Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

[david52875]

wait what did you just say???????
you have proven?

so what did you supply proof if the burden of proof was on those that support the law???? :laughat:

thanks again for proving my point LMAO

philosophy has a key component called rational and its irrational to ignore reality.

The burden of proof is on those who want to change the law.

If I pass a law outlawing polka dotted bow ties, is the burden of proof on the person who wan't the law struck down? NO, because there is no sound, valid argument to support a ban on polka dotted bow ties.

 

[Henrin]

You're free to believe in natural rights if you like. Other people who believe in natural rights come to conflicting conclusions about what the natural rights are. For example, the fundamental divide amongst natural rights philosophers is that some of them believe the rights come from god while some believe they are deduced from the sorts of principles you describe.

Fundamentally the same thing, one is the just older than the other. The only real difference is that the older version used a book to describe nature, while what I said actually looks at nature, not a book. This resolves inconsistently problems that existed in the older way of thought on the subject.

For example, Hobbes starts out by just asserting that he thinks people can agree about what they don't want to happen to them more easily than they can agree about what they do want to happen, so he figures we should just only look at prohibitions on aggression type stuff. But that's just his personal preference. It isn't like that is actually backed up by real data.

How can it not be that the scientific data collected show my argument to be true? Where else can the origin of rights be if not the world and the data that is describing it? There is no other place, it has to come from the energy that makes us all, from the atoms, the light, and the world. Nothing else makes sense.

The text is plain as day. When the text isn't ambiguous the courts don't look any further. The text is what was ratified, so the text is what is binding, not some unsaid thing that you think the founders believed.

It is what the text meant. Please do not bother yourself with the little game you are playing. I know what is written and I damn well know what it means, thank you.

When it gets to the point where they need to look at founders' intent- if the language of the constitution is so vague that they can't really say what it means with any degree of confidence- things really get problematic. The founders disagreed with one another on pretty much everything. You can find founders on both sides of virtually every dispute. Some of them wanted a government of nearly unlimited powers, some of them wanted a government no more powerful than the one we had under the articles of confederation. To make things even more confusing, many of them changed their minds over the course of their lives, or even said one thing to people who wanted to hear that and another thing to people who wanted to hear something else. They were politicians after all.

I know who to look at for the clauses. Its bad logic to assume I look at just anyone and any time period for the meanings of the clauses. Try something else.

What the real story is is that from day one the federal government had the power to regulate interstate commerce. Some of the very first decisions of the first supreme court confirmed that and nobody ever really questioned it back then. It is after all, a power explicitly granted to the government in black and white in plain language in the constitution.

Not its not. Telling me what the SC thought on it does not in any way go about proving that you are in fact not wrong and I am instead. It wasn't decided I was in fact wrong for a great while.

But, back then only like 2% of commerce was interstate. So, the power to regulate that was pretty trivial. Today like 98% of commerce is interstate. So, it's the same power, the same interpretation, but the subject that they're able to regulate grew enormously. If we want to reel that back in, we would need an amendment. But it wouldn't really make sense. The economy is thoroughly integrated today. Having 50 separate systems of economic regulation would be a nightmare for business and there isn't really any major upside to it.

Totally and utterly irrelevant on a constitutional basis. I despise when the SC gets arguments and accepts arguments that it would be horrible if this wasn't true. Its totally and utterly irrelevant to what is written.

Its also a bad argument. It grew over time, and anyone with an ounce of honestly would admit it.

 

[AGENT J]

If I pass a law outlawing polka dotted bow ties, is the burden of proof on the person who wan't the law struck down? NO, because there is no sound, valid argument to support a ban on polka dotted bow ties.

actually if the law PASSES, yes it is
once the law passes the burden of proof is on YOU to strike it down :shrug:


like I said you seem to have no understanding of reality at all

 

[david52875]

actually if the law PASSES, yes it is
once the law passes the burden of proof is on YOU to strike it down :shrug:


like I said you seem to have no understanding of reality at all

Laws do not exist just for the sake of existing. Laws are created to protect the rights of the people. If they do nothing to protect people's rights, or violate those rights, they must be struck down.

 

[AGENT J]

Laws do not exist just for the sake of existing. Laws are created to protect the rights of the people. If they do nothing to protect people's rights, or violate those rights, they must be struck down.

yet this does NOTHING to change the FACT that if the law is PASSED you must provide proof to strike it down :shrug:

 

[david52875]

yet this does NOTHING to change the FACT that if the law is PASSED you must provide proof to strike it down :shrug:

No I don't. Laws do not exist for the sake of existing. You can't understand the FACT that laws do not exist for no reason?

 

[AGENT J]

No I don't. Laws do not exist for the sake of existing. You can't understand the FACT that laws do not exist for no reason?

LMAO again this has nothing to do with what I said about your false claim.

If a law is PASSED you will need to prove that it needs struck down.

 

[david52875]

LMAO again this has nothing to do with what I said about your false claim.

If a law is PASSED you will need to prove that it needs struck down.

No I most certainly do not. If there is no reason for a law to exist, even if it has already been passed, the it must be struck down.

 

[Henrin]

The problem with the abortion debate is both sides are for the restricting of freedom of someone and both have to explain why. The argument for the one side is that the unborn do not have any rights and the mothers rights are the only one in play, while the other side has to argue she can't use her body to restrict the rights of another and therefore that freedom is forfeit. So the argument that one side has nothing to do because of existing law is crap.

 

[AGENT J]

No I most certainly do not. If there is no reason for a law to exist, even if it has already been passed, the it must be struck down.

