RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 5:00am

Link

Edit

Catchy quote, but certainly he realizes that bridge was already crossed 60, 90 or maybe even 140 years ago.

Post 1

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 5:35am

Link

Edit

Certainly Justice Thomas does realize that, but probably couldn't resist the opportunity to rub the Court's nose in the now-blatant fact that they are arbitrarily making up bits of law as they go along, rather than interpreting the Constitution. Good for him.

Post 2

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 7:41am

Link

Edit

Sadly Thomas is not plowing new ground, but as Robert says at least he is rubbing the court's nose in it. Regarding this quote, the uncrossed state lines argument was lost, perhaps forever, in 1941.

From 1889 to 1941, the Court maintained some restraint on Congress, allowing them to only regulate activities that directly involved interstate commerce. The laws they upheld still did not conform to the enumerated powers, but the justices were diligent in looking for some real connection with interstate commerce. In 1941, when our �beloved� FDR threatened to stack the court with Justices who would see things his way, the Court capitulated.

The precedent involved a farmer named Filburn who was fined by the federal government for growing 461 bushels of wheat in violation of FDR�s Agriculture Adjustment Act which allowed him only 222. Even though Filburn used the surplus for feed on his own farm and for his family, the Court ruled that he affected interstate commerce and came under Congress� regulatory jurisdiction.

The Justice Department actually cited the Commerce clause in its arguments before the courts in defense of the Patriot Act. Clearly, there is no connection between the Patriot Act and commerce, but precedents set by the FBI during the 40s, make the uglier aspects of the Patriot Act possible.

wolf

(Edited by Robert Davison on 6/07, 8:32am)

Post 3

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 10:22am

Link

Edit

Thanks, Robert D for providing some background for this blatant ignoring of the actual language of the constitution. What I get out of this incident is a proof that the 'politicos' among libertarians and Objectivists are wrong and the 'educationists' are right. The former group wants to do political activism, to try and get a good President, more votes for the Libertarian Party etc. The latter realizes that as long as the philosophy of pragmatism is in power, anyone elected or appointed to a judgeship will ignore any law which contravenes what seems practical at the time, e.g., using government to crack down on drugs.

And you can't defeat pragmatism, the absence of hard and fast rules and principles, without an alternative.

Which means Objectivism.

So you can't avoid things like courts which legislate from the bench or a wayward Congress, or politicians going along with current prejudices or what seems expedient despite the law without spreading Objectivism to pull the rug from underneath all this mess.

And electing Whoever in 2008, even if it were a radical change, will not make a single ounce of difference as long as the underlying philosophy remains in place in the minds of people and their elected representatives.

TANSC

Phil
(There Are No ShortCuts)

Post 4

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 11:36am

Link

Edit

Philip,

Spreading Rand's ideas is without question useful, but to rely on that happening in any mass market kind of way anytime soon is unlikely. When you consider that Rand published Anthem in I believe 1938, you get a sense of how long we've been at it. And, although you will disagree with this part, as long as ARI is the unbenevolent keeper of the flame we may win a few minds, but no hearts.

A short cut does exist, not in a pass-fail litmus test of a jurist's philosophy, but in a simple test about how he views the constitution. There are more like Thomas who would like to restore original intent. We should work to get them appointed while we wait for the Objectivist takeover.

It took over 200 years of mostly tiny steps to get us into this mess, it'll take a number of tiny steps back to get us relief. Personally, I won't dismiss them out of hand as pragmatic, but rather as steps in the right direction.

Post 5

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 1:05pm

Link

Edit

I comment at the Laissez Faire Books Blog:

If the Constitution has become little more a piece of worthless tissue paper, the Supremes should have the grace to say that. "Look, we know that the Constitution enumerates only certain powers of the federal government and yammers on about the rights retained by the people blah blah blah, but we don't particularly care about that and please stop making reference to the Constitution when pleading cases before us."

As you read the blog you'll also want to click into the link to buy lead lawyer Randy Barnett's book, Restoring the Lost Constitution, which won the 2005 Lysander Spooner Award.

I think the Feds would be constitutionally justified in overriding a violation of rights by the states; they are not in overriding a protection of rights by the states. The Constitution talks about rights retained by the states and the people. It doesn't mean by that a "right" to trample on rights. Of course it would help if the Constitution were more adamant, clear and specific. But the extent to which congressmen and justices are able to pretend the Constitution is on their side no matter how much of a pretzel they make out of it suggests that the capacity of the document to protect itself is not unlimited.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Post 6

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 1:22pm

Link

Edit

Whoever wins in 2008, even if it were a radical change, will not make a single ounce of difference as long as the underlying philosophy remains in place in the minds of people and their elected representatives.

This assertion, and the whole post from which it is drawn, is dead wrong. Were the founders "Objectivists"? There are always going to be pitched battles among different constituencies with different ideas. The specific decisions that politicians and judges make do matter to specific people at specific times. Not all of those decisions are bad, or we'd be living in a totalitarian state, right now. Ideas matter, and the means by which they are transmitted and implemented matter. Those means include lobbying and other forms of politicking, some of which may be futile, others not.

If a couple votes had swung the other way in the Supreme Court, patients with cancer wouldn't have to decide between wracking pain and the prospect of the feds kicking their door down. If Congress decides to reverse the prohibition on cannabis for medical purposes as a result of growing public ire over this insanity, it will matter. It won't be a wholesale reversal of the drug laws, but it will be a beginning, and it would have specific beneficial consequences to specific people at specific times.

