Oh yeah...there was a counter suit to have the write-in candidates removed. It wa an act of revenge. "How dare he point out that we are breaking the law. However, since we can't remove him...." it is sickening.

Then you of course see no problem with the PATRIOT ACT. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution will be followed and which will be ignored. To ignore just ONE part is to invalidate the ENTIRE premise of a written Constitution (that would be, a limitation on the powers of government).

How do we know a written Constitution is a limitation on the powers of government you ask? Let's look at human development shall we? England went from petty lords (after the Roman withdrawl) with totalitarian authority over their subjects to a monarch, with totalitarian authority over his subjects, including the nobility. The nobility moved for a more proactive and independent parliament, until the English Civil War granted parliament almost complete control over government finance and ensured the maintenance of the English Bill of Rights. These of course are LIMITATIONS on ABSOLUTE authority, which is original authority as it is derived from violence. At the time of American independence, England was largely parliamentary-run, with King George III exercising significantly dimished regal authority relative to is counterpart in France.

The Parliamentary system however was insufficient to the limitation of governmental authority, as it simply transfers absolute power to another entity. The UK is staring down the barrel of that gun to this day, as their government, unbound by any Constitution, routinely curtails their "rights", which absent a Constitution are really just "privilieges". Thus, a CONSTITUTION, which states EXACTLY to what extent government is empowered was created in the United States.

The tenth amendment ensures that the expansion of federal power without amendment is illegal. Thus, given the PREMISE of a Constitution, and the tenth amendment of the US Constitution, your notion of limited constitutional adherence is not only illogical and intellectually bankrupt, but also unlawful. Tell me Zeph, what part of authoritarian governance do you believe is worthy of praise; the routine violation of human rights, or the consolidation of wealth by the very few?

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

I have my own views; I do not dislike something just because it violates the Constitution. My reasons for hating the PATRIOT ACT are many and varied, but don't involve the Constitution.

Why do I have to be an authoritarian if I don't agree with everything in the Constitution? I take laws as they come and I don't cop out and just look at the Constitution to determine whether or not I have to agree or disagree with them. I prefer to go farther in-depth than just "the Constitution says this" or "the Constitution says that."

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. They knew the dangers of a standing army, of banks having too much power, of people revolting peacefuly then forced to use force because the peaceful revolution was not allowed to be heard. If you just ignore the Constitution then we are in trouble. How would you like your rights to be granted by the government instead of protected by the government? If you said one disparaging word about anything your screwed - because a right granted by a government can be stripped away by a government. No man has given me any rights. God dave me my rights and my government should protect them. All of that will disappear if you are willing to live in some sick twisted Orwellian society.

This is stupid as well. How backwards can you be. Just because it is not stated in the Constitution has nothing to do with anything. Last I checked, the 10th amendment still exists.

Standing armies aren't dangerous. History has pretty well shown us that much. Not having a standing army is what's dangerous.
Governments do grant rights. Rights don't exist independently of society. They are human constructs designed to make better societies. God doesn't exist but that's irrelevant. Note I am not advocating that we ignore the Constitution; I just don't think it makes sense to be constrained in what we can do by it when it was written nearly 250 years ago. As I explained above, I look for other reasons to oppose or support things. I don't cop out and use the Constitution as the standard for what I support or oppose.



Doesn't that completely contradict the whole first paragraph of your post? It does? Does that mean all of your points just got owned? It does?!

Come on, at least the other libertarians have consistency...

EDIT: You know what? Let's take a look at that again. I said:

You thought that was Then, you said:

Fish in a barrel, my friend. Fish in a barrel.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Cop out?!?!? Are you serious? It is the document upon which all laws are supposed to be written. It is no cop out to check the Constitution to see if things fall in line. All law is concrete until it is amended. You will find that across the board..as you journey deeper. If want to go deep join a Philosophy forum.

A note to all: THE ARTICLES OF THE CONSTITUTION CAN ONLY BE CHANGED BY AMENDMENT!!!

And Zephyr, yes...you do need to know a thing or two before you start contradicting yourself over and over.


another note to all: I will be back later this weekend. I got real politics to attend to.

Peace,
BigMaN

*Hysterical laughter* And yet: Hang on, I thought that:

Have fun!

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

It's got nothing to do with belief, it's got everything to do with advocacy. I believe that the First Amendment should be expanded to include bans on state governments from infringing on those five freedoms. However, without an amendment to the Constitution making it so, I cannot advocate it because, having been to countries without constitutions, I know what can happen when the government is allowed to change laws as they see fit.

You are free to believe that the federal government needs to regulate the color of hats to be worn on Tuesdays. However when you advocate the passage of a law to that effect, you are in fact endorsing authoritarian governance. If you propose an amendment to the Constitution empowering ther government to that effect, you are endorsing constitutional governance, which is DEMONSTRABLY superior to all other forms of governance with regard to human rights.
I don't agree with everything in the Constitution either. You're an authoritarian because you don't believe in constitutional governance. The sole alternative is authoritarian governance.

You do know that I went to law school right? I understand the compexities of the creation of law all to well, and do not judge the utility of a law based on its constitutionality. I judge its legitimacy based on its constitutionality. Example:

I would find a law mandating a college eduation or military service in order to vote appealing, since I believe that the uneducated masses lead to tyrannical government. However, while I find the law appealing, I would certainly never support it because it would be blatantly unConstitutional.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

Actually, I believe that we should adhere to the interpretation of the Constitution made by the Supreme Court. Arguing legality only, you are correct, we have to follow the Constitution (their interpretation). Arguing morality or simple practicality, I don't think the Constitution should be the authority to which we all have to defer.

I'm not an authoritarian, but constitutional government as you define it is not practical to me, thus your hypothesis is rejected due to an extant counterexample.

That's definitely fair. However, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution determines what is and is not illegal, not yours, and not mine.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The constitution does not give them this authority. They can interpret legislation. They cannot interpret the constitution.

So do I.

Constitutional government is supposed to be 'restrictive' against the government.....not the citizens.

No...they interpret legislation with respect to the constitution. They have no authority to interpret the constitution. They are not the sovereigns of this nation.

__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat