Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights. (Read 629 times)
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4393
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Sep 17th, 2018 at 1:12pm
Print Post  
So if freedom of speech is not an absolute right, what do we need it to be in the constitution for?  If government can only pass anti-speech laws that are “reasonable” and if government is the only judge of the “reasonableness” of the laws, what’s that amendment for?  The founders used the word reasonable in the third amendment, so why not the first if that was their intent?

The second amendment was a sales job.  It can be read to mean no limits on private ownership of weapons or it can be read to mean only state-regulated militias have the “right” to bear arms.  The framers intended it that way so that it could be sold to people with widely diverse views on private gun ownership.

I could go on and on, but you get the point.   The idea that listing certain rights doesn’t disparage others is laughable.  Of course it does and the USSC has ruled many times that a proposed right does not exist because it is not in the constitution.

Our ancestors fell for it.  Shame on us if we keep celebrating the con job.


  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8120
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Reply #1 - Sep 17th, 2018 at 10:23pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Sep 17th, 2018 at 1:12pm:
So if freedom of speech is not an absolute right, what do we need it to be in the constitution for?  If government can only pass anti-speech laws that are “reasonable” and if government is the only judge of the “reasonableness” of the laws, what’s that amendment for?


So old farts can moan and groan when the speech they like gets stamped out, but still not rebel because most of the time, they agree. I guess.

Populism.

Yeah, because representative government guards so well against that.

From where we sit now, having people vote on policy directly looks pretty good.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36212
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Reply #2 - Sep 19th, 2018 at 5:46pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 17th, 2018 at 10:23pm:
So old farts can moan and groan when the speech they like gets stamped out, but still not rebel because most of the time, they agree. I guess.

Populism.

Yeah, because representative government guards so well against that.

From where we sit now, having people vote on policy directly looks pretty good.
Ha ha.

Pure democracy in any human group larger than five very good friends always fails horribly.

Trump is a classic populist.

Populism is usually nothing more than a political ploy to gain power so you can accomplish your own goals. Sometimes the political capital is honestly earned by actually doing something wildly popular like reducing crime in NYC while at the same time crippling the political machine that has been bleeding the populace in order to remain in control.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36212
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Reply #3 - Sep 19th, 2018 at 5:47pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Sep 17th, 2018 at 1:12pm:
So if freedom of speech is not an absolute right, what do we need it to be in the constitution for?
We agree with the people who argued that inclusion of a Bill of Rights was a dangerous thing to do?

I'm proud of you! I had no idea your understanding was that sophisticated. Kiss
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36212
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Reply #4 - Sep 19th, 2018 at 5:54pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Sep 17th, 2018 at 1:12pm:
The second amendment was a sales job.  It can be read to mean no limits on private ownership of weapons...
Context you idiot, context!

In it's context, the 2nd Amendment expresses an unqualified preexisting veto over the national government's ability to infringe the right in the slightest way.

In this case, you must use the obsolete meaning of infringe-

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

If you do not use the meaning of the term at the time it was used, you can easily reach the wrong conclusions when trying to understand the real meaning of the Constitution.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8118
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Reply #5 - Sep 19th, 2018 at 6:09pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 5:54pm:
In it's context, the 2nd Amendment expresses an unqualified preexisting veto over the national government's ability to infringe the right in the slightest way.

I agree with this, but we must accept the fact that state governments routinely violate the second amendment whenever a new gun-control measure is passed.

California is the worst offender.

sidenote:

Bill Clinton was disbarred for trying to fool around with the legal definitions of simple words.

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

This idiotic gaffe is the reason Clinton got disbarred.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36212
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Reply #6 - Sep 19th, 2018 at 6:52pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 6:09pm:
I agree with this, but we must accept the fact that state governments routinely violate the second amendment whenever a new gun-control measure is passed.

One of your constant tiring refrains is that "we must accept" pretty much every violation of our rights by our own governments.

Why do you keep saying that "we" must accept usurpation of powers and infringements on our rights?

I don't. I see it as illegal and treasonous.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36212
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Reply #7 - Sep 19th, 2018 at 6:55pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 6:09pm:
Bill Clinton was disbarred for trying to fool around with the legal definitions of simple words.

He lied under oath, is that what you're trying to say?

He broke the law, and an association of lawyers with great power understood that lawbreakers are not suitable to be Officers of the Court, so they kicked him out.

Do judges have the power to disbar lawyers?

I should hope so...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8118
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Reply #8 - Sep 20th, 2018 at 12:30am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 6:52pm:
One of your constant tiring refrains is that "we must accept" pretty much every violation of our rights by our own governments.

Why do you keep saying that "we" must accept usurpation of powers and infringements on our rights?

I don't. I see it as illegal and treasonous.

When I say "we", I mean we American citizens - not you and me specifically.

In very small steps, we lose liberties which are protected by Constitutional Laws.  Even the Supreme Court ignores Constitutional Law when it suits them (re: PATRIOT Act of 2001).

What course of action do you propose to end the usurpation of powers and infringements on our rights?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4393
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Reply #9 - Sep 20th, 2018 at 7:54am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 5:54pm:
Context you idiot, context!

In it's context, the 2nd Amendment expresses an unqualified preexisting veto over the national government's ability to infringe the right in the slightest way.

In this case, you must use the obsolete meaning of infringe-

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

If you do not use the meaning of the term at the time it was used, you can easily reach the wrong conclusions when trying to understand the real meaning of the Constitution.


So, the federal government has no power to ban private ownership of nuclear weapons?

  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Constitution Day, Part II - the Bill of (non-absolute) rights.
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy