Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Socialism Thread pt 2 (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 05 Oct 2010, 20:06:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'l')et's not forget that "strict constructionist" Republicans are all for judicial activism when it suits them...how about eminent domain? You know, that case where SCOTUS ruled your county can take your house because some developer wants to build a parking lot.


You don't know what you are talking about----you've completely forgotten the facts.

The "eminent domain" case was brought by a Democrat controlled LIBERAL city council in New London in the blue state of Connecticut and upheld in the SCOTUS by the LIBERAL SCOTUS justices. The justices voting against the outrageous land seizure were Scalia, Thomas, Sandra Day O'Conner etc.

Liberals fail America in the outrageous KELO eminent domain case

The poor people who lost their homes were represented by a CONSERVATIVE law firm opposed to misuse of government emminent domain powers.

Face facts, dude: LIBERAL DEMOCRATS are people who think government should be able to seize people's homes because they know better then you what is the "best use" of your property. :roll:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby efarmer » Tue 05 Oct 2010, 20:11:41

I agree with you strongly on Hamilton Expatriot. He was absolutely correct that our sparse population and immense resources and capacity for growth would overcome the financial deficits that were to be approached in traditional manners by individual states. But this set the pace for the Federal government using leverage to remove financial burdens from states to gain more power, and once established, the die was cast and has remained so to the present day. Hamilton is the singular figure who worked to link the ever present human nature to respond to free government money in return for the forfeiture of state and individual rights.

He put the hook of European banking into the American heart and set it.
User avatar
efarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Expatriot » Tue 05 Oct 2010, 20:16:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '
')Yeah, well, let's not forget that "strict constructionist" Republicans are all for judicial activism when it suits them. Bush v. Gore, anyone? Or how about eminent domain? You know, that case where SCOTUS ruled your county can take your house because some developer wants to build a parking lot.


Sixstrings - you're an intelligent person and your posts are usually good.

You have your head very far up your ass on this one.

Remember how you posted "don't most people know that 5 justices decide what's Constitutional?"

You're a perfect example of why the Constitution was doomed from the start - most people have no idea what the Constitution says or means, but there are many who throw around terms and case references who know just enough to be dangerous.

You are one of them. You're smart enough to get it, but you don't know enough now to be posting as any authority on it.

Let's start with this.

The New London eminent domain case you're attempting to use to prove your point that originalists will be activists when it suits them actually kills your argument.

The 5 justices who supported that land grab were - John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Kennedy is a flip flopper - the other 4 are hard core liberals, with Ginsburg being a communist, IMO.
The 4 against were OConner, Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Scalia and Thomas are, arguably, originalists.

Point is, you're just proving, beyond all doubt, why only a handful of people walking around are competent to talk about the Constitution, where it started, how it was destroyed, and what it is now.

I don't mean this in the typical snarky forum way - you're smart enough to know when to shut up. I've now given you enough information for you to seriously question whether you're competent to say anything about the Constitution.

I suggest that, if you're interested, you go buy a con law horn book and start reading. Give it about 200 or 300 hundred hours and you'll begin to get it. 1,000 or more and you'll really start to get it.

How about this - do you know that the original Constitution didn't protect Americans from state action? That is, if Georgia said it was illegal to speak outside on a Sunday, tough s--t?

How many people do you know could have told you that?


Regarding the Bush Gore case, did you read it?

I knew many lawyers who bitched and moaned about the decision without having even read it.

Bottom line, 7 of 9 justices said the Florida recount system was a 14th amendment violation, including 2 liberals and a moderate. The two holdouts were the two ultra-liberals on the court, both "interpretationists."

The real issue was timeliness. 5 of 9 said that no possible system could be implemented in time to allow a constitutional recount.

How many people who bitch about that decision and site it as some sort of bias could give you the info above? Answer - very, very few.

Point is, if it was just a right wing mugging, why on earth would 2 liberals have sided with 4 conservatives in the initial determination that the Florida recount was unconstitutional?

