The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the LPPa forum. 
Feel free to join the discussions.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ron Paul wants to violate the 14th amendment and violate religious freedom  (Read 4936 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
djahn
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 544


« Reply #135 on: March 12, 2012, 10:58:49 PM »

I have to wonder where you heard that this We the People act is defiance against the evil 14th Amendment.  I've certainly not drawn any conclusions one way or the other regarding the We the People Act.

And in the very next sentence:

Quote
I do find it rather odd that self professed libertarians would advocate having the federal government be the final arbiter of liberty.

Let's leave it at that.
These are two separate issues.  As much as I would like to, I can not tell Tim he is wrong in his interpretation of this act.  The most I can do is point out that it could work the opposite way.  Meanwhile, it does open debate on the the 14th amendment which Libertarians nationwide are able to debate.  Apparently, the close minded LPP forbids it.
Logged

David Jahn
Eviker
LPPa Members
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 927



Email
« Reply #136 on: March 13, 2012, 10:36:38 AM »

David Jahn writes:  That isn't a lie Erik. It's a difference of opinion.

EV:  Nah.  The word “dabble” has a specific meaning that does not apply to my work in local government.  You lied.

DJ:  How about your right to privacy stripped by the Patriot Act. Or, how about your right to due process stripped by the NDAA. I could go on. Don't worry though. I'm sure the 14th amendment will save you from everything evil at the state and federal level.

EV:  Nope, you are wrong.  I have experienced no personal reduction in my rights due to the PATRIOT ACT.   Nor have I experienced a lack of due process due to the NDAA.  You could go on, but you’d be wrong.  You have failed to offer any valid examples of rights that have been stripped from me.  I have personally been able to function as a citizen today exactly as I was able to function as a citizen twenty years ago.  

DJ:  Wrong again Viker. Check out this thread.

EV:  Your link does not name any names.  The challenge was for you to name the specific names of LPPA members who “support wealth redistribution.”  You have so far failed to demonstrate the courage to do so.  A link to some other conversation is a weak attempt to sidle away from the challenge.  Name the names, big boy.  

DJ:  Yes, and some Libertarians are assholes.

EV:  It’s cowardly to retreat to “some Libertarians” instead of naming names.  So I’ll be very clear.  I believe you are a wretched old has-been blowhard who deserves to be mocked.  I know you believe I’m an asshole.  Now stop relying on vague wimpy generalities.
 
DJ:  Sorry Erik. I wish I could recant it, but I provided one post above and there is more. I'm sure if Ron Paul had been mentioned you would have pounced into the thread, but redistribution of wealth doesn't seem to bother you.

EV:  No need to apologize for your dishonorable nature.  It’s obviously difficult to overcome.  The link above does not demonstrate how I should be included in your accusation.  It’s a lame dodge.  Use copy-and-paste technology to demonstrate exactly how I fit into whatever whine you’re engaging in, or recant your inclusion of me in the allegedly offensive group, or revel in your lying nature.  I suspect you can’t even remember what you accused me of here, but rather you’re reacting out of contrarian distaste.  If I suggested regular bowel movements were a good idea, you’d clench your butt cheeks until you exploded.  I see you managed to work in a contrived defense of your Republican out of nowhere yet again, in true tyrant-lover fashion.  

DJ:  You're now going to deny criticizing me because I don't believe rights should be decided at the federal level. Wasn't it you that wrote The solution is not additional diddling of the Constitution, the solution is electing better officials who will keep government from infringing on individual liberty.

EV:  I never suggested rights should be decided at the federal level.  You made that up.  It’s another one of your straw man fallacies.  Your quote from me is a red herring because it does not suggest rights should be decided at the federal level.  I’ll repeat the challenge you have failed - -  I challenge you to provide the evidence that I have written “that rights should be decided at the federal level.” Use copy-and-paste technology or be known as a big fat liar.  

DJ:  Do you have any kind of brain?

EV:  Yeah, a pretty good one, thanks for asking.  My IQ has been measured at 176.  I was inducted into Mensa at 15 years old.  I left at age 19 because the group was too pretentious for me.  Oh, wait-- I get it now, you’re trying to insult me.  This from the guy who whines about people being rude on the forum! We geniuses call that “being a hypocrite.”  

DJ:  I think this forum and your participation in it speaks for itself. Blah blah blowhard blah you expose yourself for all to see.

EV:  Once again you fail to provide examples specific to me promoting myself.  Your phrase “speaks for itself” is Liardavidjahnese for “I got nuthin.”  

DJ:  You haven't identified a single lie. If you don't believe rights should be decided at the federal level, then you don't support the 14th amendment. Which is it Erik?

EV:  You claimed I wrote “that rights should be decided at the federal level.” I did not do so.  You lied.  And the “logic” in your latest attempted backpedal is badly flawed.  “Not believing rights should be decided at the federal level” does not equal “Not supporting the 14th amendment.”  Your reasoning is too reductive.  

DJ:  Your a chronic liar Erik and this is just one example of that. I never said the LPP is a waste.

EV:  The word you mean to use is “you’re” which is a contraction of ”you are.”  You have failed to provide any examples of me lying, much less a pattern of behavior necessary to demonstrate a chronic condition, so your claim that I’m a chronic liar is a lie.  You attempt to dodge the question with righteous indignation that you never said the LPPA is a waste.  I’ll ask again, without the “waste” assumption - - what do you hope to accomplish here? Why retain your LPPA membership?

DJ:  You are fool Erik. You don't know me. You don't know what I'm about. Yet, you keep making these stupid comments.

EV:  False on all counts.  You have failed to prove I am a fool.  I know you well enough from reading your words here listening to you bloviate at meetings to determine what you are about.  You calling my comments stupid does not make them stupid.  Hey, there’s your hypocrisy about rudeness again!  

DJ:  You are certainly not in a position to judge whether or not I am one of you.

EV:  You support a Republican politician, so you are not one of the Libertarians who do not adhere to principles that do not allow us to whore out our votes to the Republican Party.  If you deny that you’d vote for Republican Ron Paul in the general election, then I will withdraw my observation as inaccurate on technical point.  

DJ:  And, your a fool if you think marching out another loser Libertarian Presidential Candidate is helping the cause of liberty.

EV:  It’s funny how the guy who doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re” is calling someone else a fool.  You have failed to demonstrate how a LP presidential candidate does not advance the cause of liberty.  A reputable, trustworthy spokesperson for Libertarian principles serving on the national stage as an alternative to the anti-liberty D and R politicians absolutely advances the cause of liberty in the ways described in the national LP bylaws and LPPA bylaws.  

DJ:  How long has the LP been doing that? How is that effecting membership? Does it double or quadruple every four years? Surely you wouldn't go through all of that if it didn't result in significant growth.

EV:  When the LP has been in existence as long as the D and R gangs have up to this point, then we may entertain measures of relative success.  You writing “surely” does not make anything “sure.”  

DJ:  Wrong again blah blah While you are providing political entertainment, others will be trying to influence which R or D rules us for the next 4 years.

EV:  If you think a president “rules us” then we clearly are operating in two different perceptions of reality.  United States citizens are not “ruled” by anyone in the universe I live in.  Perhaps your elementary school taught an alternative version of reality.  Anyway, here in the actual world, the best of a bad lot is still bad.  The lesser of two evils is still evil.  The wisest Libertarians know that Ds and Rs are interchangeable in practice, and we do not hemorrhage our resources on either one of those horrible anti-liberty choices.  

DJ:  Big deal, you were elected to borough council. Many other Libs have been as well. None have moved up to higher office. You won't either. Enjoy your moment of fame.

EV:  I suspect you’re jealous.  I did not suggest my election was a big deal.  I did not suggest other Libertarians have not also served in similar positions.  Both of these are straw man fallacies.  While you cannot know for sure that I won’t “move up,” I do not intend to “move up” because I am already dedicated to my career as a professor.  I’m happy to run for other offices to represent the LP on the ballot and engage in public awareness activity though campaigning, but I have no eagerness to serve the public as anything other than a borough councilman.  

DJ:  Your own words betray you and you aren't intelligent enough to see that.

EV:  Another insult attempt that further demonstrates your hypocrisy.  If it’s bad for me to be rude, it’s bad for you to be rude.  Shame on you.  

DJ:  Actually, if we removed your posts blah blah blowhard blah out did yourself.

EV:  This fails to demonstrate that I have been more substantively off topic than you have been.  

DJ:  I'm pretty sure you are lying again. You do both. None of it is productive. None of it helps build the party.

EV:  You writing that you’re “pretty sure” somebody is lying doesn’t prove a lie..  Watch this - - “I’m pretty sure David Jahn wears a clown suit and bothers small children on the street.”  See how that proves nothing about your actual behavior?  I’ll repeat my observation that you have not refuted here - -  You have failed to provide a single example of me supporting wealth distribution or big government. Your failure shows you to be a liar. I do not attack people who post about Republican Ron Paul, I provide observations related to their posts.

DJ:  I pretend no such thing. You've lied several times now in one post. It's a chronic thing with you.

EV:  yeah, you do pretend that my lack of support for your washed-up old Republican hero means I promote wealth distribution schemes.  You demonstrate this with your words “When I see you attack posts supporting wealth redistribution schemes with the same vigor you use to attack Ron Paul, then I might believe you.”  These two topics are unrelated except in your tyrant-lovin’ Paulite mind.  We have already explained how “chronic” would require evidence of a pattern of lying, and you have failed to demonstrate such a pattern of behavior.  Boo ya.  

Hello to anyone actually reading this far down.  Why the hell are you wasting your time that way?  I assume these exchanges haves no value except as entertainment for me.  
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 10:25:38 PM by Eviker » Logged

Erik Viker
Chair, Libertarian Party of Snyder County
Secretary, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
P.O. Box 389
Selinsgrove, PA 17870
telephone 570-274-2040
VikerLP@gmail.com
Mik
LPPa Moderators
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3986



« Reply #137 on: March 13, 2012, 07:09:57 PM »

Woot! More Jibber-Jabber!

I will say the reference to people supporting big-government wealth-redistribution programs and citing this link: http://www.lppa.org/smf/index.php?topic=36168.msg50173#msg50173 seems to be pretty weak. It appears to rely on this one small part of the discussion:
Quote
If I'm reading his proposal correctly.

Vermont successfully passed a Medicaid-for-all bill which I find impressive.  It takes the overhead off businesses and covers everybody.

If only we could resolve a tax system that didn't target wages.

I'm not sure that is advocating anything, quite frankly, but it is the closest thing I could find in the reference to advocating big-government wealth-redistribution schemes. The rest of the thread was a discussion of health care, and primarily free market approaches that would improve the current system. Rather than going on and on and on with personal attacks, how about discussing issues and public policy positions?
Logged

Zobaczymy, wszystko jest możliwe.
(We'll see, everything is possible.)
mark.d.crowley
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1059


« Reply #138 on: March 13, 2012, 09:14:50 PM »

Mic -- Please help me think about an example application of the 14th Amendment.   (If necessary, we could move this example from here to keep this thread purely vindictive.)

Here’s what I’m struggling with.  GOA, for example, reports ( gunowners.org/al031312.htm ) that “Senators Thune and Vitter are sticking with their version of the bill, which recognizes the right to carry concealed by residents of “Vermont-style” and “Constitutional Carry” states.” 

If I understand this, and I might not, then Vermont-style carry (essentially no restrictions) and Chicago/Illinois-style carry (essentially no carry) are both valid.  I think this would mean that if two people are carrying identical firearms in a third state, one of them could be in violation of carry law based on their home state.  This seems to be the perfect case for a 14th Amendment type of challenge. 

But this is where it could get messy.

Would the 14th Amendment say that Thune’s bill if passed into law is unconstitutional?  If so, does that necessarily say that all gun control laws are unconstitutional?  Or might courts uphold the law and say that one of the carry laws is the proper one and give guidance as to which one?  I could even see courts throw up their hands and say it’s a Tenth Amendment matter and the individual states can do whatever they want regarding firearms.

Be it medical marijuana or guns or whatever, this is my concern with the 14th Amendment.  Does it guarantee “equal protection” and sometimes “equal persecution” under the law?
Logged
t1m0thy
LPPa Members
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 567



Email
« Reply #139 on: March 13, 2012, 10:13:38 PM »

Mic -- Please help me think about an example application of the 14th Amendment.   (If necessary, we could move this example from here to keep this thread purely vindictive.)

Here’s what I’m struggling with.  GOA, for example, reports ( gunowners.org/al031312.htm ) that “Senators Thune and Vitter are sticking with their version of the bill, which recognizes the right to carry concealed by residents of “Vermont-style” and “Constitutional Carry” states.”  

If I understand this, and I might not, then Vermont-style carry (essentially no restrictions) and Chicago/Illinois-style carry (essentially no carry) are both valid.  I think this would mean that if two people are carrying identical firearms in a third state, one of them could be in violation of carry law based on their home state.  This seems to be the perfect case for a 14th Amendment type of challenge.  

But this is where it could get messy.

Would the 14th Amendment say that Thune’s bill if passed into law is unconstitutional?  If so, does that necessarily say that all gun control laws are unconstitutional?  Or might courts uphold the law and say that one of the carry laws is the proper one and give guidance as to which one?  I could even see courts throw up their hands and say it’s a Tenth Amendment matter and the individual states can do whatever they want regarding firearms.

Be it medical marijuana or guns or whatever, this is my concern with the 14th Amendment.  Does it guarantee “equal protection” and sometimes “equal persecution” under the law?

A right must first be incorporated under the 14th amendment in order for equal protection to apply at the federal level.  The 2nd amendment was incorporated with the case of Mcdonald v Chicago which struck down the local gun ban.  However, the court also said that reasonable restrictions were also permissible under its ruling.  What does reasonable restriction mean?  Well, that has yet to be decided.

As for medical marijuana I am not sure what incorporated right it would fall under...I imagine that the case would be argued under interstate commerce or the 10th amendment.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 10:15:23 PM by t1m0thy » Logged
vern
LPPa W - Platform
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2005



WWW Email
« Reply #140 on: March 14, 2012, 07:44:24 AM »

First, there's the practical reality of taking a political position "repeal the 14th".  It's not a very smart move IMO.

Second, I understand that the 14th is actually the basis for the Citizens United ruling, which I totally opposes for the same reason I believe Dred Scott was wrong... not as an interpretation of the constitution, but as a failure of the constitution itself to secure the rights of people.  The solution is another amendment such as the one Bernie Sanders and others are putting forth (stating that property is not people, and that money is not speech).

Third, the abuses of the Federal government are not limited by the state legislatures; only the other way around.  The same goes for you personally.... your opinion, your "individual sovereignty" doesn't supersede state or even local courts.  The abuses at the federal level are supposed to be limited by representative democracy.

The corruption of our democracy is almost complete.  It amazes me how so many today blame democracy for our situation, when it is the majority of wealth, not people, that holds control over our government-- using intimidation, voter suppression, fear mongering, and a constant flow of lies.  Without democracy, the only means of political change is the old fashioned method, which I don't endorse.

I agree with Mark that "equal persecution" is not the desired effect of any government.  In the case of the We the People Act, I don't see the intentions of that law leading to anything libertarian, but only to persecution.  With state medical marijuana laws, I see that as a proper act of defiance, a type of civil disobedience on behalf of civil rights-- completely opposite of what Eisenhower had to breakup with the 101st Airborne in the 50s.

It comes down to what you think the function of government should be:  to protect property, or the people.  This is where I completely agree with Lincoln's argument, and I think my friends in the LPPA might agree also:

http://libertyamerica.blogspot.com/2011/12/lincoln-on-ows-occupy-wall-street.html

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights."

« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 08:55:49 AM by vern » Logged

"The less I seek my source for some definitive, closer I am to fine." -- indigo girls
www.LibertyAmerica.US
Eviker
LPPa Members
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 927



Email
« Reply #141 on: March 14, 2012, 09:07:40 AM »

Woot! More Jibber-Jabber! Rather than going on and on and on with personal attacks, how about discussing issues and public policy positions?

Discussing issues and public policy positions and jabbin' with my jibber are not mutually exclusive.  But I’ll honor the always-reasonable Mik’s suggestion until somebody else posts something jab-worthy.  My public policy position is that the Constitution will always be subject to judicial opinion regardless of what it says.  So rather than focusing on diddling the 14th amendment, the most effective way to ensure day-to-day liberty is to focus on electing to positions of responsibility Libertarians who will enact public policies that don’t intrude on individual liberty. 
Logged

Erik Viker
Chair, Libertarian Party of Snyder County
Secretary, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
P.O. Box 389
Selinsgrove, PA 17870
telephone 570-274-2040
VikerLP@gmail.com
Mik
LPPa Moderators
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3986



« Reply #142 on: March 14, 2012, 01:09:51 PM »

Mark, I think there may also be issues with the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution in your example. The 14th amendment is actually the basis for the claim of corporate personhood, with corporations claiming rights as individuals. I think that has very serious implications for the rights and liberty of real people. I would like to respond more fully when I have some time...
Logged

Zobaczymy, wszystko jest możliwe.
(We'll see, everything is possible.)
mark.d.crowley
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1059


« Reply #143 on: March 15, 2012, 09:21:40 PM »

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights."

Let me think/type out-loud….

Labor = the act of creating something useful
Capital = something useful stored (food, gold, spare car parts, passbook savings, etc.)

If Labor is the precursor to Capital, then it’s the more important and the more valuable of the two.  If you have to tax something to fund government, should Capital be taxed before Labor?  Isn’t this idea reflected at least partially in the land value tax idea?

Now here is where I’m getting confused. 

As soon as you create a fruit of Labor, isn’t that fruit now a form of Capital and somehow inferior?  Like once it’s born it now has original sin and is spoiled fruit.  Does this say that the time used to create something is really the thing of pure value? Whether rich or poor, a minute of time passes by the same for everyone.

Or if the Laborer (creator) holds it, then it remains pure until exchanged for something else and that’s when it becomes inferior.  Like a new car that drops in value the moment you drive it off the lot.
Logged
vern
LPPa W - Platform
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2005



WWW Email
« Reply #144 on: March 16, 2012, 06:41:34 AM »

As soon as you create a fruit of Labor, isn’t that fruit now a form of Capital and somehow inferior?

I believe it is, at least in terms of protection under the law.  Human beings are what any society is about.  Possessions are secured only because they belong to human beings.  I disagree that the only function of government is to protect Property.  I think it is to protect the people and secure their rights, of which property-- or "fruits of labor"-- is one.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2012, 04:01:52 PM by vern » Logged

"The less I seek my source for some definitive, closer I am to fine." -- indigo girls
www.LibertyAmerica.US
Mik
LPPa Moderators
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3986



« Reply #145 on: March 21, 2012, 09:16:31 PM »

I think capital would be better defined as durable goods used in the production of goods and services. It is distinct from land in that someone has to produce it first. Capital is not used up in the production process as resources or raw materials would be, but may depreciate over time. So it is a factor of production as land and labor are.
Logged

Zobaczymy, wszystko jest możliwe.
(We'll see, everything is possible.)
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.14 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC