Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fail.
And you were doing so well too.
The supreme court interpreted the constitution to give themselves an unenumerated power that supposedly supersedes both of the other branches. In one fell swoop they gave themselves a monopoly on the interpretation and manipulation of language.
As I have pointed out in the past...The Supreme Court exists because of the constitution so therefore it exists solely in the context of the constitution not the other way around and definitely not outside of it as they seem to believe.
What else is interpretation? You sound like spoiled child that didn't get their way.
The problem with this dogma is that as a poorly managed, inefficient business begins to struggle in the brutal marketplace, its owners will cut corners in an attempt to survive, endangering the lives and safety of both employees and consumers. The damage inflicted on society would be considerable until such time as the business dies.If companies are left to fend for themselves, and sink or swim without any sort of legislative or other governmental action that favors them over others, then, yes, they will be effectively (and brutally) regulated by the marketplace...
^ It doesn't always need to be charismatic to be valid point.
What do you think the General Welfare clause is?
"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.- Madison
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison
Yet another big flaw with regard to libertarianism: the inability (or unwillingness) of its disciples to accept the principals of judicial review and the rule of law. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, consequently the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.
At what point would an employee know when to quit, when a co-worker is seriously injured?
As with the employee, when would consumers know when a product is unsafe?
Provided they have the facts to make informed choices. Businesses fail to disclose frequently, even in this current regulatory environment.
The discussion about smokers rights is an interesting one. There are several questions that I think need to be asked when assigning fault in these situations.
Could any lawful action have been taken to prevent harm to yourself?
If so, were these actions taken?
Liberty doesn't mean you have the right to never be inconvenienced. If someone is smoking around me then I can ask them to stop, if they refuse I can walk away. Choosing to stay is an acquiescence. Freedom isn't a passive state. This idea is what brought us the nanny state. too many people seem to think that freedom is bestowed upon them by the government and therefore it is the governments job to step in and prevent any possible infringement and failing that get reparations. This is like giving the government property rights on freedom and on us by proxy. Liberty can be a double edged sword and no one is saying that everything will be rainbows and puppy dogs in a libertarian society but you have to take the good with the bad sometimes. How much is freedom worth? Ultimately, people should be required to exercise their freedom to protect themselves. If I am required to be on public lands and I am being subjected to second hand smoke then that is another matter completely. I would be forced to choose between potentially violating the law or subjecting myself to harmful toxins, both are a violence so it's a no win situation.
No, no you can't.
You're every bit the incorrigible troll dick Dante is.
Go fucking pond sand.
So is judicial review the last word in dispute resolution according to libertarian philosophy?
No, no you can't.
You're every bit the incorrigible troll dick Dante is.
Go fucking pond sand.
So is judicial review the last word in dispute resolution according to libertarian philosophy?
What is the check that balances this power?
My answer to your question is this...
Not in its current form.
^ It doesn't always need to be charismatic to be valid point.
Yet another big flaw with regard to libertarianism: the inability (or unwillingness) of its disciples to accept the principals of judicial review and the rule of law.
The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, consequently the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.
I'm not spoiled I just want my government to follow the fucking constitution. There is no power of judicial review granted in the constitution. Period. Prove me wrong and don't cite case law because case law is based on judicial review.
I'm not spoiled I just want my government to follow the fucking constitution. There is no power of judicial review granted in the constitution. Period. Prove me wrong and don't cite case law because case law is based on judicial review.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47
Well, I guess you could defer to the guy who actually wrote the clause, as to what he meant by it:I'm not spoiled I just want my government to follow the fucking constitution. There is no power of judicial review granted in the constitution. Period. Prove me wrong and don't cite case law because case law is based on judicial review.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47
If the people are the ultimate arbiter of the constitution, my guess is that the General Welfare clause means something different than most libertarians believe.
Well, I guess you could defer to the guy who actually wrote the clause, as to what he meant by it:"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47
If the people are the ultimate arbiter of the constitution, my guess is that the General Welfare clause means something different than most libertarians believe.
The Federalist #41
Done already?
Go pound some more, dickless.
Well, I guess you could defer to the guy who actually wrote the clause, as to what he meant by it:"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
"But, you may ask, if the two departments [i.e., federal and state] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:47
If the people are the ultimate arbiter of the constitution, my guess is that the General Welfare clause means something different than most libertarians believe.
The Federalist #41
Well, I guess you could defer to the guy who actually wrote the clause, as to what he meant by it:If the people are the ultimate arbiter of the constitution, my guess is that the General Welfare clause means something different than most libertarians believe.
The Federalist #41
Perhaps, but Jefferson said the final arbiter should be the people. If you invoke Jefferson to hold up people and slap down judges, be careful what you wish for. After all, correct me if I'm wrong, but your disdain for democracy seems to arise from the power of the people to vote themselves wealth distribution.
Well, I guess you could defer to the guy who actually wrote the clause, as to what he meant by it:
The Federalist #41
Perhaps, but Jefferson said the final arbiter should be the people. If you invoke Jefferson to hold up people and slap down judges, be careful what you wish for. After all, correct me if I'm wrong, but your disdain for democracy seems to arise from the power of the people to vote themselves wealth distribution.
The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States.
He is talking about Congress.
