With all the information we have about both candidates, who do you plan to vote for?

[Halcon]

So what would you propose then? Maybe you, and I, and everyone else in the country can interpret the constitution to mean whatever the we like, and just pick and choose the laws we'll obey. Sorry, but I think you need to set limits on people's behavior.

 

[redhead]

I wish I could express how little I think of the opinion of the nine black-robed Gladys Kravitzes of the Rehnquisition, but the language fails me under the circumstances. (Suffice it to say that every time I'm confronted with a moral choice in my life, I don't ask myself: "What would Sandra Day O'Connor do?" )

Neither do I. When you have the likes of O'Connor using "compelling State interests" to justify infringing on my rights, I know that the Constitution means very little to those black-robed tyrants. The Bill of Rights is supposed to guarantee the rights of the individual, not to make sure that the needs of the State are served. As to putting limits on people's behavior, there are all kinds of individual laws that meet constitutional muster that do that. Like laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc.

Since Kerry is anti-gun and pro-gun control, I can infer that he will gladly to along with laws that will subordinate other constitutional rights, as well. So he's not got my vote. Bush? Mixed bag. I may leave the box for president blank, but vote on other candidates and issues. Since I live in California, and Kerry pretty much has it in the bag here, he's got California's electoral votes, so I could probably vote for Michael Badnarik, and not feel that I cost Bush the election, should he lose.

 

[tyme]

Halcon, we can start by accepting as invalid all laws against activities that have no effect on others. Gun and drug possession laws, for instance. Maybe hard drug use in public might be regulated; certainly people smoking pot at a city council meeting and getting everyone else stoned is not acceptable. But possession of drugs and guns needs to be legal, because it's clearly protected by the constitution. Bans on either dangerously erode the 4th and 5th amendments.

I like the idea of government run by a real-money futures market, with certain constitutional limitations similar to the ones we're supposed to have today.

 

[LAK]

[Halcon] "So what would you propose then? Maybe you, and I, and everyone else in the country can interpret the constitution to mean whatever the we like ..."

..... Well this is what the federal government has done for about a century and a half.

[Halcon] " ... and just pick and choose the laws we'll obey."

..... I obey all 20,000+ gun laws. Of course I am able to do this because I know and understand every one of them. I don't have to know or understand the tax code though; because the thieving bloodsuckers take my money at source.

[Halcon] "Sorry, but I think you need to set limits on people's behavior."

..... Agreed. The people responsible for this ought to be brought to heel. Terms like impeachment come to mind - just for starters.