Road to Serfdom is the more important of the two as a general treatise for why collectivism is bad (plus it got him kicked out of the UK for basically calling the PM a Nazi) but Constitution is the best overall basis of conservatism, and it's theoretical enough to keep pop libertarians/NYTimes Best Seller fans away. Just like reading Communist Manifesto isn't enough to understand communism, I'd say the same applies for conservatism.
True. One thing people don't seem to understand in general about the tenants and philosophy of Conservatism, is that we have the intellectual prowess and minds on our side. Throughout history the greatest statesman, scholars, intellectuals have been conservative/classical liberals in nature. This is for a reason. There is no better arguement than looking at the great success of individualism, capitalism, and freedom and liberty. I just hope that we can reverse the current trend and return to what made America prosperous and great. Abandoning that is not only reckless, but foolish. We have seen the ramifications of collectivism, centralized government, economic planning, and everything associated with greater government control.
I'm also different than many of the current persons of today in that I see government as a philosophical entity not an essay and statistician number crunching where government is one large experiment throwing society out of flux and not cementing one generation to another bound by the same laws. There is no continuity and you can see the havoc it has been wrecking these past 60 years.
There's a distinction to be made between economic planning and heavy social programs. Road to Serfdom was written with the UK in mind and its government-led industries, not the type of socialism we see in Scandinavian countries. Hayek didn't agree with either, but you can't apply the book to all government programs, because the path doesn't fit.
Road to Serfdom is the more important of the two as a general treatise for why collectivism is bad (plus it got him kicked out of the UK for basically calling the PM a Nazi) but Constitution is the best overall basis of conservatism, and it's theoretical enough to keep pop libertarians/NYTimes Best Seller fans away. Just like reading Communist Manifesto isn't enough to understand communism, I'd say the same applies for conservatism.
True. One thing people don't seem to understand in general about the tenants and philosophy of Conservatism, is that we have the intellectual prowess and minds on our side. Throughout history the greatest statesman, scholars, intellectuals have been conservative/classical liberals in nature. This is for a reason. There is no better arguement than looking at the great success of individualism, capitalism, and freedom and liberty.
God I hate MSNBC. Apparatchik wing of the far-left in the Democratic Party. How's the tingle in the leg feeling lately?
Ok, so thats out of the way. The 14th amendment and the definition of Natural Born Citizen and the requirement to become President of the US is the issue for myself and should be the issue for everyone. If you don't uphold the supreme law of the land, then what the hell is the point of laws in the first place. If you don't enforce the laws, you move in a direction that gets closer and closer to Despotism.
Go back and read the father of the Constitutions own words on this issue. They put these safeguards into the Constitution for a reason. A placating media on both sides of the aisle, tilted far more to the left however (I've been to quite a few Tea Parties and we all have boo'ed the Good ol' Boys) is going to be the ruination of this country. You have to vet thoroughly those running for the highest office in the land. It's clear that Obama's father, by his own admission that he was a Citizen of Britain at the time. Therefore, Obama does not meet the requirements as set forth in the Constitution to be eligible to become President of the US.
To call those calling out eligibility requirements and the facts of the matter, and to not even let it go to the SCOTUS for a ruling (I'm quite confident it would be 5-4 anyways, empathy over rule of law), racist is particularly unsettling. Is this the America that looks beyond color? Ha! Why even have the damn requirements if you aren't going to enforce them.
The reason the SCOTUS won't rule on this issue (Not where Obama was born thats irrelevant), is because it would be a hugely damaging issue to America. If you thought the country was partisan now...wait until the rule of law was upheld in this case. I for one don't care about the ramifications, you HAVE to uphold the LAW. That is why we are a damn republic and not a BANANA REPUBLIC. Its not that hard to follow the supreme law of the land.
I dont understand, how can a country with a jurisprudence based judicial system complain about someone not upholding the rule of law ? The constitution should be interpreted, not followed by every single word, thats originalism and it doesnt work with a 200 year old document.
its like trying to follow the bible to the last word, ignoring the fact that it was written for a public with an education level so below our standards that its impossible to teach them anything without animal methaphores and absolutism.
On August 04 2009 11:35 Mindcrime wrote: It's hilarious how you act like the law is on your side.
The law has no sides. You either follow it, or you don't. If you don't might as well have no Constitution. It seems thats what we've been doing as a country for the past 70 years. Why the fuck do we even have it then? It's so salient that it can be rewritten (interpretation) at the behest of a few individuals and then these individuals for time innumerable (precedents) is the rule of law, when yet the original rule of law was not. It makes no sense.
The law is black and white. It doesn't favor one group over another. If it was the same case for a Republican I'd be just as upset and just as vocal.
On August 04 2009 11:35 D10 wrote: I dont understand, how can a country with a jurisprudence based judicial system complain about someone not upholding the rule of law ? The constitution should be interpreted, not followed by every single word, thats originalism and it doesnt work with a 200 year old document.
its like trying to follow the bible to the last word, ignoring the fact that it was written for a public with an education level so below our standards that its impossible to teach them anything without animal methaphores and absolutism.
Digest this for a moment.
...for he believes that much like a contract, the Constitution sets forth certain terms and conditions for governing that hold the same meaning today as they did yesterday and should tomorrow. It connects one generation to the next by restraining the present generation from societal experimentation and government excess. There really is no other standard by which the Constitution can be interpreted without abandoning its underlying principles altogether.
If the Constitutions meaning can be erased or rewritten, and the Framer's intentions ignored, it ceases to be a constitution but is instead a concoction of political expedients that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it.
As James Madison the "father" of the Constitution, explained:
I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shapes and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption.
To say the Constitution is a "living and breathing document" is to give license to arbitrary and lawless activism.
Thomas Jefferson, in an 1803 letter to Senator Wilson Cary Nicholas of Virginia respecting the Louisiana Purchase, explained:
Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies & delineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution. Whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the law; whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President & Senate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence.
...seek to divine the Constitution's meaning from its words and their historical context, including a variety of original sources--records of public debates, diaries, correspondences, notes, etc. While reasonable people may in good faith, draw different conclusions from the application of this interpreative standard, it is the only standard that gives fidelity to the Constitution.
When asked by a law clerk to explain his judicial philosophy, the late Associate Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall responded, "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."
Why should todays law bind future generations if yesterdays law does not bind this generation? Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not? Why should any judicial determination based on a judges notion of what is "right" or "just" bind the individual if the individual believes the notion is wrong and unjust? Does not lawlessness beget lawlessness?
And if judges determine for society what is right and just, and if their purpose is to spread democracy or liberty, how can it be said that the judiciary is coequal with the executive or legislative branch?
Callers who reached both the front desk and the communications department compared the union officials to Nazis, union aides say. On Twitter, organizers of the town hall protest urged people to take pictures and write down the license plate numbers of attending SEIU officials. More alarming than anything else, angry callers and protesters pledged to take up arms against the union.
"If ACORN/SEIU attends these meetings for disruptive purposes, and you have a license to carry....carry,"
"I suggest you tell your people to calm down, act like American citizens, and stop trying to repress people's First Amendment rights," one caller warned. "That, or you all are gonna come up against the Second Amendment."
The SEIU wasn't the only Obama ally receiving threats on Friday. An official of the AFL-CIO, which has pledged to counter conservative protests at these town hall events across the country, said that union received angry emails throughout the day as well -- mostly accusations that it was promoting communism and socialism.
Oh, I see the Birther craze has been raised in this thread. This has actually broken into the British press recently. British newspapers have kind of been ignoring it for a fair while but since it just continues to rumble on in the States they have run a few stories on it again. Most amusing.
Why should todays law bind future generations if yesterdays law does not bind this generation? Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not? Why should any judicial determination based on a judges notion of what is "right" or "just" bind the individual if the individual believes the notion is wrong and unjust? Does not lawlessness beget lawlessness?
Why should any law remain static forever? The entire success of the English legal tradition over other competing legal systems (including canon and civil law) was based on the fact that the system of precedent allowed it to be very flexible to adapt to new rules, and strike down old ones when they became antiquated.
There are a number of categories of situations in which precedents and foundational documents will be re-examined judicially. Pretending this doesn't happen legally or with legitimacy and that the occurrence of which is "lawlessness" is ridiculous.
I suggest you read a basic primer on how stare decisis works. You're taking a page out of Scalia's judicial philosophy which requires quite a bit more logical foundation than you're laying, especially for a philosophy which is basically 100% wrong at first glance.
Bumping this with a followup article, someone did a FOIA request to see the sources of the DHS report, turns out they didnt investigate shit on their own, they did some investigoogling and put out this crap like it was fact. Wow, gj government, you're as unbiased and accurate as always.
No statistical analysis, no independent investigation, just copy and paste... when I do that, I'm unprofessional and childish, but when they do that, it's accurate and trustworthy? I hope most people can see how fraudulent they are.
Lol can't wait for the 2nd amendment nuts to come out of the woodwork:p I heard Marco Rubio claiming the situation in Iran would be different "if they had a 2nd amendment like ours.". And that guy is pretty big in Republican Politics... which is pretty disturbing stuff...
Sorry man, but you don't understand the issue at all.
On August 04 2009 11:09 Aegraen wrote: You have to vet thoroughly those running for the highest office in the land. It's clear that Obama's father, by his own admission that he was a Citizen of Britain at the time. Therefore, Obama does not meet the requirements as set forth in the Constitution to be eligible to become President of the US. ... (Not where Obama was born thats irrelevant)
Wat?
So the president is required to be a natural born citizen. You grasp that, but fail at knowing what it means (which is excusable, it's a complicated mess).
One way you are a natural born citizen is if you are born in the US in which case citizenship of your parents does not matter, so why are you going on about his father being a UK citizen? I don't think anyone is claiming that his father was a US citizen. And why would you claim that where he is born is irrelevant?
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is pretty cut and dried -
The child of alien parents born in the United States] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
The other way, if you are born out of the country, is based on the citizenship of your parents. There are of course disputes about whether citizen from birth thanks to Jus Sanguinis is the same thing as "natural born citizen", but there are plenty of Supreme Court rulings that divide citizens into two classes: born and naturalized, not three (born, natural born, and naturalized). See the case of McCain, who was born in Panama. Being born on a US military base was irrelevant (State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual states "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment"); his eligibility was based entirely on his parents' citizenship. Nevertheless, before 1986 both your parents had to be citizens so Obama would not be considered a citizen based solely on Jus Sanguinis, so it is irrelevant to a discussion on his eligibility.
Thus, the question of Obama being a natural born citizen hinges entirely on Jus Soli (where he was born). If he was born in Hawaii, that's that. And he appears to have been, which settles it, and which country his father may have been a citizen of is also irrelevant.
EPT
