I think he would have had more support had he not been so over the top on things. Reduce the Dept of Education significantly - but dont eliminate it. - as just one example.
But, there is substance there and I think he has the right direction.
Who Did You Vote For?
- Thread starter Joeychgo
- Start date
I think he would have had more support had he not been so over the top on things. Reduce the Dept of Education significantly - but dont eliminate it. - as just one example.
But, there is substance there and I think he has the right direction.
Oh, domestically I LUV the guy!! I DO think he is a little over the top, as you say. Some of what he says he would do, he couldn't do. He could start the ball roling, though. I do have a HUGE issue with his ideas of foreign policy, and his, frankly wrong interpretation of the constitution in regards to american foreign policy and military usage. Fossten and I are discussing it in the "Founding Fathers on Non-Intervention" thread. Not too sold on his leadership skills either. Not to sure he could get the political support he would need to inact the dramatic changes he talks about. Still, he has more substance then any democrat running as well as being much more up front and honest then McCain, the wicked witch of D.C., or Obama. Gotta luv that.
Yes, I think he could shake things up if nothing else.
My biggest fear is Hillary / Romney ballot. That would, imo, once again, be choosing which bullet I want to be shot with.
My biggest fear is Hillary / Romney ballot. That would, imo, once again, be choosing which bullet I want to be shot with.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
The right to privacy. Please, either read 1984 or watch the movie. Please.
It didn't use to be. The government took that over, just like they took over gun registration and started using SWAT teams with choppers and tanks to enforce $200 tax delinquencies.
ONEBADMK8
Dedicated LVC Member
OMG thats freakin hilarious!! Keep the Hellary stuff coming this is too funny.
a broad right to privacy isn't in the constitution. There are specific rights to privacy in the constitution in certian contexts (unreasonable search and seizure, etc.), but there is no overarching "right to privacy" in the constitution. That has been read into the constitution through judicial activism. I am tired, so I really don't wanna go into extensive detail tonight. Will try and come back to this tomorrow. Basically, the "right to privacy" was read into the constitution through the legal fiction that is "fundamental rights". David Limbaugh wrote a good piece on this, I'll see if I can find it.
*edit* found it:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...imbaugh&dt=08/23/2005&page=full&comments=true
As the Roberts Supreme Court confirmation hearings approach, it occurs to me that what we need is more than just a vetting of Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy. We're way overdue for a candid national debate, centered in the Senate, about the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional framework.
Senators, in their advice-and-consent role, routinely put judicial nominees on the hot seat about their views on particular constitutional issues, but what about the views of the senators themselves? Who ever asks them what they think about the separation of powers or the doctrine of federalism?
I have this fantasy that some enterprising conservative senator could use the Roberts hearings as an opportunity to initiate this important discussion. Then, instead of just viewing potential Supreme Court justices as policy-making agents to be supported or opposed based on their political views, we could delve into the more relevant issue of constitutional governance.
Perhaps a few days before Judge Roberts submits to his obligatory inquisition and show trial, someone like Sen. Orrin Hatch could call for a senate discussion on judicial philosophy and the constitutional role of the courts. The public is entitled to know which senators foster judicial tyranny by insisting that the courts have the power to rewrite the Constitution.
Wouldn't it be instructive, for example, to ask Sen. Barbara Boxer to justify her requirement that Supreme Court nominees promise to preserve certain "fundamental rights"? Perhaps she could first explain what she means by "fundamental rights." Are these rights that are so rooted in our national tradition that there has always been a consensus as to their existence and indispensability?
How about an unborn child's right to life? Fundamental enough for you? Or, would Boxer be talking instead about a mother's right to abort her child on demand?
If the right to an abortion were fundamental, wouldn't there have been a consensus for it among the individual states long before Roe v. Wade in 1973? But Justice Scalia, in his opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reminds us that the opposite is true. Scalia wrote, "the long-standing traditions of American society have permitted [abortion] to be legally proscribed." As such, the right couldn't possibly be considered fundamental in any real sense of that word.
What Boxer and company really mean by "fundamental rights" is rights that have been written into the Constitution by activist judges precisely because they weren't fundamental enough to have been included in the original Constitution or its amendments or uniformly passed into law by federal or state legislative bodies. They mean rights whose continued existence depends upon Supreme Court justices affirming erroneous precedent established by their activist predecessors.
This is much more serious than it sounds. In demanding that would-be justices uphold precedent that has no grounding in the Constitution, Boxer and her like-minded colleagues are trying to extract a commitment from them that they will conspire to disenfranchise the people.
Though they're always boasting that most Americans support abortion rights, these senators obviously don't want to take the chance that Roe will be reversed, because state legislatures may decide to outlaw or more strictly regulate abortion. Thus in the name of protecting "fundamental rights," the will of the people and the integrity of the Constitution, they circumvent the will of the people and undermine the Constitution.
In a nutshell, that's what's so sinister and insidious about this "progressive" notion that the Constitution is an evolving document. When judges can make the Constitution say whatever they want it to without regard to the original understanding of those who signed and ratified it, the fixed basis upon which all our rights depend degenerates from concrete to sand. Our constitutional rights are no more secure than the whims of the unaccountable majority of the current Supreme Court.
I just wish that one time one of these sanctimonious senators started lecturing a nominee about a woman's fundamental "right to choose," another senator or the nominee would have the courage to throw back in his face the sanctity of the Constitution. I wish that one time a ranting senator began railing about the potential loss of "fundamental rights" someone would point out that the extraconstitutional method for creating mythical fundamental rights places in jeopardy our entire constitutional scheme of rights and liberties.
Instead of, or at least preceding, the inevitable rash of pseudo-indignant sermons from constitution-disrespecting senators about "fundamental rights," we would be better served by a national dialogue on the fundamental importance of preserving the original understanding of the Constitution.
Senators, in their advice-and-consent role, routinely put judicial nominees on the hot seat about their views on particular constitutional issues, but what about the views of the senators themselves? Who ever asks them what they think about the separation of powers or the doctrine of federalism?
I have this fantasy that some enterprising conservative senator could use the Roberts hearings as an opportunity to initiate this important discussion. Then, instead of just viewing potential Supreme Court justices as policy-making agents to be supported or opposed based on their political views, we could delve into the more relevant issue of constitutional governance.
Perhaps a few days before Judge Roberts submits to his obligatory inquisition and show trial, someone like Sen. Orrin Hatch could call for a senate discussion on judicial philosophy and the constitutional role of the courts. The public is entitled to know which senators foster judicial tyranny by insisting that the courts have the power to rewrite the Constitution.
Wouldn't it be instructive, for example, to ask Sen. Barbara Boxer to justify her requirement that Supreme Court nominees promise to preserve certain "fundamental rights"? Perhaps she could first explain what she means by "fundamental rights." Are these rights that are so rooted in our national tradition that there has always been a consensus as to their existence and indispensability?
How about an unborn child's right to life? Fundamental enough for you? Or, would Boxer be talking instead about a mother's right to abort her child on demand?
If the right to an abortion were fundamental, wouldn't there have been a consensus for it among the individual states long before Roe v. Wade in 1973? But Justice Scalia, in his opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, reminds us that the opposite is true. Scalia wrote, "the long-standing traditions of American society have permitted [abortion] to be legally proscribed." As such, the right couldn't possibly be considered fundamental in any real sense of that word.
What Boxer and company really mean by "fundamental rights" is rights that have been written into the Constitution by activist judges precisely because they weren't fundamental enough to have been included in the original Constitution or its amendments or uniformly passed into law by federal or state legislative bodies. They mean rights whose continued existence depends upon Supreme Court justices affirming erroneous precedent established by their activist predecessors.
This is much more serious than it sounds. In demanding that would-be justices uphold precedent that has no grounding in the Constitution, Boxer and her like-minded colleagues are trying to extract a commitment from them that they will conspire to disenfranchise the people.
Though they're always boasting that most Americans support abortion rights, these senators obviously don't want to take the chance that Roe will be reversed, because state legislatures may decide to outlaw or more strictly regulate abortion. Thus in the name of protecting "fundamental rights," the will of the people and the integrity of the Constitution, they circumvent the will of the people and undermine the Constitution.
In a nutshell, that's what's so sinister and insidious about this "progressive" notion that the Constitution is an evolving document. When judges can make the Constitution say whatever they want it to without regard to the original understanding of those who signed and ratified it, the fixed basis upon which all our rights depend degenerates from concrete to sand. Our constitutional rights are no more secure than the whims of the unaccountable majority of the current Supreme Court.
I just wish that one time one of these sanctimonious senators started lecturing a nominee about a woman's fundamental "right to choose," another senator or the nominee would have the courage to throw back in his face the sanctity of the Constitution. I wish that one time a ranting senator began railing about the potential loss of "fundamental rights" someone would point out that the extraconstitutional method for creating mythical fundamental rights places in jeopardy our entire constitutional scheme of rights and liberties.
Instead of, or at least preceding, the inevitable rash of pseudo-indignant sermons from constitution-disrespecting senators about "fundamental rights," we would be better served by a national dialogue on the fundamental importance of preserving the original understanding of the Constitution.
I should clarify; driving on roads built by the government is considered a privilage, not a right.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Ya, he's really shaking things up with the 4% he just got on Super Tuesday.
It's the messenger.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
No, driving on roads PAID FOR by its citizens is a right, not a privilege.
The government doesn't provide anything that should be considered a privilege. Without citizens paying into the government, the government doesn't exist.
Right now the government pretty much exists to protect us with a military and to redistribute wealth.
turborich
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
ford nut
Local nut case
It is always a choice between head or gut.
I didn't like Bush but what choice did you have ?
It looks like your choice will be Wicked witch of the west wing or McLiar.
mrplease
LVC Member
Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mrplease
LVC Member
i too have never participated in a campaign or donated money to a canidate until now. as of now i am the vice president of my precinct and am hoping to be elected a delegate tomorrow...
this is the first time for my wife as well. i think she might be even more passionate for the cause than me...
RON PAUL!
this is the first time for my wife as well. i think she might be even more passionate for the cause than me...
RON PAUL!
While I can't recall the exact case at the moment, the Supreme Court has recognized that driving is a privillage, not a right. So legally, you are wrong. While you can argue weather something should or should not be a privillage or right, there needs to be a constitutional basis for the government to recognize that right. The closest you could come, in that manner, to claiming that driving is a right is go with the right to travel (in the pursuit of happiness). The problem with that argument is that you are guarenteed that right but not the means to that right (in this case driving). The means to exercise a right are not part of the guarentee of that right. If they were, then I should be guarenteed as much money as I feel neccessary to pursue happiness.
Lesser courts have ruled that you have a right to travel on the road in an automobile, but not a right to drive, or "operate a motor vehicle" on those roads.
You can't just claim something is a right. You need a legal constitutional basis for it. Operating a motor vehicle is considered a legal priviliage. Period. There really is no debating that one.
Also, just because the government builts and maintains something with taxpayer dollars doesn't mean you have a right to it or to use it. there is more to it then that. Military bases and all the weapons on them are property of the government, built and purchased with taxpayer dollars. You can't just walk on to a military base and grab any government weapon you like and use it, you don't have that right.
Again, there has to be a legal constitutional basis for a right, otherwise, it doesn't exist.
ford nut
Local nut case
Thread is getting a little of topic ?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Really? So now you're an advocate that the government has the power to grant us our rights? I've got news for you, I don't need government to tell me that I have the right, for example, to protect myself with a firearm. I was born with that right, given to me by God.
As far as a Supreme Court decision stating that driving is not a right, LINK or SLINK my friend.
No, quite the opposite actually. Our rights are based on the idea of Natural Law (they come from God), as opposed to positivism (rights come from the state). Nepalitano has a good explanation of the two in his book "Constitutional Chaos". That is why our Bill of Rights is a restriction of the Federal government, not a granting of rights. As such, government cannot grant rights, only recognize them, and can only take them away with due process.
The rights government recognizes are spelled out in the Constitution. A broad right to privacy, and a right to operate motor vehicles on government roads aren't in the constitution. There is a set procedure to amend the constitution to recognize those rights. We are a nation of laws; if someone can just claim whatever "rights" they want, that gets flushed down the drain.
People can't just assume rights because they think they should have them. There is a specific reason why each right was recognized in the constitution and why certian other "rights" were not. The Framers had a very specific understanding of what peoples rights were and were not. To say you have a "right to drive on public roads" (basically, that you have a right where none exists) is to A: diminish what rights are and aren't, B: assume your own definition of "rights" above that of the Framers, and C: throw out the constitution.
Basically, this is you standard argument against judicial activism.