Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal

[Hydrosun]

Rules and Laws were meant to be broken.

And rule makers and lawyers are meant to be shot dead

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

They used to shoot each other.

Hell, Zell Miller challenged Chris Matthews to a dual a few years ago. I'd like to see a couple of these talk show pundits thin their ranks a little. Less noise.

 

[40AmpstoFreedom]

Preface: I enjoy civil discourse. Hell, I majored in it so if this is something that angers any of you please don't take it too personally everyone has opinions and theories you find that out quickly in a room of even 20 students....
_____________________________________________________________________________

You mean like tanks and shit? Wasn't aware it was intended to be limited.

You must have missed the entire constitution, all of the federalist papers, and basically the entire founding of our country.

I don't feel like typing in my own words the next quote so I will copy paste it real quick since it is accurate.

The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of the United States Congress.[1] In summary, Congress may exercise the powers to which it is granted by the Constitution, and subject to explicit restrictions in the Bill of Rights and other protections found in the Constitutional text. The 10th Amendment states that all prerogatives not vested in the federal government nor prohibited of the states are reserved to the states and to the people, which means that the only prerogatives of the Congress (as well as the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch) are limited to those explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Historically these powers have often been expanded to include other matters through broad interpretation of the enumerated powers by Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States.[2]

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit the scope and power of the federal government. Almost the entire country did not want a federal government for fear of despots and tyranny of which they just escaped. You can't have tyranny if you have 0 centralized government. However, you also can't have basic things like defense and roads which is why Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote and published extensive arguments for the need for a limited federal government. This is what is known as the Federalist Papers and the entire thing is an argument for the federal government and what powers it should be limited to.

George Washington (and many more) wrote extensively in his journals and letters between many founding fathers during the Revolutionary War against the British about the need for a stronger federal government to defend the people. Thousands of soldiers died because there was no way to raise money for an army because there was no federal government. Specifically look at Washington's writings during the battle of valley forge. -10 degrees and almost no one even had fucking clothes and thousands starved and froze to death (this was pretty much the theme of the whole war as well without the winter though). Mrs. Washington hand sewed as many pants and shirts as she could. That is the result of an extremely weak federal government. That is why after the Revolutionary War it was argued and decided that a stronger federal government was needed, but that it must be limited to avoid the tyranny experienced by the people who took a ship across the sea to escape it before there were even life preservers or quality maps, and people who just fought war where thousands upon thousands of their fellow people died to win.

The British to this day still have no written Constitution. The people learned that giving the government infinite power is completely moronic as the majority of the population suffered under extreme tyranny for their whole lives and learned a lesson from that. The people of the time demanded a limited federal government if there were to be one at all and this is why they drafted the Constitution of which almost the entire things lays out limits to be placed on the federal government.

With the Constitution defending individual liberty it has come under attack in the past 80 years much more. This is why the progressive movement has moved to the judicial branch to make the changes they wish instead of the the intended place of creating law known as Congress, the peoples house.

It was quite interesting in all of my law classes the liberal professors would always focus on creating an entirely new constitution for long sections of their classes...lol.

My favorite was my law professor who wanted to do that as well as take away the right to private council like Germany does and give everyone public defenders...Yea, sounds like a bright idea...

"einen Auftrag ist ein Auftrag"

An order is an order in German.

That was the Nazis reply in the trial as why it was ok to murder 7 million+ people, have lamps made of human skin and teeth, furniture of bones, have vaults of peoples gold teeth ripped from their mouth before they went into the ovens or the gas chambers.

I will take my Constitution, individual liberty, and natural law theory, over the living constitution, collectivism, and positivistic views held by the left any day.

Positvists can have their world where, "love doesn't exist, morals are whatever you wish to make them, there is no right or wrong, and all metaphysical things are as worthless as music is" (I.E. love, happiness, joy, God, colors, morals, music, right and wrong) (A. J. Ayer, Moritz Schlick, Carnap etc.). Yea, they were all German's writing their shit during the Nazi era and this is the basis/foundation of the liberal philosophy. Except for Jules he had to be a Jew and devout atheist...lol. Oh, the irony of the progressive agenda. The 20th century Judas.

And these people go around their whole lives wondering why they are so miserable lol. They never even bothered to open the only book that teaches love

P.S. AJ Ayer died in the 90's and came back to life and told his doctor he saw God and might need to rewrite his theories. He then stated a couple of days later he truly wished it was the end of him when he died again. LoL, must be a pretty miserable life believing the shit he did. And by the way almost all of them stated they were miserable. And I think it was Bertrand Russel who told his wife he did not love her when she asked because of his positivist theories...thought that was comical too since she left him soon afterward.

And if any of you are interested I'll come back a refute the ludicrous notion (in his own words and many others at the time) that George Washington was in favor of the slave trade. Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin have extensive writings in their journals and multiple public and private writings stating how absolutely abhorrent they thought the practice of slavery was. To them it was an affront to God, the bible, natural law, and every human being.

They hated it, but could not get everyone in the Constitutional Convention to agree with them and include it in the Constitution as illegal. Especially every member of the Southern States who were racist and only had agriculture as a means of commerce unlike the industrial North. Of course the average public school teacher and professor will regurgitate only what others have taught them, rather than look at the raw history itself. Apparently ideology is much more important.

Sources: National Center for Constitutional Studies, The Constitution of The United States of America, The Federalist Papers, The Real George Washington, The Real Thomas Jefferson, and The Real Benjamin Franklin.

Anyways I could write for hours I am high, gonna go play video games

 

[Señor Chang]

Nice read 40. Someday soon I'd love to hear the medium-sized version of your thoughts on the separation of church and state.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Preface: I enjoy civil discourse. hell I majored in it so if this is something that angers any of you please don't take it too personally everyone has opinions and theories you find that out quickly in a room of even 20 students....

You must have missed the entire constitution, all of the federalist papers, and basically the entire founding of our country.

I don't feel like typing all of this out so I will copy paste it real quick since it is accurate.

Hope you minored in , "Some folks don't believe in your literal interpretation of the constitution".

With all due respect, I tend to leave constitutionality up to the Judiciary. If you want to know why, keep reading.

I'm happy you majored in civil discourse? Sounds like accredited anarchy. Seriously, I'm just kidding.

But check this out. You demonstrate the differences of opinion and then attempt to infer there's but one philosophy, (the one you happen to subscribe.) The longer you live, the more you'll realize your particular interpretation is closer to a fingerprint, a unique identifier as opposed to the so-called single intent the founders laid out.

Here's the key:

Our founding fathers weren't all on the same page when the Constitution was ratified, not unlike today. However, we're a democracy and majority rules. I realize major elements of the Judiciary are appointments but we elect the lawmakers that make the appointments.

IMO it's a long stretch to suggest there's only one interpretation of the constitution. You'd have to ditch the whole idea of freedom to interpret the thing that is but a grain of sand in a vast dessert of application. Ask Anton Scalia, our most literal blah blah about of literal interpretation application. Most strict interpreters never get to that point, let alone past it. He'll probably say the day job is much tougher than his romantic speaking engagements.

BTW, The reason I referenced tanks is because you sounded like you were saying roads were intended for the feds and that they should keep them. Wouldn't that suggest that the general public has to pay the profit motivated private sector to take up the slack. An Ayn Rand wet dream would cost you more than the hybrid system we have.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit the scope and power of the federal government.

More precisely, the Articles of Confederation limited the fed's scope. A few years later squabbling states lobbied the fed's to reinvent the wheel so that they may arbitrate disputes among conflicting interests in addition to promote the general welfare of the public.

The Constitution is by far a more beefed up version of what you compare to a watered down edict.

Almost the entire country did not want a federal government for fear of despots and tyranny of which they just escaped.

Almost and entire are subjective generalities. We're a democracy. Doesn't mean the minority sits down and shuts up when the policy initiatives don't win the day. But to suggest that historic minority lawmakers somehow constitute a bonafied policy legacy has already been dispositioned to historic record.

It doesn't make their spirit or their ideology any less legitimate. They just never gained the majority.

You can't have tyranny if you have 0 centralized government. However, you also can't have basic things like defense and roads which is why Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote and published extensive arguments for the need for a limited federal government. This is what is known as the Federalist Papers and the entire thing is an argument for the federal government and what powers it should be limited to.

A great example of historic record. What aspects of law bypass the Constitution and instead adhere to the Federalists Papers???

George Washington (and many more) wrote extensively in his journals and letters between many founding fathers during the Revolutionary War against the British about the need for a stronger federal government to defend the people. Thousands of soldiers died because there was no way to raise money for an army because there was no federal government. Specifically look at Washington's writings during the battle of valley forge. -10 degrees and almost no one even had fucking clothes and thousands starved and froze to death (this was pretty much the theme of the whole war as well without the winter though). Mrs. Washington hand sewed as many pants and shirts as she could. That is the result of an extremely weak federal government. That is why after the Revolutionary War it was argued and decided that a stronger federal government was needed, but that it must be limited to avoid the tyranny experienced by the people who took a ship across the sea to escape it before there were even life preservers or quality maps, and people who just fought war where thousands upon thousands of their fellow people died to win.

With all due respect, constitutional scholars and our Judiciary are way beyond the philosophical differences of the past while maintaining a guideline of constitutionality. Obviously not your guideline. You'll add others to your views but there aren't that many commonalities when you approach application of what might be considered restrictive views. Or liberal views. Or conservative views. Or anarchist views. See where I'm going? Your interpretation is no less legitimate than anyone else', barring folks that actually study that stuff and recognize fundamentals you may either miss or dismiss. Get into application and you'll realize that even your idealistic brethren have differences.

The British to this day still have no written Constitution.

The British Constitution comes from a variety of sources. The main ones are:
Statutes such as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of 1701.
Laws and Customs of Parliament; political conventions
Case law; constitutional matters decided in a court of law
Constitutional experts who have written on the subject such as Walter Bagehot and A.V Dicey.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british_constitution.htm

Now if you want to debate the difference in protocol format, you might have an argument. But to suggest Britain governs less a constitution is less than accurate.

The people learned that giving the government infinite power is completely moronic as the majority of the population suffered under extreme tyranny for their whole lives and learned a lesson from that.

Hows about the lessons we learned post Civil War, up to 1932? Nothing in the Constitution to address handling capitalist greed. Unless of course you subscribe to the Rand idea that the fox can guard the chickens.

The people of the time demanded a limited federal government if there were to be one at all and this is why they drafted the Constitution of which almost the entire things lays out limits to be placed on the federal government.

A entry level civics course would explain the practical application disadvantages of a brief document vs vast and varied need.

With the Constitution defending individual liberty it has come under attack in the past 80 years much more. This is why the progressive movement has moved to the judicial branch to make the changes they wish instead of the the intended place of creating law known as Congress, the peoples house.

Care to make an example? I'll make one.

Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years. It wasn't illegal in the US until states started making varied laws in the 1800s. Cut to Roe v Wade, the Judiciary voted abortion prohibition as unconstitutional.

Even Scalia tries to blather that the Judiciary created law. On the contrary. SCOTUS declared the hodgepodge of state laws unconstitutional.

When a so-called "strict constructionist" judge try to pass that brand of revisionist history, it's a face palm event.

It was quite interesting in all of my law classes the liberal professors would always focus on creating an entirely new constitution for long sections of their classes...lol.

I found that most based their fundamentals on sound reasoning. A professor that votes a particular stripe isn't necessarily political in the classroom. You have to make the distinction whether you're being blown. I'd be willing to bet you merely disagree.

When you get in a situation like that, look for the facts to analize, not someone's philosophy. There you get the basis for their fundamentals. However, you might have applicational differences. Doesn't make their way of thinking any less legitimate than yours

My favorite was my law professor who wanted to do that as well as take away the right to private council like Germany does and give everyone public defenders...Yea, sounds like a bright idea...

We might do well to narrow the subject matter.

An order is an order in German.

That was the Nazis reply in the trial as why it was ok to murder 7 million+ people, have lamps made of human skin and teeth, furniture of bones, have vaults of peoples gold teeth ripped from their mouth before they went into the ovens or the gas chambers.

I will take my Constitution, individual liberty, and natural law theory, over the living constitution, collectivism, and positivistic views held by the left any day.

Positvists can have their world where, "love doesn't exist, morals are whatever you wish to make them, there is no right or wrong, and all metaphysical things are as worthless as music is" (I.E. love, happiness, joy, God, colors, morals, music, right and wrong) (A. J. Ayer, Moritz Schlick, Carnap etc.). Yea, they were all German's writing their shit during the Nazi era and this is the basis/foundation of the liberal philosophy. Except for Jules he had to be a Jew and devout atheist...lol. Oh, the irony of the progressive agenda. The 20th century Judas.

And these people go around their whole lives wondering why they are so miserable lol. They never even bothered to open the only book that teaches love

P.S. AJ Ayer died in the 90's and came back to life and told his doctor he saw God and might need to rewrite his theories. He then stated a couple of days later he truly wished it was the end of him when he died again. LoL, must be a pretty miserable life believing the shit he did. And by the way almost all of them stated they were miserable. And I think it was Bertrand Russel who told his wife he did not love her when she asked because of his positivist theories...thought that was comical too since she left him soon afterward.

And if any of you are interested I'll come back a refute the ludicrous notion (in his own words and many others at the time) that George Washington was in favor of the slave trade as the original poster seems to say. Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin have extensive writings in their journals and multiple public and private writings stating how absolutely abhorrent they thought the practice of slavery was. To them it was an affront to God, the bible, natural law, and every human being.

They hated it, but could not get everyone in the Constitutional Convention to agree with them and include it in the Constitution as illegal. Especially every member of the Southern States who were racist and only had agriculture as a means of commerce unlike the industrial North. Of course the average public school teacher and professor will regurgitate only what others have taught them, rather than look at the raw history itself. Apparently ideology is much more important.

Sources: National Center for Constitutional Studies, The Constitution of The United States of America, The Federalist Papers, The Real George Washington, The Real Thomas Jefferson, and The Real Benjamin Franklin.

Anyways I could write for hours I am high, gonna go play video games

Wow, you got way out there. I'll come back and read about the Nazis another time.


A tip to all constitutionalists. May you understand that what some proport to be a guiding principle is in fact guiding in limited scope. Even still, many disagree with the verbatim fundamentals. Practical application is where one observes the cataclysms of complicity and a simple document lends no advice.

And don't forget the most important thing. We rule by majority and that unfortunately leaves folks in the minority sometimes. Doesn't make it illegitimate.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Back from my break. Lets see if we can lend some perspective to your European influence... whatever.

An order is an order in German.

That was the Nazis reply in the trial as why it was ok to murder 7 million+ people, have lamps made of human skin and teeth, furniture of bones, have vaults of peoples gold teeth ripped from their mouth before they went into the ovens or the gas chambers.

You have a formal education and you equate (what?) with Nazi Germany? I gets the impression we're drifting toward those passionate, nocturnal Scalia distortions. Just remember, if you're going to preach you need a congregation that believes your unique brand of comparison.

I will take my Constitution, individual liberty, and natural law theory, over the living constitution, collectivism, and positivistic views held by the left any day.

Your major is minor in a few ways...

The rift in interpretation isn't limited to the left. Your formal education seems to discount those that might otherwise disagree with your reasoning. Maybe that liberal professor should have reiterated our founding fathers were just as passionate about their disagreements as we are today. You can look back and reference historic figures that waxed poetically in your ideological favor. But it's relegated to history until the majority of voters subscribe to your fundamentals and ratify what you see as misdeeds like everyone else.

Positvists can have their world where, "love doesn't exist, morals are whatever you wish to make them, there is no right or wrong, and all metaphysical things are as worthless as music is" (I.E. love, happiness, joy, God, colors, morals, music, right and wrong) (A. J. Ayer, Moritz Schlick, Carnap etc.). Yea, they were all German's writing their shit during the Nazi era and this is the basis/foundation of the liberal philosophy. Except for Jules he had to be a Jew and devout atheist...lol. Oh, the irony of the progressive agenda. The 20th century Judas.

...And we're back from the Glen Beck show.

And these people go around their whole lives wondering why they are so miserable lol. They never even bothered to open the only book that teaches love

Praise the lord! Speaking of misery, some of these people are miserable enough to moan over the fact that their ideology is too exclusive to ever have a snowball's chance in hell at a mandate.

But they've always got the book to reference, as if it's exclusive. Modern societies are all about inclusiveness, not divisiveness.

P.S. AJ Ayer died in the 90's and came back to life and told his doctor he saw God and might need to rewrite his theories. He then stated a couple of days later he truly wished it was the end of him when he died again. LoL, must be a pretty miserable life believing the shit he did. And by the way almost all of them stated they were miserable. And I think it was Bertrand Russel who told his wife he did not love her when she asked because of his positivist theories...thought that was comical too since she left him soon afterward.

And this provides constitutional interpretation in what way?

And if any of you are interested I'll come back a refute the ludicrous notion (in his own words and many others at the time) that George Washington was in favor of the slave trade as the original poster seems to say. Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin have extensive writings in their journals and multiple public and private writings stating how absolutely abhorrent they thought the practice of slavery was. To them it was an affront to God, the bible, natural law, and every human being.

Is that why Washington's slaves learned their fate in his will and testament? 40, anybody with a pulse knew then and now that slavery was wrong. The fact that Washington owned slaves until the day he died is fact.

Extensive journal writings offer insight into what our founders were thinking. Their laws depicted their actions. Nobody can say whether owning slaves made Washington proud. We just know what he did and that's why it's called history.

Isn't Michelle Bachmann on a quest to rewrite how the founders themselves abolished slavery? That's practically what she said. But if you press the details they get as squishy as the shot heard 'round the world...











... in New Hampshire! LOTFL

They hated it, but could not get everyone in the Constitutional Convention to agree with them and include it in the Constitution as illegal.

So they compromised their morals and went along. What's this got to do with the price o beans, anyway? Just kidding, I'm afraid you'll respond

Especially every member of the Southern States who were racist and only had agriculture as a means of commerce unlike the industrial North.

Hatred knows no boundaries. One might think you suggest there were and are no racists north of the Mason Dixon. Your facts are shy and analysis thick. Just like your buddy George, some of those states merely went along with what was then conformity.

Sorry, can't have it both ways.

Of course the average public school teacher and professor will regurgitate only what others have taught them, rather than look at the raw history itself. Apparently ideology is much more important.

Speaking of important, your comments focus on ideology and actually twists some of the facts. I assume to justify a position which you never really made.

Sources: National Center for Constitutional Studies, The Constitution of The United States of America, The Federalist Papers, The Real George Washington, The Real Thomas Jefferson, and The Real Benjamin Franklin.

Ah boy. Is that what your college citations looked like? I get the impression that "F" didn't mean fantastic.

Anyways I could write for hours I am high, gonna go play video games

 

[supermanlives]

you dont know what its like, you dont have a clue and if you did you would find yourself doing the same thing tooo. breaking the law , breaking the law. breaking the law.

 

[joeuser]

Hello all,

S4L, I think you missed the import of the story...it is not a health issue, it is a reduction of liberties issue. IMHO.

There is no reason that small scale operations can not be safe and clean.

But there is no option for our farmer is there? He is regulated/restricted from something that is so base to civilization.

Interesting that our governement, when created, was so deeply entrenched in freedoms has slowly been perverted into a regulated socialist entitlement expecting society which has grown reliant upon those that suppress our actions and thoughts.

Well, this is my opinion anyway.

minds_I

We've been "feminized". It really started happening during the civil rights movement. That's when we changed from a "male" country...aggressive, competitive...to a "female" country...in need of "government support".

So, the REAL men are in prison and the rest are metrosexuals who aren't worth a damn. Feminized subjects are much easier to control and rule.

I think it sucks. I want the 1950s back! I want people to REALLY be judged by what that can do...not by a quota. You kids don't even realize what you've lost! You've been conditioned all through school to believe...BULLSHIT. We're turning into one big pile of homogenized, average, shit.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Like always we've got all walks of life. Some are generally satisfied where others aren't. Pick the next topic and swap the goalposts. It's part of life. We've still got those tucked in their microcosm, assuming the barometer of normality.

Part of life is trying to prosper. It's more difficult when folks doff cooperation in the process. Expand that to 310 million Americans and we've got a problem.

Societies evolve, for better or worse. Longing for a simpler time is a popular ritual but it's not that realistic.

I know what we've lost. We've lost the ability to compromise. Our predecessors were no less sincere but they didn't default to inflammatory comparisons to promote their principles. On second thought, they just didn't have 24/7 media and a bluetooth in each ear.

I'll avoid reiterating some of the more offensive comparisons, probably due to nothing more than a difference of opinion. That said, I can't respect my own principles without extending the same consideration to everybody. I'm happy we still have areas to converge. I understand some of us will have differences from time to time and I hope I don't offend. Life's pretty lonely without each other and diversity arguably makes us stronger.

That said, the whole feminization thing makes me laugh. Sounds like one of the comebacks Archie Bunker floats when Meathead nails him to the wall with reason, repeatedly.

What does society need, more testosterone or authority? Are the two inseparable? Do we need more June Cleavers [or] Andrew Dice Clays?

America has no shortage of balls. It's unfortunate that frontal-lobes occasionally evolve into testicles. That degree of testosterone so close to the cerebral cortex generates simultaneously misogynist/wussy iterations. Sometimes compared to turrets where the afflicted neither knows what they said nor why.

Doctors are working on a procedure to separate the thought process or ego from the sexually primitive influences of the Id. I think is called a testi-botomy.

Another sign America has no shortage of balls - Ford still sells F150s as fast as they can make em. They've even got chrome plated balls to hang on the hitch in case anybody underestimates the driver's schwing.