|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 16, 2015 5:38:26 GMT
As usual, you quote some vague words from the Declaration of Independence (or, alternatively, from John Locke), while entirely ignoring the US Constitution. And I am aware of no constitutional edict against the ownership of private property; or even any requirement as regarding an improvement of the land. Are you? I have quoted the words of James Madison ("Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government"), and you have chosen to ignore it. During the late 1960s and early '70s, there were two distinct countercultures in the US: There were the hippies; and there were the revolutionaries. The revolutionaries, for the most part, were sophomore Maoists and Trotskyites. Your own political philosophy seems a bit better developed than theirs was. But it is just as much a part of the hard left.
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The "Inalienable (Natural) Right of Property" is protected by the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution.
I'm not arguing with James Madison's statement that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government" because the mitigation of a violation of an "Inalienable Right" is not charity. If all workers received adequate compensation to provide for their "support and comfort" based upon their labour, which Locke's arguments establish as a "natural right" of the person, then virtually all government funding for welfare disappears. Even Social Security and Medicare would no longer exist as "compensation for employment" would include provisions for the time when a person becomes too old to work.
Charity addresses those incapable of working and not those that have a "Natural (Inalienable) Right of support and comfort" established by their labour.
The US Constitution does not grant Americans any right to “support and comfort.” Once again, you quote John Locke while ignoring the Constitution—or, at most, while employing a very broad interpretation of a very vague statement about “unenumerated rights” in the Constitution, as if the Framers had in mind exactly what you do, in this regard. And I believe that James Madison’s central point was this: It is simply not any part of government’s duty to give money to American citizens. And he did not circumscribe these remarks with some words to the effect of, “If only these people were paid more by their respective employers.” |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 16, 2015 10:31:13 GMT
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The "Inalienable (Natural) Right of Property" is protected by the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution.
I'm not arguing with James Madison's statement that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of government" because the mitigation of a violation of an "Inalienable Right" is not charity. If all workers received adequate compensation to provide for their "support and comfort" based upon their labour, which Locke's arguments establish as a "natural right" of the person, then virtually all government funding for welfare disappears. Even Social Security and Medicare would no longer exist as "compensation for employment" would include provisions for the time when a person becomes too old to work.
Charity addresses those incapable of working and not those that have a "Natural (Inalienable) Right of support and comfort" established by their labour.
The US Constitution does not grant Americans any right to “support and comfort.” Once again, you quote John Locke while ignoring the Constitution—or, at most, while employing a very broad interpretation of a very vague statement about “unenumerated rights” in the Constitution, as if the Framers had in mind exactly what you do, in this regard. And I believe that James Madison’s central point was this: It is simply not any part of government’s duty to give money to American citizens. And he did not circumscribe these remarks with some words to the effect of, “If only these people were paid more by their respective employers.”
The Ninth Amendment establishes that the "right to support and comfort based upon the labour of the person" does not require enumeration. Once again this is an extrapolation of the "natural (inalienable) right of property) that the Ninth Amendment protects and that, except in certain specific cases related to government confiscation of property, isn't enumerated in the US Constitution either. I would note, for example, that we have extensive "laws of contract" and the US Constitution doesn't mention anything about contract law which addresses the right of property between individuals. The "right of property" is not expressly enumerated in the US Constitution and it doesn't have to be because it is an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.
We don't have to "give money" to people if the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" as established by the arguments of John Locke is protected. If employers are required to provide adequate compensation to ensure the "support and comfort" of their employees based upon their labour then the "welfare state" virtually disappears except for those incapable of working.
To switch gears slightly I read an article in Forbes that supports the prior claims I've made that "middle income" jobs and the middle class are disappearing and the most significant cause behind this is AI and technology.
"Increasingly, there are other options, as well. Companies can outsource, as Reich argues, although that’s often more a matter of avoiding environmental and safety regulations, because, for many businesses, labor is a small portion of the cost of their goods. A bigger issue is how industries have increasingly automated operations and services. When even the work of anesthesiologists can be automated, as Johnson & Johnson JNJ -1.45% has done with its Sedasys system, how can anyone expect any job to be secure? The combination of high education, high demand, and need to administer a service locally was supposed to be the sine qua non of professional security. But it doesn’t exist.
Perhaps reality will sink in when CEOs realize that their jobs can also be sent overseas to thoroughly competent managers in a global marketplace who will cost the company less money. However, for now, the premium is still on reducing human costs and increasing profits, all the while falsely claiming that they can’t help it because there’s a legal mandate to maximize shareholder value. That is a myth, originally started by University of Chicago economists like Milton Friedman.
Numerous lawyers, economists, and experts in corporate governance have scoured state and federal laws and found the concept to have been wholly fabricated." www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2015/01/15/robert-reich-is-right-higher-wages-arent-coming-back-and-heres-why/?partner=yahootix
BTW I had to look up "sine qua non" (An essential element or condition) because my Latin isn't all that good but this points to a fact. Education, demand for labor, and local administration that had always been considered a foundation for good paying jobs no longer exists. Previously I mentioned that even brain surgeons would someday be replaced by AI and technology and the fact that the job of the anesthesiologist, also a very highly skilled medical profession, is being replaced with an automated system that is safer than what a person can ensure points to the fact that the brain surgeon's job can also be replaced in the future. As I've also noted in the past 40 years about 90% of the job responsibilities of the mechanical engineer have already been replaced by AI.
Human knowledge and labor is becoming obsolete and with it comes the collapse of the entire economy unless we act now to do something about it. We'll have the technology to create everything we really require but it will be done without jobs so virtually no one will have the income to purchase anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 19, 2015 6:08:34 GMT
The US Constitution does not grant Americans any right to “support and comfort.” Once again, you quote John Locke while ignoring the Constitution—or, at most, while employing a very broad interpretation of a very vague statement about “unenumerated rights” in the Constitution, as if the Framers had in mind exactly what you do, in this regard. And I believe that James Madison’s central point was this: It is simply not any part of government’s duty to give money to American citizens. And he did not circumscribe these remarks with some words to the effect of, “If only these people were paid more by their respective employers.”
The Ninth Amendment establishes that the "right to support and comfort based upon the labour of the person" does not require enumeration. Once again this is an extrapolation of the "natural (inalienable) right of property) that the Ninth Amendment protects and that, except in certain specific cases related to government confiscation of property, isn't enumerated in the US Constitution either. I would note, for example, that we have extensive "laws of contract" and the US Constitution doesn't mention anything about contract law which addresses the right of property between individuals. The "right of property" is not expressly enumerated in the US Constitution and it doesn't have to be because it is an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.
We don't have to "give money" to people if the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property" as established by the arguments of John Locke is protected. If employers are required to provide adequate compensation to ensure the "support and comfort" of their employees based upon their labour then the "welfare state" virtually disappears except for those incapable of working.
To switch gears slightly I read an article in Forbes that supports the prior claims I've made that "middle income" jobs and the middle class are disappearing and the most significant cause behind this is AI and technology.
"Increasingly, there are other options, as well. Companies can outsource, as Reich argues, although that’s often more a matter of avoiding environmental and safety regulations, because, for many businesses, labor is a small portion of the cost of their goods. A bigger issue is how industries have increasingly automated operations and services. When even the work of anesthesiologists can be automated, as Johnson & Johnson JNJ -1.45% has done with its Sedasys system, how can anyone expect any job to be secure? The combination of high education, high demand, and need to administer a service locally was supposed to be the sine qua non of professional security. But it doesn’t exist.
Perhaps reality will sink in when CEOs realize that their jobs can also be sent overseas to thoroughly competent managers in a global marketplace who will cost the company less money. However, for now, the premium is still on reducing human costs and increasing profits, all the while falsely claiming that they can’t help it because there’s a legal mandate to maximize shareholder value. That is a myth, originally started by University of Chicago economists like Milton Friedman.
Numerous lawyers, economists, and experts in corporate governance have scoured state and federal laws and found the concept to have been wholly fabricated." www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2015/01/15/robert-reich-is-right-higher-wages-arent-coming-back-and-heres-why/?partner=yahootix
BTW I had to look up "sine qua non" (An essential element or condition) because my Latin isn't all that good but this points to a fact. Education, demand for labor, and local administration that had always been considered a foundation for good paying jobs no longer exists. Previously I mentioned that even brain surgeons would someday be replaced by AI and technology and the fact that the job of the anesthesiologist, also a very highly skilled medical profession, is being replaced with an automated system that is safer than what a person can ensure points to the fact that the brain surgeon's job can also be replaced in the future. As I've also noted in the past 40 years about 90% of the job responsibilities of the mechanical engineer have already been replaced by AI.
Human knowledge and labor is becoming obsolete and with it comes the collapse of the entire economy unless we act now to do something about it. We'll have the technology to create everything we really require but it will be done without jobs so virtually no one will have the income to purchase anything.
I do not dispute the allegation that artificial intelligence has replaced some jobs in the US. But to claim that we will soon be left with no “jobs so virtually no one will have the income to purchase anything” is simply ridiculous. Since a society in which “no one would have the income to purchase anything” would not be at all congenial to the interests of the producer class, I simply cannot imagine that they would do that which would destroy their own best interests. And how, exactly, might the Ninth Amendment (or any other part of the US Constitution, for that matter) establish “the ‘right to support and comfort based upon the labour of the person’”? (Once again, you have relied upon the arguments of one individual—John Locke—to try to establish some “Inalienable” right that the US Constitution simply does not address; something so very important that it probably would not have been brushed aside as one of those “unenumerated” rights if the Framers had really intended what you are asserting.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 19, 2015 13:34:05 GMT
I do not dispute the allegation that artificial intelligence has replaced some jobs in the US. But to claim that we will soon be left with no “jobs so virtually no one will have the income to purchase anything” is simply ridiculous. Since a society in which “no one would have the income to purchase anything” would not be at all congenial to the interests of the producer class, I simply cannot imagine that they would do that which would destroy their own best interests. And how, exactly, might the Ninth Amendment (or any other part of the US Constitution, for that matter) establish “the ‘right to support and comfort based upon the labour of the person’”? (Once again, you have relied upon the arguments of one individual—John Locke—to try to establish some “Inalienable” right that the US Constitution simply does not address; something so very important that it probably would not have been brushed aside as one of those “unenumerated” rights if the Framers had really intended what you are asserting.)
What we find is that people, based upon immediate greed and self-interest, are rarely concerned with and often uninformed about how their actions today adversely effect them in the future. As you know I like to do let me provide an analogy.
About 40% of all food used by the world's population originates in the ocean and the vast majority of that relates to the annual harvest of large fish.
"National Geographic News
May 15, 2003
Only 10 percent of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea, according to research published in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature."
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html
"Business Insider Jun. 7, 2012
Overfishing is pushing marine life to the brink of collapse.
In fact, in 40 years we could face an ocean without fish, Newsweek said last month.
For perspective, in 1950, the total catch of fish in the ocean was at 18.5 million metric tons. Just half a century later that number spiked to 73.5 million metric tons, an increase of nearly 400 percent. Since then, as many as 90 percent of the ocean's large fish have been fished out, according to the World Wildlife Foundation.
A mind-boggling 90 species of fish have been dangerously depleted off the shores of the U.S. alone."
www.businessinsider.com/overfishing-decline-of-oceans-2012-6?op=1
Because of the immediate desire to eat fish today we've depleted the worlds stock of fish by over-fishing to the point that it's predicted there could be no fish to eat in 40 years. Think of how much more fish we could sustainably harvest from the ocean today if we had ten times as many fish in the ocean than we have today because of over-fishing. In 1950 we had a sustainable harvest of 18.5 metric tons and could have harvested more without damaging the fish stocks but greed drove the harvest up 400% and that over-harvesting will result in "zero" fish to harvest unless something significant changes. We're like the farmer eating the wheat seed needed for next year's planting to make bread today.
Technology has allowed us to fish the oceans to the brink of extinction for "food" fish like tuna. What are we going to eat when the tuna are gone completely because of over-fishing. Why don't we seem to care about that today? The answer is simple. We still have cans of tuna on the shelf so we don't seem to care about the fact that there will be no cans of tuna for our children.
It's "all about us and to hell with our children" when it comes to the fish of the oceans and that applies to jobs today. "As long as I can get a job today I don't care if the jobs won't exist for my children tomorrow." It is near-sighted personal greed that prevents so many from recognizing the problems related to technology regardless of whether we look at the over-harvesting of fish or the replacement of the labor force because the technology of each is projected to result in extinction of fish and jobs respectively at some point in the future if we don't make significant changes to what we're doing today.
I'm not opposed to technology, and in fact I embrace it, but we need to use it where it benefits all of mankind both today and into the future and not to the detriment of mankind. Technology can do either one or both but when it's to the detriment eventually we have to pay the price for that. As the old saying goes "there are no free lunches" and yet we treat technology like is a free lunch today but someday we'll have to pay the price for that.
Of course we know why the "natural (inalienable) right of property" was not addressed when the nation was founded. The wealthy that controlled the politics then, just as they do today, had far to much to lose. The most glaring example were the plantation owners of the South that had created virtually mini-kingdoms where they literally, under statutory laws of title, owned the land and the people in their mini-kingdoms. The Southern Plantation owners were the "untitled" nobility of the United States and they didn't want to lose that status and power.The wealthy, that controlled the government had too much to lose and they last thing they wanted to see was a change to statutory ownership of land (and people) that allowed them to have their own little mini-kingdoms in the United States. Except for the idealist the "natural (inalienable) right of property" adversely affects the super-wealthy that violate that right based upon greed and the desire for more wealth and those are the people that control our government and the "statutory laws of property" under the Constitution.
I do have hope though. Based upon history our nation is slow to change but it does change over time in addressing the "unenumerated rights of the person" that are supposed to be protected by the 9th Amendment. Today, for example, the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery probably isn't required because I don't think the US Supreme Court would allow one person to own another person as property. Today we understand that slavery violates the "Inalienable Right of Liberty" of the person that is a protected right regardless of enumeration.
Someday I hope that a case will come before the US Supreme Court where the arguments presented based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" are so compelling that the Supreme Court will begine to over-turn the "statutory laws of property based upon title" that currently exist. It will probably require an evolutionary process where one-by-one they will be struck down and that could take many, many years but it could be, by analogy, like this issue of equal protection under the laws for same-sex couples where once the initial decision is reached the expansion of the "natural (inalienable) rights of property" expand quickly across the nation.
I have hope but doubt it will happen in my lifetime. I believe that the people of America, all of them, will ultmately be better off when that happens. Today our "statutory laws of property based upon title" fundamentally benefit only the wealthy whereas the "natural (inalienable) right of property" benefits all people equally.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 21, 2015 20:30:44 GMT
I do not dispute the allegation that artificial intelligence has replaced some jobs in the US. But to claim that we will soon be left with no “jobs so virtually no one will have the income to purchase anything” is simply ridiculous. Since a society in which “no one would have the income to purchase anything” would not be at all congenial to the interests of the producer class, I simply cannot imagine that they would do that which would destroy their own best interests. And how, exactly, might the Ninth Amendment (or any other part of the US Constitution, for that matter) establish “the ‘right to support and comfort based upon the labour of the person’”? (Once again, you have relied upon the arguments of one individual—John Locke—to try to establish some “Inalienable” right that the US Constitution simply does not address; something so very important that it probably would not have been brushed aside as one of those “unenumerated” rights if the Framers had really intended what you are asserting.)
What we find is that people, based upon immediate greed and self-interest, are rarely concerned with and often uninformed about how their actions today adversely effect them in the future. As you know I like to do let me provide an analogy.
About 40% of all food used by the world's population originates in the ocean and the vast majority of that relates to the annual harvest of large fish.
"National Geographic News
May 15, 2003
Only 10 percent of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea, according to research published in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature."
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html
"Business Insider Jun. 7, 2012
Overfishing is pushing marine life to the brink of collapse.
In fact, in 40 years we could face an ocean without fish, Newsweek said last month.
For perspective, in 1950, the total catch of fish in the ocean was at 18.5 million metric tons. Just half a century later that number spiked to 73.5 million metric tons, an increase of nearly 400 percent. Since then, as many as 90 percent of the ocean's large fish have been fished out, according to the World Wildlife Foundation.
A mind-boggling 90 species of fish have been dangerously depleted off the shores of the U.S. alone."
www.businessinsider.com/overfishing-decline-of-oceans-2012-6?op=1
Because of the immediate desire to eat fish today we've depleted the worlds stock of fish by over-fishing to the point that it's predicted there could be no fish to eat in 40 years. Think of how much more fish we could sustainably harvest from the ocean today if we had ten times as many fish in the ocean than we have today because of over-fishing. In 1950 we had a sustainable harvest of 18.5 metric tons and could have harvested more without damaging the fish stocks but greed drove the harvest up 400% and that over-harvesting will result in "zero" fish to harvest unless something significant changes. We're like the farmer eating the wheat seed needed for next year's planting to make bread today.
Technology has allowed us to fish the oceans to the brink of extinction for "food" fish like tuna. What are we going to eat when the tuna are gone completely because of over-fishing. Why don't we seem to care about that today? The answer is simple. We still have cans of tuna on the shelf so we don't seem to care about the fact that there will be no cans of tuna for our children.
It's "all about us and to hell with our children" when it comes to the fish of the oceans and that applies to jobs today. "As long as I can get a job today I don't care if the jobs won't exist for my children tomorrow." It is near-sighted personal greed that prevents so many from recognizing the problems related to technology regardless of whether we look at the over-harvesting of fish or the replacement of the labor force because the technology of each is projected to result in extinction of fish and jobs respectively at some point in the future if we don't make significant changes to what we're doing today.
I'm not opposed to technology, and in fact I embrace it, but we need to use it where it benefits all of mankind both today and into the future and not to the detriment of mankind. Technology can do either one or both but when it's to the detriment eventually we have to pay the price for that. As the old saying goes "there are no free lunches" and yet we treat technology like is a free lunch today but someday we'll have to pay the price for that.
Of course we know why the "natural (inalienable) right of property" was not addressed when the nation was founded. The wealthy that controlled the politics then, just as they do today, had far to much to lose. The most glaring example were the plantation owners of the South that had created virtually mini-kingdoms where they literally, under statutory laws of title, owned the land and the people in their mini-kingdoms. The Southern Plantation owners were the "untitled" nobility of the United States and they didn't want to lose that status and power.The wealthy, that controlled the government had too much to lose and they last thing they wanted to see was a change to statutory ownership of land (and people) that allowed them to have their own little mini-kingdoms in the United States. Except for the idealist the "natural (inalienable) right of property" adversely affects the super-wealthy that violate that right based upon greed and the desire for more wealth and those are the people that control our government and the "statutory laws of property" under the Constitution.
I do have hope though. Based upon history our nation is slow to change but it does change over time in addressing the "unenumerated rights of the person" that are supposed to be protected by the 9th Amendment. Today, for example, the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery probably isn't required because I don't think the US Supreme Court would allow one person to own another person as property. Today we understand that slavery violates the "Inalienable Right of Liberty" of the person that is a protected right regardless of enumeration.
Someday I hope that a case will come before the US Supreme Court where the arguments presented based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" are so compelling that the Supreme Court will begine to over-turn the "statutory laws of property based upon title" that currently exist. It will probably require an evolutionary process where one-by-one they will be struck down and that could take many, many years but it could be, by analogy, like this issue of equal protection under the laws for same-sex couples where once the initial decision is reached the expansion of the "natural (inalienable) rights of property" expand quickly across the nation.
I have hope but doubt it will happen in my lifetime. I believe that the people of America, all of them, will ultmately be better off when that happens. Today our "statutory laws of property based upon title" fundamentally benefit only the wealthy whereas the "natural (inalienable) right of property" benefits all people equally.
I really am not sure just how your idea of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" might benefit me. (I reside in a condominium; so I do not "till the land," or otherwise improve it.) By the way, you especially like to cite the Ninth Amendment. But it is the Tenth Amendment that is particularly dear to me (and to all who abhor the expansion of federal power): Whatever the reason (or reasons) for the Framers' failure to address the matter of the right of property, I certainly do not agree with your desire to strike down all "statutory laws" regarding the matter, on the mere basis of John Locke's words, coupled with a very broad interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. I really do not know if we are just 40 years away from a mass extinction of large species of fish, or not. But even if we are, it is a lot easier to see how many people would not notice a problem that is 40 years away than it is to see how they would not notice a problem that is immediate. (Moreover, your opinion that most Americans have an attitude that declares, "[T]o hell with our children," is simply absurd. Most Americans love their children. Deeply.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 22, 2015 14:26:11 GMT
I really am not sure just how your idea of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" might benefit me. (I reside in a condominium; so I do not "till the land," or otherwise improve it.) By the way, you especially like to cite the Ninth Amendment. But it is the Tenth Amendment that is particularly dear to me (and to all who abhor the expansion of federal power): Whatever the reason (or reasons) for the Framers' failure to address the matter of the right of property, I certainly do not agree with your desire to strike down all "statutory laws" regarding the matter, on the mere basis of John Locke's words, coupled with a very broad interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. I really do not know if we are just 40 years away from a mass extinction of large species of fish, or not. But even if we are, it is a lot easier to see how many people would not notice a problem that is 40 years away than it is to see how they would not notice a problem that is immediate. (Moreover, your opinion that most Americans have an attitude that declares, "[T]o hell with our children," is simply absurd. Most Americans love their children. Deeply.)
First issue. Based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" you could go out and simply claim a small parcel of land, construct a home on it (with wood you harvest from the forests or rocks to pick up for the land or bricks you make from clay) all for free and pay no one, including the government, for exercising this "right" of property. I have no idea how much you pay or paid for your "condominium" but you didn't have to do that based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" because you could have established ownership of you home without spending even one dollar and would never have to pay any taxes (rent paid to the government) on it. You establish that "natural (inalienable) right of property" based upon the sweat equity you put into it and it would always belong to you so long as you lived in it based upon the sweat of construction and on-going maintenance of the property and the home.
The one caveat to this "natural (inalienable) right of property" is that there must always remain in the "public" domain enough land and natural resources for everyone else to go out and do exactly what you would have done.
I'm also a huge advocate of the 10th Amendment but it contains a caveat as neither the States or the People have any "powers" that would violate that which is "prohibited by" the US Constitution. We've seen a historical willingness by both the "states or the people" to violate the prohibitions contained in the US Constitution and they have no "power" to do so.
The authors of the Constitution, and specifically Madison that authored the Bill of Rights, were explicit in wanting the 9th Amendment to be very broad in scope. They were quite knowledgeable about the fact that it would be utterly impossible for them to define and/or protect the "inalienable rights" of the person in the US Constitution. You have previously expressed the belief in "original intent" (i.e. a conservative) intepretations of the US Constitution and an expansive interpretation based upon the 9th Amendment was unquestionably the intent of the author of the 9th Amendment and those that supported it as written.
There are 27 Amendments to the US Constitution that are split between amendments related to the operations of government and the amendments that were created because the "rights of the person" protected by the 9th Amendment were being violated by the state or federal government. For example the 14th Amendment was addressing numerous violations of the "Rights of the Person" including the "natural right of citizenship" and denial of "equal protection under the law" which were both "rights" that should have been protected by the 9th Amendment. The 13th Amendment addressed the violation of the "inalienable right of liberty" of the person that was being violated by slavery and should have been protected by the 9th Amendment.
The problem with the 9th Amendment isn't that it is being applied too liberally but instead that it isn't being applied more expansively. It is a very "liberal" amendment and not a "conservative" amendment to the US Constitution. When it comes to our children I believe that the parents are more concerned with what they can do for their children now as opposed to what their children will be able to do for themselves in the future. For example they're more concerned with buying that can of tuna today to feed their children than the fact that we know we've already driven tuna to the brink of extinction and that if we don't do something (e.g. stop fishing for tuna until the population of the tuna in the oceans is restored to pre-technology levels) there will be no tuna on the selves for future generations. It is the advancements in fishing technology that is driving the extinction of the fish populations in the oceans. Instead of a man with a pole and a hook pulling tuna from the ocean one at a time now they're harvested using nets that are often over a mile in length that harvest thousands at a time and there are thousands of modern ships in the ocean sweeping the vast oceans clean of all tuna.
The same "technology" that has taken tuna to the brink of extinction is also resulting in the extinction of human labor. Instead of "one man with a hook" our technology is creating "nets" that replace the labor of thousands of men.
Once agian I'm not opposed to technology per se. I can see the benefits to mankind that technology offers but I can also see that it can be used to the detriment of mankind. We need to address the detrimental effects of the technology but we're not doing that. Someday we'll be forced to, or more accurately our children will be, but the sooner we address this the less negative impact to society will be experienced. It's far better to address the loss of income and jobs driven by technology today than it is to address it after 90% of society is driven into poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 23, 2015 19:03:41 GMT
I really am not sure just how your idea of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" might benefit me. (I reside in a condominium; so I do not "till the land," or otherwise improve it.) By the way, you especially like to cite the Ninth Amendment. But it is the Tenth Amendment that is particularly dear to me (and to all who abhor the expansion of federal power): Whatever the reason (or reasons) for the Framers' failure to address the matter of the right of property, I certainly do not agree with your desire to strike down all "statutory laws" regarding the matter, on the mere basis of John Locke's words, coupled with a very broad interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. I really do not know if we are just 40 years away from a mass extinction of large species of fish, or not. But even if we are, it is a lot easier to see how many people would not notice a problem that is 40 years away than it is to see how they would not notice a problem that is immediate. (Moreover, your opinion that most Americans have an attitude that declares, "[T]o hell with our children," is simply absurd. Most Americans love their children. Deeply.)
First issue. Based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" you could go out and simply claim a small parcel of land, construct a home on it (with wood you harvest from the forests or rocks to pick up for the land or bricks you make from clay) all for free and pay no one, including the government, for exercising this "right" of property. I have no idea how much you pay or paid for your "condominium" but you didn't have to do that based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" because you could have established ownership of you home without spending even one dollar and would never have to pay any taxes (rent paid to the government) on it. You establish that "natural (inalienable) right of property" based upon the sweat equity you put into it and it would always belong to you so long as you lived in it based upon the sweat of construction and on-going maintenance of the property and the home.
The one caveat to this "natural (inalienable) right of property" is that there must always remain in the "public" domain enough land and natural resources for everyone else to go out and do exactly what you would have done.
I'm also a huge advocate of the 10th Amendment but it contains a caveat as neither the States or the People have any "powers" that would violate that which is "prohibited by" the US Constitution. We've seen a historical willingness by both the "states or the people" to violate the prohibitions contained in the US Constitution and they have no "power" to do so.
The authors of the Constitution, and specifically Madison that authored the Bill of Rights, were explicit in wanting the 9th Amendment to be very broad in scope. They were quite knowledgeable about the fact that it would be utterly impossible for them to define and/or protect the "inalienable rights" of the person in the US Constitution. You have previously expressed the belief in "original intent" (i.e. a conservative) intepretations of the US Constitution and an expansive interpretation based upon the 9th Amendment was unquestionably the intent of the author of the 9th Amendment and those that supported it as written.
There are 27 Amendments to the US Constitution that are split between amendments related to the operations of government and the amendments that were created because the "rights of the person" protected by the 9th Amendment were being violated by the state or federal government. For example the 14th Amendment was addressing numerous violations of the "Rights of the Person" including the "natural right of citizenship" and denial of "equal protection under the law" which were both "rights" that should have been protected by the 9th Amendment. The 13th Amendment addressed the violation of the "inalienable right of liberty" of the person that was being violated by slavery and should have been protected by the 9th Amendment.
The problem with the 9th Amendment isn't that it is being applied too liberally but instead that it isn't being applied more expansively. It is a very "liberal" amendment and not a "conservative" amendment to the US Constitution. When it comes to our children I believe that the parents are more concerned with what they can do for their children now as opposed to what their children will be able to do for themselves in the future. For example they're more concerned with buying that can of tuna today to feed their children than the fact that we know we've already driven tuna to the brink of extinction and that if we don't do something (e.g. stop fishing for tuna until the population of the tuna in the oceans is restored to pre-technology levels) there will be no tuna on the selves for future generations. It is the advancements in fishing technology that is driving the extinction of the fish populations in the oceans. Instead of a man with a pole and a hook pulling tuna from the ocean one at a time now they're harvested using nets that are often over a mile in length that harvest thousands at a time and there are thousands of modern ships in the ocean sweeping the vast oceans clean of all tuna.
The same "technology" that has taken tuna to the brink of extinction is also resulting in the extinction of human labor. Instead of "one man with a hook" our technology is creating "nets" that replace the labor of thousands of men.
Once agian I'm not opposed to technology per se. I can see the benefits to mankind that technology offers but I can also see that it can be used to the detriment of mankind. We need to address the detrimental effects of the technology but we're not doing that. Someday we'll be forced to, or more accurately our children will be, but the sooner we address this the less negative impact to society will be experienced. It's far better to address the loss of income and jobs driven by technology today than it is to address it after 90% of society is driven into poverty.
And you seem to equate a "conserfvative" reading of the Constitution with an "ex[ansive" reading of it. And that simply flabbergasts me! |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 23, 2015 19:11:06 GMT
I really am not sure just how your idea of the "natural (inalienable) right of property" might benefit me. (I reside in a condominium; so I do not "till the land," or otherwise improve it.) By the way, you especially like to cite the Ninth Amendment. But it is the Tenth Amendment that is particularly dear to me (and to all who abhor the expansion of federal power): Whatever the reason (or reasons) for the Framers' failure to address the matter of the right of property, I certainly do not agree with your desire to strike down all "statutory laws" regarding the matter, on the mere basis of John Locke's words, coupled with a very broad interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. I really do not know if we are just 40 years away from a mass extinction of large species of fish, or not. But even if we are, it is a lot easier to see how many people would not notice a problem that is 40 years away than it is to see how they would not notice a problem that is immediate. (Moreover, your opinion that most Americans have an attitude that declares, "[T]o hell with our children," is simply absurd. Most Americans love their children. Deeply.)
First issue. Based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" you could go out and simply claim a small parcel of land, construct a home on it (with wood you harvest from the forests or rocks to pick up for the land or bricks you make from clay) all for free and pay no one, including the government, for exercising this "right" of property. I have no idea how much you pay or paid for your "condominium" but you didn't have to do that based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of property" because you could have established ownership of you home without spending even one dollar and would never have to pay any taxes (rent paid to the government) on it. You establish that "natural (inalienable) right of property" based upon the sweat equity you put into it and it would always belong to you so long as you lived in it based upon the sweat of construction and on-going maintenance of the property and the home.
The one caveat to this "natural (inalienable) right of property" is that there must always remain in the "public" domain enough land and natural resources for everyone else to go out and do exactly what you would have done.
I'm also a huge advocate of the 10th Amendment but it contains a caveat as neither the States or the People have any "powers" that would violate that which is "prohibited by" the US Constitution. We've seen a historical willingness by both the "states or the people" to violate the prohibitions contained in the US Constitution and they have no "power" to do so.
The authors of the Constitution, and specifically Madison that authored the Bill of Rights, were explicit in wanting the 9th Amendment to be very broad in scope. They were quite knowledgeable about the fact that it would be utterly impossible for them to define and/or protect the "inalienable rights" of the person in the US Constitution. You have previously expressed the belief in "original intent" (i.e. a conservative) intepretations of the US Constitution and an expansive interpretation based upon the 9th Amendment was unquestionably the intent of the author of the 9th Amendment and those that supported it as written.
There are 27 Amendments to the US Constitution that are split between amendments related to the operations of government and the amendments that were created because the "rights of the person" protected by the 9th Amendment were being violated by the state or federal government. For example the 14th Amendment was addressing numerous violations of the "Rights of the Person" including the "natural right of citizenship" and denial of "equal protection under the law" which were both "rights" that should have been protected by the 9th Amendment. The 13th Amendment addressed the violation of the "inalienable right of liberty" of the person that was being violated by slavery and should have been protected by the 9th Amendment.
The problem with the 9th Amendment isn't that it is being applied too liberally but instead that it isn't being applied more expansively. It is a very "liberal" amendment and not a "conservative" amendment to the US Constitution. When it comes to our children I believe that the parents are more concerned with what they can do for their children now as opposed to what their children will be able to do for themselves in the future. For example they're more concerned with buying that can of tuna today to feed their children than the fact that we know we've already driven tuna to the brink of extinction and that if we don't do something (e.g. stop fishing for tuna until the population of the tuna in the oceans is restored to pre-technology levels) there will be no tuna on the selves for future generations. It is the advancements in fishing technology that is driving the extinction of the fish populations in the oceans. Instead of a man with a pole and a hook pulling tuna from the ocean one at a time now they're harvested using nets that are often over a mile in length that harvest thousands at a time and there are thousands of modern ships in the ocean sweeping the vast oceans clean of all tuna.
The same "technology" that has taken tuna to the brink of extinction is also resulting in the extinction of human labor. Instead of "one man with a hook" our technology is creating "nets" that replace the labor of thousands of men.
Once agian I'm not opposed to technology per se. I can see the benefits to mankind that technology offers but I can also see that it can be used to the detriment of mankind. We need to address the detrimental effects of the technology but we're not doing that. Someday we'll be forced to, or more accurately our children will be, but the sooner we address this the less negative impact to society will be experienced. It's far better to address the loss of income and jobs driven by technology today than it is to address it after 90% of society is driven into poverty.
You appear to equate a "conservative" interpretation of the Constitution with an "expansive" one. And that simply flabbergasts me! And you also appear to believe that most Americans are far too myopic; but that you, by contrast, have a clear vision of the future. Is that correct? Also, I would not have wished to put "sweat equity" into the property by "construct[ing]" the condominium myself, just in order to save the purchase price. (That would rather defeat the entire purpose of condominium living.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 24, 2015 12:33:00 GMT
And you seem to equate a "conserfvative" reading of the Constitution with an "ex[ansive" reading of it. And that simply flabbergasts me!
To be accurate "conservative interpretation" actually refers to "originalism" in interpreting the US Constitution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
There is a fundamental flaw in this argument. The founders of America were the most progressive liberal thinkers of their times and the last thing they would advocate would be "originalism" in political thinking. The key founders of the United States which includes Madison and Jefferson were extreme "progressive liberals" in their political ideology and to believe that they ever advocated "conservative" political ideology goes directly against everything we know about US history.
For example when Madison authored the 8th Amendment that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" Madison wasn't thinking of just the cruel and unusual punishment that had existed prior to when he authored the 8th Amendment. He included any forms of cruel and unusual punishment that mankind had ever committed in the past but also anything that could be invented in the future as well. If we interpreted the 8th Amendment based upon "originalism" then electrocuting someone is perfectly acceptable because that form of "cruel and unusual punishment" didn't exist when the 8th Amendment was written.
The authors of the Amendments that protect our Rights wanted us to be very progressive in the interpretations of those Amendments. They were "progressive" thinkers and expected us to be as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 24, 2015 13:06:43 GMT
You appear to equate a "conservative" interpretation of the Constitution with an "expansive" one. And that simply flabbergasts me! And you also appear to believe that most Americans are far too myopic; but that you, by contrast, have a clear vision of the future. Is that correct? Also, I would not have wished to put "sweat equity" into the property by "construct[ing]" the condominium myself, just in order to save the purchase price. (That would rather defeat the entire purpose of condominium living.)
Having just addressed "Originalism" in Constitutional interpretation I will skip the first line.
To become knowledgeable on a subject a person must seek out that knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge is not the highest priority for many people and some become more knowledgeable that others. I happen to be a person that has spend decades trying to learn about the principles and ideologies of those that founded America while many have done little more than take a few classes in high school that provide a very superficial overview. My understanding of economic forces is based upon about 15 years of studying it but I have done so we zeal.
Yes, because I've actually been striving to gain knowledge upon which I draw conclusions does provide me with better prespective of the issues. That does not imply that I don't also respect the knowledge of others but because I also have knowledge I'm not easily deceived.
I was reading a recent news story where Bill Gates, the richest man in America, expressed the belief that poverty and income disparity could be solved by the philanthropy of the wealthy. To my knowedge Bill Gates has been the most philanthropic person in America and probably the world today. He has funneled about $40 billion of his personal wealth through the Gates foundation to programs that are beneficial to people. I had to chuckle because the somehow thinks his $40 billion is really having an impact when the US government is spending half-a-trillion dollars a year into programs that are beneficial to the people and poverty is only getting worse. While $40 billion is a huge amount of money, and I highly commend Bill Gates for his philanthropy, it did nothing to reduce either poverty or income disparity.
I smiled when you mentioned "condominium living" above. You are aware of the fact that "condominium living" is a form of voluntary socialism I assume. The community takes part of your wealth to provide benefits equally to everyone in the condominium complex.
One thing I would correct is a statement I made. A person can "own" the house they build but they're only "using" the land upon which it sits. They can trade their house for other commodities produced by someone else but they because they don't literally "own the land" they cannot trade the land for other commodities produced by someone else. A rancher can own the fence they build to contain their cattle but they don't own the land upon which the cattle graze. They are also prohibited from preventing others from raising cattle if they choose to do so and if the fence prevents that then the fence must be torn down or moved. Everyone's "rights" are equal when it comes to the use of the land just as everyone's "rights" are equal when it comes to the natural resource of the land.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 26, 2015 18:23:12 GMT
And you seem to equate a "conserfvative" reading of the Constitution with an "ex[ansive" reading of it. And that simply flabbergasts me!
To be accurate "conservative interpretation" actually refers to "originalism" in interpreting the US Constitution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
There is a fundamental flaw in this argument. The founders of America were the most progressive liberal thinkers of their times and the last thing they would advocate would be "originalism" in political thinking. The key founders of the United States which includes Madison and Jefferson were extreme "progressive liberals" in their political ideology and to believe that they ever advocated "conservative" political ideology goes directly against everything we know about US history.
For example when Madison authored the 8th Amendment that prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" Madison wasn't thinking of just the cruel and unusual punishment that had existed prior to when he authored the 8th Amendment. He included any forms of cruel and unusual punishment that mankind had ever committed in the past but also anything that could be invented in the future as well. If we interpreted the 8th Amendment based upon "originalism" then electrocuting someone is perfectly acceptable because that form of "cruel and unusual punishment" didn't exist when the 8th Amendment was written.
The authors of the Amendments that protect our Rights wanted us to be very progressive in the interpretations of those Amendments. They were "progressive" thinkers and expected us to be as well.
Your argument that the Founders were all "'progressive' thinkers" does not quite square with your previous argument that some were believers in the older doctrine of "the divine right of kings." (To claim that "Madison and Jefferson were extreme 'progressive liberals'"--and especially Madison!--is surely to say nothing more than the obvious, viz.: They were not at all content with their being subjugated to the British Crown.) I will not get into an argument about the legitimacy of capital punishment. And if you do not reject capital punishment on principle, it is probably almost as obsolete to worry about the electric chair as it is to fret over the gallows, since most executions nowadays--what few there still are--are carried out by lethal injection. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 26, 2015 18:34:59 GMT
You appear to equate a "conservative" interpretation of the Constitution with an "expansive" one. And that simply flabbergasts me! And you also appear to believe that most Americans are far too myopic; but that you, by contrast, have a clear vision of the future. Is that correct? Also, I would not have wished to put "sweat equity" into the property by "construct[ing]" the condominium myself, just in order to save the purchase price. (That would rather defeat the entire purpose of condominium living.)
Having just addressed "Originalism" in Constitutional interpretation I will skip the first line.
To become knowledgeable on a subject a person must seek out that knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge is not the highest priority for many people and some become more knowledgeable that others. I happen to be a person that has spend decades trying to learn about the principles and ideologies of those that founded America while many have done little more than take a few classes in high school that provide a very superficial overview. My understanding of economic forces is based upon about 15 years of studying it but I have done so we zeal.
Yes, because I've actually been striving to gain knowledge upon which I draw conclusions does provide me with better prespective of the issues. That does not imply that I don't also respect the knowledge of others but because I also have knowledge I'm not easily deceived.
I was reading a recent news story where Bill Gates, the richest man in America, expressed the belief that poverty and income disparity could be solved by the philanthropy of the wealthy. To my knowedge Bill Gates has been the most philanthropic person in America and probably the world today. He has funneled about $40 billion of his personal wealth through the Gates foundation to programs that are beneficial to people. I had to chuckle because the somehow thinks his $40 billion is really having an impact when the US government is spending half-a-trillion dollars a year into programs that are beneficial to the people and poverty is only getting worse. While $40 billion is a huge amount of money, and I highly commend Bill Gates for his philanthropy, it did nothing to reduce either poverty or income disparity.
I smiled when you mentioned "condominium living" above. You are aware of the fact that "condominium living" is a form of voluntary socialism I assume. The community takes part of your wealth to provide benefits equally to everyone in the condominium complex.
One thing I would correct is a statement I made. A person can "own" the house they build but they're only "using" the land upon which it sits. They can trade their house for other commodities produced by someone else but they because they don't literally "own the land" they cannot trade the land for other commodities produced by someone else. A rancher can own the fence they build to contain their cattle but they don't own the land upon which the cattle graze. They are also prohibited from preventing others from raising cattle if they choose to do so and if the fence prevents that then the fence must be torn down or moved. Everyone's "rights" are equal when it comes to the use of the land just as everyone's "rights" are equal when it comes to the natural resource of the land.
The term, "voluntary socialism," is just as oxymoronic as square circle is. If it is voluntary, it is inherently not socialist in nature--even if the resources are pooled for the common benefit. Your view that one may own the house, but not the land on which it sits, is entirely consistent with your overall view that mere "statutory" rights should be disregarded, in favor of the writings of John Locke or a very broad view of the Declaration of Independence (without apparent reference to the US Constitution). And, yes, in a time of trillion-dollar annual deficits (thanks to President Obama, and his belief in the efficacy of Big Government), 40 billion dollars--although quite a lot, in absolute terms, to most of us--is merely a drop in the proverbial bucket. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 27, 2015 1:20:49 GMT
Your argument that the Founders were all "'progressive' thinkers" does not quite square with your previous argument that some were believers in the older doctrine of "the divine right of kings." (To claim that "Madison and Jefferson were extreme 'progressive liberals'"--and especially Madison!--is surely to say nothing more than the obvious, viz.: They were not at all content with their being subjugated to the British Crown.) I will not get into an argument about the legitimacy of capital punishment. And if you do not reject capital punishment on principle, it is probably almost as obsolete to worry about the electric chair as it is to fret over the gallows, since most executions nowadays--what few there still are--are carried out by lethal injection.
Yes, there were social-conservatives in 1776 and in the 1780's when the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution but they were not members of either the Federalists (e.g Madison) or the Anti-Federalists (e.g. Jefferson) that authored the documents establishing the political ideology of the United States. Both the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists" were very progressive liberals. The "social-conservatives" were predominately the Southern Plantation owners that wanted the benefits of "title" that wouldn't be granted to them under the British Crown. Of course in establishing the United States the Constitution and Bill of Rights had to pander to these Southern aristocrates with compromises because they controlled the politics of the Southern States. Had that not been the case then slavery would have been abolished with the founding of the United States.
I wasn't referring to the death penalty by electricution but instead of using electricity as a form of torture such as using a hand-crank military phone and attaching it to the testicles of a prisoner to extract information. High voltage with low amperage isn't fatal but anyone that's been zapped by a spark plug wire knows it hurts like hell.
When Madison penned the 8th Amendment it included the prohibition against the use of electricity to commit torture even though electricity didn't exist as a means of torture in the 18th Century.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jan 27, 2015 1:37:13 GMT
The term, "voluntary socialism," is just as oxymoronic as square circle is. If it is voluntary, it is inherently not socialist in nature--even if the resources are pooled for the common benefit. Your view that one may own the house, but not the land on which it sits, is entirely consistent with your overall view that mere "statutory" rights should be disregarded, in favor of the writings of John Locke or a very broad view of the Declaration of Independence (without apparent reference to the US Constitution). And, yes, in a time of trillion-dollar annual deficits (thanks to President Obama, and his belief in the efficacy of Big Government), 40 billion dollars--although quite a lot, in absolute terms, to most of us--is merely a drop in the proverbial bucket.
You have apparently not read Karl Marx when it comes to socialism. Yes, there can be voluntary socialism that meets all of the criteria that Marx established. Many confuse communism with socialism and while related they're not the same.
I do not advocate the abandonment of laws of property but do believe they need to be based upon the "natural right of property" as opposed to the "right of title" extablished under the divine right of kings.
Deficit spending is a problem created by both Republicans and Democrats but there is a simple fact related to deficit spending. Deficits occur whenever there isn't enough general tax revenue to fund the authorized general expenditures (Social Security and Medicare have never generated deficits - YET).
Republicans are opposed to collecting enough in taxation to fund the authorized expenditures. Democrats want to increase taxation on those most able to afford additional taxation to fund the authorized expenditure.
Based upon the above the Republicans will never achieve a balanced budget based upon their policies but the Democrats would achieve a balanced budget based upon their policies.
As you know I've made a proposal that actually eliminates taxation for general expenditures for those that can't afford to pay them while at the same time cutting the top tax rate from 39.6% to 29% (based upon 2013) and would balance the budget by paying for all authorized expenditures.
I like my proposal best.
I also like my proposals to reduce military spending to rational levels and to reduce poverty so that it will reduce the necessity to mitigate the effects of poverty with welfare spending. I like to attack the problems that generate the necessity for government spending.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jan 28, 2015 18:17:21 GMT
Your argument that the Founders were all "'progressive' thinkers" does not quite square with your previous argument that some were believers in the older doctrine of "the divine right of kings." (To claim that "Madison and Jefferson were extreme 'progressive liberals'"--and especially Madison!--is surely to say nothing more than the obvious, viz.: They were not at all content with their being subjugated to the British Crown.) I will not get into an argument about the legitimacy of capital punishment. And if you do not reject capital punishment on principle, it is probably almost as obsolete to worry about the electric chair as it is to fret over the gallows, since most executions nowadays--what few there still are--are carried out by lethal injection.
Yes, there were social-conservatives in 1776 and in the 1780's when the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution but they were not members of either the Federalists (e.g Madison) or the Anti-Federalists (e.g. Jefferson) that authored the documents establishing the political ideology of the United States. Both the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists" were very progressive liberals. The "social-conservatives" were predominately the Southern Plantation owners that wanted the benefits of "title" that wouldn't be granted to them under the British Crown. Of course in establishing the United States the Constitution and Bill of Rights had to pander to these Southern aristocrates with compromises because they controlled the politics of the Southern States. Had that not been the case then slavery would have been abolished with the founding of the United States.
I wasn't referring to the death penalty by electricution but instead of using electricity as a form of torture such as using a hand-crank military phone and attaching it to the testicles of a prisoner to extract information. High voltage with low amperage isn't fatal but anyone that's been zapped by a spark plug wire knows it hurts like hell.
When Madison penned the 8th Amendment it included the prohibition against the use of electricity to commit torture even though electricity didn't exist as a means of torture in the 18th Century.
I agree that attaching electrodes to the testicles amounts to torture. No argument there. So, because some "compromises" with the Southern states were necessary in order to arrive at the US Constitution, you believe that the Constitution should simply be ignored whenever it does not comport with your worldview? Not amended, mind you, but simply ignored? |
|
