Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye
Believe me, I arrived at that conclusion a long time ago.
You didn't refute jack. Of course I'd rather ignore you. You haven't got anything to contribute. No evidence, no examples and not even so much as a nod to the questions posed to you. You just arbitrarily crown yourself victor for no reason, making you the winner in your own mind alone.
And yes, once again. You refuse to answer the question. I'm taking that as an "I don't know but I'm not man enough to admit it" answer.
|
No, you've made up your mind that you don't like me because I constantly press you to come to the realization that you are completely unwilling to debate like an adult. Anyone who disagrees with you must make the arguments you want, or they offer nothing and you justify ignoring them. You don't want real debate, you want people to prove you right.
Your attack on my credibility falls flat when anyone can see in my posts that I am happy to shore up evidence and analysis to advance my arguments, I can contribute politely and meaningfully to rapport with those that would disagree with me (hi Dalek), and often quote what I am addressing to make it more than clear what I am responding to.
Now if you'll come off your childish, hypocritical screaming and read my posts, you'll note that my response to the question of comparing government to God can be summed up as "That is not a good question because that is not the argument anyone is making." My guess is that you'd rather ignore it because it sidesteps the debate you want, the one in which you are right, and advances a different point that you are unwilling to debate.
I have never claimed that I won anything. I point to an argument, share what is wrong with it and defend the assertion. That is called debate, and it's meant to bring us closer to the truth by sharing different views and claims to be supported or criticized, not to "win." Your obsession with anyone thinking themselves the victor makes me worried that is your aim rather than any attempt to educate yourself or others. Lashing out against me for criticizing the quality of your arguments only brings into question your intellectually maturity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye
Actually, your constitution was made as a safeguard against that. The big problem is people ignoring it. It's not impossible. That's how it was for many centuries before Roosevelt completely undermined it with his New Deal nonsense. Before all that, all government did was keep the peace and otherwise leave people alone. Government's powers were kept restricted so that it did it's job as the constitution described and no further.
Right now, you're following in the same footsteps that led the empire of Rome to ruin in the end. Can people wise up in time to avoid going down that road? We'll see
What kind of government do libertarians want? It's very simple: If it's not in the constitution, you don't do it. End of story, no exceptions.
|
That's all well and good, but the problem is what the Constitution actually permits. A great deal of Constitutional law is and always has been whether or not an issue not directly addressed by Constitution is implied, inferred, or ought to be addressed. Even the men who drafted the document argued over what it actually meant after the ratification, and immediately felt it necessary propose 12 amendments to specifically limit and define the government and bring forth arguments for the role of the new government. This is the greatness of the Constitution that is so often touted as a living document. Knowing that no framework is perfect or timeless, it was given mechanisms to adapt to new social and economic ideals, new responsibilities or limits or government, or new technologies and ideas through amendment or establishment of legal precedents based on the standing document.
The problem with the Libertarian idea is that it is so very uncompromising and literal, that it refuses to accept that there is grounds for interpreting intent and applying it to a modern context and probably stands in opposition, just as well, to changing a document that they revere. However, given the early context of dissent to the Constitution itself, I feel I must reject an absolutist Libertarian ideal because it denies to the Constitution what is supposed to make it so great. Honestly, would you actually argue its greatness if the framers had NOT proposed the Bill of Rights? If not, then I imagine you can see what is wrong with the literalist interpretation.
Now, with that in mind, I would like to address your radical revision of history. The assertion that there were no unconstitutional acts between 1789 and 1932 (a bit short of many centuries) is glaringly ignorant in the face of cases like the Passenger Cases, Fletcher v. Peck, Adair v. United States, or Ex parte Young among others. Also keep in mind that these cases did still represent a minority of state and federal regulation. When we get to FDR, we do see cases where certain acts were ruled unconstitutional, but do not forget cases upholding the constitutionality of other New Deal acts by the same courts. While Roosevelt may have tried to undermine the Supreme Court to get his way, a despicable act, Congress refused to buy into such a scheme. This was most certainly not ignorance of the Constitution, and most definitely suggests that it has been upheld despite aggressive Executive pursuit of sometimes questionable policy.