Classical liberalism

[JWBooth]

And in an anarchist society the libertarians would take control.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Judicial Review is not in Article III, gay boy.

So if the Supreme Court didn't have the power of judicial review, how could a law such as a state or local ban on handgun ownership,

be struck down as unconstitutional?

Objection your honor, asked and answered.

I already told you this. Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court gave itself the power of Judicial review.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Why do you need the same question answered multiple times?

That wasn't the question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can you quote any Founder who mentioned the "social compact?"

. . . .

I didn't think so.

Look at the names that signed the Constitution, the states that ratified it, and the men and states that ratified the Bill of Rights. That, my friend, is a social compact.

Anarchism and libertarianism are mere means on intellectual lazy at best and intellectual dishonesty at best.

In other words, you can't name who any Founder who mentioned the "social compact?"

I already said as much.

The social contract? Is that the term you're looking for?

 

[bripat9643]

And in an anarchist society the libertarians would take control.

Only goose-stepping weasels like you would be interested in controlling other people.

 

[bripat9643]

Look at the names that signed the Constitution, the states that ratified it, and the men and states that ratified the Bill of Rights. That, my friend, is a social compact.

Anarchism and libertarianism are mere means on intellectual lazy at best and intellectual dishonesty at best.

In other words, you can't name who any Founder who mentioned the "social compact?"

I already said as much.

The social contract? Is that the term you're looking for?

Comrade Starkey is the one who used the term "social compact." Ask him what he was looking for.

 

[Agit8r]

Classical liberalism sounds AT BEST like a myth, since we had a mercantilist economy in the US until 1947 (well after the New Deal began) and even in jolly old England they had their Poor Laws going back to the reign of Elizabeth I, and Factory Acts from the early 19th century onward.

If you ask me, "Classical Liberalism" is but a euphemism:

"I consider that a Government which means to relieve rapidly peoples from after-war crises should allow free play to private enterprise, should renounce any meddling or restrictive legislation, which may please the Socialist demagogues, but proves, in the end, as experience shows, absolutely ruinous"
-- Benito Mussolini; from speech to International Congress of the Chambers of Commerce (March 18, 1923)

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
-- Ludwig von Mises; from 'Liberalism'

It really is no wonder they were such enthusiastic supporters of Pinochet, Yeltsin, and other practitioners of "Shock Therapy"

 

[kaz]

So if the Supreme Court didn't have the power of judicial review, how could a law such as a state or local ban on handgun ownership,

be struck down as unconstitutional?

Objection your honor, asked and answered.

I already told you this. Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court gave itself the power of Judicial review.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Why do you need the same question answered multiple times?

That wasn't the question.

OK, so you were just asking the null question of if the Supreme Court doesn't have Judicial Review how would it have the power of Judicial Review? OK, the null answer is that it wouldn't.

The Supreme Court is not primarily using judicial review to strike down Unconstitutional laws, it's using the power to advance socialism and eliminate State rights. Removing that power they gave themselves would be overwhelmingly positive because they are not using it to address Constitutional travesties like New London or Obamacare and they are using it for Constitutional abominations like Roe v. Wade and striking down sections of DOMA. That there is a rare ruling like the gun one you're referring to still leaves the thumb on the abuse of power side of the scale. Power is something government inherently abuses, the less the better.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Objection your honor, asked and answered.

I already told you this. Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court gave itself the power of Judicial review.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Why do you need the same question answered multiple times?

That wasn't the question.

OK, so you were just asking the null question of if the Supreme Court doesn't have Judicial Review how would it have the power of Judicial Review? OK, the null answer is that it wouldn't.

The Supreme Court is not primarily using judicial review to strike down Unconstitutional laws, it's using the power to advance socialism and eliminate State rights. Removing that power they gave themselves would be overwhelmingly positive because they are not using it to address Constitutional travesties like New London or Obamacare and they are using it for Constitutional abominations like Roe v. Wade and striking down sections of DOMA. That there is a rare ruling like the gun one you're referring to still leaves the thumb on the abuse of power side of the scale. Power is something government inherently abuses, the less the better.

So you want the power of judicial review to be taken away from the Supreme Court so the Constitution would become little more than a symbolic set of suggestions?

 

[kaz]

That wasn't the question.

OK, so you were just asking the null question of if the Supreme Court doesn't have Judicial Review how would it have the power of Judicial Review? OK, the null answer is that it wouldn't.

The Supreme Court is not primarily using judicial review to strike down Unconstitutional laws, it's using the power to advance socialism and eliminate State rights. Removing that power they gave themselves would be overwhelmingly positive because they are not using it to address Constitutional travesties like New London or Obamacare and they are using it for Constitutional abominations like Roe v. Wade and striking down sections of DOMA. That there is a rare ruling like the gun one you're referring to still leaves the thumb on the abuse of power side of the scale. Power is something government inherently abuses, the less the better.

So you want the power of judicial review to be taken away from the Supreme Court so the Constitution would become little more than a symbolic set of suggestions?

Valid point. I just started a thread to answer question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In other words, you can't name who any Founder who mentioned the "social compact?"

I already said as much.

The social contract? Is that the term you're looking for?

Comrade Starkey is the one who used the term "social compact." Ask him what he was looking for.

social contract or social compact
n
1. (Philosophy) (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so′cial con′tract
n.
the agreement among individuals by which society becomes organized and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare.
[1840–50]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.