There is no unitary "underlying philosophy" in the minds of the body politic, as if that were just one guy. There is competition among ideas. Sure, those who hold strictly Objectivist ideas are a minority. Yet that doesn't and can't mean that all not-strictly-Objectivist ideas are bad or ineffectual. we didn't found this republic on the basis of the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, yet all the vast benefits of that founding persist.

Are the good ideas and practices of the founders contradicted by some bad ideas and practices of the founders themselves, and other bad ideas and practices that came along later? Of course. But what we're dealing with is a mixed bag culturally and politically, not pure poison. What pure poison does is, it kills everybody. And here we all still are, plugging away.

So let's stop talking about how it doesn't make a "single ounce of difference" whether the law stomps on you in a particular case (which is certainly affected by who is holding posts in government, including the top post), or not. It obviously does matter, if we're in fact gauging impact by reference to the specific individuals we claim are at the center of our philosophy of individualism. If individuals count, what happens to them counts.

(Edited by David M. Brown on 6/07, 1:25pm)

Post 7

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 1:28pm

Link

Edit

David M. Brown said: �Of course it would help if the Constitution were more adamant, clear and specific.�

The Constitution IS �adamant, clear and specific,� ESPECIALLY if you read it in the context of The Federalist Papers (though, certainly they are not required to understand the very simple words � the Constitution was written for the �common� people). The problem is not a lack of understanding; the problem is the guilty individuals who refuse to take REAL ACTION to protect the morals for which it stands against the government terrorists (redundant) who seek to destroy them.

- B.

Mr. Montag, you are looking at a coward. I saw the way things were going, a long time back. I said nothing. I'm one of the innocents who could have spoken up and out when no one would listen to the 'guilty,' but I did not speak and thus became guilty myself. And when finally they set the structure to burn the books, using the firemen, I grunted a few times and subsided, for there were no others grunting or yelling with me, by then. Now it's too late. -- Professor Faber, Fahrenheit 451

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post 8

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 2:21pm

Link

Edit

"[T]he Constitution has become little more [than] a piece of worthless tissue paper."

Context! Context!

Checks and balances! Checks and balances!

We have cel phones, therefore we're free!

Why don't you America-hating whim-worshippers ever criticize Saddam Hussein?

Context! Context!

JR

Post 9

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 2:44pm

Link

Edit

Jeff Riggenbach is now attempting to hijack this thread, and I do not appreciate it one bit.

He writes:

"Context! Context!

"Checks and balances! Checks and balances!

"We have cel phones, therefore we're free!"

And yet, he fails to say here that the United States government is an extension of America's humanity, reason, and liberty, as it concerns foreign affairs. Obviously, he is being sarcastic, for if he really understood how free our "cel phones" (sic) makes us, he would go further and say that anyone who disagrees should be branded a traiter, and with an actual brand.

"Why don't you America-hating whim-worshippers ever criticize Saddam Hussein?"

You mean the murderous fascist son of Hitler and Stalin, Saddam Hussein. To fail to include these qualifiers is to aid and assist the enemy. How would you feel if Saddam Hussein flew a plane thru you're home? I'm sure you'd hate it.

"Context! Context!"

All I can say here is, Context = Context.

Post 10

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 3:54pm

Link

Edit

Fine post, David M. Brown, and you got some sanction votes from me for it. Individuals matter; who holds what offices does matter to many individuals; and someone willing to dismiss or mock those facts should be called many things, but "individualist" isn't among the appropriate words.

Post 11

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 6:45pm

Link

Edit

> So let's stop talking about how it doesn't make a "single ounce of difference" whether the law stomps on you in a particular case... If individuals count, what happens to them counts. [David]

The context of my post was a "single ounce of difference" - IN CHANGING THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY.

Phil

PS, A certain amount of benevolence in reading between the lines would be appreciated before you go into battle with all guns blazing and overreacting: "This assertion, and the whole post from which it is drawn, is dead wrong."

Post 12

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 6:53pm

Link

Edit

Robert Bidinotto,

I am going to address these same words to you:

A certain amount of benevolence in reading between the lines would be appreciated before you go into battle with all guns blazing...

And if this ad hominem character attack was directed at me, you owe me an apology:

someone willing to dismiss or mock those facts should be called many things, but "individualist" isn't among the appropriate words.

Post 13

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 7:58pm

Link

Edit

Don't get touchy, Phil. I didn't mean you, but the two sarcastic jerks whose posts immediately preceded my post #10, and who try to turn every discussion thread here -- no matter what the original subjects -- into whetstones upon which to grind their anti-government axes. In doing so, they reveal a limited topical and argumentative repertoire.

Benevolence toward them? Benevolence is a two-way street.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 6/07, 8:16pm)

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 6/07, 8:19pm)

Post 14

Wednesday, June 8, 2005 - 7:45am

Link

Edit

Two wonderful recent quotes from this thread:

David M. Brown:

We didn't found this republic on the basis of the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, yet all the vast benefits of that founding persist.

From Ayn Rand's stated love of this republic, I can almost see her having written those words herself.

Robert Bidinotto:

Benevolence is a two-way street.

LOLOLOLOL...

Michael

Post 15

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 6:54am

Link

Edit

JR, Anthony-

I thought the obviously facetious posts were hysterical - but why here, why this thread? I've just been in threads where people are making utilitarian claims that WWII saved millions of lives, or arguing that terrorists are a greater threat to the world than an arsenal of 10000 nuclear weapons. I can't believe you wouldn't have more fun in such threads.