Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regardless the until the court says otherwise the court's decision is in fact the Constitutional decision. It is spelled out in article 3 more or less that the Federal courts decide how the Constitution applies in various cases. So essentially whether someone not at the Federal bench thinks something is a poor decision doesn't really matter, Constitutionally speaking, unless they can convince someone on the Federal bench they are right. Essentially if the Federal courts say the FDA is Constitutional then the FDA is Constitutional until a case comes up that says otherwise.
I don't know where you get your naive ideas. The Constitution says no such thing. According to Article 3:
Quote:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Courts are to interpret it. Nowhere.
The States ratified the thing. It's up to the States to interpret it. Unless you think the States willingly gave up political power? Which would be a first in political history.
The only way I know of protecting the rights of individuals is by visiting violence on those who would infringe upon them. I believe that elected governments are the best tools for maintaining those rights. Unfortunately, the power to visit violence or to confiscate their property can be very profitable and invites corruption. Hence, I believe that governments, even elected ones, should be as small as possible.
I don't believe in any inherent "right" to goods or services. I believe that I have the right to defend my life, my liberty, and my property.
Show me the section of the constitution that says that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
Libertarian here...count me in as an extreme case.
There are many conditions/actions/situations that can cause an accident. It's the CAUSING of the accident that should be penalized...not the conditions/actions/situations.
Also...if an accident does occur...blame should NOT immediately be placed with the person who's had a few beers. It could very well have been the other driver who CAUSED the accident.
Drinking and driving should not be a crime. No harm has been done.
Say somebody who's blabbing with other people in the car and not paying attention to the road, runs over a pedestrian.
Compared to somebody who's had a few drinks running over a pedestrian.
Why should the punishment be greater for the person who had a few drinks? Isn't the result the same?
Spoken like a true alcoholic. Note I'm not calling you an alcoholic, just saying you talk like one. Statistics show that alcohol is a risk factor in having an auto accident. Now, I am in favor of people curbing their cell phone use in cars, too, and other types of careless driving.
Come back and give us this alcohol speech after someone you love has been killed or injured in an auto accident due to alcohol.
This thread seems to have lost steam. Oh well, it's interesting to me how many people identify with many Libertarian principles once they're out on the table. Not everyone, obviously, but a fair number of people. I find it encouraging that many Americans question and challenge what those who hold power tell them. That's something great about American culture that I hope is never lost. The American experiment is one of challenging authority and the status-quo. That's where we came from. I find it inspiring that people still think that the way it is now isn't the way that it has to be. That the world can be better. The world can be freer.
You imply that global trade is a new thing. Why laugh out loud? The longest recessions/depressions in history have been under the watchful eye of the Creature from Jekyll Island. If their charter is to ease economic downturns, they're doing a crappy job of it (the Great Depression happened under their watch and lasted a decade). However, if their intention is to make Americans beholden to the banking system, they're doing a wonderful job.
We've had far worse since the Fed was created.
They do nothing but prolong and make worse any financial problems.
The Fed was created by the banks and for the banks so that THEY would not suffer in any financial downturn.
Perhaps I haven't been clear. Laws against causing harm to individuals are perfectly valid. Laws protecting property are perfectly valid. As far as I'm aware, criminal laws are generally not so specific as to the method of causing the harm. It's illegal to kill someone whether you bludgeon them to death or you shoot them to death.
So, the government should be regulating emissions from your neighborhood factory?
The only way I know of protecting the rights of individuals is by visiting violence on those who would infringe upon them. I believe that elected governments are the best tools for maintaining those rights. Unfortunately, the power to visit violence or to confiscate their property can be very profitable and invites corruption. Hence, I believe that governments, even elected ones, should be as small as possible.
Is violence the only way an individual's rights can be infringed upon? "As small as possible" also happens to be a relative term, highly subjective.
Quote:
I don't believe in any inherent "right" to goods or services. I believe that I have the right to defend my life, my liberty, and my property.
If you believe seeking health, better life and happiness is merely seeking goods and services, then you don't have to. Then you shouldn't be complaining about government regulating such "goods and services" either.
Libertarian here...count me in as an extreme case.
There are many conditions/actions/situations that can cause an accident. It's the CAUSING of the accident that should be penalized...not the conditions/actions/situations.
Also...if an accident does occur...blame should NOT immediately be placed with the person who's had a few beers. It could very well have been the other driver who CAUSED the accident.
Drinking and driving should not be a crime. No harm has been done.
Say somebody who's blabbing with other people in the car and not paying attention to the road, runs over a pedestrian.
Compared to somebody who's had a few drinks running over a pedestrian.
Why should the punishment be greater for the person who had a few drinks? Isn't the result the same?
That's how I see it. Consequences should be dealt if someone is harmed.
here are many conditions/actions/situations that can cause an accident. It's the CAUSING of the accident that should be penalized...not the conditions/actions/situations.
Very few people intentionally cause serious car accidents. That's why they are called accidents. The threat of punishment cannot effectively deter an irrational individual, and someone who is intoxicated or distracted is not making fully rational driving decisions.
On the other hand, the threat of punishment just might be able to deter some people from getting drunk or starting to text while driving.
So, the government should be regulating emissions from your neighborhood factory?
If emissions from a neighborhood factory do me or my property harm, the factory, I may bring charges against them in court. In cases of harming property, tort law is probably appropriate. If the factory is found to be at fault they would be liable for cleaning the pollution from my property.
In cases of harming me or my health, criminal law may be appropriate. The people at the factory who are responsible for my injury should go to jail and the company should pay for my treatment.
I don't understand what's so unclear about this.
I think that most environmental issues can be dealt with in this matter much more efficiently than by placing arbitrary regulations on industries.
Is violence the only way an individual's rights can be infringed upon? "As small as possible" also happens to be a relative term, highly subjective.
An individual, organization, or government can only affect your life (cause physical harm), your liberty (forced labor), or your property (taking your stuff against your will) with violence or the threat of violence. I consider theft a violent (caused by force; unnatural) act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
If you believe seeking health, better life and happiness is merely seeking goods and services, then you don't have to. Then you shouldn't be complaining about government regulating such "goods and services" either.
I don't follow your point. Healthcare is a service; you hire people to give you healthcare. I believe that you should be free to seek out whatever healthcare you want that's within your means. I don't see the benefit of a government dictating what healthcare or how much of it I'm allowed to buy. I believe that individuals generally make better choices for themselves than a central authority might.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
