Think Rand Paul is an intellectual lightweight?

[Antilogic]

To answer these questions (and not comment on the other stuff that is causing my blood to boil):

So is the constitution a common law document, or a civil code? That seems to be the crux of the issue, but you haven't really made your opinion explicit.

It's a common law document. Longer version: it is an organizing document that creates a body (Congress) empowered with the ability to make statutory law, but it is essentially a common law document. Just like the unofficial collection of documents, speeches, books, and ideas that comprise the English/UK common law.

Doesn't Louisiana have one?

They are kind of a special case, being a former French/Spanish colony. Several holdovers from those legal systems still exist today.

EDIT: Ninja'd by other posters, this thread moves fast.

 

[Leoreth]

First of all, Texas isn't tyrannical at all, second, its about te size of the government, not the area.

If a North-Korea type government took over the US, (And I don't just mean some form of communism, I mean same type of leadership, same policies, exc.) the one in America would be worse.

So why does it matter if certain powers lie with the states or the federal government? I could understand that you want to lower governmental power itself, but then please say so, because I really can't see the difference in power exercised by the federal or the state level.

I disagree. I think that there are fundamental differences between a gay and a straight relationship, and so I think its acceptable to treat them differently. I do think at the Federal level any benefits that are given to a straight couple should be given to a gay couple, but I think states should be allowed to decide not to use the word "Marriage" if the people living in that state do not wish to recognize state marriage. I also recognize the right of any state to decide they disagree with me and decide to recognize said marriage.

In any case, if you want to change that it would be by constitutional amendment, not by a mere law. That's how the constitution works.

I wasn't talking about gay marriage in specific (although I do think it's an example of the problem nonetheless).

The problem that I see is that a constitution should reflect what rights there ought to be, and how that applies to our current society. The older the consitution gets, the higher the chance that there's a situation where society has evolved to the point where it doesn't apply anymore, at least not in its literal meaning. That's even more so the case when its designed as a positive list of rights.

Now you're right that constitutions can be amended, but since the constitutionalist position is basically "it's not a right if it's not in the constitution", that's not going to happen.

"A factor" does not mean "sole factor". Please try again.

You can keep your condescending tone for yourself. And I will not try again, because frankly, I have no interest in continuing to discuss with you, mainly but not limited to the fact that I have better things to do than to skim to the forests of quotes that are your posts.

 

[illram]

No. Just no. That's like saying "ending the War on Drugs is the same as expanding Medicare". It's just stupid.

Let's say I am Rand Paul and I am President, and at the wise counsel of my dear ol' Dad I eliminate the EPA and the Department of Labor in my effort to "deregulate" business. Who stands to benefit the most from that?

 

[Crezth]

The Constitution trumps "common law".

Statements like this are proof positive that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Arakhor]

How can a legal amendment to the US Constitution be unconstitutional? Surely, by its very existence, it is enumerating part of the Constitution.

 

[G-Max]

Seeing as this thread has devolved into a discussion of common law and therefore become boring, I am abandoning it, but leaving the following final comments:

Russian Constitution of 1918: 1918.

Nineteenth Amendment, 1920.

Eliza A. "Grandma" Swain becomes the first female voter int he U.S: 1870

Let's say I am Rand Paul and I am President, and at the wise counsel of my dear ol' Dad I eliminate the EPA and the Department of Labor in my effort to "deregulate" business. Who stands to benefit the most from that?

Everyone but the endangered weeds and "green jobs" scamsters.

How can a legal amendment to the US Constitution be unconstitutional?

My guess would be "if it wasn't properly ratified", but more importantly, why are you asking?

 

[Arakhor]

You claimed that the 17th Amendment was unconstitutional, when pretty clearly it is constitutional, by virtue of its very existence.

 

[G-Max]

You claimed that the 17th Amendment was unconstitutional,

No, I just said that it stripped the states of their ability to force Congress to follow the Constitution. Slight difference.

Anyway, see y'all in other threads.

 

[Crezth]

Seeing as this thread has devolved into a discussion of common law, I am abandoning it, but leaving the following final comments:

"Seeing as my total ignorance of law has been revealed in the course of this thread, I'm taking my ball and going home."

you might wanna go back and edit that into your post for clarity's sake

 

[Cutlass]

Everyone but the endangered weeds and "green jobs" scamsters.

And all those people murdered by polluters.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I've never really understood what some mathematicians and theoretical physicists have against usefulness, but there is a real bias against "applied" fields in some circles. But I digress...

That's OK, we "applied" types return the favor, in spades. An engineer and a mathematician are each presented with a hallway, at the end of which is a gorgeous, naked and eager member of the respective attractive sex. But there's a rule - in each minute, the contestant will only be allowed to travel half the remaining distance down the hallway, whereupon a force-field will prevent further progress. The mathematician walks away in disgust, saying "Any idiot knows that the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... doesn't reach unity in finite time. Oh no wait, look at that engineer, I guess some idiots don't know it, ha ha!"

The engineer waits until the mathematician is out of hearing range and says, "Oh sure, I'll never actually get all the way there. But after a few dozen minutes, I'll be close enough for all practical purposes."

See, Texas is clearly more tyrannical than North Korea because it is larger.

Don't mess with Texas. Texas, however, clearly reserves the right to mess with you.

Last but not least, all this Ron Paul talk merits only one response:

Link to video.

 

[Abegweit]

There's no way to combat tyranny without voting.

Wow. Just so wow. Do you honestly believe this?

 

[Crezth]

Wow. Just so wow. Do you honestly believe this?

I was being sarcastic in response to G-Max's laughable assertion that there's no way to attack tyranny in a state that you aren't voting in.

 

[Abegweit]

The Federal government is horribly bloated, abusive, corrupt, and sponsors tyranny across the world. It is not inherently good, that's silly, but the framework it exists in - the structure whereby we can legislate the law of the land - has the capacity to be used for great good. See: the amendments.

More wow. It fascinates me to see people who acknowledge the existence of naked evil and then bizarrely mutter something about it can magically be transformed into "great good". Even more bizarrely, these nutcases claim that "we" are... something who can do... something. Hint: I am not part of your "we". I do not accept your bizarre claim that tyranny can be used for great good.

 

[Crezth]

More wow. It fascinates me to see people who acknowledge the existence of naked evil and then bizarrely mutter something about it can magically be transformed into "great good". Even more bizarrely, these nutcases claim that "we" are... something who can do... something. Hint: I am not part of your "we". I do not accept your bizarre claim that tyranny can be used for great good.

"We" the People for whose pleasure the government operates. At its best, the government is a weapon to be wielded by the people for the common good. At its worst, well, you know.

Whether or not the government is necessary for the exercise of that power, or indeed if it itself is the cause of the conditions whereby the exercise of such power becomes necessary, is a separate issue and a philosophical question I am not sufficiently acquainted with to talk on with any confidence.

 

[Dachs]

More wow. It fascinates me to see people who acknowledge the existence of naked evil and then bizarrely mutter something about it can magically be transformed into "great good". Even more bizarrely, these nutcases claim that "we" are... something who can do... something. Hint: I am not part of your "we". I do not accept your bizarre claim that tyranny can be used for great good.

This is the Rand Paul thread. Discussion of Anarchism is over *gestures vaguely* there somewhere.

 

[Abegweit]

This is the Rand Paul thread. Discussion of Anarchism is over *gestures vaguely* there somewhere.

I really don't know why you have this need to be such an arrogant fool. Grow up.

Rand Paul's dad is pretty much an anarchist. He certainly cavorts with them and admires them. From what I can see, Rand plays from the same rule book although he sometimes equivocates. So tell me, what you do think Rand Paul's position on Murray Rothbard might be?

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Look at his "Issues" page. He supports all the key Republican issues with all the usual Republican talking-point memo keywords:



Translation: lower taxes for "job creators" and de-regulating big business. Oooh what a rebel!



Translation: let companies do their thing and drill, mine, and frack to their heart's content.



Don't punish success, blah blah blah, heard all of that before. Did he use "flat" and "tax" in the same sentence?



Well duh!



Obviously.



"Corporate welfare" sure sounds bad... how vague is this though? The second sentence clues you in that is just another way of saying the old, debunked "let the market decide" talking point. Contrary to the feel-good talking point of "ending corporate welfare" this just winds up as another big business gift.



Eliminating the DoE is crazy time. States need Federal funding... although I don't know much about how curricula are determined but I suspect this statement is a little misleading in that the Feds do not mandate curriculum. As far as I know, crazy Texas school boards have as much influence on curriculum on a national scale as the feds do.

So he does not support SOPA... big whoop. Those talking points are cookie cutter Republican issues. Aside from my personal opinon that If Massie and his ilk had his way it would do far more harm than good to civil liberties in this country, Massie and his ilk are anything but original or courageous.

I think you missed my original post where I stated I was fiscally conservative.

And the Department of Education has only existed since 1979 and their record is abysmal. Kids today are less educated than years past. I worked in education, so I know what a mess it is. Nobody is happy with the current arrangement, especially parents and teachers. People like yourself think we won't get educated without some bloated federal bureaucracy in Washington telling us how high to jump. I believe we'd get better education at the state and local level where schools allow teachers the flexibility to actually teach and convey knowledge.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I really don't know why you have this need to be such an arrogant fool. Grow up.

Rand Paul's dad is pretty much an anarchist. He certainly cavorts with them and admires them. From what I can see, Rand plays from the same rule book although he sometimes equivocates. So tell me, what you do think Rand Paul's position on Murray Rothbard might be?

Dr. Paul is not an anarchist. Definitely a small government Libertarian, but he clearly believes in some government.

Also, admiring a group doesn't mean that you agree with them. I think you're a great poster and enjoy reading your posts, but often disagree with them.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

And the Department of Education has only existed since 1979 and their record is abysmal. Kids today are less educated than years past. I worked in education, so I know what a mess it is. Nobody is happy with the current arrangement, especially parents and teachers. People like yourself think we won't get educated without some bloated federal bureaucracy in Washington telling us how high to jump. I believe we'd get better education at the state and local level where schools allow teachers the flexibility to actually teach and convey knowledge.

Thank you for saying this, our educational system is one of many examples of how big government is causing more harm than good. And the supporters of big government think that it's because we aren't pouring even more money into it.