Folks - next time you want to attack somebody from either wing for throwing the Constitution around, remember this - the odds are almost certain that you are equally clueless.
User avatar
Expatriot
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2010, 11:57:52
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Expatriot » Tue 05 Oct 2010, 20:18:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('efarmer', 'H')e put the hook of European banking into the American heart and set it.


Perfect. He was a shill by trade and a bastard by both birth right and deed.
User avatar
Expatriot
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2010, 11:57:52
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Sixstrings » Tue 05 Oct 2010, 22:10:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Expatriot', 'D')on't know who Lee Greenwood is.


You've never heard that patriotic country music anthem, "God Bless the USA?" I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free.. yadda yadda yadda

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou're assuming that the Founding Fathers intended to give to the Judiciary the ability to "interpret" the Constitution and, thereby, alter the breadth of powers of Congress and/or the Executive and/or itself.
Simply, they did not intend that.


Actually, we should just be very thankful they managed to come up with as good a Constitution as they did. You're arguing "intentions" and "finer points," but really the whole thing could have been a mess -- things could have gone the way of French and Mexican democracy, with one Republic after another.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')very founder, with the exception of that s--thead Hamilton, wanted a small Federal government that was well-restrained.


You're picking and choosing your founding fathers. You can't deify some of them, then call the others "s--theads." The founding documents they came up with were all the result of compromises between differing points of view.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he SCOTUS first expanded its own powers (see Marbury v. Madison), then expanded Congress' powers and eventually the Executive (see, for many examples, the interstate commerce clause cases).


And the power to do so was granted to SCOTUS in the Constitution. The founders must have been well aware of the natural evolution of law -- English common law had evolved over centuries, and no doubt they expected the new American judiciary to similarly evolve case law.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he "checks and balances" horses--t is just the nonsense they teach at the idiot factories to keep everybody thinking that both the Executive and Congress aren't f----ing everyone in the ass in perfect Kahoots with each other, with the blessing of the SCOTUS.


Just because the checks and balances aren't always used doesn't mean they don't exist. It wasn't that long ago we had a sitting president impeached, you know -- and that's historically a very rare event.

Of course I agree with what you're getting at that really it's all a one party corporate / rich / elitist government we have now. But the powers of each branch are still there, and one branch could assert itself if things get bad enough (assuming the SCOTUS doesn't further enable imperial presidencies).

In his inaugural address, FDR vowed to do whatever it took it end the Depression -- with or without the approval of Congress. The implied thread was martial law, which wasn't necessary in the end but Roosevelt did try to pack more justices onto the Court.

And ultimately, the SCOTUS is a bit of a paper tiger if the commander in chief doesn't want to listen. After a decision in favor of the Cherokee Indians, Jackson famously said "it's their decision, let them enforce it" and then he did what he wanted and force marched the Cherokee on the trail of tears.

In that scenario, if Congress is unwilling to impeach the executive then the SCOTUS is powerless. So these are the checks and balances Expatriot, I'm not saying it's some Disney feel good thing it's just the framework that the Constitution lays out.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 05 Oct 2010, 22:39:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '
')So, my answer is that if we could clean up the systemic corruption in private enterprise



But that would mean government regulation. 8O


So be it. If the clowns running powerful private enterprises can't do things honestly, then it's theoretically better to have the government standing over them with a mallet to smack them when they get out of line than to let them run wild.

Now if we could just come up with a system that regulated effectively, instead of the corrupt and incompetent agencies we see completely miss things or fail to regulate at all, expecting industry to regulate themselves --maybe things would get better in this area. I'm not holding my breath.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Sixstrings » Tue 05 Oct 2010, 23:52:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Expatriot', 'Y')ou're a perfect example of why the Constitution was doomed from the start - most people have no idea what the Constitution says or means, but there are many who throw around terms and case references who know just enough to be dangerous.


Finally! After two years of posting on this site I've managed to be called "dangerous."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou are one of them. You're smart enough to get it, but you don't know enough now to be posting as any authority on it.


I've listened to more than enough of this year's Tea Party candidates to feel quite confident about expressing my own opinions. Whether you know it or not, a good percentage of congress critters are really, really clueless. And they're the ones in charge, Ex. And yet you say little old me, who's just a citizen and voter, should shut up and not have an opinion?

Bottom line, I'm smarter than most voters so I'll keep on having my own opinion. And intelligence, or membership in a state bar for that matter, is not a requirement for citizenship, voting, or free speech. If I think a Supreme Court decision is lousy, that's my right and it's also my right to vote for whomever I please for whatever reason I please. It's also my right to pretty much say anything I want, other than "fire" in a crowded theater.

If I remember correctly, you're a lawyer. I'm not. It's not in my area of expertise or hobbies to actually read SCOTUS opinions, but that's why this is a forum and not anyone's blog -- we all run our mouths on here, and the whole world is welcome to chime in, and at the end of the day a neutral observer could piece together some pretty sound conclusions.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')et's start with this.

The New London eminent domain case you're attempting to use to prove your point that originalists will be activists when it suits them actually kills your argument.

The 5 justices who supported that land grab were - John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Kennedy is a flip flopper - the other 4 are hard core liberals, with Ginsburg being a communist, IMO.
The 4 against were OConner, Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Scalia and Thomas are, arguably, originalists.


I don't know what you're trying to prove here, but it didn't convince me into liking either Bush v. Gore or the eminent domain thing or the "corporations are people too" decisions. Maybe you're enraptured by the beauty of the legal reasoning or whatever, but I'm just an everyday Joe the Plumber and I don't like those decisions.

And by the way, as a lawyer you ought to know that a splendid argument can be made for any point of view whatsoever.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')oint is, you're just proving, beyond all doubt, why only a handful of people walking around are competent to talk about the Constitution, where it started, how it was destroyed, and what it is now.


Wow, that's some elitism there. Read the preamble of the Constitution, it begins with "We The People," not the "We the Lawyers Who Are Competent to Talk About These Things."

But in general I get your point; I'm guessing you're a fan of Tea Party candidates, are you really telling me they're all brilliant legal minds? For that matter, Obama is a constitutional scholar and yet that hasn't stopped him from walking all over it.

Ex, if you're a citizen and have a pulse, then you're competent to vote and speak your mind. That's the foundation of our Republic, that all us unwashed masses are governed because we consent to governance. Power is derived from the People, not the landed nor the lawyers. In theory anyway.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') suggest that, if you're interested, you go buy a con law horn book and start reading. Give it about 200 or 300 hundred hours and you'll begin to get it. 1,000 or more and you'll really start to get it.

More elitism. Look, not everyone on this forum is an expert at everything. Some of us may not be 100% right 100% of the time, and that's when someone else chimes in with their view. That's all you need to do, it's not necessary to pepper your argument with "you're not even qualified to discuss this."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow about this - do you know that the original Constitution didn't protect Americans from state action? That is, if Georgia said it was illegal to speak outside on a Sunday, tough s--t?
...
How many people do you know could have told you that?

Ok, so we agree that the Constitution is a living document that evolves over time according to precedent set by various supreme courts. Apparently your problem is that you just want it to evolve to the right and never the left.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')egarding the Bush Gore case, did you read it?

No, I wasn't a doomer at that time and was thoroughly apolitical and was much happier for it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') knew many lawyers who bitched and moaned about the decision without having even read it.

That's because it stunk to high heaven. My layman's point of view is that the SCOTUS panicked. They were afraid of a constitutional crisis with the presidency hanging in the balance. They were also inclined to go ahead and appoint the Republican. Bottom line, they screwed up -- they should have given the recount more time. They still could have found a way to stop it if it dragged on too long, it was inexcusable to shut it down so soon.

It's up to Florida to pick its electors and our supreme court made it's ruling and the SCOTUS should have stayed out of it. I thought you were for states' rights, hm?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he real issue was timeliness. 5 of 9 said that no possible system could be implemented in time to allow a constitutional recount.

The Florida Supreme Court was more than qualified to be the judge of that. And what "system" are you talking about? All they had to do was look at the ballots and if there was a dent where the puncher didn't go through then count the vote. All these issues should have been left to the Florida court, Ex.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')oint is, if it was just a right wing mugging, why on earth would 2 liberals have sided with 4 conservatives in the initial determination that the Florida recount was unconstitutional?

They were afraid of a very messy presidential selection. Just my opinion.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby rangerone314 » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 00:07:48

If Conservatives are so against judicial activism, then why don't they cry about the judicial activism that resulted in Corporate Personhood? Where in the Constitution does it say a Corporation is a person that has Freedom of Speech.

Last time I checked, a corporation doesn't eat, breath, reproduce or crap. (although that last might apply if you count the polluting the rivers and food supply as crapping and using the world as its toilet)

Oooops! Its only "activism" if it is something you don't support.

Hypocrites.
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 09:59:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rangerone314', 'I')f Conservatives are so against judicial activism, then why don't they cry about the judicial activism that resulted in Corporate Personhood? Where in the Constitution does it say a Corporation is a person that has Freedom of Speech.




Funny about that, huh? No crying whatsoever from the "conservatives" when that decision came down.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Expatriot » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 12:21:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'I')'ve listened to more than enough of this year's Tea Party candidates to feel quite confident about expressing my own opinions. Whether you know it or not, a good percentage of congress critters are really, really clueless. And they're the ones in charge, Ex. And yet you say little old me, who's just a citizen and voter, should shut up and not have an opinion?

Actually, no, what I was attempting to say was that you don't know enough about the Constitution to speak about it with any authority. And, given your proven ignorance regarding the Kelo case, I'm right about that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's also my right to pretty much say anything I want, other than "fire" in a crowded theater.

I wasn't talking about rights, I was talking about competence.

When it comes to Constitutional Law, you are incompetent. You've proven that. My suggestion wasn't to not have an opinion - my suggestion was to stop talking about something about which you are manifestly incompetent.

You seem to think that being "smarter" than somebody means that you should be talking about something.

I'm guessing that you don't know much about multi-variable calculus. Would you apply the same logic to MVC and go on and on about it, incompetently, just because the person next to you, who is also ignorant about MVC, is also talking about it?

Of course not.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut in general I get your point; I'm guessing you're a fan of Tea Party candidates, are you really telling me they're all brilliant legal minds? For that matter, Obama is a constitutional scholar and yet that hasn't stopped him from walking all over it.

Tea Party folks tend to be idiot right wingers. I dislike their ideology about as much as I dislike idiot liberals.
Take your pick, I guess.
On the one hand, I'll have one group telling me I can't ------ my same sex friend in the ----- because it's immoral, on the other hand I'll have a group wanting the public schools to show videos showing how two same sex individuals should properly ----- each other in their --------s.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore elitism. Look, not everyone on this forum is an expert at everything. Some of us may not be 100% right 100% of the time, and that's when someone else chimes in with their view.

You've missed my point entirely.
As you proved by getting the Kelo case 180 degrees backward, you are incompetent to talk about Con Law. You are probably 1,000 hours of study short of being competent.
It's OK to not be an expert at something.
It's also OK to be relatively ignorant about something.
What I object to is you pontificating about something about which you are incompetent.

Your "opinion" of the Kelo case or Roe v. Wade is a nice, visceral, emotional thing you can talk about with your buddies. You can say, as one would say about Snooky on Jersey Shore, "I don't like that," or "I don't like that." But you are incompetent to comment on Constitutional law in the context of the development of the document, the legal premise of the document, the development of Con law and the court's role, and the effect of Con law on the 3 branches of govt.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow about this - do you know that the original Constitution didn't protect Americans from state action? That is, if Georgia said it was illegal to speak outside on a Sunday, tough s--t?
...
How many people do you know could have told you that?

Ok, so we agree that the Constitution is a living document that evolves over time according to precedent set by various supreme courts. Apparently your problem is that you just want it to evolve to the right and never the left.

We disagree completely. This is where your incompetence is showing. You don't know enough about Con Law to have this conversation.

I'll keep it as simple as possible.

There are two possibilities.

1. Rules are rules and the way to change rules is to follow the rule for changing rules to change the rules.

2. Rules are not rules, and they can be changed by 5 bozos as those 5 bozos see fit.

You believe in 2.
It's really as simple as that. Words like "evolving" and "living breathing" are just fanciful code for, "the rules are not rules."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat's because it stunk to high heaven. My layman's point of view is that the SCOTUS panicked. . . . They still could have found a way to stop it if it dragged on too long, it was inexcusable to shut it down so soon. . . . It's up to Florida to pick its electors and our supreme court made it's ruling and the SCOTUS should have stayed out of it. I thought you were for states' rights, hm?
Once again, this is your incompetence talking. 1st, you're a card carrying Democrat and I'd rather cut my left foot off than cast a vote for either party. I could give a s---t less if Gore or Bush got in - they were the same person to me. You, on the other hand, are a leftist, and that is why you didn't like the decision. You're a partisan Democrat who hasn't read the opinion, who is ignorant about Con Law, but who believes with no doubt in his mind that he is right.
You're essentially the Left's version of the right winger who believes in such-and-such because Jesus said so.
If the case had been reversed, you would have "liked it," like somebody would like "Joey" on Friends, because . . . and you would have some horse----t ready to go, like, "clearly the Florida Republicans were attempting to use . . . to keep [my guy] from assuming the throne.
The scary right wingers think they're right for moral reasons.
The scary left wingers think they're right because, despite not being versed in the field in question, they have a better education than the scary right wingers.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')oint is, if it was just a right wing mugging, why on earth would 2 liberals have sided with 4 conservatives in the initial determination that the Florida recount was unconstitutional?

They were afraid of a very messy presidential selection. Just my opinion.
Once again, your lack of information on Con Law is preventing you from understanding this issue.

Your hypothetical answer is logically impossible, because those same 2 justices wanted the recount to go on.

If you had read the opinion, and if you had the background to understand it, you would have understood that, what you describe as "your opinion" is logically impossible.


But you've reinforced for me an interesting thing here, and for that I thank you.

You've highlighted the notion that people who are not competent to talk about a particular issue - Con Law, Kanji, MVC, genetic transduction, and so on - somehow feel that it is reasonable to talk about it if there are people who are even more incompetent than them talking about it.

Wonderful.

Proof positive, people, why 1 person 1 vote Democracy was always doomed.

The only interesting thing left for me is to find out what comes next.
User avatar
Expatriot
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2010, 11:57:52
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 14:01:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Serial_Worrier', '
')Voluntary socialism is constitutional, aka communes. What isn't constitutional is to force the entire nation into it....


Just curious about what is constitutional about capitalism, exactly? If it is unconstitutional to force the entire nation into one economic system, wouldn't it be unconstitutional to force the entire nation into another economic system?


God your dumb. (Normally I delete such ad hom remarks, but this is priceless. :-D Eastbay) Nobody "forces" you into capitalism. Capitalism by it's nature is what free people do with each other. If you prefer socialism you have many options - go to a commune or North Korea.
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Expatriot » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 14:24:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Serial_Worrier', 'G')od yourdumb.


Irony too great to not quote for posterity.
User avatar
Expatriot
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2010, 11:57:52
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 14:52:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Serial_Worrier', '
')God your dumb. Nobody "forces" you into capitalism. Capitalism by it's nature is what free people do with each other.



"God your dumb." Excellent. :)

People lived freely for hundreds of thousands of years without "capitalism."


cap·i·tal·ism
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 14:55:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Serial_Worrier', '
')God your dumb. Nobody "forces" you into capitalism. Capitalism by it's nature is what free people do with each other.



"God your dumb." Excellent. :)

People lived freely for hundreds of thousands of years without "capitalism."


cap·i·tal·ism
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism


Define how they lived "free" for hundreds of thousands of years w/o capitalism. H. Sapiens at MOST have been around for 200K years. Cruel ad hom deleted by eastbay. No more of that please.
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 15:03:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Serial_Worrier', ' ')H. Sapiens at MOST have been around for 200K years. deleted



Yeah, you're right. I guess it depends on how you define "people." So I will concede and change it to "People lived freely for tens of thousands of years without capitalism." :)
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Sixstrings » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 15:14:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Expatriot', 'W')hen it comes to Constitutional Law, you are incompetent. You've proven that. My suggestion wasn't to not have an opinion - my suggestion was to stop talking about something about which you are manifestly incompetent.


Good lord, Expatriot this is an INTERENTZ FORUM, this is NOT the Supreme Court. You keep calling me incompetent over and over as if I'm out there posing as a lawyer or something. Again, this is a forum for common folks to log on and give their opinion. I think you're showing some lawyerly elitism here, you guys really don't like regular folks speaking up.

But I'll go ahead and cede the argument on the specific SCOTUS opinions, because you are right in that we can't continue a debate if I won't read the opinions.

I will say one last thing about your rabid strict constructionalism -- what's your take on evolving common law / case law? Do you deny that it's worked out pretty well for centuries now?

Many of the founders were lawyers themselves. They knew what they were doing. You may not approve of the broad authority granted the judiciary, but from my admittedly layman's perspective, seems to me it's rooted in English common law tradition. Times change, circumstances change, and sometimes JUSTICE is more important than the LETTER of a law that may be been written two centuries ago. Judges have to make rulings with what they have to work with, and often that means going to the spirit of the law when the letter of the law is not specific to current circumstances.

I agree that none of us like judicial activism when it goes against us, but at that point it becomes the responsibility of the legislature to write new laws that reflect the majority will of the People. If the legislature doesn't bother, and if the People don't care enough to make it an issue, then you really can't blame the courts for ruling with the laws they have to work with.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat I object to is you pontificating about something about which you are incompetent.


There's nothing in the peakoil.com code of conduct that says members cannot "pontificate." If nobody pontificated, we wouldn't even have a forum.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1'). Rules are rules and the way to change rules is to follow the rule for changing rules to change the rules.

2. Rules are not rules, and they can be changed by 5 bozos as those 5 bozos see fit.

You believe in 2.
It's really as simple as that. Words like "evolving" and "living breathing" are just fanciful code for, "the rules are not rules."


You're ignoring the very FOUNDATION of English jurisprudence. That foundation has been with us for centuries, including the time of the founding fathers -- I'm talking about evolving common law and case law. You seem to want to build a firewall between supreme courts and the rest of our judicial system. Ex, that just doesn't make any sense.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1')st, you're a card carrying Democrat and I'd rather cut my left foot off than cast a vote for either party. I could give a s---t less if Gore or Bush got in - they were the same person to me. You, on the other hand, are a leftist, and that is why you didn't like the decision.


Actually I voted for Bush in that election because I couldn't stand Al Gore. But that doesn't mean I don't care about due process; the Florida Supreme Court was on top of the situation, they made their ruling, the votes were being counted -- and then the SCOTUS stepped in and shut it all down.

I didn't really care at the time, but since becoming more politically aware in later years I realized how wrong that was. A lot of young American men would still be alive too if Gore had won. And our nation wouldn't be bankrupt from these multi trillion dollar Republican wars.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]You're a partisan Democrat who hasn't read the opinion, who is ignorant about Con Law, but who believes with no doubt in his mind that he is right.

