The liberal lie exposed

[TheDemSocialist]

I used the term "legal rights" for a good reason. There is nothing special about legal rights worth note, but this one allows the people to vote for their representatives which is more or less a key cog in the machine of our system.

There is many things that are "special" about legal rights..
Religious rights, voting, quartering of soldiers, trial by peers. All those are legal and have a major impact and are "special.

I found it rather silly. A tax that allows the government to take control of your income and gift you what they don't take is not a worthy comparison to voting.

Well neither is many things in the constitution is "worthy of comparison" to voting.

 

[fyrenza]

Pass an amendment then. There is nothing else to be said about it.

BUTTT

holly ****!

It turned real ugly, real quick-like.

I have a REAL problem with the FACT that the citizenry are unable to understand our "laws."

If they are SO convoluted, and confusing?
If they are SO "open to interpretation?"

ALL of us/US need to DEMAND that they be something that ALL of us/US understand, ffs!

 

[fyrenza]

IF "is" DOESN'T mean "IS,"

WTF???

Have lawyers declared DICTIONARIES obsolete?

'Cuz I must have missed the passage of ^that^ amendment...

 

[Henrin]

There is many things that are "special" about legal rights..
Religious rights, voting, , trial by peers. All those are legal and have a major impact and are "special.

I don't think you understand what "legal" right is. A legal right is a right bestowed by a given legal system.

Well neither is many things in the constitution is "worthy of comparison" to voting.

There are however worthy comparisons that you could of used besides comparing taxes to voting.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I don't think you understand what "legal" right is. A legal right is a right bestowed by a given legal system.

The constitution lists various "legal rights"

There are however worthy comparisons that you could of used besides comparing taxes to voting.

Ok.... Point being?
The whole point of the thread was someone posting a law and since "liberals" believe there is some sort of interpitation on a "law" the person who started the thread would expose the "liberal lie".

 

[Henrin]

The constitution lists various "legal rights"

Tell me, why do you believe freedom of religion is a legal right?

Ok.... Point being?
The whole point of the thread was someone posting a law and since "liberals" believe there is some sort of interpitation on a "law" the person who started the thread would expose the "liberal lie".

You do realize the part you referenced was put in place by liberals, correct?

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Ok then the 16th:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

In the same way gun hating liberals take two words "regulated" and "militia" out of the 2nd to enforce any gun laws they want I will take the two words "Power" and "Taxes" from what ever source derived without regard to any census or enumeration to mean that the government has every right to tax all of it's citizens 100% of their income, and as long as it is a tax the SCOTUS has already set precedence with Obamacare that my interpretation is constitutional.

Glad we all agree.

The government actually DOES have the right to tax income at 100%, and of course we have the right to replace that government with one that would repeal that tax.

 

[Henrin]

The government actually DOES have the right to tax income at 100%, and of course we have the right to replace that government with one that would repeal that tax.

If the government ever did that I would have to stop laughing first before I could consider replacing the government.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

If the government ever did that I would have to stop laughing first before I could consider replacing the government.

You say that, but it was not so long ago that income over a few hundred grand was taxed at 96%, that last dollar was 4 cents.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Please, tell me where the founders said that anything they did not explicitly cover in the COTUS must go through the amendment process.

Try. Ooops you're exposed once again

Tenth amendment to the constitution. All powers not enumerated to the federal government were reserved to the states.

 

[Henrin]

You say that, but it was not so long ago that income over a few hundred grand was taxed at 96%, that last dollar was 4 cents.

While 96% is without a doubt oppressive and worthy on its own merits of a fight a 100% tax rate is just down right self ownage for the government to do. I would be laughing my ass off for a good couple of minutes before I could calm down and agree to fight.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

If you liberals believe laws are open to interpretation as you believe the constitution is then please post any law and let me post my interpretation.

Try this one.

You are arrested under 18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government for claiming that government is illegal because it does not follow the Constitution as written and must be removed by any means necessary including armed insurrection.

How will you interpret the law, and will your interpretation match the governments interpretation (in which case you would obviously have to plead guilty)

 

[obvious Child]

Tenth amendment to the constitution. All powers not enumerated to the federal government were reserved to the states.

But nukes are weapons and covered under the 2nd and all its legislative history.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Try this one.

You are arrested under 18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government for claiming that government is illegal because it does not follow the Constitution as written and must be removed by any means necessary including armed insurrection.

How will you interpret the law, and will your interpretation match the governments interpretation (in which case you would obviously have to plead guilty)

I would argue this specifically, was the charged based on active conspiracy or advocacy? Advocating an overthrow only through words would be protected under the first but actively seeking the means to engage the government on any level would be conspiracy, amassing the means to overtrhow would be attempt. One has the right to state that in their opinion the government has overreached it's authority and in some respects they are correct, actively seeking armed rebellion would be completely illegal and is a capital offense should the government decide to sentence in that direction.

 

[LaMidRighter]

But nukes are weapons and covered under the 2nd and all its legislative history.

Sure, and ordnance has been prohibited by federal law. While no one in their right mind has argued against banning or licensing explosive ordnance and especially WMDs to individual civilians why not just amend the constitution in that direction? I mean, you have around 99.9% of popular support so let's just make that law certified in the traditional sense.

 

[obvious Child]

Sure, and ordnance has been prohibited by federal law. While no one in their right mind has argued against banning or licensing explosive ordnance and especially WMDs to individual civilians

Uh...Herin does. Also, there was some guy a few years ago who was totally on the Nukes For Everyone bandwagon. He got banned.

why not just amend the constitution in that direction? I mean, you have around 99.9% of popular support so let's just make that law certified in the traditional sense.

Don't you think it's a bit over reaching to amended the constitution for everything that isn't explicitly covered? Won't we have like a ridiculous number of amendments?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Uh...Herin does. Also, there was some guy a few years ago who was totally on the Nukes For Everyone bandwagon. He got banned.

Henrin is a reasonable guy, I assume he is going by the writing of the document. However if an amendment were presented I think he would agree. I don't speak for anyone but myself though.

Don't you think it's a bit over reaching to amended the constitution for everything that isn't explicitly covered? Won't we have like a ridiculous number of amendments?

I love the amendment requirement, it means the states function in the proper federal system we were supposed to have, and the federal keeps to it's enumerated powers. If something is so big that the states cannot handle it I have no doubt it would be an accepted amendment. There are so many stupid federal laws on the books created by "loopholing" that we have a situation where almost everything is a felony. Which one really is worse, something like an amendment process or having a bunch of elected officials just passing whatever the hell they want?

 

[Henrin]

Uh...Herin does. Also, there was some guy a few years ago who was totally on the Nukes For Everyone bandwagon. He got banned.

Man your memory must be like mine. My argument was a little complex when I made it a year or so back. There was two basic parts if I recall. THe first part was about the amendment and that it did indeed cover the weaponry in question. The second part which is of less importance and more of something I was exploring, was the affordability and accessibility of the weaponry. I don't actually believe I said much beyond that.

As for what I think of these matters. It is best the people concern themselves with balance between their military and the people before all things. If that means the military must disarm to restore balance, so be it.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

I would argue this specifically, was the charged based on active conspiracy or advocacy? Advocating an overthrow only through words would be protected under the first but actively seeking the means to engage the government on any level would be conspiracy, amassing the means to overtrhow would be attempt. One has the right to state that in their opinion the government has overreached it's authority and in some respects they are correct, actively seeking armed rebellion would be completely illegal and is a capital offense should the government decide to sentence in that direction.

Well that's the thing, isn't it?

Clearly, if the government arrested you, the would be acting under the belief that they could convict you, this would of course be based on their interpretation of the law (and your Constitutional rights).

I would expect that the interpretation of the legal representation of the accused would be different than the governments interpretation.

I am not trying to try the case here, just to point out the silliness of the OP implication that laws are not open interpretation and only liberals would think they are.

Any time someone's interests are served by a different understanding of what a law means, they will develop an argument supporting their interpretation, sometimes they will fail, sometimes not, and that is how we got from 1789 to now with often wildly different understandings of what was written in 1789 than the men who wrote the words.

It's messy and far from perfect, but we have to have some manner of picking the best argument as to what the words mean. Plain meaning is pretty plain, until someone has a reason for it not to be plain, and if they are clever enough, they can change the plain meaning.

This is how money became speech and the militia words were deleted from many people's understanding. Its how free black men born in America were stripped of their citizenship. It's also how segregation by law became illegal and the government could not listen to your phone calls without a warrant based on probable cause, and then they could.

Human = messy

 

[LaMidRighter]

Well that's the thing, isn't it?

Clearly, if the government arrested you, the would be acting under the belief that they could convict you, this would of course be based on their interpretation of the law (and your Constitutional rights).

I would expect that the interpretation of the legal representation of the accused would be different than the governments interpretation.

I am not trying to try the case here, just to point out the silliness of the OP implication that laws are not open interpretation and only liberals would think they are.

Any time someone's interests are served by a different understanding of what a law means, they will develop an argument supporting their interpretation, sometimes they will fail, sometimes not, and that is how we got from 1789 to now with often wildly different understandings of what was written in 1789 than the men who wrote the words.

It's messy and far from perfect, but we have to have some manner of picking the best argument as to what the words mean. Plain meaning is pretty plain, until someone has a reason for it not to be plain, and if they are clever enough, they can change the plain meaning.

This is how money became speech and the militia words were deleted from many people's understanding. Its how free black men born in America were stripped of their citizenship. It's also how segregation by law became illegal and the government could not listen to your phone calls without a warrant based on probable cause, and then they could.

Human = messy

Fair points. The interesting thing is if you go back to most of the first amendment cases you'll find action loses before speech much of the time, for instance; criminal syndicalism isn't about the speech, it's about the action of rallying a group to do harm, endangerment is not about the language but specifically causing a negative reaction that harms the public, fighting words is about words meant to start violence, etc.

Sure, interpretation is a mess and it is based upon to a certain degree the human condition. The trick is to keep our liberties while defining things that damage the public trust.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Fair points. The interesting thing is if you go back to most of the first amendment cases you'll find action loses before speech much of the time, for instance; criminal syndicalism isn't about the speech, it's about the action of rallying a group to do harm, endangerment is not about the language but specifically causing a negative reaction that harms the public, fighting words is about words meant to start violence, etc.

Sure, interpretation is a mess and it is based upon to a certain degree the human condition. The trick is to keep our liberties while defining things that damage the public trust.

Sadly, it seems one the biggest intellectual advancements in our history is our ability to find a way to make any argument sound like the one that is protecting liberty.

I swear, sometimes I think five year olds could make better decisions than some SCOTUS judges.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Sadly, it seems one the biggest intellectual advancements in our history is our ability to find a way to make any argument sound like the one that is protecting liberty.

I swear, sometimes I think five year olds could make better decisions than some SCOTUS judges.

Yep. Liberty is really a simple concept, may I engage in an activity that harms no one, myself excluded without interference. Where people convolute things is expanding the definitions of harm, or extending harm to the individual, rights really boil down to "where does your fist end and my nose begins".

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Yep. Liberty is really a simple concept, may I engage in an activity that harms no one, myself excluded without interference. Where people convolute things is expanding the definitions of harm, or extending harm to the individual, rights really boil down to "where does your fist end and my nose begins".

Unless I start slant drilling under your property and drink your milkshake. (Just one example where the fist nose line becomes debatable because someone wants to debate it)

And stop head butting my fist!!!

 

[LaMidRighter]

Unless I start slant drilling under your property and drink your milkshake. (Just one example where the fist nose line becomes debatable because someone wants to debate it)

And stop head butting my fist!!!

Good analogy, there is a lot of both currently. Worst of all is the old addage "follow the money", many of the laws we have with no real explanation were advised by businesses large enough to absorb the cost, and the benefit to them was an artificial ceiling to the competition. Basically if no one messes with my property, pays me my fair due, and does not threaten me they can do whatever their heart desires and I expecxt reciprocity, that is liberty in it's truest sense.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Good analogy, there is a lot of both currently. Worst of all is the old addage "follow the money", many of the laws we have with no real explanation were advised by businesses large enough to absorb the cost, and the benefit to them was an artificial ceiling to the competition. Basically if no one messes with my property, pays me my fair due, and does not threaten me they can do whatever their heart desires and I expecxt reciprocity, that is liberty in it's truest sense.

Regulatory capture, corporate socialism, crony capitalism, different terms for the same thing, legislation purchased for the benefit of a few and the detriment of all. I think the tens of thousands of laws created by this system are rally the source of Americas woes. None of them individually amount to much, but in aggregate, it's crushing. It's crushing liberty and its crushing our economy.

I guess it must be hard to live and let live when you have a board of directors to satisfy and a government for sale.