Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Judge Napolitano: What If?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Judge Napolitano: What If? (Read 309 times)
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4353
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Judge Napolitano: What If?
Reply #10 - Oct 2nd, 2018 at 11:11am
Print Post  
I love this line from your post:

Quote:
While the Kavanaugh hearings devolved into partisan acrimony, Congress was also serving up reminders of what happens when nearly everyone agrees.


You remember that bolded phrase?

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
  

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

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36063
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Judge Napolitano: What If?
Reply #11 - Oct 2nd, 2018 at 12:15pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 11:11am:
I love this line from your post:


You remember that bolded phrase?

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
If you have a government such as the one designed by our Constitution, the government has no power to act outside it's granted powers, even if "everyone agrees".

That was the main purpose of dividing the powers and responsibilities of our government.

Even if all of the House of Representatives went along with some mad scheme to appropriate all of the property owned by "the rich" (which they are granted no power to do), the Senate, whose members were appointed by the state legislators, would not agree.

Even if both houses of Congress somehow found themselves in agreement to violate the Constitution, the President was expected to veto the law, and if even the President went along, the Courts were supposed to act as the last bulwark of our liberty and strike down the law as unconstitutional.

Surely you can see how "progressives" ruined the plan?

Not only by expanding the powers of Congress virtually without limit, but by making both houses of Congress dependent on the popular vote and putting forward a claim that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Constitution?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4353
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Judge Napolitano: What If?
Reply #12 - Oct 2nd, 2018 at 12:44pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 12:15pm:
If you have a government such as the one designed by our Constitution, the government has no power to act outside it's granted powers, even if "everyone agrees".

That was the main purpose of dividing the powers and responsibilities of our government.

Even if all of the House of Representatives went along with some mad scheme to appropriate all of the property owned by "the rich" (which they are granted no power to do), the Senate, whose members were appointed by the state legislators, would not agree.

Even if both houses of Congress somehow found themselves in agreement to violate the Constitution, the President was expected to veto the law, and if even the President went along, the Courts were supposed to act as the last bulwark of our liberty and strike down the law as unconstitutional.

Surely you can see how "progressives" ruined the plan?


If you count George Washington and the passers of the Whiskey Tax as progressives, you're correct.

Quote:


Not only by expanding the powers of Congress virtually without limit, but by making both houses of Congress dependent on the popular vote and putting forward a claim that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Constitution?


But that marginalizing of the Constitutional limits has been gradual and began almost immediately.  The Whiskey tax wasn't even that gradual.  It was 25% on small producers while larger producers came out ahead due to being able to pay a flat fee. 

Quote:
Additionally, cash was always in short supply on the frontier, so whiskey often served as a medium of exchange. For poorer people who were paid in whiskey, the excise was essentially an income tax that wealthier easterners did not pay.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-17

Your beatification of the genocidal slave-holders who wrote the constitution is misplaced.

  

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

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36063
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Judge Napolitano: What If?
Reply #13 - Oct 2nd, 2018 at 1:25pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 12:44pm:
If you count George Washington and the passers of the Whiskey Tax as progressives, you're correct.
I do not. The idea of discouraging the use of alcohol is a reformist progressive idea, but one deviation does not turn a liberty loving person into a "progressive".
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36063
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Judge Napolitano: What If?
Reply #14 - Oct 2nd, 2018 at 1:31pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 12:44pm:
But that marginalizing of the Constitutional limits has been gradual and began almost immediately.
You are correct. Not everyone in even the first governments of America was a classical liberal.

Nevertheless, the limits largely held until the Progressive Era, because the limits were still
there in the Constitution. Not until FDR were the "progressives" bold enough to create a Constitution that contained general powers out of whole cloth. Not until "progressives" had pushed through the ratification of the 16th Amendment was anyone bold enough to purport that the taxing power had no limits. Not until the Progressive Era did anyone in America advocate for wholesale control of the economy and wealth redistribution by the government.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36063
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Judge Napolitano: What If?
Reply #15 - Oct 2nd, 2018 at 1:35pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 12:44pm:
Your beatification of the genocidal slave-holders who wrote the constitution is misplaced.
You are mistaken to call the slavers genocidal. They thought of slaves as valuable property at the least, as human beings that they didn't know what to do with at best.

I have great respect for the ideals of the Declaration and the Constitution and for the men who were bold enough to form a government based on those ideals, as far as was possible in their time and place.

That they compromised with the slave states in order to persuade them to join the union was done in the service of liberty, not slavery.

Unlike you, the founders were not short sighted.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8059
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Judge Napolitano: What If?
Reply #16 - Oct 2nd, 2018 at 11:30pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 1:25pm:
I do not. The idea of discouraging the use of alcohol is a reformist progressive idea, but one deviation does not turn a liberty loving person into a "progressive".


What if I don't believe people have self-ownership? That's one deviation.
  

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: 36063
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Judge Napolitano: What If?
Reply #17 - Oct 3rd, 2018 at 8:42am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 11:30pm:
What if I don't believe people have self-ownership? That's one deviation.
It's a very fundamental deviation. Of another order than hoping that making alcohol more expensive will improve society...

I've mentioned that I don't believe the Whiskey tax was legal because I believe the rule of uniformity for Indirect taxes prevents picking any specific product or transaction for taxation and actually requires that if revenue is to be raised from an excise/sales tax, that all products must be taxed at the same rate.

Nevertheless, I think the Whiskey tax was not intended to punish western farmers, which was the effect it had, but was merely intended to raise revenue to pay the debts incurred by the government during the Revolutionary War.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4353
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Judge Napolitano: What If?
Reply #18 - Oct 3rd, 2018 at 10:34am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 1:35pm:
You are mistaken to call the slavers genocidal. They thought of slaves as valuable property at the least, as human beings that they didn't know what to do with at best.



I'm speaking of the genocide of the American tribal people.

Quote:
I have great respect for the ideals of the Declaration and the Constitution and for the men who were bold enough to form a government based on those ideals, as far as was possible in their time and place.

That they compromised with the slave states in order to persuade them to join the union was done in the service of liberty, not slavery.




The founders didn't compromise with the slavers.  Overwhelmingly, the founders were the slavers.
  

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

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4353
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Judge Napolitano: What If?
Reply #19 - Oct 3rd, 2018 at 11:47am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Oct 3rd, 2018 at 8:42am:
Nevertheless, I think the Whiskey tax was not intended to punish western farmers, which was the effect it had, but was merely intended to raise revenue to pay the debts incurred by the government during the Revolutionary War.


That’s the same logic Washington et al used to justify slavery:  “Slavery is not intended to dehumanize people based on skin color.  We just got a crop of cotton to be picked and cotton pickin’ white boys are just too dang expensive!  I say, I say.”
« Last Edit: Oct 3rd, 2018 at 2:10pm by Snarky Sack »  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Judge Napolitano: What If?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy