The odd man out - Liberal Constitutionalists

[bob.a]

An interesting take on the gay marriage issue: the govt seems to have incorporated legal protections into the marriage act, which I suspect informs the drive for gays to marry. Is this itself a violation of separation of church and state?

Regarding pot, and other victimless crimes: why should my tax dollars be spent chasing and incarcerating people who are arguably doing no harm to anyone except themselves? It seems to me that the act of making this sort of thing illegal plays into the hands of the criminal classes, as well as promoting a huge transfer of wealth to parts of the third world, and to groups therein, whom I'd rather not support.

Way too much government, with no easy way to undo all the bureaucracy.

 

[mskdgunman]

I knew I liked this place for a reason. I've always told people that I hold many conservative views while on many other subjects, I'm surprisingly liberal. I feel that anyone who votes or believes things strictly by party affialiation (whatever party that may be) is a sheep simply following the herd with no independent thoughts or ideas.

To blindly say that you agree with all repbulican/democratic party ideas or proposals is silly in the extreme because both parties can come up with some incredibly stupid stuff. It would be nice if a viable third party would form as a hoome for the rest of us non conformists who can't seem to cram ourselves into the whole republican/democrat/conservative/liberal box...I am all of the above and consider myself an American above all else. Where do we fit in?

I think that if the truth were to be known, the majority of Americans fall into this catagory of being someplace in the middle of the road but have become complacent and feel that to speak out against the two parties is useless. It's like I can't be in favor of the death penelty and support conservation and green energy at the same time or favor pro choice while also believing in harsh immigration reforms and an effective socialized medical program for all naturalized citizens...I'm not a one sided individual and anyone who is truely being honest with themselves will admit that about themselves. To say otherwise is simply deceiving ones self and moving with the herd to the edge of the cliff.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Buddy you are on the same boat as the rest of us.

Marriage has historically been the joining of man and woman for the purposes of procreation

Traditionally, but as others have pointed out, no longer in the US legal environment and to a large extent not culturally either. I would love to see the US government stop using the word marriage and switch to Civil Union for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The church is where you get married and in the courtroom you can enter into an entirely different and unrelated legal contract with another person. I believe many churches would be better able to provide and help people get through marriages if they were independent of the legal civil unions.

I know a lot of people who smoke pot. I am sure most of you do or have in the past. People you work with or are in organizations with. Their smoking of pot does not negatively affect me beyond their driving while high if they do it. I have never had someone threaten me when high or try to pick a fight with me. I certainly can not say the same about drunk people. Where I am negatively affected is the crime related to the criminal organizations and the artificially inflated drug prices in the US. How often do you hear of an individual stealing to buy a pack of cigarettes or a case of beer? It happens, but not often. My impression is Marijuana and several other common drugs border on being weeds and are very easy to grow in many climates. I think the price would drop significantly.
And what happens if we give people the chance to shoot heroin for $10-15 a day? Well most druggies will take their normal budget and go on a bender. Most won't survive. Did I do something wrong when I gave them the CHOICE to OD? Absolutely not. Probably open up a lot of space in the prison system long term. It is not my personal responsibility, nor the responsibility of the government to protect people from themself.

On abortion. Whether it is moral or immoral the US government has no responsibility protecting non-citizens and non-residents from being killed. Will people who have abortions go to hell? If there is one, and as an atheist I do not believe there is, I can't imagine what could send you there if killing your own child out of convenience does not. What the US gov't should do is separate the statistics of natural abortions(miscarriages) and "abortions." This statistical blurr makes it hard to see what the long term effects of abortions are on the mother, and that makes it hard to dissuade a mother considering the procedure. If the religious right would switch gears and get that done first it would make the latter steps easier.

Sometimes the government should not be involved, even if there is a moral or ethical quandary.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I'd suggest getting this one onto firearms, one way or another.....

or at least something besides gay marriage.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I don't think this thread is long for this world anyway, peetza. It's largely off-topic to begin with, and bound to remain so.

Jofaba, you aren't alone. There are pro-gun folks of all stripes out there, and even a few (like myself) in here. I fall almost entirely in the Democratic camp except for gun issues...I won't pretend to be a libertarian, or classical liberal, or fiscal conservative but social liberal or anything but a gun-totin' somewhat moderate liberal.

The reason you'll often find it boil down to Republican versus Democrat is because, at the end of the day, our government is driven by a two-party system. Regardless of where you fall on a large spectrum of issues, eventually you have to go participate in an election with only two candidates that have any real chance of winning. That's not changing absent some serious changes to the electoral process.

A (in my experience relatively small) minority of gun enthusiasts are going to fall into the quasi-liberal (in the modern sense) camp...and many will wind up either supporting Republicans anyway (for gun rights) or just keep quiet (for their own sanity). A larger minority will be libertarian-types, but it seems like many of them will still vote Republican because at the end of the day they're more concerned about gun rights and (slightly) more limited government than the principle of maintaining a bunch of rights they don't intend to exercise. The rest will just tend to be Republicans, largely because the parts of the country where firearms ownership and use are still common tend to also be largely Republican.

 

[pendennis]

Let's see...

I don't think this thread is long for this world anyway, peetza. It's largely off-topic to begin with, and bound to remain so.

One of the original questions were..

Is there something wrong with defending the second amendment while calling for nationalized health care?

Nationalized (socialistic) health care, is a direct refuting of individual rights. The original ten amendments to the constitution were all aimed at insuring retention of individual's and states' rights.

The most important of these is the Second Amendment. As an individual right, it's the one which provides a secure foundation for the others. It's very difficult to deny one's freedom of speech, or "the right of the people to be secure in their persons...", when authorities may face armed resistance.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Nationalized (socialistic) health care, is a direct refuting of individual rights. The original ten amendments to the constitution were all aimed at insuring retention of individual's and states' rights.

I fail to see how. I'd agree that it's certainly outside of the powers of the federal government as given in the Constitution, but I fail to see which individual right is infringed there. Obviously the rights enumerated in the Constitution aren't exhaustive (it explicitly says so) but I'm not really seeing any right to "lower taxes" nor a right to a "choice" of health care/insurance on the free market.

While I'm more than willing to entertain arguments as to the benefits of nationalized health care (I'm not particularly in favor of it, to be honest) I don't see where civil rights come into play. I'm seeing no fundamental difference between the government taking control of health care and funding it through taxes rather than leaving it to private providers and, I don't know, the government doing the same for police services or schools.

Of course, the latter are (largely) run at levels below the federal. But again, that's a separation of powers issue not an individual rights issue.

 

[Enoy21]

My guess is the Individual right is by taking my money (via taxes) in order to help and support those that have not worked as hard as myself in order to make sure we all have mediocre health care.

Benn that's just my interpretation of what he's saying.

 

[Jekyll]

When the government tells you what you can buy, and from whom, when, where and at what price, YOU LOSE YOUR LIBERTY.

Government healthcare will turn into cost-benefit-analysis based rationing of federal resources. Where do you find expansion or maintenance of individual liberty in that solution?

The federal system was set up to let Sovereign States maintain the choices and policies each desires. In this regard, the founding fathers established a process that allows you to FREELY emigrate to Massachusetts to obtain state-managed health care if you desire such or to emigrate to a state without state-managed health care. When the federal government mandates something, you loose the liberty to choose what you think is best for you while also being forced to pay for the imposed solution. Government health care is not free; the federal government does not add value or generate wealth. It simple and clearly redistributes resources. Federal healthcare only comes by forcibly taking money away from people in order to give services to others. TELL THOSE THAT HAVE THEIR MONEY TAKEN FROM THEM THAT THEY HAVEN'T LOST ANY LIBERTY!

 

[JuanCarlos]

My guess is the Individual right is by taking my money (via taxes) in order to help and support those that have not worked as hard as myself in order to make sure we all have mediocre health care.

Benn that's just my interpretation of what he's saying.

Would you say the same for schools? Because I can easily replace "health care" with "education" in your statement.

When the government tells you what you can buy, and from whom, when, where and at what price, YOU LOSE YOUR LIBERTY.

Government healthcare will turn into cost-benefit-anlysis based rationing of federal resources. Where do you find expansion or maintenance of individual liberty in that solution?

The federal system was set up to let Soveriegn States maintain the choices and policies each desires. In this regard, the founding fathers established a process that allows you to FREELY emmigrate to Massechusets to obtain state-managed helath care if you desire such or to emmegrate to a state without state-managed health care. When the federal governemnt mandates something, you loose the liberty to choose what you think is best for you while also being forced to pay for the imposed solution. Governemtn health care is not free, the federal governement does not add value or generate wealth. It simple and clearly redistributes resources. Federal helthcare only comes by forceably taking money away from people in order to give services to others. TELL THOSE THAT HAVE THEIR MONEY TAKEN FROM THEM THAT THEY HAVEN'T LOST ANY LIBERTY!

Again, everything you say would apply to public education as well...though I suppose it depends if any private health care alternatives remained (as some private schools do). Or most services the government provides (police, fire, etc.). I can't think of any state I can emigrate to where I won't be taxed for these things. And neither the Constitution nor the founding fathers seem to have any solution if, by some chance, all fifty states were to institute such a policy. Where would you easily emigrate to then?

So yeah, still not seeing an individual rights issue here. If your state can do it to you, and if all fifty states can do the same should they choose, it seems more like a separation of powers issue...which is to say that the problem is that the federal government is doing it, not that the government is doing it.

EDIT: Also the "tell those that have had their money taken" argument is a complete red herring.

EDIT: Lastly, having endured the Army healthcare system (no offense to any here who may have been a part of it...the issue was mostly systemic, not the individuals within it) I have very little desire to see what kind of nationalized healthcare system the federal government would foist upon us. But that's not the issue here.

 

[Jekyll]

I'm always amazed at the number of ignorant people that look to government as if it were some magical entity possessing a bottomless well from which to ladle money.

I want more, please. Let's give this away, etc. They seem to have no concept that the money is actually TAKEN from other people. Money is nothing more that the accepted liquid expression of our labors, our property and our liberty. Taking money through unfair, exorbitant taxes is nothing more than taking our labor, our property and our liberty. Government healthcare boils down to the ugly math of reducing the liberty of some with the misguided goal of increasing liberty for others. In the end, you can never increase liberty by redistribution because any government that takes liberty from some of its citizens can't pass on an equal level of liberty others. Some might think it to be a zero sum game but the very act of taking liberty is far more injurious to the governed than is the benefit gained by a few through new liberty. A government that capriciously takes liberty is dangerous to all. Tomorrow it may come for your liberty.

This brings this thread back to guns and the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is or only true protection from tyranny and ignorance.

 

[Jekyll]

Would you say the same for schools? Because I can easily replace "health care" with "education" in your statement.

Yes, without a doubt. Education should be a local issue and not a federal issue. Federal involvement takes liberty away form the Sovereign States and the People. It is not supported by the Constitution.

You have used a tactic many try because they don't understand our federated system. Those issues not otherwise enumerated reside with the States and People. Some states will want to have the best school system and others may decide to have something less. That is the right of each state. The electorate of each state gets to elect its leaders and determine their levels. A state that believes in providing a world-class school system for its citizens should not be forced to pay for the underfunding of another state. When states realize they loose business and revenue to states with better schools, they will change their system to compete.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Would you say the same for schools? Because I can easily replace "health care" with "education" in your statement.

Yes, without a doubt. Education should be a local issue and not a federal issue. Federal involvement takes liberty away form the Sovereign States and the People. It is not supported by the Constitution.

You have used a tactic many try because they don't understand our federated system. Those issues not otherwise enumerated reside with the States and People. Some states will want to have the best school system and others may decide to have something less. That is the right of each state. The electorate of each state gets to elect its leaders and determine their levels. A state that believes in providing a world-class school system for its citizens should not be forced to pay for the underfunding of another state. When states realize they loose business and revenue to states with better schools, they will change their system to compete.

Of course. Well, except for those states that economically can't.

I guess I just have a different definition of individual rights, at least in the context it was being used. Again, if my state can do it, and if all fifty states can do it, I don't see it as an infringement on my individual rights. For instance, no state can violate the Constitutional rights that have been incorporated. And I'd like to see a couple more (like the second amendment) fall under that umbrella.

The fact that your issue is with the federal government doing it, and not that it's being done to begin with, is why I say it's a separation of powers issue and not really much of a civil rights issue. Because every state, every last state, takes money from those that have more and gives it in some way or another to those that have less. But it's okay, because the state is doing it.

They seem to have no concept that the money is actually TAKEN from other people.

I pay taxes. In a couple short months I'll be paying even more (welcome to the top quintile!). Are there people who pay more than me? Sure. But I'll still be paying more in taxes than most.

 

[Jekyll]

My state has a constitution which is a contract between it and my fellow citizens. I don't expect the state to violate its constitution either. There are things that belong to the federal government, things that belong to the state governments and things that belong to the individual. The federal government doesn't need to worry too much about individuals taking from it. It has the power of the military, courts, police forces and the IRS. The people need to be alert to the government taking from us. We don't have the same power to enforce our individual rights.

Again, I say that federally mandated healthcare or education is a violation because it takes those issues that are rights reserved to the states and the people: the very definition of taking away liberty.

 

[Jofaba]

Another thing that I stated in the welcome thread is that while opinionated, I consider myself always learning and open to resculpting my opinions based on debate and education.

I can see what you're saying about nationalized health care. My biggest gripe is that every other industrialized nation has it, and even though the number the news is toting says 50 million Americans, there is a large chunk of those covered that get denied services, and in the end the pay-for model is just as corrupt and inept as how we can imagine a government run system would be.

I am open to "affordable health care" in a capitalist marketplace if it works. I would take that over nationalized, to be honest. If I get cancer and it doesn't put me $400,000 into debt, then we're onto something.

True, lets bring this back around to subject though.

The purpose of this drunken rant from last night was to ask why it seems that it's almost looked down upon to pick what you believe is right, and find yourself skittled out 50/50 between both parties,or even a few sideliners that aren't covered by either.

I feel that McCain is a very honorable man, and I believe that he deserved the presidency at one point in his life, and it's a shame that that time passed him by in the past. I don't think that he was the right man to cover all our bases at this time, but I voted with my breath held because I knew that there was a chance that this would severely affect my life and our country in one of our most important rights. I decided that there was a lot at stake across all the issues, and I hoped that we could change his mind on this one aspect, one of the only that I disagreed with him on.

I am new to guns, true, and I am new to caring about the 2nd amendment as much as I now do. I am continuing to learn and find it more and more important every single day. I admit a level of naivite as I go forward. I can be considered a "recent convert". I am 27 years old, not 47, I don't have the years of experience and knowledge that many of you have.

I may end up regretting my vote. I don't currently yet. I am feeling pains from it, and if there is an organized movement to protest against losing our 2nd amendment rights, I will join those voices.

I appreciate all comments from each side of thought, I am learning a lot from all of you.

Thank you.

- Joshua

 

[pendennis]

JuanCarlos -

The U.S. Constitution was written in order to limit the power of the Federal government. It was well-studied by Mason, Adams, and others. They also closely studied existing governments, and their role in the lives of their citizens.

The bastardization of the Constitution has come about by over-reliance on a judiciary, which has played an increasing role in what should be the realm of the Legislative branch.

The Congress has also usurped powers from the Executive. The War Powers Act comes to mind. They have also hidden behind the commerce clause to interfere in education, health care, and business.

With the adoption of the XIII Amendment, Congress gained increasing powers which further limited states' and individual rights. Using language like "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.",

The Federal courts and Congress have federalized elections. Nowhere in the Constitution does the language call for national elections, per se. States had the original say so over elections. The XV Amendment only guarantees the right to vote.

Yes, individual rights have been usurped by a Federal government which has increasingly used the Federal tax codes for social engineering. That, in and of itself, is a violation of individual rights. It amounts to wealth redistribution of wealth, which is socialist/collectivist on its face.

 

[Al Norris]

I'd suggest getting this one onto firearms, one way or another.....

or at least something besides gay marriage.

How many times must we inform folks that firearms are not the be-all and end-all of topics in this sub-forum?

And while homosexuality, in general, is a forbidden topic, the topic of gay marriage and government law (in the sense of Federal law), is on topic, generally, with the comments made by the OP.

Besides, they aren't even the main thrust of this thread. They are merely an incidental topic. Which brings me to...

I don't think this thread is long for this world anyway, peetza. It's largely off-topic to begin with, and bound to remain so.

How So?

Not all topics must be civil rights related. Many can and should be related to Law.

Pendennis, in post #26, quoted from the OP. I differ from his opinion about any civil rights relationship, as I see it as a relationship between what the Feds do and are doing and what the Constitution is supposed to restrict them from doing.

Oh Pendennis? What we call the Second Amendment, was originally the fourth Article of amendment proposed to the States as a Bill of Rights (the 1st Article has yet to be ratified and the 2nd Article was finally ratified and became our 27th amendment).

This has loosely been what a few members have posted about since the thread opened. Liberal or Conservative, you ignore at your peril that the Constitution was designed to limit Federal authority.

That to me, has been the actual and main topic of this thread. Nevertheless, my finger has been poised over the "Lock Thread" button, since it opened.

 

[Jofaba]

Nevertheless, my finger has been poised over the "Lock Thread" button, since it opened.

I am sorry to hear that and hope that it doesn't happen. It's been a very engaging and enlightening conversation, and seeing others with similar feelings about even opposing viewpoints has been a beneficial experience, at least for me.

Even if the thread does get locked, I would like to thank you all again for your involvement, and it's definitely given me a lot to think about,and I look forward to picking your brains on these forums in the future.

 

[bessemerbob]

I think the major reason for this is the lack of a third party. The fact that these days your either extreme right or extreme left is your answer… I know many gun loving Democrats, but the representatives of there party only follow the leader like lemmings. Over the next 4yrs its very important for all Pro Gun Democrats to let there elected officials know how they feel on the subject, after all they are elected to represent you!
So as I sate time and time again in every gun forum I belong to its vital to our rights that we in a loud yet professional voice let our elected officials know how we feel. If our discussions, and rights are kept to message boards then the out spoken radicals will have there way.

 

[Hammerhead_6814]

Jofaba, your going to find PLENTY of people like you in the world. You won't hear anything about them on FOX, CNN, or on Conservative or Liberal blogs. The reasonable, common-sense human being isn't seen as a middle-ground man in America, he's either a Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. That's the one problem I truly have with my countrymen these days, they divide each other into two camps and REFUSE to find common ground, or even acknowledge the existence of someone who supports a little of both, but associates with none.

I've voted Democrat before. I said it. I've voted Democrat before. I haven't in the Presidential elections mind you (I've only voted in one of those, and I wrote in Ron Paul ). But in local elections, and soon to be national elections, I care more about the person than the party.

Sometimes they refuse to acknowledge a person of a differing background as a like-minded person because they often support ONE little thing that they disagree with. My neighbors refused to vote McCain simply because he was for the war originally, Obama wasn't. Screw everything else, McCain was for the war. To hell with the border situation, to hell with the economy, and damned be the healthcare system, McCain supported the war.

People like tat ruin America, and unfortunately they're to extreme (usually) to snap them out of it.