HOW will it get struck down? magic?

somebody will have to prove that it needs struck down LOL

 

[david52875]

HOW will it get struck down? magic?

somebody will have to prove that it needs struck down LOL

It's called the legislative process.

 

[AGENT J]

It's called the legislative process.

translation: there will have to be PROOF of reason to strike down the law

thanks, maybe you are finally learning reality

How old are you?

 

[david52875]

translation: there will have to be PROOF of reason to strike down the law

thanks, maybe you are finally learning reality

How old are you?

NO, there needs to be a REASON to keep the law in effect.

 

[AGENT J]

NO, there needs to be a REASON to keep the law in effect.

LMAO

so how do we determine that there is no reason to keep it in effect?


PROOF!

LMAO:2rofll:

 

[david52875]

LMAO

so how do we determine that there is no reason to keep it in effect?


PROOF!

LMAO:2rofll:

NO, the supporters of the law need to provide proof. How many times do I have to tell you,
LAWS DO NOT EXIST FOR THE SAKE OF EXISTING!

 

[Henrin]

Objective-J, Does the government have to support the Obamacare when it is fought in the SC? Yes, a representative of the view that Obama wants to put out will have to show up to court with his argument for why it should stay. Just like the people that bringing the case to the court has to have an argument for why it should not. Its a two way road. You are basically saying that this is fact not true by saying that because it is existing law you have to do nothing. That is fundamentally not true.

 

[david52875]

LMAO

so how do we determine that there is no reason to keep it in effect?


PROOF!

LMAO:2rofll:

Read this and tell me who is making the assertion, the person who says that bow ties should be banned, or the person who says bow ties should not be banned.

 

[CriticalThought]

In answer to the OP, I find it strange that the third option is not considered. Neither side has to meet a burden of proof because there is none. The right to life is an arbitrary concept. We only have such a right to the extent that others are willing to recognize it. Most individuals who agree to recognize a right to life do so simply because of their own respective spiritual beliefs which hold life as sacred.

 

[AGENT J]

NO, the supporters of the law need to provide proof. How many times do I have to tell you,
LAWS DO NOT EXIST FOR THE SAKE OF EXISTING!

LMAO wrong again

if its already passed there has to be proof to strike it down

if you are TRYING to pass it then you need proof to pass it

these facts will not change LMAO :lamo

and why do you keep repeating "LAWS DO NOT EXIST FOR THE SAKE OF EXISTING!" this has no barring on the debate at hand an no one has said otherwise

maybe Ill just start saying 2+2=4 at the end of all my threads, that would be just as meaningful LMAO

 

[david52875]

In answer to the OP, I find it strange that the third option is not considered. Neither side has to meet a burden of proof because there is none. The right to life is an arbitrary concept. We only have such a right to the extent that others are willing to recognize it. Most individuals who agree to recognize a right to life do so simply because of their own respective spiritual beliefs which hold life as sacred.

A right to life is just the fact that nobody has the authority to use force or coercion to kill you. See this.

 

[david52875]

LMAO wrong again

if its already passed there has to be proof to strike it down

if you are TRYING to pass it then you need proof to pass it

these facts will not change LMAO :lamo

and why do you keep repeating "LAWS DO NOT EXIST FOR THE SAKE OF EXISTING!" this has no barring on the debate at hand an no one has said otherwise

maybe Ill just start saying 2+2=4 at the end of all my threads, that would be just as meaningful LMAO

Because they don't. And that means that, unless you can provide a sound argument supporting the law, EVEN IF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED, it must be struck down.

 

[AGENT J]

Objective-J, Does the government have to support the Obamacare when it is fought in the SC? Yes, a representative of the view that Obama wants to put out will have to show up to court with his argument for why it should stay. Just like the people that bringing the case to the court has to have an argument for why it should not. Its a two way road. You are basically saying that this is fact not true by saying that because it is existing law you have to do nothing. That is fundamentally not true.

no thats what YOU are saying, Ive made NO SUCH CLAIM at all

David made the statement that "once a law is passed its the proof is on people to keep it" this is FALSE

I have CLEARLY SAID that if you want to PASS a law you need proof to do so and if a law is passed and you want it taken away you need proof to do so

abortion is legal, the burden of proof is on those who want that changed :shrug: sorry

if this proof is never presented the law will remain

 

[david52875]

In answer to the OP, I find it strange that the third option is not considered. Neither side has to meet a burden of proof because there is none. The right to life is an arbitrary concept. We only have such a right to the extent that others are willing to recognize it. Most individuals who agree to recognize a right to life do so simply because of their own respective spiritual beliefs which hold life as sacred.

Thanks for actually making a post thats ON TOPIC, by the way.

 

[david52875]

no thats what YOU are saying, Ive made NO SUCH CLAIM at all

David made the statement that "once a law is passed its the proof is on people to keep it" this is FALSE

I have CLEARLY SAID that if you want to PASS a law you need proof to do so and if a law is passed and you want it taken away you need proof to do so

abortion is legal, the burden of proof is on those who want that changed :shrug: sorry

if this proof is never presented the law will remain

No, I'm sorry. Sorry for you that is.

 

[AGENT J]

Read this and tell me who is making the assertion, the person who says that bow ties should be banned, or the person who says bow ties should not be banned.

listen kid there is nothing you could post that makes your statement true in reality.

you said if a law is passed, to keep it, those people must provide proof, this is what we are talking about, dont try and move the goal posts

and what you said is not true

the law is passed to change it someone must prove it needs changed, with out this proof the law doesnt change

again I ask how ole are you that this reality escapes you?