Election Thread 2016

[Bojack]

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.


Something that did not exist (The Fed) cannot possibly give power to something that does exist (the states). The already in-place states gave power to the Fed. It is a logical impossibility for it to happen any other way. The Fed exists because the states allow it to.

All this line does is say that the states have to ratify the existence of the Feds. We're talking about authority anyways which the states had to give up to ratify the constitution. Which is the Federal Government's to hand out. We had this war about it 150 years ago where the states were not allowed to do whatever they want in defiance of the Feds. The states are now no longer able to dissolve or defy the Feds through standard legal means. The Fed > the states legally speaking regardless of what people might think the founding fathers wanted or wrote.

[Cheebs]

The Fed > the states legally speaking regardless of what people might think the founding fathers wanted or wrote.

Well... This is kind of why we're heading towards the trouble we're heading towards.

The Fed most likely does overall good with its social safety nets and some of its regulations. The problem is they don't actually have the authority to do any of it. If we really want the Fed to be able to help in the ways it can, write a Constitutional amendment and make it legal. The way it is now, the Fed does whatever the hell it wants and if it gets called on it's blatantly unconstitutional laws, some court somewhere pulls some true legal gymnastics out of its ass to grossly misinterpret something like the commerce clause and make the whole thing OK.

Do that for two hundred years and you have what we have now: A powerful Fed that clearly, plain as day, right there on paper, in plain language, doesn't have any authority to do any of this shit, and lawyers shrugging it off with "case law blah blah blah".

I really think we need to look at what we actually want the Fed to do, and then give them the power for real.
And I really think after taking a good look at it, we don't want them doing nearly as much as they are. But that's a whole 'nuther topic.

And for God's sake, whenever we get around to doing this, please let every single person in power today on both sides of the aisle be looooong retired.

[Space Pirate Roberts]

So marriage certificates should bear full faith and credit across state lines, just like driver's licenses. How about gun permits? You know, a right that's actually defined in the Constitution. Something that marriage and driving are not.

I have no problem whatsoever with full marriage equality, everywhere. But at the same time, let's make a concealed carry permit issued in Texas valid in New York. Since we're civil rights crusaders and all.

Ah, but unlike driver's licenses and conceal carry permits, marriage is a contract - the exact thing full faith and credit is supposed to apply to.

[bbobb]

That article is five pages long and he immediately lays out accusations without any examples. Are there specific companies and debt amounts attributed to Romney and Bain Capital in here or is this some middle school level paper bullshit?

Yes there are detailed examples

[Andrew]

Ah, but unlike driver's licenses and conceal carry permits, marriage is a contract - the exact thing full faith and credit is supposed to apply to.

Gun permits and driver's licenses can be viewed in the same vein, although you're correct. In all instances, you are signing paperwork and agreeing to abide by certain terms and conditions in exchange for certain privileges.

[Frogacuda]

The issue is not so much whether marriage itself is a right. There are rights associated with marriage, and also separate laws regarding married people. In order for the law to be applied in a non-discriminatory manner, marriage has to be afforded to those that want it.

Frankly, I think letting the government have anything to do with marriage is bullshit. I think both straight and gay couples should have marriage in a church and civil unions as far as the government is concerned.

[Andrew]

Frankly, I think letting the government have anything to do with marriage is bullshit. I think both straight and gay couples should have marriage in a church and civil unions as far as the government is concerned.

We'll make a respectable libertarian out of you yet!

[Fe 26]

Fair enough.

Now take this "marriage isn't a right" viewpoint and run it past anybody, see where it gets you. Just because I can, on a purely intellectual basis, agree that marriage isn't a right, that doesn't mean it isn't treated as such. It's not mentioned as a right granted by government, but the idea is firmly set in societal bedrock. It's got all the power and privileges of a right despite not specifically being one. Short version- you're stuck with it, it's not going away, and it's an issue that functions on a national rather than state level.

an aside.

Things like marriage and gun ownership being rights is derived a good bit from English law, or the perspective on law at the time of US settlement. It was just assumed that it was a right. So much so that no one even thought to write it into legislation.

It comes from the English attitude of "Any good upstanding Englishmen deserves such gentlemenly things"

This is part of where the gun private vs militia ownership debate comes from. People want to argue that gun ownership meant militias because of the lack of documentation for private gun ownership. The reason that there is no documentation is because of the English perspective on law. It was just assumed.

These other perspectives on rights and the way legislation work are mainly European derived. Many blame German law, but I haven't looked into is seriously enough to back that claim.


Anyway, I thought that was interesting. The way rich families coming to America have impacted how we view our own legal system.


Another fun aside is how we view ethical based legislation like alcohol or abortion. People who want outright bans and refuse to regulate things that are considered immoral often come from a Puritan cultural background. Puritans believe that regulation is a form of approval. This is why we have seen non puritan parts of the US regulate things like prostitution instead of enacting across the board bans.

[Andrew]

This is part of where the gun private vs militia ownership debate comes from. People want to argue that gun ownership meant private ownership because of the lack of documentation for private gun ownership. The reason that there is no documentation is because of the English perspective on law. It was just assumed.

Most people hear "militia" and think of an organized force like the Continental Army, but that's not the case. The militia, as described by our founders, was comprised of able-bodied men and their private arms. In other words, it's not a professional force wherein everything you need is issued.

They passed legislation saying exactly such in 1792:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

[Diff-chan]

Okay, so the 2nd amendment provides that people have the right to a musket, bayonet, and a pouch to hold flint and powder. Not an AR-15, AK-47, etc.

Another comment: is that a law which has the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDATING THAT PRIVATE CITIZENS PURCHASE A PRIVATE PRODUCT? This sounds like an unconscionable and unconstitutional federal power grab to me.