The existence of God is not a point needed to be argued in order to understand that all humans have inalienable rights.
Our rights are inherent in our humanity because humans desire to be free. It's called "natural law". So if you believe we evolved from nature, then you still realize that humans, like animals, have an inherent desire to be free from artificial restraint. If you believe in God, then you realize that being made in His image means that we desire to be free from artificial restraint.
God vs Nature is another argument entirely, but the existence of our natural and inalienable rights does not hinge on it.
A year after I graduated a girl I went to HS with was featured in Playboy as a college issue (from UF).
Also I am an audio engineer and worked for Good Charlotte at one of their concerts last week and got to meet Paris Hilton. First porn star I've ever met!
If Obama is such a scholar of the Constitution then why does he keep advocating policies that will violate it? (Please note McCain will violate the Constitution just as much as Obama will if elected)
And I will NOT be voting for McCain this election. I won't be voting for Obama either. I don't vote for people who are going to raise taxes, increase the size/scope of government, violate individual liberties, and trample the Constitution.
TRUST ME that MANY Republican / conservative types are not happy about McCain. Even Ann Coulter herself said she would rather campaign for Hillary than McCain. You can see that video on YT.
I used to be a member of the Libertarian party but decided I didn't want to wait that long for them to get their act together. So me and several thousand of my friends are working to change the GOP platform to a more liberty oriented position - www.campaignforliberty.com
Anyway, I attended a local GOP picnic a few months back here in Nashville where the former Governor, a couple of Congressmen, and other high ranking members of the State GOP were present. There was a guy from the McCain campaign passing out McCain stickers and several people turned him down. So don't think that the GOP is all groupthink and in unison. The big government types are at odds with the small government types. The convention will be interesting and if someone tries to get the nomination from McCain and wins, I won't be surprised.
Unfortunately most "constitutional law" these days is NOT based upon the Constitution but based upon case law which is erroneous. The Constitution isn't even really taught in law school anymore - just the relevant cases studied. This produces mass ignorance about the document unfortunately.
Many many supreme court decisions have cited previous cases, not the Constitution. Stare decisis (let the decision stand) is bad policy.
Again, you too are misunderstanding the Interstate Commerce Clause. The ICC was written to keep commerce between states regular, not regulate commerce. Even Jefferson agrees with me. Language has changed a bit since it was written.
Remember they didn't want currency imbalances, trade wars, tariffs, and import taxes among or between the States.
If the federal government needs to regulate communications then a Constitutional amendment should be passed to allow this. I personally don't think the feds are the best choice to regulate communications.... Nipplegate anyone?
"the Constitution is understood to grant the power to enter into treaties even if implementing the treaty exceeds the government's Constitutionally delineated authority."
INCORRECT. All treaties and laws in the US passed / ratified are subservient to the US Constitution because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Ron's platform for federal office was based upon a platform of Constitutionality. The Constitution happens to be a very libertarian document. If he was running for office in Texas he would probably be running on more of a libertarian platform instead.
And the federal form of government that the Constitution creates actually DID work until it was perverted by various President (mostly Lincoln, FDR, Teddy) and various bad ruilings from the Supreme Court (John Jay, Marshall, and others). The Lochner Era was one of the best that we had in terms of USSC integrity to the US Constitution.
Incorrect. The ICC was written to keep commerce between states regular, not regulate commerce. Even Jefferson agrees with me. Language has changed a bit since it was written.
Remember they didn't want currency imbalances, trade wars, tariffs, and import taxes among or between the States.
A situation as you describe probably wouldn't exist because the neighboring States would negotiate on their RF policy because it would be in their best interest to work together. In cases where one State was trashing the spectrum for the next State over, then the issue would be decided in court. Litigation over regulation.
Do you really want the feds regulating communication? Nipplegate anyone? They are not allowed to per the US Constitution and specifically the 10th Amendment
Your points are valid. However without an amendment to the Constitution, per the 10th Amendment, it is not Constitutional for the federal government to regulate communications. Nipplegate anyone?
No, Ron doesn't want the job of President. Ron wanted face time at the debates so that he could reel in the outlandish dialog and reduce the BS factor and pandering by the candidates. He didn't expect to have any success at all although his presence has started an entire movement. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
The necessary and proper clause is NOT a grant of extra power. It simply means that Congress is authorized to do what is necessary and proper:
"Congress shall have power... to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States,"
And regulating communications is NOT listed in Article 1 Section 8 last time I checked.
Commerce clause means "to make commerce regular" among the States. In other words no trade wars, no tariffs, import taxes etc among/between the States.
I am not advocating anarchy over the airwaves.... just that the federal government shouldn't be involved. Per the 10th Amendment the federal government isn't allowed to be involved in regulation of communications. It should be left to the States.
No where in the US Constitution is the federal government allowed to regulate communications. If the federal government wants to regulate communications they should've proposed an amendment to the States
Slashdot Mirror
The existence of God is not a point needed to be argued in order to understand that all humans have inalienable rights.
Our rights are inherent in our humanity because humans desire to be free. It's called "natural law". So if you believe we evolved from nature, then you still realize that humans, like animals, have an inherent desire to be free from artificial restraint. If you believe in God, then you realize that being made in His image means that we desire to be free from artificial restraint.
God vs Nature is another argument entirely, but the existence of our natural and inalienable rights does not hinge on it.
A year after I graduated a girl I went to HS with was featured in Playboy as a college issue (from UF).
Also I am an audio engineer and worked for Good Charlotte at one of their concerts last week and got to meet Paris Hilton. First porn star I've ever met!
If Obama is such a lover of the Constitution why does he keep advocating policies that will violate it? (not that McCain would behave any better)
If Obama is such a scholar of the Constitution then why does he keep advocating policies that will violate it? (Please note McCain will violate the Constitution just as much as Obama will if elected)
And I will NOT be voting for McCain this election. I won't be voting for Obama either. I don't vote for people who are going to raise taxes, increase the size/scope of government, violate individual liberties, and trample the Constitution.
TRUST ME that MANY Republican / conservative types are not happy about McCain. Even Ann Coulter herself said she would rather campaign for Hillary than McCain. You can see that video on YT.
I used to be a member of the Libertarian party but decided I didn't want to wait that long for them to get their act together. So me and several thousand of my friends are working to change the GOP platform to a more liberty oriented position - www.campaignforliberty.com
Anyway, I attended a local GOP picnic a few months back here in Nashville where the former Governor, a couple of Congressmen, and other high ranking members of the State GOP were present. There was a guy from the McCain campaign passing out McCain stickers and several people turned him down. So don't think that the GOP is all groupthink and in unison. The big government types are at odds with the small government types. The convention will be interesting and if someone tries to get the nomination from McCain and wins, I won't be surprised.
Hey I've got great oratory skills and I am a cunning linguist.
"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
-US Constitution
Nowhere in the US Constitution is the federal government authorized to regulate the environment. The EPA should be abolished.
Except for Ron Paul. See my sig, then check his voting record, then check his donors list.
those scratch and sniff stickers from when I was a kid ;-)
Unfortunately most "constitutional law" these days is NOT based upon the Constitution but based upon case law which is erroneous. The Constitution isn't even really taught in law school anymore - just the relevant cases studied. This produces mass ignorance about the document unfortunately.
Many many supreme court decisions have cited previous cases, not the Constitution. Stare decisis (let the decision stand) is bad policy.
Well not just hat but it's a LOT easier to hold your local governing officials accountable than the people 1000 miles away in Washington.
Again, you too are misunderstanding the Interstate Commerce Clause. The ICC was written to keep commerce between states regular, not regulate commerce. Even Jefferson agrees with me. Language has changed a bit since it was written.
Remember they didn't want currency imbalances, trade wars, tariffs, and import taxes among or between the States.
If the federal government needs to regulate communications then a Constitutional amendment should be passed to allow this. I personally don't think the feds are the best choice to regulate communications.... Nipplegate anyone?
"the Constitution is understood to grant the power to enter into treaties even if implementing the treaty exceeds the government's Constitutionally delineated authority."
INCORRECT. All treaties and laws in the US passed / ratified are subservient to the US Constitution because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Ron's platform for federal office was based upon a platform of Constitutionality. The Constitution happens to be a very libertarian document. If he was running for office in Texas he would probably be running on more of a libertarian platform instead.
And the federal form of government that the Constitution creates actually DID work until it was perverted by various President (mostly Lincoln, FDR, Teddy) and various bad ruilings from the Supreme Court (John Jay, Marshall, and others). The Lochner Era was one of the best that we had in terms of USSC integrity to the US Constitution.
Incorrect. The ICC was written to keep commerce between states regular, not regulate commerce. Even Jefferson agrees with me. Language has changed a bit since it was written.
Remember they didn't want currency imbalances, trade wars, tariffs, and import taxes among or between the States.
A situation as you describe probably wouldn't exist because the neighboring States would negotiate on their RF policy because it would be in their best interest to work together. In cases where one State was trashing the spectrum for the next State over, then the issue would be decided in court. Litigation over regulation.
Do you really want the feds regulating communication? Nipplegate anyone? They are not allowed to per the US Constitution and specifically the 10th Amendment
Your points are valid. However without an amendment to the Constitution, per the 10th Amendment, it is not Constitutional for the federal government to regulate communications. Nipplegate anyone?
No, Ron doesn't want the job of President. Ron wanted face time at the debates so that he could reel in the outlandish dialog and reduce the BS factor and pandering by the candidates. He didn't expect to have any success at all although his presence has started an entire movement. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
I didn't say it shouldn't be regulated. I said the federal government isn't allowed to regulate it per the US Constitution.
Unless an amendment is proposed and ratified, it should be handled by the States. Read the 10th Amendment after reading Article 1 Section 8.
The necessary and proper clause is NOT a grant of extra power. It simply means that Congress is authorized to do what is necessary and proper:
"Congress shall have power... to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States,"
And regulating communications is NOT listed in Article 1 Section 8 last time I checked.
Commerce clause means "to make commerce regular" among the States. In other words no trade wars, no tariffs, import taxes etc among/between the States.
I am not advocating anarchy over the airwaves.... just that the federal government shouldn't be involved. Per the 10th Amendment the federal government isn't allowed to be involved in regulation of communications. It should be left to the States.
No where in the US Constitution is the federal government allowed to regulate communications. If the federal government wants to regulate communications they should've proposed an amendment to the States
And yes I am ham radio operator and the OP.
The problem is that legislators forget who they take an oath to. They take an oath to the Constitution.
They are not allowed per their oath to vote for anything unconstitutional yet they do so anyway.
One of the only members of Congress that has Constitutional integrity? US Rep Dr Ron Paul. Google him...
Then you should've supported Ron Paul.