What are libertarians?

[kaz]

Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

That says commerce ... among the several states. That is between them, not within them. And it was a power to prevent states from doing things like levying taxes and restricting trade, it was not meant to be a power for the Feds to restrict and control trade.

I did like you disagreeing just before this with my ... question. LOL.

Your legs stay wide, don't they dear? I hope so, you're not earning a living with your brains.

I manage to outwit you on my bad days.

Authority to regulate, hon.

Your constant need in discussions to state you're winning in discussions shows even you realize that isn't clear from the discussion, my dear.

Your constant need to resort to insults indicates that I am.

You get two choices with me. Serious or fun. If you ever want to provide some content other than circle jerking your liberal friends, I'll try the former with you. It's up to you. So far, you have squarely picked the latter.

You get one choice. Fuck off.

Thanks! That's what I said you're worth! Fucking! It sure isn't discourse.

 

[rightwinger]

Urban Dictionary Libertarian

A libertarian is someone who wants to take America back to the way it was run in the 1800s, regardless of how much the world has changed since then. Libertarians also have mean hard-ons for unregulated capitalism, believing that the "Invisible Hand" will erase poverty and create a utopia instead of what ACTUALLY happens when you let companies do whatever they want, which is:
-Children working in factories and mines
-Corporate monopolies
-Workplaces where death is likely
-Low, low wages
-Shit in your food (Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle")
-Even more extreme corporate corruption and political pawns than we have now.
-Getting the living fuck stomped out of you by company-hired goons for trying to organize a union (Battle of the Overpass)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Reading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.

Is that the thrust here?

It's not a Constitutional authority for the Federal government to ban trans fats if that's what you mean.

Of course it is

Why else do we have an FDA?

Where is that authority in the Constitution? Do you know what the 9th and 10th amendments say?

Are you aware of any cases where the FDA was declared unconstitutional due to the 9th or 10th amendment?

Why don't you file one?

They know damn well it's Constitutional. It's why they rely so heavily on propaganda.

Another word you don't know that you should Google as you are already on the internet. Enumerated.

Article II
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Welcome to HHS.

Here is the organizational chart. Note FDA
HHS Organizational Chart HHS.gov

Now, you can have a look at
U.S. Code: Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
U.S. Code Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS LII Legal Information Institute

Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

What a lot of hot air to not answer the question.

It's Constitutional. This is where it gets the authority from. It's not my fault that you refuse to read the Constitution.

Or its case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[kaz]

You get two choices with me. Serious or fun. If you ever want to provide some content other than circle jerking your liberal friends, I'll try the former with you. It's up to you. So far, you have squarely picked the latter.

You get one choice. Fuck off.

Not really a choice.

LOL, quote the wit there.

Me, you have to pick, I'm good either way.

You. hah, I picked! You don't get a choice.

Me, um...OK? Isn't that what I offered?

LOL, stay on your back, sweet heart, you don't need to know what you are doing, the guy will take care of it for you...

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you believe the FDA should be abolished, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe the FAA should not exist, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe crack cocaine should be legal, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe the US military should be shrunk down to the size of a cub scout troop, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all roads should be privatized, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all federal safety regulations should be abolished, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all child labor laws should be repealed, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all insider trading and financial fraud regulations should be abrogated, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe human beings will be on their best behavior if there are no rules and regulations, you might be a libertarian.

If you truly believe in any of he above, you would have supported the Articles of Confederaton and opposed the Constitution. The Articles were obsolete in a nation of less than four million - today chaos would reign if Kaz had his way.

 

[kaz]

Or its case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

The Constitution enumerates the specific powers that were enumerated to the Federal government by the people, then says every other power is forbidden to it. If a ruling is based on "case law" and not mappable back to an enumerated power granted to the Federal government by the people, then the government is no longer operating under the consent of the governed and we have descended into tyranny as government is no longer operating under legitimate power.

I'll donate $10 to the ACLU if you can show you grasped what I just said. LOL, make it $20. Your body of work gives no indication you possibly can grasp an argument, which is why you just endlessly parrot liberal lawyers.

 

[konradv]

The Constitution enumerates the specific powers that were enumerated to the Federal government by the people, then says every other power is forbidden to it. If a ruling is based on "case law" and not mappable back to an enumerated power granted to the Federal government by the people, then the government is no longer operating under the consent of the governed and we have descended into tyranny as government is no longer operating under legitimate power.

I'll donate $10 to the ACLU if you can show you grasped what I just said. LOL, make it $20. Your body of work gives no indication you possibly can grasp an argument, which is why you just endlessly parrot liberal lawyers.

It's not that people don't understand, it's that some of us just don't care. The U.S. operates on the consent of the governed and the rulings of the USSC, NOT on the supposed "intent" of framers who wrote a short and purposefully vague document, so that it could grow with the country. How else do you explain a document that would on the one hand enumerate powers and on the other include something as vague as "general welfare"?

 

[kaz]

The Constitution enumerates the specific powers that were enumerated to the Federal government by the people, then says every other power is forbidden to it. If a ruling is based on "case law" and not mappable back to an enumerated power granted to the Federal government by the people, then the government is no longer operating under the consent of the governed and we have descended into tyranny as government is no longer operating under legitimate power.

I'll donate $10 to the ACLU if you can show you grasped what I just said. LOL, make it $20. Your body of work gives no indication you possibly can grasp an argument, which is why you just endlessly parrot liberal lawyers.

It's not that people don't understand, it's that some of us just don't care. The U.S. operates on the consent of the governed and the rulings of the USSC, NOT on the supposed "intent" of framers who wrote a short and purposefully vague document, so that it could grow with the country. How else do you explain a document that would on the one hand enumerate powers and on the other include something as vague as "general welfare"?

I made a far more specific point about ruling based on case law. Care to take a stab?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You get two choices with me. Serious or fun. If you ever want to provide some content other than circle jerking your liberal friends, I'll try the former with you. It's up to you. So far, you have squarely picked the latter.

You get one choice. Fuck off.

Not really a choice.

LOL, quote the wit there.

Me, you have to pick, I'm good either way.

You. hah, I picked! You don't get a choice.

Me, um...OK? Isn't that what I offered?

LOL, stay on your back, sweet heart, you don't need to know what you are doing, the guy will take care of it for you...

Or its case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

The Constitution enumerates the specific powers that were enumerated to the Federal government by the people, then says every other power is forbidden to it. If a ruling is based on "case law" and not mappable back to an enumerated power granted to the Federal government by the people, then the government is no longer operating under the consent of the governed and we have descended into tyranny as government is no longer operating under legitimate power.

I'll donate $10 to the ACLU if you can show you grasped what I just said. LOL, make it $20. Your body of work gives no indication you possibly can grasp an argument, which is why you just endlessly parrot liberal lawyers.

Section 8, clause 1, states: The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States".

A strict construction of this clause leads to the clear conclusion that the general Welfare applies to the citizens of the United States, not to an inanimate object (i.e. the United States) and when framed by the final clause, 18, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution (see clause 1) in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Refute this statement but don't parrot conservative lawyers!

 

[rightwinger]

Urban Dictionary Libertarian

A libertarian is someone who wants to take America back to the way it was run in the 1800s, regardless of how much the world has changed since then. Libertarians also have mean hard-ons for unregulated capitalism, believing that the "Invisible Hand" will erase poverty and create a utopia instead of what ACTUALLY happens when you let companies do whatever they want, which is:
-Children working in factories and mines
-Corporate monopolies
-Workplaces where death is likely
-Low, low wages
-Shit in your food (Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle")
-Even more extreme corporate corruption and political pawns than we have now.
-Getting the living fuck stomped out of you by company-hired goons for trying to organize a union (Battle of the Overpass)

Life in a Libertarian America

1. Children working in factories and mines
Libertarian response: It is up to the parents to decide if children should go to school or work full time

2. Corporate monopolies
Libertarian response: Survival of the fittest, if you cant survive in business, you die

3. Workplaces where death is likely
Libertarian response: If the worker doesn't like it, work elsewhere

4. Low, low wages
Libertarian response: That is your problem not mine

5. Shit in your food
Libertarian response: If you are buying contaminated food, buy elsewhere

6. Even more extreme corporate corruption and political pawns than we have now.
Libertarian response: Let the market work itself out

7. Getting the living fuck stomped out of you by company-hired goons for trying to organize a union
Libertarian response: Not the governments role to get involved. Not in the Constitution

 

[kaz]

Refute this statement but don't parrot conservative lawyers!

Stopped reading, moron. BTW, your post didn't answer the question. But if you want to be an eight year old about it, then pass.

BTW, you're a poopy pants.

What a dick.

 

[konradv]

The Constitution enumerates the specific powers that were enumerated to the Federal government by the people, then says every other power is forbidden to it. If a ruling is based on "case law" and not mappable back to an enumerated power granted to the Federal government by the people, then the government is no longer operating under the consent of the governed and we have descended into tyranny as government is no longer operating under legitimate power.

I'll donate $10 to the ACLU if you can show you grasped what I just said. LOL, make it $20. Your body of work gives no indication you possibly can grasp an argument, which is why you just endlessly parrot liberal lawyers.

It's not that people don't understand, it's that some of us just don't care. The U.S. operates on the consent of the governed and the rulings of the USSC, NOT on the supposed "intent" of framers who wrote a short and purposefully vague document, so that it could grow with the country. How else do you explain a document that would on the one hand enumerate powers and on the other include something as vague as "general welfare"?

I made a far more specific point about ruling based on case law. Care to take a stab?

Your specific points are moot, if your general theory is invalid. Sorry, but that sounds like a waste of time.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

Libertarians are the sweet old ladies who tell ya where that obscure book you're looking for is in the stacks.

 

[konradv]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

Libertarians are the sweet old ladies who tell ya where that obscure book you're looking for is in the stacks.

I think they're not bad people, just clueless as to the consequences of their philosophy. As I've said many times before, like Marxism, it would take a basic shift in human nature in order to work. The upside to all of this is that it appears to be largely a young person's philosophy and most as, they age and mature, grow out of it. Case in point: I thought Ayn Rand was the bomb in college. Re-read Atlas Shrugged many years later and couldn't believe the time I wasted reading it TWICE!!!

 

[Disir]

Reading just the recent posts it seems we did this a few months ago with trans fats, did we not? I recall bantering with a Randbot idealist bent on insisting he has a Constitutional right to ingest trans fats.

Is that the thrust here?

It's not a Constitutional authority for the Federal government to ban trans fats if that's what you mean.

Of course it is

Why else do we have an FDA?

Where is that authority in the Constitution? Do you know what the 9th and 10th amendments say?

Are you aware of any cases where the FDA was declared unconstitutional due to the 9th or 10th amendment?

Why don't you file one?

They know damn well it's Constitutional. It's why they rely so heavily on propaganda.

Another word you don't know that you should Google as you are already on the internet. Enumerated.

Article II
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Welcome to HHS.

Here is the organizational chart. Note FDA
HHS Organizational Chart HHS.gov

Now, you can have a look at
U.S. Code: Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
U.S. Code Title 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS LII Legal Information Institute

Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

What a lot of hot air to not answer the question.

It's Constitutional. This is where it gets the authority from. It's not my fault that you refuse to read the Constitution.

Or its case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Yep. It's like watching a child sputter. Sounds exactly like PC.

 

[Disir]

You get two choices with me. Serious or fun. If you ever want to provide some content other than circle jerking your liberal friends, I'll try the former with you. It's up to you. So far, you have squarely picked the latter.

You get one choice. Fuck off.

Not really a choice.

LOL, quote the wit there.

Me, you have to pick, I'm good either way.

You. hah, I picked! You don't get a choice.

Me, um...OK? Isn't that what I offered?

LOL, stay on your back, sweet heart, you don't need to know what you are doing, the guy will take care of it for you...

Get off your knees, Koch whore.

 

[Billy000]

Urban Dictionary Libertarian

A libertarian is someone who wants to take America back to the way it was run in the 1800s, regardless of how much the world has changed since then. Libertarians also have mean hard-ons for unregulated capitalism, believing that the "Invisible Hand" will erase poverty and create a utopia instead of what ACTUALLY happens when you let companies do whatever they want, which is:
-Children working in factories and mines
-Corporate monopolies
-Workplaces where death is likely
-Low, low wages
-Shit in your food (Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle")
-Even more extreme corporate corruption and political pawns than we have now.
-Getting the living fuck stomped out of you by company-hired goons for trying to organize a union (Battle of the Overpass)

Life in a Libertarian America

1. Children working in factories and mines
Libertarian response: It is up to the parents to decide if children should go to school or work full time

2. Corporate monopolies
Libertarian response: Survival of the fittest, if you cant survive in business, you die

3. Workplaces where death is likely
Libertarian response: If the worker doesn't like it, work elsewhere

4. Low, low wages
Libertarian response: That is your problem not mine

5. Shit in your food
Libertarian response: If you are buying contaminated food, buy elsewhere

6. Even more extreme corporate corruption and political pawns than we have now.
Libertarian response: Let the market work itself out

7. Getting the living fuck stomped out of you by company-hired goons for trying to organize a union
Libertarian response: Not the governments role to get involved. Not in the Constitution

So very true and frightening. I'm not sure Kaz will ever get the point though.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution enumerates the specific powers that were enumerated to the Federal government by the people, then says every other power is forbidden to it. If a ruling is based on "case law" and not mappable back to an enumerated power granted to the Federal government by the people, then the government is no longer operating under the consent of the governed and we have descended into tyranny as government is no longer operating under legitimate power.

I'll donate $10 to the ACLU if you can show you grasped what I just said. LOL, make it $20. Your body of work gives no indication you possibly can grasp an argument, which is why you just endlessly parrot liberal lawyers.

It's not that people don't understand, it's that some of us just don't care. The U.S. operates on the consent of the governed and the rulings of the USSC, NOT on the supposed "intent" of framers who wrote a short and purposefully vague document, so that it could grow with the country. How else do you explain a document that would on the one hand enumerate powers and on the other include something as vague as "general welfare"?

I made a far more specific point about ruling based on case law. Care to take a stab?

Your specific points are moot, if your general theory is invalid. Sorry, but that sounds like a waste of time.

Um...what? Focus. When Christians make statements about morality, they map them back to the Bible, which they consider to be the word of God. So agree or disagree with whether it it God's will, they are basis it on a book they believe details that.

Case law regarding the Constitutionality of laws is based on the Constitution. The Constitution details the powers that were ceded by the people to the Federal governemnt. If judges rule based on what the Constitution says, in theory at least, they are ruling based on the parameters the people set for government, the powers they gave it. If judges rule based on case law and it's not based on the Constitution, what is it based on? Who validated it? It wasn't the people, the people validated what is in the Constitution.

You really don't understand the question? That's what you're saying when you say it's moot, it's clearly not moot.

 

[kaz]

Or its case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Yep. It's like watching a child sputter. Sounds exactly like PC.

LOL, I hope you're hot...

 

[kaz]

You get two choices with me. Serious or fun. If you ever want to provide some content other than circle jerking your liberal friends, I'll try the former with you. It's up to you. So far, you have squarely picked the latter.

You get one choice. Fuck off.

Not really a choice.

LOL, quote the wit there.

Me, you have to pick, I'm good either way.

You. hah, I picked! You don't get a choice.

Me, um...OK? Isn't that what I offered?

LOL, stay on your back, sweet heart, you don't need to know what you are doing, the guy will take care of it for you...

Get off your knees, Koch whore.

The Koch's are libertarian? Wow, didn't know that. I'll have to look into it, bimbo.