because "things change." How is it "my" strawman?

Because that's not what I've said. At all. Where have I said that "the supreme court can change the Constitution by simple majority vote"?

Please find that statement.