What you are favoring is no rule of law, but you can't see it. The Constitution is a whole thing that cannot be broken into parts. It is one agreement; one large grant of powers.The ratification process works: for example, the 'centuries old purview' did not include giving women or blacks the right to vote, but that is now in the Constitution.
It is not 'my system' because I did not make it and there are certainly things in it that I do not like, but that does not mean I am willing to grant the Government the power to make any law it deems necessary, which is the only other alternative. Let's look at some of the reasonable laws from our federal government: a drug war that has made the U.S. number one for percentage and number of citizens incarcerated and has turned inner cities into virtual war zones and other nations into real war zones. A secret panel that decides which citizens get the privilege of due process. A secret entity that gives trillions of dollars to whomever it wishes without question or even audit. Several entities that guarantee bad loans with public funds. Sallie Mae is the very definition of predatory loan practices. An onerous tax code that ridiculously penalizes the middle class. Offensive wars based on rumor. The list goes on. I can move to another state, but expatriation is a whole 'nother ball game.
The Constitution deals with interstate issues. If you damage the property of someone else, then the guilty party must answer to you in court.
One additional note, I do not feel it is fair that you should decide what form of government I should live under and likely you feel the same way for the reverse. This is the concept of a republic; that we can choose to live in a society of laws that is more to our liking. This is the real reason that the Constitution was such a brilliant compromise; it allowed each state to enact the laws that it desired. Vermont, for example, had outlawed slavery even before the Constitution was drafted. They were not forced to change those laws by joining the republic.
Are you stating that the Government can operate outside of its specific grants when it deems such actions necessary? When this becomes accepted policy then there is nothing to restrain the government from locking up and executing its own citizens (I tried to find an article which described the method for which the Nazis first initiated such policies and compared them to this panel). Under the Constitution when there is something that needs to be changed there is a clear ratification process. Every dictator throughout history has made these same arguments; that needs arise that are greater than granted powers, thus we must ignore the grants.
That said, there are many aspects of Interstate commerce that can be regulated, including nuclear materials, and states can perform duties as well. Nevada certainly has rejected Yucca Mountain, local California residents hated Rancho Seco, and Oregon residents would have eventually shut down Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, so it's not like they aren't paying attention.
When is following the rule of law wrong? What is morally offensive, a secret list of citizens for whom due process does not apply? What is philosophically untenable about studying and learning from history? What 'small group of people'? Paul has the broadest support among the Republican candidates with the second highest number of contributors. In Paul's universe, there are no kings.
A good place to start is with Liberty Defined. That site is really just a brief summary of the book. What I like about that book is that he goes through each of the most common issues, but he does a good job at citing so you can look up his influences and deeper arguments on specific topics. You could also check out the Mises Institute, which he helped to establish. BTW, I'm not a supporter of Ron Paul because of his views on liberty and such, I am a supporter because he supports the rule of law. For example, he (an OB/GYN) believes that life begins at conception, yet he votes against bills that make such beliefs law because he feels the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the power to regulate medial procedures.
There was no semiconductor market until Intel invented the semiconductor. What about reducing costs to increase market share is philanthropic? Rockefeller's logic behind keeping staff was that they were qualified employees that just needed to be reshaped to a new system. People didn't buy cars because there were roads; roads were built because people were buying cars. The Golden Gate Bridge was a privately funded project.
It is cogent and rational; Paul's arguments address everything (and more) that you just argued, but since his arguments have been simplified by this quaint article, your quote appears to offer some sort of wisdom, but it doesn't.
I feel the argument that the Internet could not have been created without the federal government is a negative proof fallacy. It offers clear cost reductions as well as services that otherwise would not be possible, thus a clear business case could be argued. Sam Walton, for example, invested heavily such technologies.
The government financed research was a slim minority of the market at that time, and the Palo Alto Research Center had not one dime of public investment, and that is where arguably the biggest innovations came from.
The price of kerosene dropped because John Rockefeller was obsessed with efficiency. He drove prices so low that his competitors would offer to sell their companies to him and he would often accept, even keeping most of the staff and upper management intact.
Federal investment in public roads in the 1920s was minimal.
Actually, he co-founded the Mises Institute, which is chock-full of details. He's published books like Liberty Defined where he breaks his arguments into easily understandable explanations. The real problem is that mainstream media doesn't cover him.
Intel, HP, Apple, Xerox, Edison Electric Light Company, Standard Oil (they reduced the cost of kerosene by 80%), Ford, etc, didn't come from public anything.
Second, the states can pick up any of these 'profitable' public enterprises that Paul is proposing to be thrown out.
Where there is conflict between federal and state law, federal law takes precedence. Last time there was a disagreement about that we had this thing called the Civil War.
When most people state this I don't think they fully understand what they are stating, because a centralized government passing any law it wishes and enforcing it with armed forces is tyranny.
That is exactly the argument every fascist in history has made. We cannot be a nation of laws under such a belief system. Think of the pigs in Animal Farm rewriting the rules that were originally agreed upon by everyone.
The laws of the United States as written by Congress, not the states, just as you have written "...arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States." The state court systems are sovereign and separate. The court can rule whatever it wants, but the states are under no obligation to follow what the court rules.
Your statement is counter to the law. The law is that for governing documents, such as the Constitution, the understanding of the ratifiers is the most important aspect. The ratifiers are agreeing among each other to create a law that will do something they agree to. It is not to create a law that the Government can do whatever it wants with. If someone is to make a claim that a law means something, they have to support it with evidence, and I have not found any historical documents discussed in the various books I have read on the 14th which state that the intent of the framers was to change the bill of rights.
Consider this: when the 14th was ratified, the state legislatures elected the U.S. senators. Do you think the states would desire to give up all their power? That is what the argument for 'incorporation' states. That the 10th amendment and state sovereignty is removed by the 14th amendment. Unfortunately, a review of the facts does not support this argument.
The Supreme Court is a body created by the Constitution. They do not have the authority to rewrite the Constitution, nor do they have the authority to be the sole arbiter of what the Constitution means.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't argue with that logic: It's in Europe and it's government funded.
In this example, the function of the NOAA that applies to a theater of war can be moved to a different department, such as the DoD.
What you are favoring is no rule of law, but you can't see it. The Constitution is a whole thing that cannot be broken into parts. It is one agreement; one large grant of powers.The ratification process works: for example, the 'centuries old purview' did not include giving women or blacks the right to vote, but that is now in the Constitution.
It is not 'my system' because I did not make it and there are certainly things in it that I do not like, but that does not mean I am willing to grant the Government the power to make any law it deems necessary, which is the only other alternative. Let's look at some of the reasonable laws from our federal government: a drug war that has made the U.S. number one for percentage and number of citizens incarcerated and has turned inner cities into virtual war zones and other nations into real war zones. A secret panel that decides which citizens get the privilege of due process. A secret entity that gives trillions of dollars to whomever it wishes without question or even audit. Several entities that guarantee bad loans with public funds. Sallie Mae is the very definition of predatory loan practices. An onerous tax code that ridiculously penalizes the middle class. Offensive wars based on rumor. The list goes on. I can move to another state, but expatriation is a whole 'nother ball game.
The Constitution deals with interstate issues. If you damage the property of someone else, then the guilty party must answer to you in court.
One additional note, I do not feel it is fair that you should decide what form of government I should live under and likely you feel the same way for the reverse. This is the concept of a republic; that we can choose to live in a society of laws that is more to our liking. This is the real reason that the Constitution was such a brilliant compromise; it allowed each state to enact the laws that it desired. Vermont, for example, had outlawed slavery even before the Constitution was drafted. They were not forced to change those laws by joining the republic.
Your comment displays that you have no knowledge of anything that Paul discusses, nor much else.
Are you stating that the Government can operate outside of its specific grants when it deems such actions necessary? When this becomes accepted policy then there is nothing to restrain the government from locking up and executing its own citizens (I tried to find an article which described the method for which the Nazis first initiated such policies and compared them to this panel). Under the Constitution when there is something that needs to be changed there is a clear ratification process. Every dictator throughout history has made these same arguments; that needs arise that are greater than granted powers, thus we must ignore the grants.
That said, there are many aspects of Interstate commerce that can be regulated, including nuclear materials, and states can perform duties as well. Nevada certainly has rejected Yucca Mountain, local California residents hated Rancho Seco, and Oregon residents would have eventually shut down Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, so it's not like they aren't paying attention .
When is following the rule of law wrong? What is morally offensive, a secret list of citizens for whom due process does not apply? What is philosophically untenable about studying and learning from history? What 'small group of people'? Paul has the broadest support among the Republican candidates with the second highest number of contributors. In Paul's universe, there are no kings.
A good place to start is with Liberty Defined. That site is really just a brief summary of the book. What I like about that book is that he goes through each of the most common issues, but he does a good job at citing so you can look up his influences and deeper arguments on specific topics. You could also check out the Mises Institute, which he helped to establish. BTW, I'm not a supporter of Ron Paul because of his views on liberty and such, I am a supporter because he supports the rule of law. For example, he (an OB/GYN) believes that life begins at conception, yet he votes against bills that make such beliefs law because he feels the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the power to regulate medial procedures.
There was no semiconductor market until Intel invented the semiconductor. What about reducing costs to increase market share is philanthropic? Rockefeller's logic behind keeping staff was that they were qualified employees that just needed to be reshaped to a new system. People didn't buy cars because there were roads; roads were built because people were buying cars. The Golden Gate Bridge was a privately funded project.
Xbox?
It is cogent and rational; Paul's arguments address everything (and more) that you just argued, but since his arguments have been simplified by this quaint article, your quote appears to offer some sort of wisdom, but it doesn't.
I feel the argument that the Internet could not have been created without the federal government is a negative proof fallacy. It offers clear cost reductions as well as services that otherwise would not be possible, thus a clear business case could be argued. Sam Walton, for example, invested heavily such technologies.
The government financed research was a slim minority of the market at that time, and the Palo Alto Research Center had not one dime of public investment, and that is where arguably the biggest innovations came from.
The price of kerosene dropped because John Rockefeller was obsessed with efficiency. He drove prices so low that his competitors would offer to sell their companies to him and he would often accept, even keeping most of the staff and upper management intact.
Federal investment in public roads in the 1920s was minimal.
Actually, he co-founded the Mises Institute, which is chock-full of details. He's published books like Liberty Defined where he breaks his arguments into easily understandable explanations. The real problem is that mainstream media doesn't cover him.
Intel, HP, Apple, Xerox, Edison Electric Light Company, Standard Oil (they reduced the cost of kerosene by 80%), Ford, etc, didn't come from public anything.
Second, the states can pick up any of these 'profitable' public enterprises that Paul is proposing to be thrown out.
For every complex argument reduced to simple terms, there is a bonehead who will use a one line quote as a counterargument.
For further reading on his plan to see what else he cuts, here it is. [pdf]
Those are in his plans, too. Paul especially hates the TSA because he has titanium knees and gets nut-checked every time he flies.
Where there is conflict between federal and state law, federal law takes precedence. Last time there was a disagreement about that we had this thing called the Civil War.
When most people state this I don't think they fully understand what they are stating, because a centralized government passing any law it wishes and enforcing it with armed forces is tyranny.
You know, in rereading mr1911's post, I can make any sense of it. Who would pass law B when discussing law A?
It is perfectly feasible, because you have touched on a grain of rice where you should be considering something more akin to the whole enchilada.
That is exactly the argument every fascist in history has made. We cannot be a nation of laws under such a belief system. Think of the pigs in Animal Farm rewriting the rules that were originally agreed upon by everyone.
The laws of the United States as written by Congress, not the states, just as you have written "...arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States." The state court systems are sovereign and separate. The court can rule whatever it wants, but the states are under no obligation to follow what the court rules.
What you have stated is a fallacy, because the Constitution is derived from common law.
Consider this: when the 14th was ratified, the state legislatures elected the U.S. senators. Do you think the states would desire to give up all their power? That is what the argument for 'incorporation' states. That the 10th amendment and state sovereignty is removed by the 14th amendment. Unfortunately, a review of the facts does not support this argument.
The Supreme Court is a body created by the Constitution. They do not have the authority to rewrite the Constitution, nor do they have the authority to be the sole arbiter of what the Constitution means.