Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 53 of 53

Thread: The Law Is The Law?

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreeTraveler View Post
    Note the thread title. This is evolving into an interesting discussion.
    I find trolling threads to be good opportunities to educate through calm logical debate.

    You're a backer of
    Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative


    by Ladar Levison



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    I find trolling threads to be good opportunities to educate through calm logical debate.
    It would make an interesting poll, to discover how many RP supporters started out as trolls on this forum. I'd make that poll myself, if I only knew how.

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VoluntaryMan View Post
    It would make an interesting poll, to discover how many RP supporters started out as trolls on this forum. I'd make that poll myself, if I only knew how.
    Over my tenure here.. I've had several former troll/agents pm me with their conversion... one guy was actually a tancredo supporter... i remember that... because it struck me as odd.

    You're a backer of
    Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative


    by Ladar Levison

  5. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    Over my tenure here.. I've had several former troll/agents pm me with their conversion... one guy was actually a tancredo supporter... i remember that... because it struck me as odd.
    I would think that a Tancredo, Keyes, or Hunter supporter might be a more likely convert than any of the others. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

    I can't believe you asked that but since you did, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VoluntaryMan View Post
    I would think that a Tancredo, Keyes, or Hunter supporter might be a more likely convert than any of the others. Maybe I'm missing something, though.
    I thought it was odd because I didn't think Tancredo had any supporters...

    You are right about Tancredo supporters. they were easier to convert, which makes sense why that troll was slain so easily.
    He was a supporter, just didn't know it yet.

    You're a backer of
    Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative


    by Ladar Levison

  8. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    What gives the constitution legitimate authority?
    The method of answering your question, I suppose, depends on where you are headed with this.

    Your end goal may be to say that the Constitution has no legitimate authority, therefore the federal government is not bound by it. If so, then my response would be that the Constitution is what gives the federal government its legitimate authority. Without the Constitution, there is no federal government.

    Or you may be heading towards the other side, which is that the Constitution, like other contracts, can only bind those that have voluntarily taken part in it, and that the "limits" implied on the people by the Constitution (powers that the federal government has) do not apply to those of us living today. If this is where you're headed, then the answer is a bit more complex.

    But the short answer is this. The original 13 states agreed to the Constitution, and each new state entering into the union thereafter has agreed to it, so the Constitution is binding upon the states to give the federal government the powers that are specifically enumerated.

    Starting from a clean slate, anarchy (which doesn't mean chaos, it simply means no government), the people endow the states with certain powers, and the states use some of that authority to endow the federal government with far fewer powers. This last process manifest itself in the form of the Constitution.

  9. #38

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by nickcoons View Post
    The method of answering your question, I suppose, depends on where you are headed with this.

    Your end goal may be to say that the Constitution has no legitimate authority, therefore the federal government is not bound by it. If so, then my response would be that the Constitution is what gives the federal government its legitimate authority. Without the Constitution, there is no federal government.

    Or you may be heading towards the other side, which is that the Constitution, like other contracts, can only bind those that have voluntarily taken part in it, and that the "limits" implied on the people by the Constitution (powers that the federal government has) do not apply to those of us living today. If this is where you're headed, then the answer is a bit more complex.

    But the short answer is this. The original 13 states agreed to the Constitution, and each new state entering into the union thereafter has agreed to it, so the Constitution is binding upon the states to give the federal government the powers that are specifically enumerated.

    Starting from a clean slate, anarchy (which doesn't mean chaos, it simply means no government), the people endow the states with certain powers, and the states use some of that authority to endow the federal government with far fewer powers. This last process manifest itself in the form of the Constitution.
    Bravo!
    Cliff's Notes even. I love it. I want to publish it!

    You're a backer of
    Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative


    by Ladar Levison

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by torchbearer View Post
    I thought it was odd because I didn't think Tancredo had any supporters...

    You are right about Tancredo supporters. they were easier to convert, which makes sense why that troll was slain so easily.
    He was a supporter, just didn't know it yet.
    Fair enough.

  11. #40

    Default

    //

    You're a backer of
    Lavabit's Dark Mail Initiative


    by Ladar Levison

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zym View Post
    Troll alert, don't bump, search all his posts, all anti-paul. he's trying to stir the pot.
    Anti-Paul? I thnk Paul's obviously the best candidate by far, and all the other candidates are monsters. I'm not pro-constitution though, so naturally I have some questions.

    Dr. Paul is running as the champion of the Constitution. Surely it's fair to ask why he thinks it should have authority, no?

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Pedersen View Post
    Our federal government is a public service body authorized by the consent of the governed.
    Dr. Paul holds that the confederacy was free to withdraw it's consent to be governed under the Constitution. Wouldn't any individula have the same right? In fact I don't so consent any more than the Confedercy does.

    Would President Paul allow me to secede?

  14. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    1,924

    Default

    I can't believe none of you legal experts in 5 pages has come up with the right answer.

    The Presidental pardon power outlined in Article II, Section 2 is virtually unlimited. Two ways it is limited are the he can't pardon people who have been impeached and he can only pardon US citizens.

    By the way presidents can pardon people wholesale. The pardons by President Washington of the Whiskey Rebels were challenged to the supreme court and they upheld the power of the president to pardon classes of people in US v. Klein.

  15. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalash View Post
    An unconstitutional law/statute/dictum/etc is not a law/statute/etc...
    It is not binding upon anyone.
    No one has to obey it.
    No court has to/is capable of enforcing it.
    Fine, but what makes the Constitution binding on Americans? The Constitution grants the government with various powers over me - the power to tax, etc.

    Why is that binding on me?

  16. #45
    Member Melissa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Posts
    1,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johngr View Post
    I can't believe none of you legal experts in 5 pages has come up with the right answer.

    The Presidental pardon power outlined in Article II, Section 2 is virtually unlimited. Two ways it is limited are the he can't pardon people who have been impeached and he can only pardon US citizens.

    By the way presidents can pardon people wholesale. The pardons by President Washington of the Whiskey Rebels were challenged to the supreme court and they upheld the power of the president to pardon classes of people in US v. Klein.
    Ok I read them all and there was some great replies but I would have to bet this is the best answer so far.

  17. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johngr View Post
    I can't believe none of you legal experts in 5 pages has come up with the right answer.

    The Presidental pardon power outlined in Article II, Section 2 is virtually unlimited. Two ways it is limited are the he can't pardon people who have been impeached and he can only pardon US citizens.

    Setting aside the question of why the Constitution has any binding authority, where does it say he can only pardon citizens? In Article II, Section 2, I read: "...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Where does it say he can only pardon US citizens?

  18. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    Dr. Paul holds that the confederacy was free to withdraw it's consent to be governed under the Constitution. Wouldn't any individula have the same right? In fact I don't so consent any more than the Confedercy does.

    Would President Paul allow me to secede?
    Ok then if you are not in any way in contract with the federal government what difference does it make? You only benefit from the constitution. The constitution does not impose anything on the individual and so you only fail to recognize the rights which the constitution secures on your behalf. I think every state should secede from the federalis as a way to come out from under the effects of their habitual breach of contract.
    *************************************


    Matthew Chapters 23 + 24

  19. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    Fine, but what makes the Constitution binding on Americans? The Constitution grants the government with various powers over me - the power to tax, etc.

    Why is that binding on me?
    It's not binding on you. They do not have any powers over you.

    The constitution is a contract that charters an entity and lays out it's purpose and powers. Those who formed the contract can not give any more powers to this entity than they have. In a free society, they can be given no powers over you. It's a contract between the states, therefore it is only binding between the states, this new entity, and anyone that contracts with this entity. You are simply a beneficiary of this contract just like you may be a beneficiary of a corporation.

    They do not have the power to tax you directly. They have the power to tax the states directly. They have the power to tax your use of their property.

    The government does not follow natural law anymore. Ron Paul wants to restore that.
    TinyURL, Founder

  20. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drpiotrowski View Post
    Immigration is an issue that the federal government has authority to deal with, as provided by Article I. Section 8:

    "[Congress shall have the power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

    You mention non-violent drug criminals. The federal government has no authority to pass any laws regarding an individual's chemical choices, therefore federal law is not "the law" here, but is rather null and void.

    Hope this clears things up.
    What he said.

    I'm a Canadian but think that in this case, our systems work similarly. Immigration is partly a defense issue, in which case, it makes sense to be under federal authority. But social issues such as education and health are under provincial (state) authority.

    Canada also has its War on Drugs, not quite as bad as you have up there, but nearly so. Our neanderthal government is trying to take us backwards from where we had progressed in terms of how we view marijuana. It had been the case that, while possession of marijuana was still considered as a crime in the courts, our police forces would look the other way if they found someone in possession of the dreaded weed. Now, thanks to our Harper government, there has been a concerted crackdown. Not coincidentally, this crackdown has come largely at the behest of the U.S., which has been in a tizzy over the export of marijuana seeds to its fair shores.
    First take back the Republican Party: Join the GOP Rising!
    Next become a Precinct Leader
    Then donate to RP's presidential or congressional campaign

  21. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Pedersen View Post
    The constitution does not impose anything on the individual and so you only fail to recognize the rights which the constitution secures on your behalf.
    Doesn't the constitution claim authority for the federal government to tax me?

    What if I want to let a Mexican citizen come live with me in Nevada next week? Dr. Paul seems to claim authority for the government to prevent that, but I don't see how you can say it's not interference with my property rights.

    Doesn't the Fifth amendment say my property may be taken by the U.S. for public use?

  22. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilby View Post
    They do not have the power to tax you directly. They have the power to tax the states directly.

    The 16th amendment is unconstitutional?

  23. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    Doesn't the constitution claim authority for the federal government to tax me?

    What if I want to let a Mexican citizen come live with me in Nevada next week? Dr. Paul seems to claim authority for the government to prevent that, but I don't see how you can say it's not interference with my property rights.

    Doesn't the Fifth amendment say my property may be taken by the U.S. for public use?
    It does not interfere with your property rights just as if you decided to detonate a nuclear bomb on your property it would not interfere with your property rights to stop you. Rights supersede other rights based on effect. Rights are only rights to the extent they do not infringe on other people's rights.

    If you bring an illegal across the national border you infringe on the rights of everyone who is protected by the national constitution since the authority to restrict border crossings is presumably granted to the national level of government as a portion of their responsibility to protect our borders from invasion. You would be participating in an invasion of one person or 30 million people contrary to the authority and responsibility of the federalis to prevent this from happening in the interest of national sovereignty and national defense.
    *************************************


    Matthew Chapters 23 + 24

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Kennedy View Post
    The 16th amendment is unconstitutional?
    No, it authorizes the government to tax you for using their property or power by using the income produced from that use as the basis for how much to tax you. If you are not using their property or powers, then you are not liable to pay income taxes to them. The amendment is valid, but the application of it is unconstitutional.
    TinyURL, Founder

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •