|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
 Posted - 09/18/2008 : 10:04:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by Dude
Nerve gas, cluster bombs, napalm, the M1A1, weaponized anthrax, and nuclear bombs... a literal reading of the constitution would (back off you 2nd amendment haters...) mean private citizens should be allowed to own these things. You'll have to forgive me, a fervent supported of private gun ownership, if I think that such things were never even imagined by the writers of the constitution and the document can not deal with them. So laws have to change. There are other examples of things the constitution isn't capable of dealing with as well. So it MUST be considered a "living document", and we must attempt to apply the spirit and intent to our new circumstances.
|
Just to add my 2 cents...
First, before the shouting starts, I favor personal gun ownership, within reason, and with sensible regulation. But the Constitution clearly does not protect weapon ownership by the private citizen just for the sake of owning weapons. That provision in the 2nd Amendment was strictly targeted to calm State's concerns that the Federal government would allow them to have militias but nullify those militias by forbidding citizens to possess weapons. The ammendment made sure the state militia would have teeth should it be needed to protect the state from the Federal government, rampaging Indians, or aggressive neighboring states.
Fast forward to the present . . . .
There are no state militias. This provision of the Constitution is obsolete. However, the current sitting SCOTUS, for inexplicable reasons, abandoned their conservative principles and court precedence and effectively ammended the constitution by claiming the provision actually does refer to personal gun ownership for any damn reason. Activist conservative judges....
It's not the effect of the ruling that pisses me off - I never once thought gun owership would be seriously threatened in the US. But the hypocracy and bad law of the SCOTUS - does ANYBODY have integrity anymore???
|
You see....I think the 2nd A. was intended to give citizens the ability to rise up against a tyrannical Federal Government should such need arise. Back when it was written the average citizen was as well armed as the military....minus the cannons. Parity between the armed forces and the average citizen has looooong been lost however. Citizens would no longer stand a chance. That being said there is still something very American about having the right to own guns. I don't think we could ever convert over to becoming a gun free society....it's far too late for that. Take away our right to bear arms and you really do leave guns to those who would use them against us. I live in a very small town. I have little fear of anyone breaking into my home.....still....if someone did they are quite likely to end up with a .45ACP hole in them  |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 09/18/2008 10:05:36 |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 12:27:36 [Permalink]
|
chaloobi said:
| There are no state militias. This provision of the Constitution is obsolete. However, the current sitting SCOTUS, for inexplicable reasons, abandoned their conservative principles and court precedence and effectively ammended the constitution by claiming the provision actually does refer to personal gun ownership for any damn reason. Activist conservative judges.... |
Technically, every adult male is a member of the militia.
And the intent of the second amendment was, at the time, to allow private citizens the right to keep personal arms for any damn reason. In Europe, for centuries before, only the aristocracy and military were permitted to own arms. It was a death sentence for anyone not in those groups to have weapons. Recognizing that this inequality allowed the feudal system to persist for a long time, we decided to make allowance for private citizens to own weapons.
With the current inequity between military and private weaponry you have to admit (even if you support gun ownership) that this provision can't apply to some weapons. No person should have a MOAB in their garage. The constitution clearly is unequipped to deal with the advance of military technology.
But... the right of private small arms ownership is validated by recent events in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few thousand guys with AK47s fought our modern army to a standstill... until we bribed them to stop fighting. I'll submit this as evidence that gun ownership, for the reasons intended by the framers, is still valid.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 12:48:25 [Permalink]
|
You see....I think the 2nd A. was intended to give citizens the ability to rise up against a tyrannical Federal Government should such need arise. |
I haven't seen any evidence to support that the founders were thinking of every tom dick and harry as opposed to specificially state governments. The tyranny fear AFAIK was really about the Federal Government over the state governments. State representatives didn't want a repeat of their experience under colonial rule. The whole question really didn't get settled definitively until the Civil War when, from one perspective, the Federal government in fact did use it's army to assert it's rights over those of the Southern states. So much for militias as guarantors against a tyrannical Federal government....
| That being said there is still something very American about having the right to own guns. I don't think we could ever convert over to becoming a gun free society....it's far too late for that. Take away our right to bear arms and you really do leave guns to those who would use them against us. I live in a very small town. I have little fear of anyone breaking into my home.....still....if someone did they are quite likely to end up with a .45ACP hole in them |
You get no disagreement from me other than that the right to own guns is not a Constitutional right, regardless of what the activist conservative judges on the SCOTUS might say.  I don't necessarily buy into your reasoning, but for my own reasons I think it's fine and dandy for people to be armed if they want. I would like to see a bit more rigorous due diligence when someone wants to buy a gun, but I see no reason to restrict weapons from law abiding, sane citizenry. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 12:50:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
chaloobi said:
| There are no state militias. This provision of the Constitution is obsolete. However, the current sitting SCOTUS, for inexplicable reasons, abandoned their conservative principles and court precedence and effectively ammended the constitution by claiming the provision actually does refer to personal gun ownership for any damn reason. Activist conservative judges.... |
Technically, every adult male is a member of the militia.
