NATION

PASSWORD

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,0332,0342,0352,0362,0372,0382,039. . .2,1802,181»
Messages

The Incorporated States of Gulf Oil

Dennock wrote:One constitutional provision y’all are forgetting. It might of been a necessity then but now it is a hindrance to various limited federal power advocates, the “necessary and proper clause”. What is necessary that cannot be done via amendment? The 14th amendment was passed by most non-slave states, and by extension most states that had a right to say anything at the time. When passed the 14th amendment was necessary and proper but congress chose to put it in the constitution, not pass a law which would of been just as effective. Whenever we see a potential issue as “necessary and proper” it should be the stance of government to leave the matter to the states or to pass an amendment granting it such power. Some however argue this would make passing law too hard. If that is the case then the clause needs to be amended to designate what is “necessary and proper”. In my opinion there is numerous cases where congress uses this clause, or the commerce clause, to pass law that should not be passed by the federal government, but by the states. Sometimes we do forget that we are a federation, not a centralized government. The longer we forget this fact the more likely we are to fall to totalitarianism.

True. The Amendment process was used correctly for Prohibition. The 18th Amendment outlawed the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages. There was no reliance on the “commerce clause” or things “necessary proper” but the constitution was changed to specifically give the Federal government that authority. Then the 21st Amendment was used to return that power to the states. Too many modern laws usurp state authority without a proper constitutional foundation.

Anchillas and Dennock

The United States of Midlands

Gelth confederacy wrote:That's patently false. The reason why Hydroxychloroquine was rejected as a treatment for COVID is due to the fact that it is significantly cheaper than other drugs being propped up by the pharmaceutical industry.

No, that's patently true. No proper clinical study showed any benefit from Hydroxychloroquine. It was rejected because it does not work (while having serious side effects). You just assert falsehoods without showing any clinical studies to support them.

The United States of Midlands

Gulf Oil wrote:The Federal Government is suppose to have limited power. The advocates for unlimited central government usually cite two portions of the Document to circumvent the Bill of Rights.
  • First is the commerce clause, by considering any human activity to be “commerce” and subject to Federal control. This is incorrect since the commerce clause was amended by the restrictions imposed by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was not amended by the commerce clause.

  • The second part of the constitution favored by advocates for a powerful central government is the Fourteenth Amendment. That amendment guarantees equal protection under the laws. Under this method Congress has power to meddle in such areas as healthcare to ensure that all care is equally inferior, and no one benefits from being rich. The problem is that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the American civil war to expand personal Liberty and Freedom, not to impose limitations on it.

The regulation of the practice of medicine is simply not a Federal power.

No, it's an absurd lie that the federal government is supposed to have limited power. The very existence of the Constitution disproves that lie. I.e. if the government was indeed supposed to have limited power, there would be no Constitution. We already had Articles of Confederation. Under which states had most power and the central government had limited power. But very soon it became clear that it was not a viable arrangement, and that's why the Constitution was adopted. If you wanted to describe in one sentence what the Constitution accomplished it would be something like "a massive transfer of power from states to the newly created strong federal government" - not "limited the federal government". You have to look not at some abstracts turns of phrase in the document, but at how it changed the status quo. You know, a new law setting a 50% tax rate can be a draconian tax increase (from 10%) - or it can be a dramatic tax cut (from 90%). It all depends on what it was before. Very often when Libertarians talk about the Constitution they basically pretend that we still have Articles of Confederation. But in reality the original text of the Constitution had virtually no limits on the federal government power (except for a ban on ex post facto laws, bills of attainder etc.). Some states were actually concerned that there were no limits on the government infringing on freedoms and insisted on adding a Bill of Rights. Still, not many limits were added. And then in 1819 the SCOTUS confirmed (in McCulloch v. Maryland) that contrary to what libertarians claim even now, Article I, Section 8 does not actually limit the federal government to those powers explicitly listed therein.

The United States of Midlands

Gelth confederacy wrote:It's my choice to either get it or not to get it. End of discussion.

Of course you do. Even though the vaccine it's self is not nearly as effective as the State says it is.

The same "empirical data" the CDC lied about regarding hospitalizations, and deaths? No, thanks.