You must not read my other posts. I'm always saying that both parties are the same, neither are worth a crap to anyone but the rich and incorporated (and lawyers too, they get well taken care of).

Here's my political evolution: Libertarian, then apathetic Republican, then hopeful Democrat, now thoroughly disillusioned Democrat, and sometime when I get around to it I'll change my registration to Independent. I have some strong opinions that lean to the nationalistic and socialist spectrum, but I also see the dangers and contradictions inherent in ALL political philosophies.

Good government requires a balance, and it's very tricky. I think France had it just about perfect up until recently, so that should give you an idea of what kind of socialist I am.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')roof positive, people, why 1 person 1 vote Democracy was always doomed.

The only interesting thing left for me is to find out what comes next.

Now I'm confused. If you want only the elite to have a vote, then Ex you're an aristocrat and NOT a constitutionalist. Your kind of elitism is what our Revolution was all about and why we have the Constitution we do.
Last edited by Sixstrings on Wed 06 Oct 2010, 15:26:11, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 15:23:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', 'I') agree that none of us like judicial activism when it goes against us, but at that point it becomes the responsibility of the legislature to write new laws that reflect the majority will of the People.



Except our system is set up to attempt to protect the Minority from the Majority and vice versa. There is always a struggle, unless all people as a group (100% of them) decide to live a certain way, or overthrow the government for a monarchy or dictatorship, there must always be a struggle between differing interests. Majority does not rule in the United States, nor does minority. "The people" rule (ideally).
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby Pops » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 15:43:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Serial_Worrier', 'G')od your dumb.

<snort>
<chortle>
<eye-roll>
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Socialism is Unconstitutional

Unread postby americandream » Wed 06 Oct 2010, 18:21:08

Actually, its not that simple. Anglo-Saxon based legal procedure is quite logical and specific and depending on your skills as an advocate and your ability at determining the intent behind a piece of legislation and the role of specific provisions and amendments within that overall intent, one can make a strong case for the preservation of the liberties contemplated by the Constitution by a whole raft of means, including the use of socialised remedies, in other words to prevent the thwarting of the intent of the Constitution. So to that extent, I would argue that even a Supreme Court dominated with Conservatives can be persuaded to support socialised measures.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Expatriot', 'I') don't want to get into a debate about the Constitution - I've only met a handful of Americans who understand Constitutional law, and, with only one or two exceptions, they were all lawyers.

I'm guessing nobody posting on this thread is a lawyer, I'm guessing that nobody posting on this thread has read the 200 or so critical Supreme Court cases in their entirety, and so on.

So here it is in a nutshell.

Something is "unconstitutional" IF and ONLY IF 5 bozos on the Supreme Court say it is. Simple as that.

Of course, for minor matters, issues usually don't get to the Supreme Court, so whether those minor matters are unconstitutional will be decided regionally by 2 bozos on a Federal Circuit Court.

It was settled long ago that the original meaning of the Constitution is irrelevant to the discussion, so don't bother attempting to argue with people what Madison thought the 2nd amendment meant.

It's very simple. 5 bozos decide what's Constitutional and what isn't, and they can decide that based on whatever they want - prior cases, their dog's opinion, and so on. If you don't like it? Tough s--t. They're in for life.

Everyone got that?

So whether "socialism" is "unconstitutional" is really a silly question. It is or it isn't based on what 5 bozos say it is.

If you want to academically discuss what the founders would have said about "socialism," I'm fairly certain they'd say that the Constitution is silent on the matter. If Congress wanted to pass a law that nationalized all industry, piled up all income, doled out income according to need, etcetera, that would be fine.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: THE Socialism Thread pt 2 (merged)

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:51:47

What is constitutional or unconstitutional can change at any time depending on who the judges on the SCOTUS are. 8)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron