What war?
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 18:06
VIEWED: 5092
PAGE 3 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by Judith:
In which Shakespeare play was "...first we kill the lawyers..."?
Henry VI, Pt. 2.
They are plotting rebellion and the means for their tyranny to succeed and what they shall do to accomplish that end. Its a compliment to lawyers. The characters are ackowledging that the law and those who are sworn to uphold it stand in the way of those would would take away liberty.
The line is:
CADE
I thank you, good people, there shall be no money;
all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.
DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you, Hero. If I knew where you live, I'd send you some cookies. I really don't know why we dislike lawyers so much, but it is the truth. Until we need one - then the more disreputable the better it would seem.
TTFN!
Judith
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: Standing Armies.
Adams - Who put forth the Alien and Sedition Acts, showing his true character.
Hamilton - Who turned on the Federalists when their true colors were revealed by those acts.
Jay - Who was the nimrod who originally espoused that the constitution as written, could be re-interpreted to mean whatever the hell the supreme court thought it should mean, up to and including violation of states rights and sovereignity.
See Also: Chisholm v. Georgia
And then went on to fully and deliberately misinterpret Article Three, Section Two.
Not, given their conduct once power came to them, the most trustworthy of public servants.
I cite to you BRUTUS, commonly acknowledged as likely Robert Yates.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp24.html
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp25.html
On the topic of standing armies and the dangers associated.
And while we're at it you might also reference Hamiltons own comments on the dangers, posted in another thread here by me - as well as ponder that one of our primary bitches against king george was keeping a standing army among us in times of peace.
"And on and on and so forth and with exceptions...there is so much law on search and seizure it takes an expert...like myself...to keep it all straight."
Not what I asked you - I asked you where in the US Constitution does it at any point, anywhere, even allow for a warrantless search much less encourage one.
The right to be presented with a warrant naming speficially the things to be searched and what is being looked for is an absolute right, guaranteed by the supreme law of the land, which all other law is subordinate to and thus cannot overturn.
ANY warrantless search is a constitutional violation of the first order, and no amount of doublespeak or legalese is going to change these words in form or meaning.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."
You can't just say "Oh, well, they don't really MEAN that." and just go ahead and violate it, the FedGov cannot, a State cannot, no law enforcement of any kind can - to do so is to just piss on the whole document as irrelevant to their will.
And to even attempt to propose that a law written under and within it's jurisdiction can overturn it's basic principles is as ridiculous as saying the mail room clerk of a large corporation can, at will, overturn the CEO's policies.
Re: Due Process, Elastic Clause.
Legalese catch-alls, let me restate the "Few and Limited" principle to you again, as held by the folks that wrote it - if they are not expressly and undeniably allowed to do something, they CAN NOT DO IT.
Picking a few words like "to regulate commerce" and then just bending them to the point of utter ridiculousness is where the supreme court is supposed to step in and stomp your ass back onto the straight and narrow - these kinds of abuses and usurpations are why the founders wrote the document in such absolutist terms and intended they be applied so.
"Excessive fines or bail can be Constitutional issues. But it has to be excessive based on the factors I mentioned, not the Defendant's assets."
No, that doesn't fly - the purpose of bail is to ensure someones presence at the trial, it is NOT to arbitrarily confine them for the purposes of intimidation, rape and abuse, all the while holding a plea bargain in front of them in an attempt to force a plea of guilty.
And let's cut the bullshit here, that IS how it is used much of the time - by setting it higher than a defendant can possibly afford, it is effectively denying them bail.
It's a bullshit dodge when the court has no right or reason to revoke bail, and wishes to do so regardless of that fact - a complete abuse of the entire process and one that has become so
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
ANY warrantless search is a constitutional violation of the first order, and no amount of doublespeak or legalese is going to change these words in form or meaning.
You can't just say "Oh, well, they don't really MEAN that." and just go ahead and violate it, the FedGov cannot, a State cannot, no law enforcement of any kind can - to do so is to just piss on the whole document as irrelevant to their will.
And to even attempt to propose that a law written under and within it's jurisdiction can overturn it's basic principles is as ridiculous as saying the mail room clerk of a large corporation can, at will, overturn the CEO's policies.
Oh, I understand now. You cite the founding fathers...but only the ones who agree with you. The others you dismiss with casual personal attacks.
As for the law and the Constitution, you write the way you WANT it to be. Not the way its been interpreted and applied for the last couple hundred years.
For example, there is no Constitutional provision for garbage collection...so all garbage trucks are unconstitutional. There is no constitutional provision for highways...so highways are illegal. Never once does the Constitution mention an Air Force, so an Air Force is illegal. Not one mention of product safety, so Consumer Protection, the FDA, and other consumer regulatory agencies are illegal. Its a dark and smelly world were you live...if for no other reason then no public utilities. I feel bad for the people in your world that die because there were no vaccines, no hospitals, and nobody to protect us from exploding Pintos. Except the rich of course...who can pay people to do that sort of thing...
Hmmm...your approach to life might be good. Hey, I want a million dollars. I'm fairly certain that my not being given a million dollars is unconstitutional. Lets see, the 10th Amendment specifically says powers not given the states and the govt go to the people...aka me. That means I get a million dollars. Thomas Jefferson wrote somewhere that I should get a million dollars. Its what I want and the real world be damned.
Quote:
No, that doesn't fly - the purpose of bail is to ensure someones presence at the trial, it is NOT to arbitrarily confine them for the purposes of intimidation, rape and abuse, all the while holding a plea bargain in front of them in an attempt to force a plea of guilty.
And let's cut the bullshit here, that IS how it is used much of the time - by setting it higher than a defendant can possibly afford, it is effectively denying them bail.
The factors I noted for bail are the factors used. A person with a clean record, strong ties to the community, and charged with a lessor offense is more likely to get low bail. A person charged with murder, with a long history of violent crime, with a history of not showing up to court, and who is threatening to kill witnesses if he gets out is likely to get high bail. The ability to pay is simply not an important condition under those circumstances.
Quote:
Except when YOU want it to, right ? like limiting the right to bear arms, like not bothering with a search warrant, yes ?
The CONSTITUTION is superior and above the FedGov, what part of "Supreme law of the land" slid by you ?
Again your not reading the WHOLE Constitution. The 14th Amendment says the govt. can deprive you of your rights provided you get Due Process. The Supreme Court has said this means limited intrusion, narrowly tailored, and for reasonable purposes.
In Ohio you can carry a concealed weapon. That weapon cannot be a suitcase nuke (reasonable). You can't carry it in limited areas like schools and govt buildings (limited) or private property which does not want it (hey, that their business, not the govts), and you have to have a license (again reasonable and limited) and anyone can have a license unless they fail the safety course or the background check.
If you are not open to reasonable limits then start working on repeal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Not the way its been interpreted and applied for the last couple hundred years."
Just because you been doin somethin wrong for a hundred years does not automatically make it right.
The potential for abuse was there, the dangers were clear, and the Anti-Federalists were very much aware of how human nature would virtually guarantee those abuses, while the Federalists (many of whom were actually PLANNING such abuses, even at the time, like Adams) dismissed those claims under the auspice that no one would dare, and thus no protection was needed - and yet, in the end, here we are.
You're damned right I am suspicious of their motives, given much of their conduct through the very loopholes they refused to close.
"For example, there is no Constitutional provision for garbage collection...so all garbage trucks are unconstitutional."
Not under the jurisdiction of the Fedgov, certainly, this would according to Amendment Ten, make them under that of the state or the people, respectively - my waste pickup services are managed by the city I live in, and paid for by the property taxes I pay that city, something I have a very active (as mentioned elsewhere) hand in, as is my civic duty.
Water and Waste water services are handled more directly, and I pay them directly as these services are something I desire and am willing to pay for - and the FedGov has no involvement, nor should they, in either one.
"There is no constitutional provision for highways...so highways are illegal."
Highways likewise are under the jurisidiction of the state, anything to do with them on a Federal level is both unconstitutional and wasteful, as it involves paying greater federal taxes into a system that siphons off most of the money and wastes it before it is ever applied if it even is - while I am less than fond of toll roads like 80-90 or the PA Turnpike(70/76), I can see the logic of those actually using the road being more responsible for payment - but as I say, a state issue, rather than a federal one.
"Never once does the Constitution mention an Air Force, so an Air Force is illegal."
Air power, a technology developed after it's writing, is simply an extension of an Army or Navy, we have aircraft carriers, and they have aircraft on them, and it is within congressional authority to equip and maintain a navy - other air power should be part and parcel of the army rather than a seperate branch, yes.
"Not one mention of product safety, so Consumer Protection, the FDA, and other consumer regulatory agencies are illegal."
Absolutely - The FedGov has no permission or authority to do so, and thus they cannot, such powers are reserved to the states and people respectively.
I can see the wisdom of that, they had their reasons.
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
You do not give a limited government the ability to expand itself, it is unwise in the extreme.
I will also note that most of those agencies are up to their ass in corporate lobbyists pockets digging for more without much concern for the folk they were intended to protect, and so distant from the authority and oversight of the people that they're almost completely insulated from such.
Look at any list of Gov offices and what they cost, and you have a good idea why that power was NOT given to them, it is more properly done at the state level where the people of that state have a say in how much regulation and inspection, how much they're willing to pay for it, and a degree of control over it by those people most directly affected.
International trade regarding inspections and regulation should effectively be part of a trade treaty with the nation in question, and the FedGov properly does have that authority within the bounds of the constitution.
That is in part WHY they reserved that stuff for the state level, if even that, so it would be decided and paid for by those directly affected - neither the fedgov nor even the sta
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I appreciate the exchange, Hero and Frem; and with FFF down last night, I only have time to give a limited scan; I'll read the whole thing later, but I'm going to comment on a few items that caught my eye.
Quote:Frem makes a huge point; remember the constitution allows that anything not enumerated in the constitution is held to be for states and individuals. There's no point getting into things like garbage collection. If the fed gov tries to get into that business, someone should chop it off at the knees. In some areas, the local citizens have expressed an interest in have their community do garbage collection via the local government; that is their right, as the constitution does not state the federal government can legislate on the matter. Other communities merely have put in place laws like 'you can't have a garbage heap in your front yard' and private businesses step in to 'help' folks comply to the law. Other places have no laws on the matter, and you can have garbage heap in your front yard.
Frem posted and quoted Hero...
"For example, there is no Constitutional provision for garbage collection...so all garbage trucks are unconstitutional."
Not under the jurisdiction of the Fedgov, certainly, this would according to Amendment Ten, make them under that of the state or the people, respectively - my waste pickup services are managed by the city I live in, and paid for by the property taxes I pay that city, something I have a very active (as mentioned elsewhere) hand in, as is my civic duty.
Water and Waste water services are handled more directly, and I pay them directly as these services are something I desire and am willing to pay for - and the FedGov has no involvement, nor should they, in either one.
"There is no constitutional provision for highways...so highways are illegal."
Highways likewise are under the jurisidiction of the state, anything to do with them on a Federal level is both unconstitutional and wasteful, as it involves paying greater federal taxes into a system that siphons off most of the money and wastes it before it is ever applied if it even is - while I am less than fond of toll roads like 80-90 or the PA Turnpike(70/76), I can see the logic of those actually using the road being more responsible for payment - but as I say, a state issue, rather than a federal one.
The Highway system; remember why the system was put in place -- to allow the army to efficiently move about. And look at how it is managed; the fed gov only supplies money to the states to 'make it so', the fed gov does not so much as place a rock or lay the tar; state government does it. Because it is done this way, I believe it is constitutional.
The FDA item is a bit murkier (I didn't quote that item, so see Frem's last post). I have to agree with Frem, it's unconstitutional. Problem is, I like it; at least, I like that someone requires the testing to be done; and somehow makes the information available. I'm not sure I agree with the 'hows and wherefores' of it. It is important to recognize the difference between what politicians have rammed through Vs what is 'proper' from a constitutional perspective; and simply because a thing is not permitted by the constitution does not mean the thing is inherently evil (though I'm sure Frem will disagree, and I will agree it is problematic), nor does it mean the thing is not wanted and popular. Question gets to be; do we change the constitution or get rid of the program; or change the program to fit the constitution... or just ignore the detail it is not constitutional?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
The Highway system; remember why the system was put in place -- to allow the army to efficiently move about. And look at how it is managed; the fed gov only supplies money to the states to 'make it so', the fed gov does not so much as place a rock or lay the tar; state government does it. Because it is done this way, I believe it is constitutional.
But the feds also uses that funding as a leverage point to project power. It's worth noting that there was a serious ulterior and political motive behind the federal highway system, some say it was the whole point. Namely to replace the railroad network, which had become increasing defiant of government demands, with a transportation networked controlled by the government.
Quote:
It is important to recognize the difference between what politicians have rammed through Vs what is 'proper' from a constitutional perspective; and simply because a thing is not permitted by the constitution does not mean the thing is inherently evil...
True enough, but it's important to remember that the constitution is a carefully balanced set of checks and balances. Stepping outside that system, even if the isolated occurrence is well-intended and worthwhile, runs a serious risk of allowing excesses elsewhere in the system, or at some other time, that can cause the balance to tip.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
The Highway system; remember why the system was put in place -- to allow the army to efficiently move about. And look at how it is managed; the fed gov only supplies money to the states to 'make it so', the fed gov does not so much as place a rock or lay the tar; state government does it. Because it is done this way, I believe it is constitutional.
But the feds also uses that funding as a leverage point to project power. It's worth noting that there was a serious ulterior and political motive behind the federal highway system, some say it was the whole point. Namely to replace the railroad network, which had become increasing defiant of government demands, with a transportation networked controlled by the government.
All good points. For example, denying states fed fund if they didn't modify their laws to raised the drinking age. But does that make the highway system funding unconstitutional (possibly, for meddling in state affairs, and I'd support that; but it is not the base issue raised) on a fundamental basis? I think not. Also, you can tell your reps you think doing such is wrong and cowardly. But that's a (mostly) political discussion.
Quote:Agreed, which is why I think 'ignoring it' is a bad idea...Quote:
It is important to recognize the difference between what politicians have rammed through Vs what is 'proper' from a constitutional perspective; and simply because a thing is not permitted by the constitution does not mean the thing is inherently evil...
True enough, but it's important to remember that the constitution is a carefully balanced set of checks and balances. Stepping outside that system, even if the isolated occurrence is well-intended and worthwhile, runs a serious risk of allowing excesses elsewhere in the system, or at some other time, that can cause the balance to tip.
All: so, who wants to take lead on getting the FDA declared unconsitutional...
====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
All: so, who wants to take lead on getting the FDA declared unconsitutional...
Ignoring the implied powers and meanings of the Constitution leaves so much uncovered. How about the CDC. Or the Consumer Products Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (do you really want Pennsylvania deciding it can build dozens of Nuke plants...on the New Jersey border...just in case), and the Federal Govt. has no business desegregating private property like resturants and clubs (it comes from the Equal Protection Clause AND the Interstate Commerce Clauses).
Who will inspect your food, make sure your drugs work? Remember snake oil salesmen. Pirate News and his elixer of good health guarrantteed to cure all manner of ailments and infirmiries.
Katrina overwhelmed State and local official and the Consitution is silent on emergency disaster relief...in fact Constitutional limitations helped prevent the President and the military from simply taking over on Day 1 since they could not intervene without state approval.
Who will regulate air travel...its crowded up there. I don't want Delaware allowing insider trading, tainted products, slave labor, and so on the way they give other breaks to corporations.
There is so much thats done by the Federal govt and it all comes from fair readings of the Constitution and its intent. If you don't care for it change it.
Its funny that when its something you like in the Constitution you want to make it more then it is and when its not you want as strict a reading as you can. I'm the same way...although I'm joined by the vast majority of Americans both now and those who came before as well as the overwhelming majority of legal precedent on this subject.
Your out there on the fringe...with the lunatics. I'm not saying your a lunatic, cause there's some true blue patriots out there with you...misguided, but patriots none the less.
In the meantime...I'm off to put a young lady in jail...DUI with some pot...and I love a good Friday "forthwith" this time of year.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Given what happened with Gardasil (The VAERS report now reads like a regular catalog of horrors, I won't even describe it here *shudder*) and recent skullduggery with the CDC almost with massive conflict of interest relative to pharmaceutical companies... hell yes dismantle em.
But as you point out, the function they serve is potentially useful, and there's no prohibition at a state level, nor against it's coordination with other states agencies of the same type.
The closer you put such a function to the very people most served and effected by it, the better the oversight and the more efficient it winds up being - one reason the founders wanted the states to run most things for thier people, as this problem was compounded at the time by transportation and distance issues.
There's also the question of what it's worth, addressed directly to the folk actually paying for it and recieving benefit - none of this nonsense about the Gov stripping tax monies from your state and using it to benefit a state more supportive of the cabal in power than yours is, a common phenomenae with federal funding.
I cite for example our city trash pickup... the company we have contracted is not so very efficient, in that said pickup can occur any time between 7am and 7pm, but they're CHEAP, and it does get picked up within that span, and this is acceptable to us cause to improve on that efficiency (which is, to us "good enough") would require an increase of almost 170% of what we currently pay and this is unacceptable for such.
We people of the city chose to go with the lowest bidder, who meets our minimum acceptance, rather than pay more for a more efficient provider of that service for more money - WE made that decision, not those morons in Lansing, not some political Hack 800 miles away, US, the people directly affected by the outcome of that decision, and if we want to, enough of us, we can change it.
As the scale becomes larger, the efficiency drops exponentially, corruption and waste enter the process and the pure inertia of making change becomes so significant as to make things nearly unalterable.
It's a hell of a lot easier to get 20 people, or even 200, to agree on something than it is 2 million.
Get my point ?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME