🚀 go-pugleaf

evansdb@netaxs.com@netaxs.com  (Dan Evans) wrote:

>In <32bb114f.7200512@news.nothinbut.net>, wwatts@nothinbut.net (Bill Watts) writes:

>>jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:

>>> It's not that you claim rights that aren't expressly mentioned (which
>>> you do, BTW), but rather that you claim them in an absolute manner that
>>> contradicts specific provisions of the Constitution.

>> Are you contending that the constitution explicitly grants 
>> rights to the people or, is it a limit on what already individually
>> held inalienable rights the government can't interfere with? It 
>> is in fact the latter point that is more correct. The only thing 
>> the constitution grants is limited and specific power to the 
>> federal government not, contrary to your contentions, limited 
>> and specific rights to individuals.

> The radical right always seems to want to misconstrue the 
> statements of (what I consider to be) moderates.

Moderate compared to what? To me? 

I'd rather be considered a radical and end up with a limited
government with maximum individual liberty, than be a "moderate" 
and end up with, well, what we have today.

Misconstrue??? 

> J. Adams said that B. Watts claimed rights "in an absolute 
> manner that contradicts specific provisions of the Constitution."
> In response B. Watts states that "The only thing the constitution 
> grants is limited and specific power to the federal government not, 
> contrary to your contentions, limited and specific rights to 
> individuals."

> What B. Watts says is undoubtedly true, but it does not contradict 
> what J. Adams says.  For example, the Constitution expressly grants
> to Congress the power to tax.  It is nonsensical to claim that there
> is an implicit, inalienable right to the "pursuit of happiness" that
> negates the power of Congress to tax.  

I already conceded to the fact that congress has the power to tax.
Hell, I even cited the damn article in my last posting. But how it can
tax ( apportionment of direct taxes ) and for what it can tax for
( general welfare) , is, as of yet, still unanswered by you
"moderates" in this debate. Every time this tune gets played, no one
wants to dance. Why? 

I still contend, and must with every fiber of my conscience and moral
being, that if congress's power to tax is, as presumed by you
"moderates" in this debate, carte blanch power without limit to
function and form, which, as I have previously posted, if adhered to
would ipso facto be a limit on level, then we are never going to agree
on any level concerning the interpretation, purpose or intent of the
constitution let alone the founding fathers intent. In fact the more I
hear from you "moderates" the more I'm convinced of the correctness of
my understanding of the constitution and the founding fathers
principles and intent. Furthermore as you side with the "moderate"
side that would see no cause for alarm, then I will take it as your
condoning the tyranny at present and future. That, sir, is something I
can't take lightly. My question is: How do you?

It's nonsensical, no, make that unconscionable, to assume by this mere
article in contradiction to all expressed and implied intent within
their writings as well as the Declaration of Independence not to
mention other specific provisions enumerated in the bill of rights;
that the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness are mere offers of compromise to the whims of politicians
and bureaucrats to the hideous levels, present and promised. This is
destructive, sad and sick. Do you believe that those who fought
against the tyranny's from abroad, fought instead to just make it
THEIR tyranny? As I said before in just about any other period in our
history if not the history of man, mere rumors of such levels of
taxation would immediately cause a mass upheaval. The medieval Serfs
where taxed a mere 25%. What the F*** does that make us? And yet we
still refer to ourselves as a free nation. I JUST DON'T GET IT!
Furthermore at the levels it exists and, worse yet, promised, then the
government is living on borrowed time. I believe they already know it.
The politicians Wimpy factor, ' I'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a
hamburger today' is going to come to an abrupt stop. America is due
for a rude awakening. Since we have not learned from history then we
shall suffer the fate of repeating it. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

> That would subject the express provisions of the Constitution to the 
> whims of the judiciary, which is the last thing I would expect from those 
> who seem to mistrust the judicial branch.

The whims of the judiciary. Help me please. The very same judiciary
that ruled:

"Petitioner was a joint owner, with her husband, of an automobile in
which her husband engaged in sexual activity with a prostitute. A
Michigan court ordered the automobile forfeited as a public nuisance,
with no offset for her interest, notwithstanding her lack of knowledge
of her husband's activity. We hold that the Michigan court order did
not offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. "

Renquist

http://www.usff.com/BennisOpinions.html#list

If that isn't the saddest piece of shit ruling that I've ever seen. 

Whim doesn't even come close to describing that one. The dissenting
opinions only address part of the absurdity of this ruling. I'll leave
it to my "moderate" opponents to figure out the other part... if they
dare.

> The radical right (as represented by B. Watts) seems to want to frame 
> the dispute in absolutes, and paint moderates as acting contrary to the 
> constitution, while it is always clear that the power of Congress is 
> limited by the Constitution, and the only issue worth discussing is 
> where those limits lie.  Ariticle I, Section 8, granted powers to 
> Congress, and to deny it is a ridiculous waste of time.

The only thing that I absolutely know is that: Power corrupts, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely. I sorry, as hard as I try: I just
don't get that feeling of power,or the feeling of liberty, when I look
at my F***ing paycheck. Do you?

>> I find it most interesting how easily these arguments frequently 
>> fall into either semantical and/or, it said so, didn't say so,
>> technical (mis)interpretations when separated from the intent and
>> spirit of the law and constitution. There are no semantical or
>> technical arguments to be made when one understands the 
>> spirit and intent of the founding fathers and the constitution as
>> expressed in their writings. 

> However, you can't talk about the "spirit and intent" of the 
> drafters of the Constitution and ignore what they wrote.

Why are you making my point?

> (BTW, there is an interesting body of evidence that
> the founding fathers never intended that we should interpret the 
> constitution based on their intentions.  The idea that constitutions
> or statutes should be interpreted by the intentions of the drafters
> is a 20th Century idea not shared by the members of the 
> Constitutional Convention.  If they had thought about it, they would
> have assumed that the constitution would be interpreted based
> on an objective understanding of the words they used, not a 
> subjective understanding of what they intended.  To try to 
> determine the "spirit and intent" of the founding fathers is
> a futile exercise, because they never intended you to know or 
> follow what they intended.)

It would indeed be interesting to discover the sources of this
referred to body of evidence. 

The closest thing that I have heard that would remotely fall into that
category was the fact hat Jefferson, I believe, thought that every
generation should ratify it's own constitution. I'm not sure if that
would be a good or bad thing seeing how a significant body of the
electorate have fallen to the fatal temptation inherent in any
democracy: Any democracy will fail when the people realize that they
can vote themselves a raise at the expense of the producers, under the
force of the government.

There is, however, a large and irrefutable body of evidence that we
are on a course for disaster. In fact this whole debate concerning
inalienable rights, constitution, the intentions of the founding
fathers, etc. etc. shall, in the end, amount to nothing more than
rearranging the chairs on the titanic.

If they never intended us to know what they intended, then why make a
constitution in the first place? Why did they document any of their
debates? Why didn't they just declare George Washington the new king,
as they almost did, and live happily ever after. If the meaning and
spirit of liberty is not understood and sought after, if the intent of
the founding fathers is not to be understood, if we are merely
subjects to the same forces of servitude that exists in all tyrannical
forms of government, then what is our future?

Bill Watts

The jury has a right to judge both the 
law as well as the fact in controversy.

John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. 
Supreme Court, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 
1794:4 

If we can prevent the government from 
wasting the labors of the people under 
the pretense of caring for them, the 
people will be happy. - Thomas Jefferson

The Libertarian Party:

http://www.lp.org/lp/