About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 4:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This guy wins the fucking moron award. And of course, law professor.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 5:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Though I vehemently dislike what he describes, I cannot argue that it is untrue. Is versus ought.


Post 2

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Unfortunately, most American lawyers and judges just ignore or work-around or minimize whatever parts of the Constitution they find inconvenient. Does anyone make a Ninth Amendment bumper sticker?
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/08, 7:26pm)


Post 3

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 7:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Put the Ninth Amendment on a bumper sticker? Hell, maybe we should just print it in really small letters on the head of a sledgehammer and start hitting politicians over the head.

Post 4

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 8:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott, Can you explain the existence of the War on (some) Drugs in some way other than with Volokh's words?

He is describing the current political reality. He is describing how SCOTUS would rule.

Post 5

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 8:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm from Texas. Can anybody guess what Texas leads the world in exports of? I'm not from France! Can anyone guess what country leads all countries in the import of? Me and Mr. Ed ain't telling! Now what wine goes with Trigger? Hmmm!

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 10:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't get the impression that the person quoted is advocating this viewpoint, but rather stating how absurd it is that this seems to be accepted standard.

Post 7

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 5:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Angela,

That's what I was thinking, myself.  I kept clicking on the title and the author, thinking that I was missing something.

This article points out the irrationality of all old laws; until they are challenged in the clear light of  today's reason.  The horse meat law was probably the result of butchers trying to pass it off as beef in things like Spam.

If one is predisposed to eating the flesh of animals; how could horse meat be more abhorrent than lobster or pork? 

Sharon

Post 8

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 5:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I disagree with Sharon and Angela. Read the last sentence of the quote. This guy has, evidently, ~some~ familiarity with the Constitution, and he cannot find support for freedoms not explicitly spelled out, nor, evidently, checks on government power in particular applications that are likewise detailed.

What was it that Ayn Rand wrote about professors being responsible for letting the wolf in the henhouse?

I'm not saying this isnt the way it is, but I DO think this guy suggests "is" with the first few, and "ought" with the last. But hey, I could be wrong. This MIGHT be out of context.

Post 9

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 1:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Sharon and Angela. I regularly read the Volokh Conspiracy. The man is certainly not a moron.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 11:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Eugene Volokh is no moron, but like most law professors will describe what has been held to be constitutional as if that were the last word.

So I can recognize the truth of most of the quote while disagreeing with the last sentence from my personal view that each sovereign citizen must decide for themselves what is constitutional. That's one big reason juries are used.

BTW, killing horses for meat is illegal in Calif (in fact, a felony!!) because of PETA activism, and over the strong objections of most owners and breeders.


Post 11

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 9:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"There is no Constitutional right..."

Nah, he is a moron.

Post 12

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is a "Constitutional" right?

Post 13

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 12:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Seconding what some are saying, but not all, Volokh is an eminent and accomplished libertarian, stating a fact about the legal system.  Had he said "natural right" or had he taken the line that there are no natural rights, only the ones the courts recognize, Scott would be justified in what he says - but Volokh didn't.

As to what a constitutional right is, the easy part of the answer is that it's one guaranteed in the Constitution.   The hard part is saying just what these are.  I'm willing to take Volokh's word about the present state of the law.

One possibility (I didn't say it was anything more) is that Volokh is taking a legally conservative, stick-to-the-text approach, in opposition to judges who read what they want, no more, no less, into the Constitution.  Henry Holzer is one who argues this way, pointing out that if hardcore Objectivist Supreme Court judges (who are hard to find these days) can rule on the basis of what they wish were in the text, so can any other kind.


Post 14

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 1:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
An utterly literalist approach means that essentially no rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.

What does peaceably assemble mean? Stand on a streetcorner silently? See my point?

Ilike I said originally, the quote may have been taken out of context. But if no less than a Libertarian law professor cannot find Constitutional support for those things, well, you know my position.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 11:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just admit you're wrong, Scott. Gosh, the man is libertarian and supports almost everything about government we do. He's just stating the flexibility and incompleteness of the law. Get over yourself and take a bite of humble pie.

Post 16

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 4:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yep, the guy IS a libertarian (after doing some internet research) so I guess I should have heeded my own advice about considering context. Still, it is SUCH a terrible quote!

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.