Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Santorum thinks state bans on contraceptives are constitutional

Santorum thinks state bans on contraceptives are constitutional
Thread Tools
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 10:48 PM
 
Salon: Rick Santorum is coming for your birth control.

That's right, Santorum is a fncking loon. And Ron Paul probably agrees with him.

Everyone know that Roe v Wade was based on the "right to privacy," but most people don't know that this right comes from the court case that legalized birth control for the entire USA. Thought it's almost crazy to imagine now, but birth control used to be illegal. Santorum thinks it still should be, and the Federal gov't should look the other way if a state decides to ban it. Because, you know, STATE'S RIGHTS!!

Why? He's a fanatical Catholic. Most Catholics don't give a sh!t what the Pope thinks about birth control, gays, abortion, and masturbation, because they go to church to worship God, not get bullied by a clan of cloistered virgins. But not Santorum. He thinks Catholic polices should be American law.

Just look at that picture in the link. Faith, Family, and Freedom. In order of importance, in the mind of the frothy lunatic Rick Santorum.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 11:16 PM
 
Ron Paul only opposes the federal gov't paying for contraception, not contraception itself. Paul is not Santorum, no matter how much you want him to be.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 11:30 PM
 
Ron Paul does think states are constitutionally-permitted to ban contraceptives.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 11:45 PM
 
Santorum is an also ran. He happens to get a lot of media attention, because he's vocal, but he's still on the fringe, and will soon be forgotten.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 12:18 AM
 
Santorum is just taking on the role of the puppet for the political evangelicals in this little play. Every candidate is just your archetype for some puppet master.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 12:35 AM
 
Can someone please show me the bit in the US Constitution Manifesto which says that taxpayers (some of whom won't be getting any) should be forced by the federal government to pay for people to get some?

Pretty please?

Or are we all just talking bollocks again and throwing around the word "unconstitutional" at anyone who disagrees with us? Because that'd be unconstitutional, wouldn't it?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Can someone please show me the bit in the US Constitution Manifesto which says that taxpayers (some of whom won't be getting any) should be forced by the federal government to pay for people to get some?

Pretty please?

Or are we all just talking bollocks again and throwing around the word "unconstitutional" at anyone who disagrees with us? Because that'd be unconstitutional, wouldn't it?
Pay attention. This isn't about free contraceptives. Santorum thinks banning contraceptives is constitutional.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 12:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Ron Paul does think states are constitutionally-permitted to ban contraceptives.
So ?

Why would they not be ?

That's the great thing about the USofA: if you don't like one state, f*cking move.
People do it all the time. Much better system that when one Federal government has a say in any and everything, and you as a citizen have NO choice, no matter where you move in that country.

-t
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 12:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Pay attention. This isn't about free contraceptives. Santorum thinks banning contraceptives is constitutional.
Pay attention. All he said was that he thinks it's not the federal government's choice, and should be left to the states themselves to decide. Which is a 100% constitutionally correct viewpoint, as far as federal government goes.

F me. Has anyone actually read the US Constitution Manifesto?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 12:57 AM
 
So anyway, since we're on the subject of lefties not having read the US Constitution Manifesto, I was having a conversation with someone earlier and discovered something...
Turns out that welfare isn't constitutional.
Wonder if there'll be any Dems along soon to whine about that?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 01:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Can someone please show me the bit in the US Constitution Manifesto which says that taxpayers (some of whom won't be getting any) should be forced by the federal government to pay for people to get some?
The matter you're referencing isn't part of this Santorum story. Santorum is saying that it's not a violation of the Constitution for states to ban certain forms of contraception, which would probably sound to many like a violation of Supreme Court case law on birth control like Grizwald v. Connecticut et al. Santorum's point is that in our federal system the states are supposed to have much more legislative authority of their citizens than the federal government does, but in the modern age that got mostly reversed in favor of continual federal expansions at the cost of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Doofy, can I ask you an honest question though? Why do you make a point of consistently writing Constitution and then striking it out and calling it Manifesto? Did we Americans use the term Constitution in a way that violated the British lexical standard? Or are you making some reference to the US writing a manifesto after breaking away from her mother England? I don't immediately recognize the point being made, but I infer it to be a negative one.

As for Welfare programs being unconstitutional, while I agree with you, liberals will cite the general welfare clause of Article 1 Section 8 among other arguments.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jan 5, 2012 at 01:11 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 01:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
The matter you're referencing isn't part of this Santorum story. Santorum is saying that it's not a violation of the Constitution for states to ban certain forms of contraception ... Santorum's point is that in our federal system the states are supposed to have much more legislative authority of their citizens than the federal government does
That's what I said.

Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Doofy, can I ask you an honest question though? Why do you make a point of consistently writing Constitution and then striking it out and calling it Manifesto? Did we Americans use the term Constitution in a way that violated the British lexical standard? Or are you making some reference to the US writing a manifesto after breaking away from her mother England? I don't immediately recognize the point being made, but I infer it to be a negative one.
You're not under the constitution, Biggie. You only think that you're living under it, but you're actually not. Once breached by actions of your government (which it has been), it becomes an invalid document. Thus it's a manifesto, not a constitution.

Observe but one breach:

1) Fully automatic rifles are arms.
2) Your second amendment says you can keep arms.
3) Your second amendment says that this right is not to be infringed.
4) Your inability to purchase a fully automatic rifle is an infringement.

...Thus, your second amendment is no longer followed by your government. Once your government is picking and choosing which parts of the constitution to follow, it's not longer a constitution.

Annnnd that's why your government can enact the recent NDAA without regard to your constitution - because you're not living under your constitution and your government only has to follow it to the extent necessary to ensure that the prole on the street happily continues in his delusion instead of starting a revolution.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 01:27 AM
 
^^^ Uncle Doof is right.

In the same way, we are NOT living in A Free Market system anymore.
The Free Market idea is like a manifesto, that puts a warm fuzzy feeling into Americans.
But it has nothing to do with reality. Our markets are rigged to no end.

-t
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 01:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
That's the great thing about the USofA: if you don't like one state, f*cking move.
People do it all the time. Much better system that when one Federal government has a say in any and everything, and you as a citizen have NO choice, no matter where you move in that country.
Congrats on the stupidest statement of the month here at MacNN. We are all dumber for having read your drivel.

Imagine someone said: Don't like censorship? Fncking move! That's how stupid your words sound.

And then you complain the citizen has NO choice, when in fact legal contraceptives is choice, while states banning it is not choice at all. But in the mind of turtle777, freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom.

Thank you for proving once again libertarians don't actually care about freedom.

Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Pay attention. All he said was that he thinks it's not the federal government's choice, and should be left to the states themselves to decide. Which is a 100% constitutionally correct viewpoint, as far as federal government goes.
The 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court says otherwise.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws..." (Amendment 14 Section 1)

Banning birth control to married couples is a restriction on their right to liberty without due process of law (Griswold v. Connecticut). But that privacy is not limited only to married couples because that would violate the equal protection clause (Eisenstadt v. Baird). Since child birth is potentially life-threatening, it would also be a denial of a woman's right to life.

"Due process" is important here. The purpose of laws against the sale of birth control are designed to prevent the use of birth control. However, if you were actually trying to punish the use of birth control, you would have to go into people's homes and catch them in the act, arrest them, charge them, prosecute them in court, and apply the punishment. That would be due process. Banning the sale of birth control short-circuits due proceed completely, which is why it is unconstitutional.

"Right to Marital Privacy" is clearly based on property rights. To catch a married couple in the act of using birth control, you would need to enter their home, which would require a warrant, which would require knowledge of a potential crime, which is utterly impossible since you would have to be observing their sexual behaviour, which violates all sorts laws.

And of course "Equal Protection," which I already mentioned.

Any ban on the sale and/or use of birth control is a violation of the constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and privacy vis-a-vis property rights. You can't get more comprehensive constitutional protection than that.

I can't believe I'm arguing the right to birth control in the 21st with people who think they believe in freedom. Revolting.

Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
So anyway, since we're on the subject of lefties not having read the US Constitution Manifesto, I was having a conversation with someone earlier and discovered something...
Turns out that welfare isn't constitutional.
Show me where. That's right, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Big Mac
As for Welfare programs being unconstitutional, while I agree with you, liberals will cite the general welfare clause of Article 1 Section 8 among other arguments.
Thank you.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 01:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Ron Paul does think states are constitutionally-permitted to ban contraceptives.
He believes that the states should decide most matters and that the feds control too much as it is. He's right.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Thank you for proving once again libertarians don't actually care about freedom.
No, we just don't care about catering to populist crackpots like you anymore. We're not the United Mob of America, we're states joined as a republic, a different animal than what you have up in Canukistan.

Now, go suck some syrup and mind your moose herds.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 01:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
"Due process" is important here. The purpose of laws against the sale of birth control are designed to prevent the use of birth control. However, if you were actually trying to punish the use of birth control, you would have to go into people's homes and catch them in the act, arrest them, charge them, prosecute them in court, and apply the punishment. That would be due process. Banning the sale of birth control short-circuits due proceed completely, which is why it is unconstitutional.
That's probably the same reason why banning the sale of heroin is unconstitutional
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 01:52 AM
 
Thank you for that explanation above, Doofy, and it sounds like a very strong libertarian argument to make. The problem is though, the provisions of the Constitution aren't absolute, nor has there ever been universal agreement as to their interpretation, even in the era of the Founding. For example, Justice Scalia wrote a short book with different essays on approaches to Constitutional law, and one of the essays not by him dealt with how free the freedom of speech clause is of the 1st Amendment. The scholar brought forward a letter from Jefferson (I think) in which he very narrowly defined speech as verbal speech, saying explicitly that letters or books people write are not protected by the freedom of speech clause. If we held by that definition, the 1st Amendment would be a much less powerful instrument than it has been in history. When you look at such matters you then start looking at matters of judicial philosophy-textualism, original intent, strict construction, living document, etc.. Most conservative judges and scholars look toward the original intent of the founders and the original meanings of the words they used, but there are often tradeoffs and personal judgment calls attendant to deciding such matters. Our country long ago decided that the 1st Amendment applied to speech, written and verbal, as well as other forms of expression. Is creating a clear and present danger by falsely shouting fire in a crowded building free speech? No, we reason, because it endangers the lives and liberties of others.

Regarding freedom of the press, is that freedom granted to more than just the newspaper presses? Certainly the country agrees that other forms of news media are protected. What about less form press like blogs and other forms of independent citizen journalism? Are they protected even though they didn't exist centuries ago? A strict constructionist would say no, someone looking for original intent may say yes, and those thinking that the Constitution is an evolving, living document that changes with evolving standards would almost definitely say yes. Which mode of interpretation is correct?

Your 2nd Amendment example is interesting. When the 2nd Amendment was written, personal arms technology was quite primitive. If the founders had known that such powerful weaponry would be developed, would they have written the 2nd Amendment as broadly? 2nd Amendment proponents argue yes, that any weapon used by government armed forces is also fit for the individual citizen militia of the 2nd Amendment. 2nd Amendment opponents say no, such a broad right to high powered weaponry would not be guaranteed to the citizens. (Full 2nd Amendment haters even deny that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.) In Heller v. D.C. one of the liberal opinions was, fine, the 2nd Amendment is an individual citizen right, but the people should only be granted the right keep and bear t 18th Century ball and powder firearms. However, in the majority opinion in that case, the individual right was affirmed, the highly restrictive regulation (effective ban) D.C. had imposed on handgun ownership was ruled unconstitutional-a major victory for the 2nd Amendment. At the same time, the ruling held that other reasonable gun control laws were not unconstitutional. If the Court had been 5-4 liberal v. conservative instead of the other way around, the 2nd Amendment would have been effectively nullified.

I'd love to agree with you that any laws qualifying/narrowing/reducing rights protected by the Bill of Rights are unconstitutional laws. You could say that that's implied by the short preamble to the 1st Amendment, Congress shall make no law. . . But then you still have to define what the 1st Amendment is specifically protecting, and whether its protections are truly unlimited. (Could a religion practicing child sacrifice be protected under the free exercise clause?) In the year 3000, will the 2nd Amendment protect mad scientists working on doomsday machines? (Okay, I know, not the best Futurama reference, but it was apropos and I felt like throwing it in.)

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 01:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
He believes that the states should decide most matters and that the feds control too much as it is. He's right.
No, he's wrong, because the Constitution of the US applies to all lower governments. It's called the 14th Amendment, which Paul and other States' Rights wackos try to pretend doesn't exist.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 01:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Congrats on the stupidest statement of the month here at MacNN. We are all dumber for having read your drivel.
Well, if it made YOU dumber, my mission is achieved.

Other than that: go yourself.

-t
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 01:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's probably the same reason why banning the sale of heroin is unconstitutional
That's exactly right, in fact. Too bad the gov't is blinded by anti-drug hysteria to see it.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 02:02 AM
 
Ooh, fun. What about automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 02:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
No, he's wrong, because the Constitution of the US applies to all lower governments. It's called the 14th Amendment, which Paul and other States' Rights wackos try to pretend doesn't exist.
The 14th amendment doesn't stretch as far as you want to think, and has been the basis for a great deal of bench legislation. It's past time someone stomped on that cockroach.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 02:06 AM
 
I love how some Canuckistani always know what's better for us.

-t
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 02:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Ooh, fun. What about automatic weapons? What about nuclear weapons?
I'd be happy with any firearm that can be comfortably carried. And yeah, before you ask, I own some real doozies.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
lpkmckenna  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 02:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I love how some Canuckistani always know what's better for us.
I'm just repeating what your own Supreme Court says, because AmeriKKKans like you can't be bothered.

Originally Posted by "Shaddim
The 14th amendment doesn't stretch as far as you want to think, and has been the basis for a great deal of bench legislation. It's past time someone stomped on that cockroach.
Those darn Justices, actually reading and applying the Constitution! Who do they think they are?!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 02:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Those darn Justices, actually reading and applying the Constitution! Who do they think they are?!
Sorry, I think you meant raping and pillaging the Constitution. Every crackpot activist that's ridden the bench has had a crack at it. Damned thing may as well be written on Charmin, for all it's worth now.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 02:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Ron Paul only opposes the federal gov't paying for contraception, not contraception itself. Paul is not Santorum, no matter how much you want him to be.
Well, since the Federal Gov ends up paying for abandoned kids and HIV infections with out condoms I think its fair to say paying for preventative measures is a good thing since the alternatives are a lot more expensive.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 03:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'd be happy with any firearm that can be comfortably carried. And yeah, before you ask, I own some real doozies.

I've never understood the fascination gun enthusiasts have with shooting things. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the sport, the pleasure is just foreign to me.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 03:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
No, he's wrong, because the Constitution of the US applies to all lower governments. It's called the 14th Amendment, which Paul and other States' Rights wackos try to pretend doesn't exist.
Amendments to the Constitution don't automatically apply to lower governments, though the Supreme Court has adjudicated most of them do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...Bill_of_Rights

/pedant
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
As for Welfare programs being unconstitutional, while I agree with you, liberals will cite the general welfare clause of Article 1 Section 8 among other arguments.
Since when was a lib right about anything?

Originally Posted by James Madison
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined... to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
Originally Posted by James Madison
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
Originally Posted by Grover Cleveland
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.
Originally Posted by James Madison
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I've never understood the fascination gun enthusiasts have with shooting things. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the sport, the pleasure is just foreign to me.
Ever gone shooting?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Regarding freedom of the press, is that freedom granted to more than just the newspaper presses? Certainly the country agrees that other forms of news media are protected. What about less form press like blogs and other forms of independent citizen journalism? Are they protected even though they didn't exist centuries ago? A strict constructionist would say no, someone looking for original intent may say yes, and those thinking that the Constitution is an evolving, living document that changes with evolving standards would almost definitely say yes. Which mode of interpretation is correct?
A constitution is never an evolving, living document. That'd be a "manifesto".

Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Your 2nd Amendment example is interesting. When the 2nd Amendment was written, personal arms technology was quite primitive. If the founders had known that such powerful weaponry would be developed, would they have written the 2nd Amendment as broadly?
So we're to assume that your founding fathers were too stupid to realise that weapons technology would become more advanced in the future?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I've never understood the fascination gun enthusiasts have with shooting things.
I don't get it either - I'd much rather live in a country where I don't have to worry (too much) about someone going postal.

But in purely US constitutional terms, this is the most obvious breach.

Don't like it? Write a new constitution. But don't twist the intention and words of the old one, y'know?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Well, since the Federal Gov ends up paying for abandoned kids and HIV infections with out condoms I think its fair to say paying for preventative measures is a good thing since the alternatives are a lot more expensive.
It's the states' responsibility to handle this, not the feds.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I've never understood the fascination gun enthusiasts have with shooting things. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the sport, the pleasure is just foreign to me.
Target shooting is fun, and gun collecting is a great hobby.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 05:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Since when was a lib right about anything?
Where in the hell do you get off quoting those conservative half-wits?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 05:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Ever gone shooting?
I've shot a gun before, yes, although it wasn't some fancy shooting range or something.

There was also that time in Vietnam...
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 05:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Target shooting is fun, and gun collecting is a great hobby.
Do you collect muskets and old fashioned guns, or just the kinds of guns Chuck Norris would outfit himself with when kicking ass and taking names?

I kind of find guns interesting from a historical perspective, like looking at them in museums and stuff, but I don't get the same thrill from shooting guns more deadly, although I've never shot an automatic weapon.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 06:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Where in the hell do you get off quoting those conservative half-wits?
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's the states' responsibility to handle this, not the feds.
That would have been a valid argument over a century ago, but we now have 50 states, and people move frequently.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
I don't get it either - I'd much rather live in a country where I don't have to worry (too much) about someone going postal.
Freedom's just another word for...
Something I don't like when other people have.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
That would have been a valid argument over a century ago, but we now have 50 states, and people move frequently.
Then before you move you'd need to do a little homework and make sure you can live with the laws of that state.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:09 PM
 
For all its faults, I can't help but think your federal government goes a long way towards keeping the wingnuts in line. If some states had the freedom to legislate as they liked, I think bad things like homophobia, racism, creationism and mentally deficient/unstable people with gun collections rivalling Sarah Connor's would all increase dramatically. That can't be good in the long run.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Then before you move you'd need to do a little homework and make sure you can live with the laws of that state.
Actually, I'd say the problem isn't people moving, it's the people who can't move, or for whom moving is difficult.

I'd be far more comfortable leaving things up to the states if there wasn't this vast swath of people who are pretty much stuck in the state they were born in. As much as I agree with Libertarianism from a philosophical standpoint, it's with issues like these that the philosophy breaks down. The philosophy requires everybody to have the means to move for it to function properly. It's not like that in the real world, therefore real world solutions are going to require some philosophical compromise.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:22 PM
 
Ron Paul is right.

Heroine and pot should be legal.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:27 PM
 
No "e" at the end. "Heroine" is the feminine form of "hero". Pronounced exactly the same though.

I agree, but I think Paul wouldn't mind if your state thinks differently. IIUC, his main issue is it shouldn't be up to the Federal Government.


Edit: I do hope however, that as an M.D., he realizes that pot has valid medicinal uses, and that having it be illegal is ****ing over cancer patients.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:31 PM
 
Prostitution should be legal too.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:32 PM
 
Ayup.

Though I'm pretty sure that's already up to the states, who vote 49-1 "nay". Paul wouldn't touch it.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 04:39 PM
 
As I said before. Ron Paul is the only true small government conservative among the Republican candidates.

All the other Republican candidates are big government conservatives or not conservative at all.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:32 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,