What is it that makes the constitution so sacred to you libertarians?
Their confused thinking about what it really says, would be my guess.
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.
What is it that makes the constitution so sacred to you libertarians?
Well, then maybe you love it enough to take the trouble to understand it better.
Okay, what am I missing out on?
While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.
It is my sincerest belief that while personal freedom and a free market are important American ideals, they needs limitations. Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds good on paper, but its actual application as a national system would be crazy.
I'll be the first to admit that the government doesn't always get it right. However, in the interest of public well-being, sometimes even economic growth does need to be limited by government regulation.
GOVERNMENT REGULATION
Can you imagine the implications if we did not have government agencies, like the FDA or FAA? The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, would become dangerous. If drug companies were under no authoritative review, what is to stop them from releasing potentially harmful products? Without the FDA, there would be no legal mandate for these food and drug companies to test the safety and effectiveness of their products.
Self-regulation is a slow process and only works to an extent. There are plenty of things that would slip through the cracks that consumers would not know about. Take the tobacco companies, for instance. There are already additives in cigarettes that make them more addicting. Is it really worth it to have these industries left unchecked? Take a minute and imagine what they could get away with. Imagine what they could do to their products for the sake of more profit.... it's a scary thought.
TAXATION
It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.
If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.
This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth. And don't get it twisted -I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.
It isn't just the rich that need to pay taxes, of course. EVERYONE needs to put in their fair share for the sake of the greater good. I have no problem with paying higher taxes, so long as I know that the revenue is intended to make this country better (it doesn't always, I know).
WELFARE/UNEMPLOYMENT/FOOD STAMPS
I do understand that there are a lot of government moochers in this country, but that doesn't mean that these programs are unnecesssary and ineffective. Some people do need help when they are unable to stand on their own two feet. Also, it's not like it's easy to get into these programs. Have you ever seen the applications? They are huge, and leave little room for falsification.
Hell, I support the Republican proposal that people entering these programs should be drug-tested first. I think that it is a great compromise, and more of this government funding will ultimately go to the right people.
Like I said, the government isn't perfect; it certainly does over-reach from time to time. However, I think people have become so black-and-white when it comes to personal freedom. The idea has become over-romanticized in today's politics. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature for people to be selfish. People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.
Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.
I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????
Well, the US Constitution primarily limits Federal Control, but it does not limit the States from their own control.....imo.I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????
Libertarians would not want unlimited state authority any more than unlimited federal authority.
The whole idea is to have a government with the smallest footprint possible and still protect the rights of individuals.
It's pretty simple really.
I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????
More or less. The Constitution does put some limits on state governments also. I think we should go back to the feds not having any criminal laws other than those mentioned specifically in the constitution, allowing the states to handle that area. I still do not understand why some crimes are federal offenses at all, like carjacking.
I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????
More or less. The Constitution does put some limits on state governments also. I think we should go back to the feds not having any criminal laws other than those mentioned specifically in the constitution, allowing the states to handle that area. I still do not understand why some crimes are federal offenses at all, like carjacking.
Most Federal criminal laws are there because many times a state will not have jurisdiction and the state someone fled to will not prosecute because their jurisdictional criminal procedure laws are different than the other state.
Bickering.
Uniformity is the main reason as the states each have their own different criminal code.
And politics plays a large role in who gets indicted and who doesn't in the state courts. Without an indictment, from a state district attorney who is an ELECTED official, there is never a case. Seen this many a time in my 32 year career.
When the Constitution was written carjacking was not on the radar as no one knew what a car was. Same with many other laws.
What is it that makes the constitution so sacred to you libertarians?
The Bill of Rights is incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment on a case by case basis – the most recent incorporation was the Second Amendment in McDonald.I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????
Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
I always thought the Constitutionalists, (and or Libertarians) stand was to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
All this means to me is that the State Governments would be the ones making all the rules and laws and restrictions....so it limits the Federal Government's rule over us but DOES NOT limit the States Rule over us.....????
You sound like you would be happier somewhere else.
No, I love America.
The Bill of Rights is incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment on a case by case basis the most recent incorporation was the Second Amendment in McDonald.
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI and an abundance of case law make clear that the states and local governments are subject to Federal law, rulings of Federal courts, and decisions of the Supreme Court by its authority to interpret the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment and Supremacy Clause seem the biggest problems for libertarians they either dont understand the doctrines or reject them in defiance, in addition to the supporting case law.
Some adhere so blindly to their contrived fantasy of what they wish the Constitution to be, that any debate is pointless.
The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, debate can only exist in the context of the case law, to reject the case law altogether makes debate impossible.
[Even the likes of Justice Scalia supports incorporation doctrine:
Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have acquiesced in the Courts incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights because it is both long established and narrowly limited. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
The libertarian rejection of the doctrine of judicial review and the Supreme Courts authority to interpret the Constitution is wholly without merit.
<snipped>
Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.
I don't accuse you of being a freedom-hating socialist, but I do wonder about the term "moderate" in your custom user title.
Fooled me cold. But then again, double thinking and double standards are a staple for liberal philosophical thought.You sound like you would be happier somewhere else.
No, I love America.
Your socialist side is showing. Taxing the rich more to support the poor is not appropriate. The Constitution is not perfect but has been improved on properly with amendments. The problem with our country now is too many regulations, too many gov't. agencies regulating our lives.While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.
It is my sincerest belief that while personal freedom and a free market are important American ideals, they needs limitations. Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds good on paper, but its actual application as a national system would be crazy.
I'll be the first to admit that the government doesn't always get it right. However, in the interest of public well-being, sometimes even economic growth does need to be limited by government regulation.
GOVERNMENT REGULATION
Can you imagine the implications if we did not have government agencies, like the FDA or FAA? The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, would become dangerous. If drug companies were under no authoritative review, what is to stop them from releasing potentially harmful products? Without the FDA, there would be no legal mandate for these food and drug companies to test the safety and effectiveness of their products.
Self-regulation is a slow process and only works to an extent. There are plenty of things that would slip through the cracks that consumers would not know about. Take the tobacco companies, for instance. There are already additives in cigarettes that make them more addicting. Is it really worth it to have these industries left unchecked? Take a minute and imagine what they could get away with. Imagine what they could do to their products for the sake of more profit.... it's a scary thought.
TAXATION
It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.
If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.
This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth. And don't get it twisted -I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.
It isn't just the rich that need to pay taxes, of course. EVERYONE needs to put in their fair share for the sake of the greater good. I have no problem with paying higher taxes, so long as I know that the revenue is intended to make this country better (it doesn't always, I know).
WELFARE/UNEMPLOYMENT/FOOD STAMPS
I do understand that there are a lot of government moochers in this country, but that doesn't mean that these programs are unnecesssary and ineffective. Some people do need help when they are unable to stand on their own two feet. Also, it's not like it's easy to get into these programs. Have you ever seen the applications? They are huge, and leave little room for falsification.
Hell, I support the Republican proposal that people entering these programs should be drug-tested first. I think that it is a great compromise, and more of this government funding will ultimately go to the right people.
Like I said, the government isn't perfect; it certainly does over-reach from time to time. However, I think people have become so black-and-white when it comes to personal freedom. The idea has become over-romanticized in today's politics. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature for people to be selfish. People cannot handle certain personal freedoms. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.
Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.
You sound like you would be happier somewhere else.
No, I love America.
While the constitution was a brilliant design of government, it was not designed perfectly. In my opinion, it could not have accounted for how society has evolved over the years.
that's the wrong question, billy... the right question is why they pretend to think the constitution is important, but don't respect the Court... unless of course the justices agree with their narrow world view.