And the intent of the second amendment was, at the time, to allow private citizens the right to keep personal arms for any damn reason. In Europe, for centuries before, only the aristocracy and military were permitted to own arms. It was a death sentence for anyone not in those groups to have weapons. Recognizing that this inequality allowed the feudal system to persist for a long time, we decided to make allowance for private citizens to own weapons.
With the current inequity between military and private weaponry you have to admit (even if you support gun ownership) that this provision can't apply to some weapons. No person should have a MOAB in their garage. The constitution clearly is unequipped to deal with the advance of military technology.
But... the right of private small arms ownership is validated by recent events in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few thousand guys with AK47s fought our modern army to a standstill... until we bribed them to stop fighting. I'll submit this as evidence that gun ownership, for the reasons intended by the framers, is still valid.
|
I think this is a retread of a discussion we (me and someone else at least) had on this very forum a while back. I addressed somewhere this very argument - I'll see if I can find it and post the link... |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 13:16:26 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I found it:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8524&whichpage=3&SearchTerms=%2Cmilitia
You were in the argument initially, then you dropped out. The meat of it went on with Jerome and Original Intent. I quoted some relevant posts I made below to get them all in one spot:
On what a militia is:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Not to the Governor of the state as your response implies. Do you have evidence that the state government controlled all able bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. Who in the state had this control; the legislators, or the Governor? |
Why not the governer? You seem so certain - please show me a link that implies early American militias reported to no authority other than some local officer who reported to no one but himself. How does one becomes an officer in a militia if some structured military isn't involved anyway?
You and others have this sentimental or idyllic nostalgia for the early American milita that day dreams of anarchic freebooters ready to topple the government at any level should it attempt to infringe rights. That's quaint and fun but not in line with reality. Here are some links to articles about colonial and early American militias. If you read them, you'll understand that militas were structured and regulated by local governmental authorities from towns to provinces and counties to colonial and state level. They were called up by these authorities and they were under command of regular army officers, who in turn reported to government officials.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/bookmarks/minutemen/
http://www.constitution.org/jw/acm_1-m.htm
Here's a good exerpt from the link above:
Reverend Samuel McClintock (1732-1804) was commissioned to deliver a sermon on 3 June 1784, the occasion being the adoption of the newly adopted New Hampshire state constitution. He had served as a militia chaplain in both the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, and was thus well acquainted with the concept, organization and purpose of a militia system. His comments on that portion of the new basic document of the New Hampshire state government read like a passionate and patriotic definition of militia. "An army of freemen, voluntarily assembling at the alarm of danger -- men who had been nurtured in the bosom of liberty, and unused to slavish restraints . . . willing to submit to the severity of military government, for the safety of their country, and patiently endure hardships that would have overcome the fortitude of veterans, following their illustrious leader in the depths of winter, through the cold and snow, in nakedness and perils, when every step they took was marked with the blood that issued from their swollen feet, and when they could not be animated to such patience and perseverance by any mercenary motives . . . ."(8)
|
and this from the same link:
| The New England colonies maintained a politically stable militia system during the pre-Revolutionary War years. There was virtually no standing army but all the provincial governments were able to provide large numbers of militiamen when and where they were needed simply by drafting them out of the town militias. The New England colonies lost some territory and many men during the last quarter of the seventeenth century, but the political authorities never lost administrative control. |
http://www.colonialwarsct.org/colonial_military_experience.htm
A relevant quote from the above link:
| During the course of the seventeenth century the colonists adapted the English militia system to meet their own particular needs. Several regional patterns emerged. In the Chesapeake Bay area a plantation economy took root, leading to dispersed settlement. Virginia and Maryland formed their militia companies from all the residents of a particular area, in New England religion and a different economy led to a town-based residential system. Each town formed one or more militia companies as soon as possible after establishing its local government. |
Do a search for early american militia and you'll find a huge number of links on the subject. In those links you'll find the reality of the militia to be different from the government opposing, freedom protecting ideal.
| Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME Based on your argument the civil war ended the right to bear arms, as the Federal government won the war and forced its power on the states. Therefore, there is no need for the amendment. It is defunct according to your reasoning. |
That's more or less what I meant when I worte this a page ago:
| While I like the idea of any law-abiding, sane American owning a weapon should he/she desire to, I don't believe said right is constitutionally protected per the 2nd ammendment. Really, our society isn't structured in a way that the 2nd ammendment applies anymore. Either the ammendment's obsolete or the way our military, reserves and/or national guard are structured is unconstitutional. But the claim that the 2nd Ammendment was intended to protect the right of any law abiding American to have a fire arm outside of some structured military context is clearly false. But then, just because it's not a constitutionally protected right doesn't mean it must necessarily be illegal for Americans to own fire arms. |
Presumably a state can establish its own military today and have that protected by the constitution. I'm not sure if the national guard units are under state command or not. They seem to be named for the states they come from, staffed locally, and deployed locally, so maybe they're the modern militia analog. I suppose I could find out if I did some research...
|
And some Constitutional Stuff here:
Originally posted by chaloobi
As a follow-up, I went ahead and looked up what the US Constitution says about militias:
From Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have power ...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
|
Note this is separate from the provision to raise an army.
From Article 2, Section 2:
| The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; |
Presumably the States maintain control when not serving the Federal government....
That's it for the main text. In the ammendments, militia is of course mentioned in Ammendment 2. It's also mentioned in Ammendment 5:
| No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger |
I'm not sure where the text about militias Original Intent posted comes from. It's not in the Constitution - perhaps it's from the text of a law or regulation? In any case, reading the treatment given to militias in the Constitution it's difficult to conclude the Founding Fathers had in mind local military units with virtually autonomous officers doing pretty much whatever they want.
And assuming the Constitution uses a consistent definition for Militia throughout, then the 2nd Ammendment is certainly referring to a military unit under some level of government control and/or regulation; probably state level by the text in Articles 1 and 2. And likely Ammendment 2's specific mention of "for the purpose of a well regulated militia" is intended to ensure the provision didn't lead to a constitutional protection for unregulated armed mobs. That is they left the door open to make fire arms illegal for people not part of an 'official' militia.
|
Specific to the All Able Bodied Men argument:
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by chaloobi
Um, I don't follow your logic.
|
OK- The federal government has the right to call up the militia from the states, which is all able men.
The states can not disarm the militia (able bodied men) as this would a be an indirect violations of the contract.
Think of it like this:
You and I contracted that I would provide you with house painters; under the thought that house painters brought their own brushes as is commonly understood, and I removed all the brushes from my house painters. Would I be in violation of our contract?
|
This logic only works if A. you accept that the militia still exists in a 'Well Regulated' form (which it clearly does not)and B. that said militia indeed does merely consist of all able bodied men and no other formal association, like a signup sheet or, god help us, drill training. It's hard to reconcile the idea of a Well Regulated Militia with the idea that it consists of "all able bodied men", regardless of said men's personal preference, in the context of today's reality. This is about reality, right? 
Some pages back I posted several links to historical documents describing what the early American militia was actually like - reality again - and it describes towns forming a milita as soon as their charter was accepted (for defense against aggression from the local native Americans). If the definition of a militia was as simple as 'all able bodied men are in the militia' then what exactly does 'forming' the militia mean? 'Forming' implies there wasn't a militia prior to the act and if the definition really is only 'all able-bodied men' then why does a militia need to be 'formed?' Since it's everyone, shouldn't it's existance be assumed? And if there is more involved with creating a 'well regulated militia' than just having armed able bodied males in the population then, again, there's no basis in the 2nd Amendment for carte blanche fire-arm ownership protection.
|
|
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 09/18/2008 13:18:23 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 13:27:35 [Permalink]
|
| There are whole elements of this thread that remind me of Jerome. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 13:29:23 [Permalink]
|
Lets tie this back to the whole "living document" concept. Obviously no militia, as existed in the late 1700s, is currently around. But... if you are a US citizen, male, and 18+ years old, you have signed up for selective service. You can be conscripted. So we do have a militia, sort of. The old concept of the militia doesn't really apply now.
The bill of rights is one of those things that could have seriously benefited from a presidential "signing statement."
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 14:03:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
But... if you are a US citizen, male, and 18+ years old, you have signed up for selective service. You can be conscripted. |
If you're 26 or over, it appears that it would take a change to the law to allow the government to draft you. I haven't been eligible for the draft for 16 years.
In fact, if you're over 25 and not yet registered with selective service (you moved here from another country, for example), you're not obligated to do so (of course, if you should have registered when younger, you still face a fine and/or jail for not registering).
If the old TV show M*A*S*H was correct (and I'm too lazy right now to find out), they can draft you at an older age if you are in certain needed professions (like surgeons). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 14:39:18 [Permalink]
|
I'm just saying that we have a militia, of a sort.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 15:04:08 [Permalink]
|
Wow, what a difference a day makes. I can't do all the quotes, but I did indeed read all the responses.
***
While the library purges might not be of mal-intent, a removal of more chronologically pertinent historical perspectives in exchange for more chronologically disconnected analysis is still evident. Over time, cumulative purges of information change perspectives - changing what one perceives is required for a functional government, or even a functional market.
This change may be on the whole beneficial, but when the term "conservative" can be so utterly distorted from its original meaning and application, one should evaluate the consequence of reducing our access to historical perspectives by federally encouraged info purges of the old in exchange for the new.
***
The 10th. When it comes to morality issues, the general cry from liberals is the court must somehow legislate morality issues. Greater minds than mine argue the spectrum of these issues, and all have good points to be made. I happen to be of the opinion that these are issues for the state, each state independently, and not a SCOTUS decree for the union.
| I doubt many people hear "tax cuts for the rich" and think "how communist!" or "how socialist!", right? |
I am willing to explore the use of other definitions that are applicable.
***
These info purges and market manipulations may all be benevolent intentions of the Department of Education and Treasury, but if the end result is the same as book burnings and an overtly "crypto-fascist/socialist" government, I call a duck a duck.
The AIG nationalization is not unique, starting with the takeover of US steel mills and later other industries - this has been done before. The amount of AIG liability that the taxpayers are now burdened with is unprecedented and the reason of AIG nationalization is unique. The markets will fail regardless of the securities the Fed is able to provide, so I say let them fail now, liquidate, and start fresh without the idiotic government legislation that brought these leeches into the market. It also might be a good time to consider introducing a competing currency to the fiat dollar, possibly a Constitutional currency, to allow trading to have value stability.
***
Two very disconcerting things come to my mind from a “living” Constitution, legislating from the bench and the creation of this unelected lifetime tenured superlegislature:
First, the Supreme Court decisions are now the absolute law of the land, equal in weight to the text of the Constitution itself. Supreme Court precedents should never be changed, and all nominees to the Court must accept them as settled law or be disqualified.
Second, if the American people don't like any of the "laws" created by the Supreme Court, they have no choice but to live with them unless by some miracle, the Court later overturns itself. The people have no remedy through Congress to address unpopular Court decisions.
I reason the people could take their grievances to the U.N. – but if the Supreme Court can invalidate the actions of Congress and the President, they can certainly craft their own de facto laws to invalidate the U.N. decisions. The Judicial branch should be separate of the Legislative branch - just for the sake of redress through elected representatives- if not for the precedent of social activism that has already occurred.
Article III Section 2 of the Constitution plainly grants Congress the authority to limit federal court jurisdiction in many kinds of cases. It is perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass court-stripping legislation to reflect public sentiment against an overreaching Supreme Court. Judge Alito believes this does not apply.
No more living document please. Legally make amendments where and when required, or just toss the damn thing and start over. Playing intellectual games with interpretations while disregarding whole sections that are clear just pisses me off. Make the law, live within the law. Imposed on me, damn well better be imposed on our rulers.
When exceptions are made to applicability of law because of a title or position, I take issue with that. The more clever their argument, the more I take issue with that.
***
The global environment issues and personal ownership of weapons of high magnitude destruction could be dealt with within the confines of property rights, with no need to impose totalitarian rule. Federal saftey regulations already exclude certain dangerous substances from being in populated areas. If a substance may impact my property that my neighbor releases - or in some cases even owns, I have legal recourse - if it is big and bad enough, the government might pursue the case. Property rights should not be underestimated.
***
The 2nd. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act has in part been repealed, but inserting a "living" Constitution to the mix, instead of literal translation that excludes military action against citizens without Congressional approval - well this is a dangerous road against liberty. When power is chosen by the State for its own sake, we should at a minimum have caution.
The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act have been gutted and there really is no violent recourse citizens can take against the government that would be effective, unless the military was involved and complicit. It is more likely that the country will declare bankruptcy first. Neither are going to happen. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 15:58:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
There are whole elements of this thread that remind me of Jerome.
|
Minus the meaningless rows of:  |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 16:05:13 [Permalink]
|
Zeked said:
| When it comes to morality issues, the general cry from liberals is the court must somehow legislate morality issues. |
What?!
You have it wrong Zeked. The "conservatives" get laws passed that are based on their religious/moral beliefs. Liberals turned to the courts to redress that horror. Which is the way things are supposed to work.
When you have a new situation, or new technology, or new circumstances (things not previously encountered)... you get the job of setting prescedent. This is the intended function (one of) of judges!
| there really is no violent recourse citizens can take against the government that would be effective |
You're wrong. On a large scale, you may be correct, but small scale violence could prove very effective. Look at the success of the Iraqi militias in influencing events in their contry... despite the world's most high tech modern army trying to kill them.
If you shrink the scale even further, a small group or single individual can have an impact with violent action.
Not that I'm advocating violence. Our system has some mechanisms that allow it to be changed from within. While I might think those mechanisms are being dangerously eroded and weakened, I'm not at the point of violent insurection yet.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 17:18:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
Wow, what a difference a day makes. I can't do all the quotes, but I did indeed read all the responses. |
You'll find a fairly dedicated core of readers, Zeked who post here all the time.
| While the library purges might not be of mal-intent, a removal of more chronologically pertinent historical perspectives in exchange for more chronologically disconnected analysis is still evident. Over time, cumulative purges of information change perspectives - changing what one perceives is required for a functional government, or even a functional market. |
Well, I agree to an extent. When I do research, I find it productive to go back and think about what scholars were saying in 1930 and how that's evolved over time. But I do postdoctoral research. It's what I'm paid to do.
I'd argue that it's really of little value for a high school freshman to learn about, say, World War II from a book published in 1964. And really, at this point I think that fostering a "reading mentality" is the goal. Even if it's reading Harry Potter or something by Stephen King.
| This change may be on the whole beneficial, but when the term "conservative" can be so utterly distorted from its original meaning and application, one should evaluate the consequence of reducing our access to historical perspectives by federally encouraged info purges of the old in exchange for the new. |
Again, I agree to an extent, though I don't see the connection between how "conservative" has changed as a descriptor for a political philosophy and high school libraries trying to be up-to-date in their reading material.
| The 10th. When it comes to morality issues, the general cry from liberals is the court must somehow legislate morality issues. Greater minds than mine argue the spectrum of these issues, and all have good points to be made. I happen to be of the opinion that these are issues for the state, each state independently, and not a SCOTUS decree for the union. |
I think that's an unfair characterization. Those on the right go to the courts plenty to try and push their own. Hell, the American Center for Law and Justice exists to push a Christian agenda through the courts!
In any case, you're right that arguing about this is tough for those not grounded in legal training, and there are arguments on both sides.
I know lots of people who want to make a lot of federal issues into state issues. I think there are counter-arguments, but I'm really on the fence in that regard.
| I doubt many people hear "tax cuts for the rich" and think "how communist!" or "how socialist!", right? |
I am willing to explore the use of other definitions that are applicable. |
OK, I'm happy to be educated.
| These info purges and market manipulations may all be benevolent intentions of the Department of Education and Treasury, but if the end result is the same as book burnings and an overtly "crypto-fascist/socialist" government, I call a duck a duck. |
I think you give too much credit to our government and its puppet-masters!
| The AIG nationalization is not unique, starting with the takeover of US steel mills and later other industries - this has been done before. The amount of AIG liability that the taxpayers are now burdened with is unprecedented and the reason of AIG nationalization is unique. The markets will fail regardless of the securities the Fed is able to provide, so I say let them fail now, liquidate, and start fresh without the idiotic government legislation that brought these leeches into the market. It also might be a good time to consider introducing a competing currency to the fiat dollar, possibly a Constitutional currency, to allow trading to have value stability. |
I have tried to stay up on the AIG thing, but I admit that most of it is beyond me. I think, though, that the ultimate goal is a controlled bankruptcy, and that an eventual failure of some sort is expected.
As for being "without the idiotic government legislation that brought these leeches into the market", it's pretty clear that it was the lack of legislation-- or at least regulation that led to this mess. So the real hope is that the whole "shadow-banking" industry faces the same regulations as real banks!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 17:18:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Chippewa
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
There are whole elements of this thread that remind me of Jerome.
|
Minus the meaningless rows of: |
Thankfully! That and his use of  drove me up the wall! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2008 : 17:43:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I'm just saying that we have a militia, of a sort. |
I know... it's just not as extensive as every male over 18. I had a bigger-than-normal party on my 26th birthday.
And it looks to me like Zeked considers the SCOTUS' removal of conservative morality laws to be "legislating from the bench" by liberals. "Judicial review," however, has a long legal precedent, and it sure looks like the Framers intended for the courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Lack of such review leads to mob rule, not a representative democracy. And it's generally pleasant that the other branches of government tend to go along with the courts' opinions, because the courts themselves have no power to enforce their own rulings. The President has the muscle, and the Congress has the money. The only method left to change people's actions is persuasion. It's good that most people in the government are persuaded by what the courts say, most of the time. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Conservatives are...
