Are Libertarians Going to Muck Things Up for the GOP?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Gay people of the same sex who belive that marriage includes the right for them to marry eachother are not afforded the legal rights and privledges given couples of opposit sex who choose to get married. Some people disagree with you about the defination of marriage. Those people should be free to do what they choose. It does not harm you in any way to allow them this freedom. It does not harm you in any to live and let live. Your rights and freedoms are not infringed in any material way. That is the essence of freedom, allowing others to structure there lives how they choose as long as them doing so does not negativly affect you in any material way.

Again, they have every freedom I have, nothing is being denied them! Unfortunately, we don't have the freedom to just do whatever we wish to do, that's not how society functions. We can't just proclaim ourselves a "right" and entitle ourselves to it, that's not how 'rights' work. You and other pro-gay marriage advocates keep saying "it doesn't harm anyone" and that is a lie too. It most certainly does harm the institution and sanctity of marriage, it degrades it and defaces it, and turns it into a sexually perverted mockery of what it actually is. In doing this, it undermines one of our most precious assets in civilized society, the family structure. I don't give a damn if you agree with me on this or not, but by god you WILL listen to it and respect it, whether you want to or not. That's what our freedoms are all about, expressing our ideas in the public square.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

fuck the supreme court. they've made mistakes and the patriot act is a big one. the fourth amendment requires a warrant signed by a judge. no mention of a secret court in the constitution, nor is there any exception carved out for sneak and peeks. there is no exception to the governments confinement and jurisdiction, like gitmo. I can assume i'm correct because I can read the constitution, federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as the constitutional convention debates. your tired old schtick of safety over liberty would make franklin shoot you personally.

Well here's the problem, the Supreme Court is one of those three "co-equal" branches Centinel alluded to earlier, without them, our entire system is hopelessly flawed and can't function as it was intended. So we can't say "fuck the supreme court" and have the country our founders established. The Supreme Court has heard numerous cases on the patriot act, gitmo, iraq, etc... they did not find any of it unconstitutional, and it really doesn't matter that you don't agree with them... lobby your representative to adopt a Constitutional amendment if you feel that is needed, that's the way the system works. I don't like every ruling from the SCOTUS either, but that doesn't change the fact they are an integral part of our system and we can't do without them.

And I've told you pinheads before, if Ben Franklin knew how you were misusing his quote, he'd slap the taste out of your mouths.

 

[Centinel]

The supreme court has the last word on constitutional issues. If everyone gets to interpret the constitution however they want and claim divine right in doing so, then there is no constitution, because they'll interpret it to their convenience.

Now, from a philosophical sense, how can the president be expected to "uphold the constitution" when the court has interpreted it incorrectly?

I don't buy the idea that only the supreme court is able to understand the constitution. Yes, as the judiciary, the function of the supreme court is the arbitration of disputes between parties, based on the facts and the law. So yes, the judiciary must interpret the constitution in order to understand how the legal claims of the disputants and determine the outcome of the dispute.

But this does not mean that the judiciary has an exclusive understanding of the constitution. Heck, think back to when the states were first considering the idea of entering into our current compact. Each state had to read the constitution and understand it. There were debates over its adoption in every state. How do you think the pros and cons of ratification were even discussed? How did states even understand to what they were agreeing?

And remember, every office holder in these states must swear an oath to uphold the constitition. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Note that it says this constitution, not "support the decisions of the supreme court".

The idea that the law of the land is only what the the supreme court says it is flies in the face the whole concept of a representative republic. The states sent delegates to a convention to write the constitution, and the people of each state then ratified the constitution. It is the people's law. It is not an arcane tome containing secret text known only to the robed high priests. It is a compact written by and agreed to by the people of the several states. And the people expect their representatives, executive officers, and judges to abide by the contract they wrote. In fact, as explicitly stated in the contract itself, they require them to swear an oath to uphold it.

If the supreme court violates the constitution, it is up to the president, congress, the governors, the state legislatures, and the local sheriff to reject the error and uphold the constitution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. First of all, NO ONE has claimed the Supreme Court is the only ones "able to understand" the Constitution, or that the Constitution only means what the Supreme Court says it means. Those are your own interpretations of what has been said here. The Constitution says what it says, and the SCOTUS reviews cases to determine if they meet the challenge of Constitutionality, or not. Things aren't always as simple as saying something IS or ISN'T Constitutional... what about situations where something IS Constitutional, but allowing it violates the Constitutional rights of someone else? Conflicting Constitutional arguments? Which Constitutional right prevails over the other?

The idea that we all understand and interpret the Constitution the same, is what is really laughable. If this were the case, you would never have a Supreme Court rule any way but unanimously... because all justices would interpret and understand the Constitution to mean the same thing. Furthermore, when we get into the root semantics... what does "general welfare" mean? When does the "right to life" begin? There are numerous things that can't be deciphered from the raw text of the Constitution, the Supreme Court often has to rely on case law, precedent finding, or articulation made in Federalist Papers, to determine an answer... and very seldom do they all agree, generally there is both a ruling opinion and dissenting opinion given, and both have some degree of merit. If what you wish to believe were true, that would NEVER be the case!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If the supreme court violates the constitution, it is up to the president, congress, the governors, the state legislatures, and the local sheriff to reject the error and uphold the constitution.

This is just patently false, and shows an ignorance of how our governmental system works. If the Supreme Court rules something that you believe "violates" the Constitution, you must clarify the Constitution by passing an amendment to it. There is a process for this, and it is articulated in the Constitution. Political leaders and law enforcement can't take it upon themselves to override Supreme Court rulings, and I have no idea where you got such an insane notion.

 

[Centinel]

This is just patently false, and shows an ignorance of how our governmental system works. If the Supreme Court rules something that you believe "violates" the Constitution, you must clarify the Constitution by passing an amendment to it. There is a process for this, and it is articulated in the Constitution. Political leaders and law enforcement can't take it upon themselves to override Supreme Court rulings, and I have no idea where you got such an insane notion.

Imagine that congress were to pass a law that required all muslims be relocated to internment camps. The president vetoes it, but is overridden. A citizen fights his internment, but the supreme court decides that the law is necessary and proper to ensure the general welfare.

I would hope that the president would refuse to execute the internment law. I would also hope that every governor would inform the federal government that they would be preventing government agents from entering their state for the purpose of relocating their citizens.

It is always possible that the supreme court makes monumental error. In such a case, I want the other branches of the government and the states to resist this error.

 

[Damocles]

First of all, I don't see anyone in your way except Liberal Socialists who want to strip all your freedom and give it to the government. Laws protecting the sanctity of marriage are not stupid if the people vote for and approve such laws. It means there is a segment of society who doesn't hold as nonchalant a view of marriage as you do, people who consider marriage an important cornerstone and foundation to family and our entire societal culture. These people simply disagree with you because they value marriage in our society more than you, and they don't share your cavalier attitude about it. Not only that, but they greatly outnumber you, nearly two-to-one... so you can call what they believe "stupid" if you like, it's still what the vast majority believe, and you need to learn to accept that we live in a free 'democratic' society, not Dumo's Oligarchy! ...In the words of the great British philosopher, Michael Philip Jagger... You can't always get what you want!

LOL. It was just an example of the overbearing big government supported by the people who think religious reactionaries are "conservative".

I don't need you to save my soul by government fiat, I don't need liberals to save me from myself by making McDonald's put calorie counts on their menus.

 

[zappasguitar]

Again, they have every freedom I have, nothing is being denied them! Unfortunately, we don't have the freedom to just do whatever we wish to do, that's not how society functions. We can't just proclaim ourselves a "right" and entitle ourselves to it, that's not how 'rights' work. You and other pro-gay marriage advocates keep saying "it doesn't harm anyone" and that is a lie too. It most certainly does harm the institution and sanctity of marriage, it degrades it and defaces it, and turns it into a sexually perverted mockery of what it actually is. In doing this, it undermines one of our most precious assets in civilized society, the family structure. I don't give a damn if you agree with me on this or not, but by god you WILL listen to it and respect it, whether you want to or not. That's what our freedoms are all about, expressing our ideas in the public square.

Oh please...another bloviating gasbag claiming that it will destroy the fabric of society if two gay men are allowed to marry each other.

EXCEPT you can't seem to define EXACTLY HOW gay marriage is harmful to society.

We've got people like the CarCrashians marrying and divorcing in 72 days, noooooooo, no damage to the institue of marriage there...it's homosexuals marrying that is going to destroy the institute of marriage...you are as big a joke as the Kardashians and their phony wedding.

 

[Liberty]

fuck the supreme court. they've made mistakes and the patriot act is a big one. the fourth amendment requires a warrant signed by a judge. no mention of a secret court in the constitution, nor is there any exception carved out for sneak and peeks. there is no exception to the governments confinement and jurisdiction, like gitmo. I can assume i'm correct because I can read the constitution, federalist and anti-federalist papers, as well as the constitutional convention debates. your tired old schtick of safety over liberty would make franklin shoot you personally.

Very good post SmarterThanYou!

 

[Rune]

you make it sound like Libertarians want what the GOP wants. not much could be further from the truth. Republicans are just as adept at infringing on our freedoms and the democrats are, just in different ways. Libertarians right now look at both major parties as opposite sides of the same coin, so to us one is just as bad as the other.

Why do you support the TP then?

 

[Rune]

Again, much of what the TEA Party faction of the GOP wants, is articulated routinely by Paul and other Libertarians, there is indeed common ground. You seem to expect a majority of mainstream America to just wake up one day and be a radical Libertarian, and that isn't likely to happen. You want it to happen so badly, that you are willing to allow Marxist Socialists to control America and rule with an iron fist for another four years, rather than find common ground for the better overall good. In short, you are a bunch of ideological fucktarded idiots.

Dixie is right for once.

 

[Rune]

Bush did not cut spending because he did not have a super majority and democrats held the military budgets hostage.

What?

 

[Rune]

I know that through some idiotic reading of the constitution you could get that the supreme court has no power of final arbitration over constitutional issues, and that other branches of the government can simply ignore arbitration from the supreme court on constitutional issues and proceed with tyranny all they want, but tradition is every bit as important to a nations constitutional framework as what's written down, no matter what libertarian idiots who are incapable of thought say. Without tradition, you get China, where they have freedom of speech, assembly, etc... explicitly written in their constitution and the government just does what it wants anyway.

The president can fail to enforce a law he finds unconstitutional, but the legislature has the right to sue the supreme court if they do so. If the supreme court rules that the president must enforce the law, failure to do so would be a coup d'etat.

He didn't say they can't.

 

[Rune]

better to bring the revolution quickly, than to let tyranny creep up on us

There will not be a revolution you could win, you delusional moron.
Any movement in that direction will end in the completion of movement to totalitalitarinism.

 

[Rune]

What rights have they infringed? Has the SCOTUS ruled on this? What basis do you make this assertion, and why do you assume you are correct and others are wrong? Both the War on Drugs and Terror, have been conducted in accordance with the law, and held to Supreme Court review in several cases, and upheld. You literally don't have an argument for unconstitutionality, what you have is a emotive platitude being barked from an aged hippie who doesn't get it. Yeah.... it's The Man keeping you down! Go hit the bong again!

You are a fucking idiot, who denies reality on a continuous basis.

 

[Rune]

I don't buy the idea that only the supreme court is able to understand the constitution. Yes, as the judiciary, the function of the supreme court is the arbitration of disputes between parties, based on the facts and the law. So yes, the judiciary must interpret the constitution in order to understand how the legal claims of the disputants and determine the outcome of the dispute.

But this does not mean that the judiciary has an exclusive understanding of the constitution. Heck, think back to when the states were first considering the idea of entering into our current compact. Each state had to read the constitution and understand it. There were debates over its adoption in every state. How do you think the pros and cons of ratification were even discussed? How did states even understand to what they were agreeing?

And remember, every office holder in these states must swear an oath to uphold the constitition. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Note that it says this constitution, not "support the decisions of the supreme court".

The idea that the law of the land is only what the the supreme court says it is flies in the face the whole concept of a representative republic. The states sent delegates to a convention to write the constitution, and the people of each state then ratified the constitution. It is the people's law. It is not an arcane tome containing secret text known only to the robed high priests. It is a compact written by and agreed to by the people of the several states. And the people expect their representatives, executive officers, and judges to abide by the contract they wrote. In fact, as explicitly stated in the contract itself, they require them to swear an oath to uphold it.

If the supreme court violates the constitution, it is up to the president, congress, the governors, the state legislatures, and the local sheriff to reject the error and uphold the constitution.

Or even a jury.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Imagine that congress were to pass a law that required all muslims be relocated to internment camps. The president vetoes it, but is overridden. A citizen fights his internment, but the supreme court decides that the law is necessary and proper to ensure the general welfare.

I would hope that the president would refuse to execute the internment law. I would also hope that every governor would inform the federal government that they would be preventing government agents from entering their state for the purpose of relocating their citizens.

It is always possible that the supreme court makes monumental error. In such a case, I want the other branches of the government and the states to resist this error.

A law would never pass congress which allowed a religious group to be interned, because it directly violates the 1st amendment. Such a proposal would not even be heard by committee, the parliamentarian would reject it even being brought up for mention on the floor, much less a vote or debate. We have a whole complex procedure things have to go through in this country, before they become law. It's rare that Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional by the current interpretation of the court. It's not impossible, look at Obamacare. You mentioned the Patriot Act, but the SCOTUS ruled on it, and they actually did strike down parts of it.

You can hope all you like... the president is obligated to uphold what the SCOTUS has ruled is Constitutional, and Congress has passed into law. The President simply doesn't have the authority to override Congress and the Supreme Court and do as he pleases, according to his interpretation of the Constitution. This is the entire purpose of having three branches of government, and why that is fundamentally important.

The Congress has power to change the Constitution through amendment. The States also have to ratify the amendment, then the Supreme Court has to recognize the ramifications on all future rulings. The president is obligated to uphold what the Constitution says as well, whether he agreed with the amendment or not, and regardless of what may have been in the past. I feel like this is all stuff you should have learned in 7th grade.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is always possible that the supreme court makes monumental error. In such a case, I want the other branches of the government and the states to resist this error.

So you are saying that if a president felt it was a Constitutional violation of a right to life to allow abortions, he could outlaw them in every state by executive order, because he is obligated to uphold the Constitution?

What about the court ruling in Roe v. Wade? Maybe the president thinks it was a 'monumental error' and he must defy them? What do you suppose would be the outcome? I can tell you what I think, the president who did such a thing, would be impeached for failing to uphold the constitution, as interpreted by the courts in Roe v. Wade, and that would be that.

 

[Centinel]

Or even a jury.

Absolutely.

 

[Centinel]

A law would never pass congress which allowed a religious group to be interned, because it directly violates the 1st amendment. Such a proposal would not even be heard by committee, the parliamentarian would reject it even being brought up for mention on the floor, much less a vote or debate. We have a whole complex procedure things have to go through in this country, before they become law. It's rare that Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional by the current interpretation of the court. It's not impossible, look at Obamacare. You mentioned the Patriot Act, but the SCOTUS ruled on it, and they actually did strike down parts of it.

You're right. If congress would never pass an unconstitutional law, then I have nothing to worry about.