Tab Content
  • familydog's Avatar
    Today, 06:30 PM
    John Marshall was Chief Justice. True. Alexander Hamilton argued it was unnecessary in Federalist 84. As did James Madison in other writings. That's not an answer, but I'm fine with just moving on.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    Today, 04:15 AM
    Ironically, you ignored everything I posted. I'm not sure what your point about the militias was. That's why I ignored it. If you would like to rephrase it, then I can address it.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    Today, 04:13 AM
    The Founders (who headed the court during many of these rulings) did not understand the Constitution that they created? Is there any evidence for this? Madison submitted an Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights that specifically mandated the other amendments apply to the States. He wrote “No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases,”
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:23 PM
    1) Why did the Supreme Court in 1833 declare that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States? 2) Why did it take almost 150 years for the Court to make moves towards incorporation? 3) Why has the Court used the 14th Amendment to apply incorporation instead of Article 6? 4) Where in either the ratifying debates or the Federalist papers does it indicate that Article 6 meant incorporation? This is incorrect. Why? Because not every group of people saw the same government actions as a violation of rights. The Puritans had a more collectivist and centralized view of liberty. On the other hand, the Quakers had a much more individualistic and libertarian view of liberty. You must understand that the colonies were made up of regions and groups of people. They were not monolithic in their views on rights and liberties. The only thing they had in common was that they viewed their colonies as sovereign and no outside force has the right to rule them.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:15 PM
    Questioning my mental state is not an argument. If you have counter evidence to suggest that the Founders intended the Bill of Rights to apply to the States, then I'm open to having my mind changed. That is correct. This is a tradition that is rooted in English constitutionalism that was brought here from Great Britain. For further study on this, I highly recommend the book The Constitutional Origins of the American Revolution by Jack Greene. With all due respect, just saying something is true does not make it a reality.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:58 PM
    Perhaps you haven't been participating in this conversation long enough to understand, so I will repeat myself as a courtesy. The Framers of the Constitution intended that the only limits on State authority were to be listed in Article 1, Section 10. Any other actions by a State were lawful and Constitutional. Had the Federalists insisted that the Bill of Rights apply to the States, the Constitution would have never been ratified. You can find all of this information by simply reading the notes on the ratification debates. Again, that is a valid argument to make. But let's not pretend that it is an argument that is rooted in the founding period.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:19 AM
    You can defend the incorporation doctrine. That is a valid argument to make. I disagree with it, but it is perfectly reasonable. However, let us not pretend like incorporation is something that it is not. The concept is the complete opposite of the Founder's intentions that gained traction in the Supreme Court during the progressive era. The objective of the progressive was two-fold. The first objective was to centralize and concentrate power within the general government. Their second goal was to try and eliminate as much State sovereignty as possible. State sovereignty is seen as undemocratic and backwards. But this is nothing new and we saw these arguments during the ratification debates.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 08:53 PM
    Basically. Unless the people in that State amend the Constitution to say otherwise. You have to understand that the Founders viewed the colonies as individual sovereign countries. In fact, the Continental Congress requested that each colony declare their own independence from England separate from the Declaration of Independence. So when it was time to craft the Constitution, retaining State sovereignty was critical to its ratification. A large segment of the population thought that the Constitution proper would destroy that sovereignty. Despite promises of the contrary, the resistors (known as Anti-Federalists) won the argument for including the Bill of Rights. These Amendments were included to restrain and abridge the powers of the general government only. However, Madison introduced the concept that the Bill of Rights should apply to the States, but that idea was rejected. The Constitution WITH the Bill of Rights was ratified by a hair. Historians have shown that it was due to political maneuvering by the Federalists that the Constitution ended up ratified. It was not necessarily due to popular support. Again, the sentiment was that States would lose their sovereignty and ability to govern themselves as they largely did as colonies.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 08:39 PM
    Applying the Bill of Rights to the States means that federalism is lost and the general government grows more powerful than the individual States. That is a progressive idea.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 01:37 PM
    I'd venture to guess that almost all actions by any part of the general government are unconstitutional at this point. I completely understand and sympathize with your frustration. We live in concerning times, but the fact remains is that people can and are still expressing their views online. Before we completely tear down 300-400 years of constitutionalism in America, we ought to understand why it was put there to begin with.
    48 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 01:23 PM
    Until the 20th Century, the predominant interpretation of the P&I term was also the original intention and meaning born in 1777. Bingham's notion that the 14th Amendment provided full incorporation was soundly rejected by the majority of the framers. His own colleagues thought he was too radical. Justice Thomas is wrong. I am familiar with his opinion cited, but intensely disagree.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 09:23 AM
    I see that you do not deny the logical conclusion of your argument. I'm glad I now have a frame of reference for your ultimate societal goals. You have it backwards. The Bill of Rights is a check on the general government. It is illogical to rely on the general government to enforce its own check. The States and the American people are the only enforcers of the Bill of Rights. Not necessarily. You cannot guarantee that in a free society.
    48 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 05:35 AM
    I hope you understand that millions of private businesses within the United States accept both subsidies and/or grants in some form or another. The logical conclusion of your argument would lead to a Communist-style takeover of much of the private sector. This is a strange argument to make. A left wing book publisher can censor speech and selectively publish works that is agrees with and still be financially successful. A true free market decentralizes and creates profitable niches of all kinds. At heart, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. So I entirely disagree that the role of the state is to do anything but be abolished. However, since we do live within a statist society, I want a state that is the least centralized as possible. In order to have that we must have a federal republic. Applying a document meant for the general government to 50 individual States destroys the concept of a federal republic and helps to creates a super-state that would make even Alexander Hamilton blush.
    48 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-18-2020, 05:22 AM
    Fair enough. However, Justice Black gives entirely too much credit to the words of Senator Howard and Congressman Bingham. Law Professor Raoul Berger points out in his book The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights that Bingham often confused his colleagues with contradictory statements and both were seemingly in the minority on incorporation. The Court's reasoning in the Slaughterhouse Cases is correct. The term "Privileges and Immunities" has been used since the Article of Confederation and when it was adopted into Article IV of the Constitution, there was no debate on the intended meaning. The meaning (as upheld in numerous Court cases prior to the 20th Century) simply means the right of peoples to move freely between States without the need to naturalize.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 03:41 PM
    I'm all for discussing the history of the 14th Amendment. We could start by discussing whether the 14th Amendment was even legally ratified. Is your point that Justice Black's opinion on what the framers intended ought to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment?
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 02:05 PM
    That's probably the least Constitutionally problematic way forward. I can get behind that.
    48 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 02:02 PM
    Internet service providers themselves are unconstitutionally regulated and subsidized. Adding another layer of unconstitutional activity will not solve the problem.
    48 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 01:59 PM
    I'm just trying to clarify your position. You posted: So I wanted to know the specifics of your proposal. Google has well over 100,000 employees. If they are no longer a private company, are they employees of the general government? Do they get government benefits and pensions? In any case, where does the general government get the authority to deem a formerly private business a non-private business (let alone hand out subsidies and grants)?
    48 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 01:46 PM
    Yes and no. The original understanding of the Constitution of the United States is mum on States establishing religions. Even if the people of the various States rejected an official religion, the notion that those people would be forbidden from choosing for themselves was appalling to most Founders. If, in fact, a State's Constitution permitted the banning of a specific religion and/or establishing an official religion, the people can band together to amend the Constitution to say otherwise. However, as noted above, since 1925 the ever-increasing progressive Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment as a justification for applying the Bill of Rights to the States. Despite the Founders and the framers of the 14th Amendment disavowing that concept.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 10:27 AM
    Amash is a leftist libertarian. He is just as concerned about ending racism and sexism as he is about promoting liberty and the non-aggression principle. Perhaps it is time to retire his section in the Defenders of Liberty forum.
    49 replies | 1887 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 10:20 AM
    Is your standard that any private company that receives any amount of subsidy from the government becomes a government owned entity?
    48 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 10:10 AM
    The First Amendment explicitly states that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It does not give Congress (nor the President) the authority regulate a private company in order to protect a particular speech.
    48 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 05:21 AM
    The Founders stated that the Bill of Rights do not apply to the States. Proposals at the Philadelphia ratifying convention were made to force States to comply, but were rejected. It is arguable that the Constitution would never have been ratified had States been forced to comply. We look to Article 1, Section 10 to find what States are not allowed to do. Amendment 10 affords all other powers to the States. This idea was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore and once in the 1873 Slaughterhouse cases. It was not until 1925 that a progressive Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights do, in fact, apply to the States (Gitlow v. New York). States cannot do what they want. They cannot perform any action outlawed in Article 1, Section 10. More importantly, they are bound by their own Constitutions. For example, almost every right and liberty found in the Bill of Rights, you can find in the Pennsylvania Constitution in Article 1.
    48 replies | 2074 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-17-2020, 05:07 AM
    Which part of the Constitution allows the Senate or the President to regulate YouTube?
    48 replies | 2251 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-15-2020, 05:17 PM
    Some would argue that "send them back" would apply to the Europeans who took Texas from the Mexicans. Luckily, we are in a position where we can just cut Puerto Rico loose. We need not worry about having to send half their residents back.
    27 replies | 451 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-15-2020, 04:56 PM
    To be fair, I haven't asked the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of illegal aliens, migrant workers, foreign nationals and ex-pats from other States what their opinion of independence happens to be.
    27 replies | 451 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-15-2020, 04:26 PM
    Surely you do not speak for the thousands of heritage Texans who favor independence.
    27 replies | 451 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-15-2020, 04:05 PM
    They are not Americans. They are Puerto Ricans. As such, they deserve their own system in which they can vote for their own president. Jefferson argued that the States have the right and responsibility to cut loose any State or territory which does not fit in with the American character. Puerto Rico has its own culture and heritage and thus its own sovereignty. That must be respected.
    27 replies | 451 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-15-2020, 03:46 PM
    Agreed. Americans are a very specific group of people. Puerto Ricans have their own heritage and ought to be free to rule themselves.
    27 replies | 451 view(s)
  • familydog's Avatar
    02-15-2020, 05:07 AM
    The general government is like a clumsy, retarded giant and President Trump is the temporary head. He is a master manipulator of media and individual politicians, but he stumbles and fumbles into his legal and political luck.
    27 replies | 607 view(s)
More Activity

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,896
Posts Per Day
0.63
General Information
Last Activity
Today 06:35 PM
Join Date
08-22-2007
Referrals
0

02-17-2020


No results to display...
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

02-20-2020


02-19-2020


02-18-2020


02-17-2020



Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast