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.
whether the property is residential or not is irrelevant. it could be a commercial property, or timberland, or a cranberry bog, or whatever.
if you own the property they are depriving you of its value
society allows a certain deprivation of property simply because it is wildly impractical to completely prohibit the discharge of potentially hazardous (or unwanted) substances.
Irrelevant. You stated it was a strict interpretation of the constitution. It is not.
There are a few other amendments besides the 2nd Amendment worth defending.
I kinda get the feeling that some support the 2nd only because they want a gun, if they had to choose gun or Union...Im pretty sure which they would pick.
many 2nd supporters believe in self-preservation, first and foremost; the constitution is a method to keep that which they hold most dear.
I support the right to keep and bear arms, but the 2nd is no more important that the right to vote, due process, equal protection, or free speech.
I think it's great liberals have become such civil libertarians. I'm hoping that they continue their march onward and fight for our Constitutional right to bear arms. I'm also happy that liberals do not believe the government should be in our bedrooms. My hope is that liberals will also come to believe that the government shouldn't be in my bathroom either by regulating the type of toilet I buy or in my living room by regulating the type of light bulb I may purchase in the privacy of my own home.
Come to think of it, this is going to be great. They should start with the appeal of Obamacare: we've all heard liberals say, in the context of the abortion debate, that the healthcare decisions of a woman are none of the government's business; let's extend this to men as well and begin the repeal, the government shouldn't be in the doctor's office either.
Liberals, will you continue to fight for the government to get out of our private lives, or will you admit that you fight for only those rights you support, and not all constitutional rights.
Whine, whine, whine.
I'm not a "liberal" so I can't speak for that group in society. But if you don't describe yourself as a 'civil libertarian' then you're the opposite, I'm supposing. Someone who doesn't believe in the values our nation were founded on. An anti-American?
As a "moderate" I'll say I don't think the government should be in my bathroom. And the isn't, the last time I checked. There are various safety standards local, state and federal governments establish. Maybe that's what you're talking about. But if you want to take a dump on your floor, be my guest. As for the light bulbs ... I can purchase and use what I want. I don't have any restrictions. The bulbs have gotten less expensive because they last longer, and they use less energy and all of that saves me money.
As for your other rants: the Supreme Court disagrees with you on these things. The Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, I'm recalling. It also ruled on the abortion issue (I don't support such freely-practiced abortions, though). So, I'm thinking ... do you have your own Constitution? Or do you honor and support the U.S. Constitution? The one so many people have died to defend?
The bill had bipartisanship support and Bush signed it into law. He signed it, he owns it.
#1 You blamed this on Bush and absolved the Democrats of blame. You went on to say that Democrats opposed such ideas as the ban on these light bulbs... To hold this position you are either ignorant of the truth or willfully lying.
-Bush deserves some blame for giving in on the light bulb ban to get his twenty in ten idea.
-A Democrat wrote the proposition and put it in the larger bill.
-Democrats in the House voted 228 For it and 4 Against it. Republicans in the House voted 36 For it and 159 Against it. Democrats in the Senate voted 44 For it and 4 Against it. Republicans in the Senate voted 19 For it, and 23 Against it.
-The media was blasting Bush for not initially supporting the Democrats initiatives.
-This was created by Democrats, the majority of Democrats voted for it, and the majority of Republicans voted against it. To say that Democrats oppose this on grounds of freedom and it is Bush's fault alone -- is irrational at best.
#2 Besides the National Government - the 2 states that had their own laws before the national government were California and Connecticut. In both states, the Democrats wrote the bill, had the majority vote for it, and had most Republicans voting against it.
The banning of these light bulbs finds most of its support in the Democratic party...PERIOD.
The ACLU is a paid legal group with a mission and they're paid well for doing it.
That's not what I asked for and you know it, Show me a situation where liberals have stepped up to the plate and supported a conservative cause simply because it's a US constitutional right that everyone should have. I'm a very conservative guy and I'm fully behind getting rid of DOMA and giving everyone the right to marry, adopt, etc etc etc. I support this strongly because its just the right thing to do even though it goes against what most of my favorite conservative politicians believe. I support a woman's right to an abortion. I don't support abortion and I don't like the practice taking place but it's none of my business what a woman does with her body.
Do you understand what I'm saying? You show me an instance of liberal, typically anti-gun people stepping up and supporting my 2nd amendment rights because it's a constitutional right.
Amendment V nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
if i own property downstream from a sewage treatment plant or a coal-fired power plant, under a strict constitutional interpretation that facility is depriving me of my property without due process of law, by sending hazardous chemicals onto my property via public air and water.
that's a strict interpretation.
Sounds like you have a great case in civil court to have damages paid to you for the pollution on your property. Why would this require a federal law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
The size of the cost is irrelevant when you are dealing with a strict interpretation , you see?
It's not about what's reasonable, remember?
First of all, cost in the economic sense doesn't necessarily mean price. Secondly, you have to assess the cost because imposing costs on others determines whether ones rights are being violated. If a factory is polluting your land, they are imposing a cost on you and you have cause to be compensated for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Sure, but the waste byproducts of those systems, and the costs borne by private property owners (as well as, say, public air and water of another jurisdiction downstream) are not reflected in what you pay. The system operator is transferring those costs to other land owners, sometimes without even understanding the effects of the waste byproducts. Would you be comfortable drinking treated sewage straight out the pipe? Would you take their word for it?
But I'm not talking about waste, I'm talking about the number of gallons of water you flush. I can see how one needs to pay for sewage treatment, I don't understand why toilet flows need to be regulated when the additional water is reflected in the price you pay for water service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
So you're agreeing with me, and saying that these lightbulbs should be illegal based on a strict constitutional interpretation. I could see that. That's a good example of why it's stupid to read the constitution literally, because modern society wouldn't be able function.
No I'm not agreeing with you. I'm saying lightbulbs shouldn't be regulated, period. I'm trying to show that liberals support government in private lives only in those areas they agree politically.
I'm not a "liberal" so I can't speak for that group in society. But if you don't describe yourself as a 'civil libertarian' then you're the opposite, I'm supposing. Someone who doesn't believe in the values our nation were founded on. An anti-American?
As a "moderate" I'll say I don't think the government should be in my bathroom. And the isn't, the last time I checked. There are various safety standards local, state and federal governments establish. Maybe that's what you're talking about. But if you want to take a dump on your floor, be my guest. As for the light bulbs ... I can purchase and use what I want. I don't have any restrictions. The bulbs have gotten less expensive because they last longer, and they use less energy and all of that saves me money.
As for your other rants: the Supreme Court disagrees with you on these things. The Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, I'm recalling. It also ruled on the abortion issue (I don't support such freely-practiced abortions, though). So, I'm thinking ... do you have your own Constitution? Or do you honor and support the U.S. Constitution? The one so many people have died to defend?
That's not the point. The point is that liberals only support privacy in conjunction with political beliefs. I'm saying that their beliefs are inconsistent.
Opposing miranda has nothing to do with opposing the 5th amendment. Miranda merely informs people of rights they already have. Therefore opposing miranda is not opposing the rights, merely the requirement of informing people of them at the time of every arrest.
Quote:
Liberals support the Fourteenth Amendment, conservatives attack what they call "birthright citizenship".
Birthright citizenship today has nothing to do with the intent of the 14th amendment. It was enacted to provide citizenship to slaves, not to the children of illegal aliens.
Your article is patently false and involves state law not federal law which indicates more of your lack of understanding of the constitution.
Quote:
Don't worry, we liberals will continue to support the real Constitution. We'll leave it to you to defend the Toilet Amendment and the Light Bulb Amendment.
The "real" constitution is what it says and what the originators of it meant it to mean, not what you interpret it to mean as you demonstrated with your incorrect reference to Planned Parenthood v Rounds.
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.