Yes, it's your choice as long as you don't go out in public. Just as it's your choice to drink or not as long as you don't drive on public roads.

And yes, vaccines are effective and have already saved over a million Americans.

The United States of Midlands

Informed consent wrote:We are dealing with people whose bread and butter is the deliberate misinterpretation and misapplication of constitutional law.
Using the 14th as an example, progressives have used it to justify anchor babies despite the fact that the senator who authored the amendment specifically stated in his dissertation that was not the intention.
Government never gives back any authority it accrues by hook or crook, and it is not a question of if, but when that authority is abused.
Not a problem.
Concerned citizens are free to mitigate as they see fit rendering any perceived danger from others moot.

OK, fine. Then as a concerned citizen I claim the right to mitigate the danger from you by shooting you if you come within 50 feet of me.

Do you realize that everything you say about vaccination also applies to drunk driving?! By your own argument you should be free to decide whether or not to put alcohol inside your body before driving, and concerned citizens are free to mitigate as they see fit rendering any perceived danger from you moot.

BTW there's also other way in which you danger others if you unvaccinated. You are much likelier to end up in a hospital, and American hospitals were already overwhelmed in Delta and Omicron waves, resulting in deaths of many people from other causes. Also, for many people Covid is a chronic disease, and I don't want to pay for your treatment for the rest of your life. Somehow I doubt that if you get chronic Covid, you'll follow your professed beliefs and pay for everything out of pocket.

Dennock

Midlands wrote:No, it's an absurd lie that the federal government is supposed to have limited power. The very existence of the Constitution disproves that lie. I.e. if the government was indeed supposed to have limited power, there would be no Constitution. We already had Articles of Confederation. Under which states had most power and the central government had limited power. But very soon it became clear that it was not a viable arrangement, and that's why the Constitution was adopted. If you wanted to describe in one sentence what the Constitution accomplished it would be something like "a massive transfer of power from states to the newly created strong federal government" - not "limited the federal government". You have to look not at some abstracts turns of phrase in the document, but at how it changed the status quo. You know, a new law setting a 50% tax rate can be a draconian tax increase (from 10%) - or it can be a dramatic tax cut (from 90%). It all depends on what it was before. Very often when Libertarians talk about the Constitution they basically pretend that we still have Articles of Confederation. But in reality the original text of the Constitution had virtually no limits on the federal government power (except for a ban on ex post facto laws, bills of attainder etc.). Some states were actually concerned that there were no limits on the government infringing on freedoms and insisted on adding a Bill of Rights. Still, not many limits were added. And then in 1819 the SCOTUS confirmed (in McCulloch v. Maryland) that contrary to what libertarians claim even now, Article I, Section 8 does not actually limit the federal government to those powers explicitly listed therein.

1819…then vs now.

Then:
Very rarely did the federal government overstep their bounds
Most power was within the states, as long as constitutional provisions were followed
Congress could conduct enough to satisfy the problems the articles created

Now:
Congress can simply use outdated antiques to suppress states rights, for example marijuana legalization
Congress can misuses “necessary and proper” or the commerce clause to, out of nowhere, create new areas they can legislate
Power has mostly became centralized over the past century
States are much more limited in how they conduct themselves
When the court is of a certain political leaning it takes an activist stance that was unheard of then

When will it stop? How far will it go? As power has shifted towards the feds on things it never did 200 years ago we have seen America slowly become a centralized government. Sometimes for good (civil rights) and sometimes for worse (roe v. wade). My interpretation of our constitution is, in matters of federal power, the power of the feds should be limited to what is in the constitution or any law or action that is necessary for our continued survival (war, tax, etc). The various power clauses need to be construed as strictly as possible, or we run the risk of them becoming further misused and misinterpreted, then what good is the constitution since it basically is ignored as a “damn document that gets in the way”, leading us into a totalitarian dystopian America.

Anchillas and Lutiania

The United States of Midlands

Dennock wrote:1819…then vs now.

Then:
Very rarely did the federal government overstep their bounds
Most power was within the states, as long as constitutional provisions were followed
Congress could conduct enough to satisfy the problems the articles created

Now:
Congress can simply use outdated antiques to suppress states rights, for example marijuana legalization
Congress can misuses “necessary and proper” or the commerce clause to, out of nowhere, create new areas they can legislate
Power has mostly became centralized over the past century
States are much more limited in how they conduct themselves
When the court is of a certain political leaning it takes an activist stance that was unheard of then

When will it stop? How far will it go? As power has shifted towards the feds on things it never did 200 years ago we have seen America slowly become a centralized government. Sometimes for good (civil rights) and sometimes for worse (roe v. wade). My interpretation of our constitution is, in matters of federal power, the power of the feds should be limited to what is in the constitution or any law or action that is necessary for our continued survival (war, tax, etc). The various power clauses need to be construed as strictly as possible, or we run the risk of them becoming further misused and misinterpreted, then what good is the constitution since it basically is ignored as a “damn document that gets in the way”, leading us into a totalitarian dystopian America.

Yes, we are becoming more centralized because the world is becoming more complex and interconnected, requiring more done by the government in general and more of it done by the central government. We can't possibly know how far it will go. We can no more imagine the world in the middle of the 23rd century than the Constitution framers were able to imagine ours (just one bit: back then the 10 biggest American towns and villages - there were no cities - had the combined population about the same as modern Peoria).

Informed consent

Midlands wrote:OK, fine. Then as a concerned citizen I claim the right to mitigate the danger from you by shooting you if you come within 50 feet of me.

Do you realize that everything you say about vaccination also applies to drunk driving?! By your own argument you should be free to decide whether or not to put alcohol inside your body before driving, and concerned citizens are free to mitigate as they see fit rendering any perceived danger from you moot.

BTW there's also other way in which you danger others if you unvaccinated. You are much likelier to end up in a hospital, and American hospitals were already overwhelmed in Delta and Omicron waves, resulting in deaths of many people from other causes. Also, for many people Covid is a chronic disease, and I don't want to pay for your treatment for the rest of your life. Somehow I doubt that if you get chronic Covid, you'll follow your professed beliefs and pay for everything out of pocket.

So riddle me this.
Let us say that masking, distancing, and vaccination are as effective as advertised by health officials, and I am masked, jabbed, and boosted, but you are not.
How would you present a threat to me?

Anchillas and Dennock

The United States of Midlands

Informed consent wrote:So riddle me this.
Let us say that masking, distancing, and vaccination are as effective as advertised by health officials, and I am masked, jabbed, and boosted, but you are not.
How would you present a threat to me?

Because no protection is perfect (and each one listed by you is actually far from perfect). So the danger also depends on the level of your exposure. If I don't mask, I increase your exposure. If I'm not vaccinated - along with many other people - I increase the overall infection level, and that increases your exposure too (not even necessarily from me).

The whole point is that epidemics (just like wars) are collective problems, and therefore public health is a collective solution. And that's part of the reason why any heavily individualistic ideology is as utopian and evil as Communism.

The Merchant Republic of Corporate Fat Cats

Midlands wrote:You just assert falsehoods without showing any clinical studies to support them.

Bruh. I return after a 2-week break and this is the very fist thing I see upon it.

A fresh gust of hypocrisy in my face.🍃

Since when did you care about credibility when showing none if it yourself?

We live in a stranger world
by the second, it seems.

The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid

The Merchant Republic of Corporate Fat Cats

Dennock wrote: The various power clauses need to be construed as strictly as possible, or we run the risk of them becoming further misused and misinterpreted, then what good is the constitution since it basically is ignored as a “damn document that gets in the way”, leading us into a totalitarian dystopian America.

I was on board until I read this part, and then I started thinking to myself:

Here's the classic catch in the communist gambit of riling up people's emotions to "convince" them.

A true marxist, you are; you should be proud!

1. Propose limiting the corrupt government that opresses us
2. Switch to the call-at-arms of
installing a large government replacing
the elites with a new type of elites.

History repeats itself.

Informed consent

Midlands wrote:

The whole point is that epidemics (just like wars) are collective problems, and therefore public health is a collective solution. And that's part of the reason why any heavily individualistic ideology is as utopian and evil as Communism.

Says the guy subscribing to the evil mom school of governance.
Few things in history have inaugurated more atrocity than sacrificing people for a common "good".

Meanwhile, you are going to love this.
The WHA is going to amend the WHO's treaty with provisos that will allow it to declare a health emergency in any nation, commandeer its infrastructure, and coerce its citizenry to take whatever action the WHO deems necessary.

What could go wrong?
It is not like there has ever been a regime that hijacked and retooled a public health system to conduct heinous experiments on people.
Right?

Dennock and Lutiania

Dennock

Corporate Fat Cats wrote:I was on board until I read this part, and then I started thinking to myself:

Here's the classic catch in the communist gambit of riling up people's emotions to "convince" them.

A true marxist, you are; you should be proud!

1. Propose limiting the corrupt government that opresses us
2. Switch to the call-at-arms of
installing a large government replacing
the elites with a new type of elites.

History repeats itself.

Actually that statement calls for as much decentralization as possible, putting power in the hands of the states, not some elitist central government.

And also I’m a non-Marxist socialist. Marxism is a load of utopian bull that can inspire, but will never be implemented.

Informed consent

The Incorporated States of Gulf Oil

Midlands wrote:No, it's an absurd lie that the federal government is supposed to have limited power. The very existence of the Constitution disproves that lie. I.e. if the government was indeed supposed to have limited power, there would be no Constitution. We already had Articles of Confederation. Under which states had most power and the central government had limited power. But very soon it became clear that it was not a viable arrangement, and that's why the Constitution was adopted. If you wanted to describe in one sentence what the Constitution accomplished it would be something like "a massive transfer of power from states to the newly created strong federal government" - not "limited the federal government". You have to look not at some abstracts turns of phrase in the document, but at how it changed the status quo. You know, a new law setting a 50% tax rate can be a draconian tax increase (from 10%) - or it can be a dramatic tax cut (from 90%). It all depends on what it was before. Very often when Libertarians talk about the Constitution they basically pretend that we still have Articles of Confederation. But in reality the original text of the Constitution had virtually no limits on the federal government power (except for a ban on ex post facto laws, bills of attainder etc.). Some states were actually concerned that there were no limits on the government infringing on freedoms and insisted on adding a Bill of Rights. Still, not many limits were added. And then in 1819 the SCOTUS confirmed (in McCulloch v. Maryland) that contrary to what libertarians claim even now, Article I, Section 8 does not actually limit the federal government to those powers explicitly listed therein.

It is ironic that you use taxation as your example of unlimited federal power when our original limited Constitution required the 16th Amendment to be passed before Congress was ever granted unlimited taxation authority.

Corporate Fat Cats, Dennock, Gelth confederacy, Informed consent, and 1 otherLutiania

Post self-deleted by Kalatchevia.

The Merchant Republic of Corporate Fat Cats

Dennock wrote:Actually that statement calls for as much decentralization as possible, putting power in the hands of the states, not some elitist central government.

And also I’m a non-Marxist socialist. Marxism is a load of utopian bull that can inspire, but will never be implemented.

Yeah- I was totally off for assuming marxism for the standard socialist; it's totally not like it prevailed for 99% of socialism's actual use in society or anything (like a century or so) totally!

The Merchant Republic of Corporate Fat Cats

Dennock wrote:Actually that statement calls for as much decentralization as possible, putting power in the hands of the states, not some elitist central government.

Maybe this is nihilist, but yeah- show me an example where "as much decenteralization as possible" applied to socialism in the real world. For all the words socialists like to use, history has no evidence of a "working" model for.

Decenteralism only works for an efficient model (capitalism, doi) otherwise, "putting power in the hands of the states" still means expensive af for everybody.

The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid

The Merchant Republic of Corporate Fat Cats

Gulf Oil wrote:It is ironic that you use taxation as your example of unlimited federal power when our original limited Constitution required the 16th Amendment to be passed before Congress was ever granted unlimited taxation authority.

Indeed. For certain individuals, irony knows no bounds. Especially when their words go no farther than their character's main tenets (non-existent).

The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid

The Merchant Republic of Corporate Fat Cats

Federation of American States wrote:I agree the Word Conservative should not be used to Describe Republicans, nor should Liberal Be used for Democrats for that matter.
although I don't know what words you would use to describe the Group Known as Conservatives ? id go with "Reactionary Populists".

I dunno. Liberal and Conservative face their entire history of trying to make the name of the other's adversary an insult. Even adding "tard" to lib. Or, the classic "extremist" which is the wild card.

That's not new. What is new is people actually believing the bs that either side slaps to the actual meaning.

Informed consent

Gulf Oil wrote:It is ironic that you use taxation as your example of unlimited federal power when our original limited Constitution required the 16th Amendment to be passed before Congress was ever granted unlimited taxation authority.

Yep.
Before WWI, the federal government fed its general funds primarily with import tariffs.
Federal excises had to have a specific stated purpose, and be collected from every state at a flat rate.
Fair, transparent, and wholly antithetical to progressive ideology.

Domestic entitlement coupled with a trade dynamic that favored the US less and less as the Cold War unfolded, and the culture flipping over time from production to consumption, made for entrenched national, and global engines of wealth redistribution that cannot be rolled back.
Two thirds of the federal budget is classified by law as mandatory, and it primarily centers around social security followed by medicare, then the rest of the federal social programs.
The next time you hear someone prattle on about US defense spending, kindly remind them that it is allocated out of a discretionary fund that represents only one third of the total federal budget.

Kalatchevia wrote:conservative is actually the correct name for these people, all you need to add is emphasis on the con, because they are equivocators.

Funny. I see more of that in leftwing identity politics.
Anyway, I think Gallagher said it best.
"If pro means for, and con means against, does that mean that Congress is the opposite of Progress?"

Dennock

Dennock

Corporate Fat Cats wrote:Yeah- I was totally off for assuming marxism for the standard socialist; it's totally not like it prevailed for 99% of socialism's actual use in society or anything (like a century or so) totally!

Corporate Fat Cats wrote:Maybe this is nihilist, but yeah- show me an example where "as much decenteralization as possible" applied to socialism in the real world. For all the words socialists like to use, history has no evidence of a "working" model for.

Decenteralism only works for an efficient model (capitalism, doi) otherwise, "putting power in the hands of the states" still means expensive af for everybody.

Unlike those such as Anchillas, Informed consent, and others you just seem to want to drill it that you are right and I am wrong. Don't think that your view is an absolute, as none are, not even mine. Open your mind to those who are different, only then will the best viewpoint be developed. You seem to think that I somehow am not libertarian, how many times must my kind state this, Marxism-Leninism is a form of Socialism but is by far not the only form. Read about how diverse of a movement socialism is. It is about as (if not more) diverse than liberalism or conservatism, and socialism can combine liberal or conservative aspects into itself, i.e. become a syncretic stance with a wide variety of views. Socialism as a movement is united only by one tenet, worker (or employee in the modern sense) control...no other. Don't conflate my socialism with the communist utopian fools who are not willing to be flexible with there stance, I am not that but the very opposite.

Anchillas, The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid, and Informed consent

Dennock

Informed consent wrote:"If pro means for, and con means against, does that mean that Congress is the opposite of Progress?"

Why is that quote accurate???

The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid

Informed consent

Dennock wrote:Why is that quote accurate???

Depends upon your point of view.
It is part of a standup comedy act.
Gallagher did have a strong libertarian streak if I remember him right.

He would ask things like;
"What would we call a fly if it did not have wings?
"A walk?"

"Why are they called apartments when they are so close together?"

"Why is it called a TV set when you only get one?.

"Cargo goes by ship, but a shipment goes by truck."

"A woman wears a pair of panties, but just one bra."

Anchillas, Dennock, and The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid

New munchen

Informed consent wrote:Depends upon your point of view.
It is part of a standup comedy act.
Gallagher did have a strong libertarian streak if I remember him right.

He would ask things like;
"What would we call a fly if it did not have wings?
"A walk?"

"Why are they called apartments when they are so close together?"

"Why is it called a TV set when you only get one?.

"Cargo goes by ship, but a shipment goes by truck."

"A woman wears a pair of panties, but just one bra."

You have successfully made me hate the people who made the English language.

The anarcho-capitalist lands of kool-aid and Informed consent

Anchillas

New munchen wrote:You have successfully made me hate the people who made the English language.

I hate the English language. It's so unnecessarily confusing when it comes to spelling and pronounciation.

Informed consent and Lutiania

«12. . .2,0332,0342,0352,0362,0372,0382,039. . .2,1802,181»