I mean selling crack to American school kids to buy guns for Osama bin laden is only the tip of the iceberg.
Wow.. Give me some of what you are smoking. Also, a few creditable links to this information would be nice. I have a feeling you are conflating several different things.
But we're fuckin' talking about a specific punishment: the death penalty. Stop bringing up irrelevant garbage.
It is not irrelevant, it is punishment dealt by the government that has been given by the government since it's existence and before. How can that be big government if it has always been that way since the beginning of the country? In all those definitions, even in the warped definitions you seem to insist on maintaining about big government, how is doing something the government has done from the start of the nation construed to be big government? It is not unconstitutional, it is not over reaching seeing how it clearly was happening when the government was created. How...
False. If someone has a certain opinion, they could believe that the government should not do certain things even if it is technically authorized to do them, and describe these things as overreaches.
If the government is authorized to do something, then it cannot be overreaching as it is the purview of the government to do so. Maybe intrusive is the word you are looking for. I can agree with intrusive but overreaching by definition would be reaching past what they are allowed to do.
It's 100% subjective, and depends on individual opinions. Just because you want this all to have One True Meaning doesn't mean it does; it doesn't.
And here lays you problem. It is not subjective. Excessive means more then should be in terms of big government. It does not mean your lunch had a lot of vegetables on it at the commissary. That could be excessive vegetables but not excessive big government. Likewise, all the other descriptions point to a specific place.
False. You can be okay with certain types of punishments but be against the death penalty, which is the most extreme punishment the government can hand out, and you can describe the death penalty as an example of big government. Your problem is that you believe only your interpretation of the term "big government" is correct, so you spew forth garbage such as that.
You are part right. I have no problem with you being against the death penalty, I have no problem with you describing it as the most extreme punishment the government can give out. However, when you describe the death penalty as big government, you completely miss the mark and are either intentionally trying to confuse the situation or improperly using the term big government. If the government was set up and able to do something, and that government had been doing that something since the beginning of its creation and before, absolutely none of the terms used to define big government could apply to it. It would be neither, excessive, corrupts, inefficient, or inappropriately involved with capitol punishment.
And you're attempting to convince me that only your interpretations of these loaded, subjective terms are correct and relevant.
That would be correct, and that would be because I am correct in doing so. Capitol punishment no matter how you analyze it, if it doesn't violate the Constitution in its application, it is not big government.
I just looked through the MD court files. It appears that her husband was arrested on 4/14/85 for a carrying a concealed deadly weapon, assault, possession of Marihuana (as spelled on the docket) and resisting arrest. The concealed weapon charge was dismissed (Nolle Prosequi), the assault and possession of marihuana- he was found not guilty of. For the resisting arrest, he got a 3 year jail sentence that was suspended on probation for 3 years. The MD disqualifying crime is a 2 year jail term it seems.
It appears I assumed a few things incorrectly that were spelled out in the article. Supposedly the government thought he purchased machine gun parts from a Swede but it was a potato gun that didn't work. Who would have thought that her husband was anordinance technician for the Coast Guard in Baltimore and he wasn't legally allowed to own or posses a firearm.
According to the article summery, the claim is that the files were taken specifically because they didn't know if the TSA would allow her to have them.
She said she asked Bosch [the investigator heading the raid] why they took the files. He responded that they needed to run them by TSA to make sure it was 'legitimate' for her to have them. '"Legitimate" for me to have my own notes?' she said incredulously
So evidently, they did read the notes and knew they had nothing to do with the purchase/maintenance/use of guns.
This entire fiasco leaves the impression that the warrant was a bogus excuse to get at the notes and discover who the sources were. From what I can tell, resisting arrest is not even a disqualifying crime in Maryland so her husband wouldn't be bared from owning or possessing a firearm anyways. Perhaps it is something in the new gun law just passed by that would imply the older convictions would be grandfathered in.
Once again, no. Putting people to death is not the same as punishment in general; it is one of, if not the most, extreme forms of punishment.
But it is punishment and a constitutional role of government.
This is garbage. "Big government" is a term often used to refer to government overreact in general, and doesn't necessarily have to do with violations of constitutions.
did you not read my comments about the 9th and 10th amendments? All overreach by government is unconstitutional. The only reason why the US does not say yes master when the government over reaches is because the US constitution limits the federal government and their abilities. Otherwise we would be just like England and accept cameras watching everyone the moment they leave the house, government putting camera into homes to watch the habits and parenting of children and so on.
Thanks for making my point for me. This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Notice how the definitions are loaded with subjective language. There are many uses of this term, and pretending that groups that understand the term differently from you don't exist is simply asinine; it happens whether or not you acknowledge it.
What exactly do you think the term excessive means in the context of government? Could it be above and beyond the scope and power of government? Does corrupt and inefficient conjure up images of government doing what it is supposed to be doing but doing it wrong or government doing what it is not supposed to be doing? How would you define inappropriately in the phrase "inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector"? Would it be defined as the government doing what it is supposed to be doing or the government doing what it isn't supposed to be doing? Or do you think it only modified what it is doing like if the government gave our cheese and it would be inappropriate for them to give out that cheese because it went bad?
What am I not seeing here? You're misconstruing what I say. I say these anti-"big government" people who don't oppose egregious of large government such as the death penalty are irrational, and you come back with all this unnecessary, irrelevant garbage about the constitution, which, while I generally agree, has little to do with this.
The only way you can construe capitol punishment as big government is to indicate that the government has no role in punishment for the violations of crimes. The only limits on government involved in punishment is whether due process has been served and whether or not the punishment is cruel and unusual. Baring that, it simply is not big government.
You are the one being irrational here. You are attempting to equate all of one thing with something you appear to not understand, and claim something that is in fact different from reality. Government making laws and enforcing them along with the punishment is specifically part of the function of government. As long as those laws do not intrude on the constitution (be it state or federal) and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, it cannot be big government as it is specifically what government was intended to do.
The interesting thing here is that being legally bared from owning or possessing a firearm is still not probable cause for a warrant. There had to be some evidence that a gun or ammunition was in the house as well as the resisting arrest charge being something that could bar your gun rights.
Resisting arrest in most states is only a misdemeanor which usually doesn't remove your gun rights. Is it possible that not only the premise for the warrant was unconstitutional but the premise for the premise was as well?
Perhaps the NSA intercepted a conversation with her and her mom talking about how her husband loves his birthday present and is running around the kitchen shooting everything with the salad shooter or something as the pretext for the search.
Not really. Or not really in the sense of it being bad or good or anything. People hatch schemes all the time that are just plans with big pictures in mind. The problem we face is that schemes we hear about are usually the ones that either go wrong or do wrong to somebody. But there are a lot that do good or don't do anything at all.
In other words, I think you are reading into it too much.
And as a disclaimer, I'm positively against Obamacare on lots of grounds outside but including the hogwash presented as the federal exchange website.
That said, if a company wants to fire someone because he's a Cubs fan, and the CEO loves the White Sox, that's (in the vast majority of cases) totally legal.
Somewhat true. The issue is that in most states, if the reason for firing someone is not what they consider a valid reason, that employee is generally entitled to draw unemployment compensation. Now the states do it differently but some states require the employer to contribute a specific portion of the unemployment wages while others will just raise their insurance premiums a bit if they fire a lot of people like that.
So yes, it is totally legal, but it isn't always without consequences. Sometimes people have to fight the state's industrial commission's ruling on the matter to see those consequences happening which could be burdensome without an income.
Incorrect. I never once said or implied that punishment in general implies big government; we're talking specifically about the death penalty.
And if you think punishment is the ultimate big government, then you imply the argument against big government means no punishment. We can play these word games where you try to say something that appears to be one thing but is really something else all day long. Just don't get mad when I call out what it implies.
Nonsense. The argument? You speak as if there is only one group at work here. This comment shows that there are multiple groups at work here.
I don't think you will find any group that thinks the government on a federal or state level should not do what the constitution demands or limits them from doing and still have that argument construed as being against big government. It doesn't have to be one group, but you will be hard pressed to find a group with a deviation from how I explained it.
But really, why refer to it simply as "big government" (among other ambiguous terms) and then act surprised when people don't know exactly what is meant? When you say "big government," it makes it sound like you're talking about government in general, and that's exactly what group I'm talking about.
Big government is a term used by people who object to the government's approach on freedoms and deviation from constitutional roles. I mean lets look the term up and see what it is..
Those all with a few different wordings state the big government is a derogatory term used to describe an over reaching government outside it's constitutional roles. But Wikipedia has a more detailed description of it.
the first paragraph on the page says "Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a derogatory term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices. The term has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation."
The reality of it is when the term is used, it is assumed those who hear it either understand the meaning or have the wherewithal to open a dictionary or do a Google search or at minimum ask someone to explain it to them. Perhaps it is a fault of those who use it in that we automatically assume the people on the other end already understand the concept. The term is not just two words Big and Government put together, but one phrase with two words that mean a specific thing or subject of things.
No. You just weren't sure which group I was referring to.
No, I'm confident you were not referring to any group who uses the term big government and instead were combining the definition of
I didn't say it was, but I can't think of a bigger sign of "big government" than having that same incompetent government murder people.
But you implied it by stating that being against big government was counter to government punishing those who broke the law. Again, the Argument against big government is not that government doesn't do anything, it is that they are limited to constitutional roles and enforcing punishment given by due process for violations of those laws is definitely constitutional.
Big government is big government whether or not it's at the local, state, or federal level.
No, not in the way people who are against big government define their position. You can close your eyes and insist it is some other way all you want but it will not make you correct. For instance, if the federal government came into your neighborhood and opened up a fire department, we would be against it because its big government. If your city or township, or even county government did the same, we would more then welcome it. It is a matter of taking everything you think a government should do, appropriating parts to the government who is constitutionally appropriated with the duties of, and then keeping the majority of everything else as close to home as possible where you, the citizen, have the most say. That is what people who are against big government intend regardless of what you want to impose as your reality.
Maybe if you're irrational, but it is indeed big government.
Most certainly not. Capitol punishment is not big government in the sense of big government you are implying. Big government is a top down all encompassing approach. Those against it want a small top and larger bottom approach which the bulk of government being controlled in the communities they live. Now, despite your misconceptions, the federal government has very few death penalty cases by the President of the United States is constitutionally charged with seeing that the laws of the land are enforced and followed. If someone is afforded due process and they committed and was convicted of a crime which the penalty imposed by congress is death, then the federal government putting that person to death is explicit within the constitution and the powers it imposes or bestows on the federal government. That does not create an all encompassing central government nor does it create any situation in which anyone who is against big government would have to be against also.
This also is negated by the fact that the entity refereed to in the article is a state government in which an entirely different constitution primarily provides their authority and role in governing. If the state is constitutionally allowed to execute someone, they it would be within their constitutional prevue and still not against the complaints about big government.
Face it, you are wrong in this. the big government you are wanting to talk about is something completely different then the big government people are against.
It is worsr then that. A man in ohio recently found out that the state considered him to be dead for tje last ten years or so. He sued to have this corrected and his lawsuit was thrown out because the law only allows three years to fix records errors and that had already passed.
So, because proceedure seemd more important than reality, we have people incarcerated or executed for crimes others have commited and live people who are legally dead despite telling a judge personally he was alive.
I'm not sure you can think at all. The argument against big government isn't government does nothing. It is that government sticks to their constitutional roles and the bulk of the power needs to be concentrated with the state and local governments where they are more responsive to the people. Capitol punishment is not big government in the sense of big government you are implying.
You should equate expensive with humane in this context. Tons of money have been spent over the years to maintain the we are better than the killers being executed mantra.
Now i'm not against the death penalty but i am against intentionally inflicting pain and suffering outside what would be present in confining someone. I hold that same belief about animals charged in out keep too . My view has nothing to do with not being them or better or anything, it stems from my exeriences hunting and seeing the difference between a kill shot and wounding first hand. Anyways, i still hunt and fish, i just choose my shots better and practice enough to be proficient in landing kill shots. The government, no matter how their justify the position should be doing the same when taking a human life regardless of how terrible the person was.
That or it would be exported to a safe country first then imported to the us by third parties. Cuba has gotten around some of the US embargo rules that way.
Patent and copyright laws have a provision in the internstional treaties that allow countries to declare a nation emergency or something similar then declare a certain set of copyrights or patents needed to alieviate that emrrgency. This allows them to ignore those specific patents or copyright without destroying the treaties and causing a breakdown in honoring them.
The situation you described used that specific clause. Canada did the same on some drugs right after 9/11 when the anthrax scares were running through the us government. The public health exception was first built into the berne conventions in the 1800's if i remember right. It is basically an affirmative defense more than a right or ability when used.
The problem is that if a person is a psychopAth and willing to kill an innocent or not guilty person, making them pull the trigger will likely only feed into that instead of protect against it.
Considering a sentence should be a separate process from determining guilt when the death penalty or life in prison is on the line. The same jury that says he is guilty should not be the same jury that says he deserves to die.
I guess you test would be if you could quit without owing the company money or something. If you can, you are not indentured to them.
As for being their servant, thats generally how employment works, you get paid to serve the employer's interests. What makes that different then slavery id the fact that you are there on your own will or desire and you can also quit by the same.
I understand that when you do not have facts and logic on your side, ad hominem attacks would be your only recourse left availible but seriously, was your point simply to troll or did you stay at a holiday inn express and think your uniteligent and pointless drivel actually added something to the discussion?
In other words, was your comment an attemp to discredit me like a third grader at recess or was there actually a point that wasn't simply intelectual dishonesty meeting with a desire to feel better about yourself?
Like i said, your drivel is negated by the 14th amendment. Your explaination of why you think it is not is also negated. The laws about automatic spending can not be constitutional if the congress does not appropriate funding for it. Otherwise during a budget impass, none of the government would shut down at all. A law binding social security payments can not remain constitution without the means to pay it.
Debt, as in what the 14th requires the US to pay is debt paid. Not creating debt that has not occured yet because a law says it should be created. Despite social security being funded differently the the rest of the government (it can pull from it trust fund without incuring additional debt unlike other spending), any law mandating payments would be unconstitutional if the funds weren't availible and congress didn't authorize funding.
You simply cannot pass a law that takes away the constitutional roles of congress or the president and have that law supercede the constitution. All laws regarding spending have to be interpreted through the constitution else they ae become unconstitutional. If the debt limit wasn'T increased, it would be a duty of the president to chose which spending continued within the bounds of the capabilities of what is availible. If legal obligation exceed the abilities, the president would have no choice but to view spending in excess of our ability to pay as unconstitutional if only for the duration of the inability to pay.
Or in words an ad hominem slinging partisan hack like you who tried to insult without effect rather then argue the logic of your pisition can understand. If the ability to fund the spending is not there, regardless of any law, the funds absolutely cannot be spent constitutionally and like any other law that the constitution doesn't allow, would become unconstitutional. Ehat you seem to want to argue is that if a law regulating speech like inviting a riot is ever enforced in a way that is unconstitutional, it must be enforced because there are ways it can be enforced that is constitutionsl and that is completely wrong.
Like i said, your drivel is negated by the 14th amendment. The spending in excess of what we are capable of would have to stop in order to remain constitutional.
Well, actually it is just as good of an excuse as continuing the spending. People actually support military spending over other spending because it is one of the few ways the federal government spends money that is constitutionally authorized.
Well, if the real reasons are on the books. Where they cannot legally fie you for something, they just document your every mistake and use the culumative of that to find a reason. Very few people can refrain from violating some rules when they are being specifically targeted for enforcement.
There is also something called constructive discharge that is extreamely hard to prove. This is where the rmployee makes an employee so uncomfortable working for them, they end up quitting instead of being fired.
Look at the dates again. Obama has been in office over 5 years now. Those obama years are included in that 11 trillion. What i tried to do was be realistic with portions of debt increase under obama that could clearly be attributed to bush policies like the war and tax cuts as well as a bailout.
I'm posting from my phone so it is a little dificult pasting links but all this is easily availible with a google search. The site above is a good place to start and provides some explainations to some of the increases.
One of the tea party sites claims 860 some thousand people sent letters supporting the defund effort. A petition had over two million signitures.
Also, the government was only shut down because democrats refused to give on the aca. The house passed everything to fund the government but funding for the aca.
It was pointed out to me a while ago that we seem to not have any absolute morals any more and everthing is relevent or subject to interpretation now. This leads to what you are saying about charector. For instance, is theft bad. To those that had something taken, it usually is. But to those who took something, it might not be because they will never miss it, or i needed it, or they have more than i do, or whatever as long as you can justify it to yourself.
For instance, "after being found guilty, the judge agreed with the prosecutor's claim that the crime was so horid, the max penalty must be applied" compared to, "he recieved the maximun penalty for the conviction of the crime". Another exaple might be how comments on controversial issues like the ppaca where instead of stating two support and opposition exist, it turns to sound as if support is always good and opposition is always bad. Of course that would be more than the facts and the other side definately would disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow.. Give me some of what you are smoking. Also, a few creditable links to this information would be nice. I have a feeling you are conflating several different things.
It is not irrelevant, it is punishment dealt by the government that has been given by the government since it's existence and before. How can that be big government if it has always been that way since the beginning of the country? In all those definitions, even in the warped definitions you seem to insist on maintaining about big government, how is doing something the government has done from the start of the nation construed to be big government? It is not unconstitutional, it is not over reaching seeing how it clearly was happening when the government was created. How...
If the government is authorized to do something, then it cannot be overreaching as it is the purview of the government to do so. Maybe intrusive is the word you are looking for. I can agree with intrusive but overreaching by definition would be reaching past what they are allowed to do.
And here lays you problem. It is not subjective. Excessive means more then should be in terms of big government. It does not mean your lunch had a lot of vegetables on it at the commissary. That could be excessive vegetables but not excessive big government. Likewise, all the other descriptions point to a specific place.
You are part right. I have no problem with you being against the death penalty, I have no problem with you describing it as the most extreme punishment the government can give out. However, when you describe the death penalty as big government, you completely miss the mark and are either intentionally trying to confuse the situation or improperly using the term big government. If the government was set up and able to do something, and that government had been doing that something since the beginning of its creation and before, absolutely none of the terms used to define big government could apply to it. It would be neither, excessive, corrupts, inefficient, or inappropriately involved with capitol punishment.
That would be correct, and that would be because I am correct in doing so. Capitol punishment no matter how you analyze it, if it doesn't violate the Constitution in its application, it is not big government.
I just looked through the MD court files. It appears that her husband was arrested on 4/14/85 for a carrying a concealed deadly weapon, assault, possession of Marihuana (as spelled on the docket) and resisting arrest. The concealed weapon charge was dismissed (Nolle Prosequi), the assault and possession of marihuana- he was found not guilty of. For the resisting arrest, he got a 3 year jail sentence that was suspended on probation for 3 years. The MD disqualifying crime is a 2 year jail term it seems.
It appears I assumed a few things incorrectly that were spelled out in the article. Supposedly the government thought he purchased machine gun parts from a Swede but it was a potato gun that didn't work. Who would have thought that her husband was anordinance technician for the Coast Guard in Baltimore and he wasn't legally allowed to own or posses a firearm.
According to the article summery, the claim is that the files were taken specifically because they didn't know if the TSA would allow her to have them.
So evidently, they did read the notes and knew they had nothing to do with the purchase/maintenance/use of guns.
This entire fiasco leaves the impression that the warrant was a bogus excuse to get at the notes and discover who the sources were. From what I can tell, resisting arrest is not even a disqualifying crime in Maryland so her husband wouldn't be bared from owning or possessing a firearm anyways. Perhaps it is something in the new gun law just passed by that would imply the older convictions would be grandfathered in.
But it is punishment and a constitutional role of government.
did you not read my comments about the 9th and 10th amendments? All overreach by government is unconstitutional. The only reason why the US does not say yes master when the government over reaches is because the US constitution limits the federal government and their abilities. Otherwise we would be just like England and accept cameras watching everyone the moment they leave the house, government putting camera into homes to watch the habits and parenting of children and so on.
What exactly do you think the term excessive means in the context of government? Could it be above and beyond the scope and power of government? Does corrupt and inefficient conjure up images of government doing what it is supposed to be doing but doing it wrong or government doing what it is not supposed to be doing? How would you define inappropriately in the phrase "inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector"? Would it be defined as the government doing what it is supposed to be doing or the government doing what it isn't supposed to be doing? Or do you think it only modified what it is doing like if the government gave our cheese and it would be inappropriate for them to give out that cheese because it went bad?
The only way you can construe capitol punishment as big government is to indicate that the government has no role in punishment for the violations of crimes. The only limits on government involved in punishment is whether due process has been served and whether or not the punishment is cruel and unusual. Baring that, it simply is not big government.
You are the one being irrational here. You are attempting to equate all of one thing with something you appear to not understand, and claim something that is in fact different from reality. Government making laws and enforcing them along with the punishment is specifically part of the function of government. As long as those laws do not intrude on the constitution (be it state or federal) and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, it cannot be big government as it is specifically what government was intended to do.
The interesting thing here is that being legally bared from owning or possessing a firearm is still not probable cause for a warrant. There had to be some evidence that a gun or ammunition was in the house as well as the resisting arrest charge being something that could bar your gun rights.
Resisting arrest in most states is only a misdemeanor which usually doesn't remove your gun rights. Is it possible that not only the premise for the warrant was unconstitutional but the premise for the premise was as well?
Perhaps the NSA intercepted a conversation with her and her mom talking about how her husband loves his birthday present and is running around the kitchen shooting everything with the salad shooter or something as the pretext for the search.
Not really. Or not really in the sense of it being bad or good or anything. People hatch schemes all the time that are just plans with big pictures in mind. The problem we face is that schemes we hear about are usually the ones that either go wrong or do wrong to somebody. But there are a lot that do good or don't do anything at all.
In other words, I think you are reading into it too much.
And as a disclaimer, I'm positively against Obamacare on lots of grounds outside but including the hogwash presented as the federal exchange website.
Somewhat true. The issue is that in most states, if the reason for firing someone is not what they consider a valid reason, that employee is generally entitled to draw unemployment compensation. Now the states do it differently but some states require the employer to contribute a specific portion of the unemployment wages while others will just raise their insurance premiums a bit if they fire a lot of people like that.
So yes, it is totally legal, but it isn't always without consequences. Sometimes people have to fight the state's industrial commission's ruling on the matter to see those consequences happening which could be burdensome without an income.
And if you think punishment is the ultimate big government, then you imply the argument against big government means no punishment. We can play these word games where you try to say something that appears to be one thing but is really something else all day long. Just don't get mad when I call out what it implies.
I don't think you will find any group that thinks the government on a federal or state level should not do what the constitution demands or limits them from doing and still have that argument construed as being against big government. It doesn't have to be one group, but you will be hard pressed to find a group with a deviation from how I explained it.
Big government is a term used by people who object to the government's approach on freedoms and deviation from constitutional roles. I mean lets look the term up and see what it is..
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/big+government
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/big-government
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/big-government
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/big-government
Those all with a few different wordings state the big government is a derogatory term used to describe an over reaching government outside it's constitutional roles. But Wikipedia has a more detailed description of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_government
the first paragraph on the page says "Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a derogatory term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices. The term has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation."
The reality of it is when the term is used, it is assumed those who hear it either understand the meaning or have the wherewithal to open a dictionary or do a Google search or at minimum ask someone to explain it to them. Perhaps it is a fault of those who use it in that we automatically assume the people on the other end already understand the concept. The term is not just two words Big and Government put together, but one phrase with two words that mean a specific thing or subject of things.
No, I'm confident you were not referring to any group who uses the term big government and instead were combining the definition of
But you implied it by stating that being against big government was counter to government punishing those who broke the law. Again, the Argument against big government is not that government doesn't do anything, it is that they are limited to constitutional roles and enforcing punishment given by due process for violations of those laws is definitely constitutional.
No, not in the way people who are against big government define their position. You can close your eyes and insist it is some other way all you want but it will not make you correct. For instance, if the federal government came into your neighborhood and opened up a fire department, we would be against it because its big government. If your city or township, or even county government did the same, we would more then welcome it. It is a matter of taking everything you think a government should do, appropriating parts to the government who is constitutionally appropriated with the duties of, and then keeping the majority of everything else as close to home as possible where you, the citizen, have the most say. That is what people who are against big government intend regardless of what you want to impose as your reality.
Most certainly not. Capitol punishment is not big government in the sense of big government you are implying. Big government is a top down all encompassing approach. Those against it want a small top and larger bottom approach which the bulk of government being controlled in the communities they live. Now, despite your misconceptions, the federal government has very few death penalty cases by the President of the United States is constitutionally charged with seeing that the laws of the land are enforced and followed. If someone is afforded due process and they committed and was convicted of a crime which the penalty imposed by congress is death, then the federal government putting that person to death is explicit within the constitution and the powers it imposes or bestows on the federal government. That does not create an all encompassing central government nor does it create any situation in which anyone who is against big government would have to be against also.
This also is negated by the fact that the entity refereed to in the article is a state government in which an entirely different constitution primarily provides their authority and role in governing. If the state is constitutionally allowed to execute someone, they it would be within their constitutional prevue and still not against the complaints about big government.
Face it, you are wrong in this. the big government you are wanting to talk about is something completely different then the big government people are against.
It is worsr then that. A man in ohio recently found out that the state considered him to be dead for tje last ten years or so. He sued to have this corrected and his lawsuit was thrown out because the law only allows three years to fix records errors and that had already passed.
So, because proceedure seemd more important than reality, we have people incarcerated or executed for crimes others have commited and live people who are legally dead despite telling a judge personally he was alive.
I'm not sure you can think at all. The argument against big government isn't government does nothing. It is that government sticks to their constitutional roles and the bulk of the power needs to be concentrated with the state and local governments where they are more responsive to the people. Capitol punishment is not big government in the sense of big government you are implying.
You should equate expensive with humane in this context. Tons of money have been spent over the years to maintain the we are better than the killers being executed mantra.
Now i'm not against the death penalty but i am against intentionally inflicting pain and suffering outside what would be present in confining someone. I hold that same belief about animals charged in out keep too . My view has nothing to do with not being them or better or anything, it stems from my exeriences hunting and seeing the difference between a kill shot and wounding first hand. Anyways, i still hunt and fish, i just choose my shots better and practice enough to be proficient in landing kill shots. The government, no matter how their justify the position should be doing the same when taking a human life regardless of how terrible the person was.
That or it would be exported to a safe country first then imported to the us by third parties. Cuba has gotten around some of the US embargo rules that way.
Patent and copyright laws have a provision in the internstional treaties that allow countries to declare a nation emergency or something similar then declare a certain set of copyrights or patents needed to alieviate that emrrgency. This allows them to ignore those specific patents or copyright without destroying the treaties and causing a breakdown in honoring them.
The situation you described used that specific clause. Canada did the same on some drugs right after 9/11 when the anthrax scares were running through the us government. The public health exception was first built into the berne conventions in the 1800's if i remember right. It is basically an affirmative defense more than a right or ability when used.
The problem is that if a person is a psychopAth and willing to kill an innocent or not guilty person, making them pull the trigger will likely only feed into that instead of protect against it.
Considering a sentence should be a separate process from determining guilt when the death penalty or life in prison is on the line. The same jury that says he is guilty should not be the same jury that says he deserves to die.
I guess you test would be if you could quit without owing the company money or something. If you can, you are not indentured to them.
As for being their servant, thats generally how employment works, you get paid to serve the employer's interests. What makes that different then slavery id the fact that you are there on your own will or desire and you can also quit by the same.
I understand that when you do not have facts and logic on your side, ad hominem attacks would be your only recourse left availible but seriously, was your point simply to troll or did you stay at a holiday inn express and think your uniteligent and pointless drivel actually added something to the discussion?
In other words, was your comment an attemp to discredit me like a third grader at recess or was there actually a point that wasn't simply intelectual dishonesty meeting with a desire to feel better about yourself?
Like i said, your drivel is negated by the 14th amendment. Your explaination of why you think it is not is also negated. The laws about automatic spending can not be constitutional if the congress does not appropriate funding for it. Otherwise during a budget impass, none of the government would shut down at all. A law binding social security payments can not remain constitution without the means to pay it.
Debt, as in what the 14th requires the US to pay is debt paid. Not creating debt that has not occured yet because a law says it should be created. Despite social security being funded differently the the rest of the government (it can pull from it trust fund without incuring additional debt unlike other spending), any law mandating payments would be unconstitutional if the funds weren't availible and congress didn't authorize funding.
You simply cannot pass a law that takes away the constitutional roles of congress or the president and have that law supercede the constitution. All laws regarding spending have to be interpreted through the constitution else they ae become unconstitutional. If the debt limit wasn'T increased, it would be a duty of the president to chose which spending continued within the bounds of the capabilities of what is availible. If legal obligation exceed the abilities, the president would have no choice but to view spending in excess of our ability to pay as unconstitutional if only for the duration of the inability to pay.
Or in words an ad hominem slinging partisan hack like you who tried to insult without effect rather then argue the logic of your pisition can understand. If the ability to fund the spending is not there, regardless of any law, the funds absolutely cannot be spent constitutionally and like any other law that the constitution doesn't allow, would become unconstitutional. Ehat you seem to want to argue is that if a law regulating speech like inviting a riot is ever enforced in a way that is unconstitutional, it must be enforced because there are ways it can be enforced that is constitutionsl and that is completely wrong.
Like i said, your drivel is negated by the 14th amendment. The spending in excess of what we are capable of would have to stop in order to remain constitutional.
Well, actually it is just as good of an excuse as continuing the spending. People actually support military spending over other spending because it is one of the few ways the federal government spends money that is constitutionally authorized.
Well, if the real reasons are on the books. Where they cannot legally fie you for something, they just document your every mistake and use the culumative of that to find a reason. Very few people can refrain from violating some rules when they are being specifically targeted for enforcement.
There is also something called constructive discharge that is extreamely hard to prove. This is where the rmployee makes an employee so uncomfortable working for them, they end up quitting instead of being fired.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm
Look at the dates again. Obama has been in office over 5 years now. Those obama years are included in that 11 trillion. What i tried to do was be realistic with portions of debt increase under obama that could clearly be attributed to bush policies like the war and tax cuts as well as a bailout.
I'm posting from my phone so it is a little dificult pasting links but all this is easily availible with a google search. The site above is a good place to start and provides some explainations to some of the increases.
Maybe you d not know enough people.
One of the tea party sites claims 860 some thousand people sent letters supporting the defund effort. A petition had over two million signitures.
Also, the government was only shut down because democrats refused to give on the aca. The house passed everything to fund the government but funding for the aca.
It was pointed out to me a while ago that we seem to not have any absolute morals any more and everthing is relevent or subject to interpretation now. This leads to what you are saying about charector. For instance, is theft bad. To those that had something taken, it usually is. But to those who took something, it might not be because they will never miss it, or i needed it, or they have more than i do, or whatever as long as you can justify it to yourself.
You also have the problem of language tone.
For instance, "after being found guilty, the judge agreed with the prosecutor's claim that the crime was so horid, the max penalty must be applied" compared to, "he recieved the maximun penalty for the conviction of the crime". Another exaple might be how comments on controversial issues like the ppaca where instead of stating two support and opposition exist, it turns to sound as if support is always good and opposition is always bad. Of course that would be more than the facts and the other side definately would disagree.