[quote]NorskGoddess wrote:
Hmm… not sure what/who ‘pox’ is. [/quote]
No one does. Jefferrify is just a dumb ass.
a liberal is in the middle… Because he can’t decide whether he wants to be gay and join the democrats, or rob some poor countries by joining the republicans.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And…I am a liberal.
You heard it here.[/quote]
I apologize, with thought is as detached from reality as yours is, it’s hard to tell. 
But seriously, it was/is fun to slap on the labels and see who tries to peel them off and how.
[quote]vroom wrote:
However, you should see that a government working to provide opportunties to people does not impinge on their freedoms in any way. In fact, people are generally free to not accept welfare if they wish.[/quote]
But I never said it did. Welfare doesn’t diminish your freedoms - it presumably enhances them. The problem is that by doing do, bad side effects follow suit.
And it should be noted - the welfare state and the opportunity-providing state are not the same.
Huh? This is largely bad semantics. An institution has to be empowered if it is going to help anyone. You need to tighten up your language - it is getting difficult to know what you are getting at.
I have no interest in getting rid of government institutions. You are losing me here.
As stated earlier, a desire for a welfare state is not being for people controlling their own destiny and being self-masters. Now, make the distinction - I am talking about support for the welfare state, which is nothing more than a full-on nanny state, not government help generally, which I am not entirely opposed to.
No, you completely missed it. Liberals don’t like judiciaries that protect rights - they like judiciaries that invent rights and remove them from the democratic process. They also like the judiciary to take away democratic powers to make law when Liberals don’t like the policy results the laws, by way of majoritarianism, are achieving.
In short, Liberals don’t want judges to be judges - they want them to be all-wise oligarchic rulers that make policy that Liberals prefer because stubborn legislatures won’t, i.e., provide an end-around the legislative process.
[quote]Anyway, again, these are political hot potatoes, so it is going to be hard to dig past that rhetoric.
Personally, I don’t believe liberals are “for” big government, but I suspect that it has been how significant programs have been conceived and administered in the past. However, the two ideas of helping people and big government are not synonymous.[/quote]
I agree, and there is a bit of a difference in the old school Liberals and the new school Social Democrat types on this thinking.
[quote]Political ploys making such ideas synonymous are in fact master strokes. It villifies the other party for having the principles it does, because it equates them with principles the opposing team finds themselves directly opposed to.
We see it all the time in the forums. Speech breaks down into short buzzword snippets representing opposing views. It is powerful, but unfortunate.[/quote]
Yes, labels like cheerleading, for example.
Then that makes me a liberal and nearly every conservative I know a liberal. The question is how to achieve those ends, not the desire to see it done.
[quote]I guess on top of that you get social concepts of equity, such that opportunties are also provided for those that traditionally haven’t been able to take advantage of them.
These basic ideas are pretty sweet. Now, on the other hand, conservatives are supposed to help keep watch on these ideas, to make sure that business isn’t unduly restricted and that spending and government programs don’t balloon out of control.
Also, wise and laudible goals.
How have we progressed from those types of concerns to the near ideological warfare we have now?[/quote]
Ideology. People can’t compromise. People are certain they have arrived at unassailable political truths and there is no way you can see merit in the other’s sides concerns. It happens on both the left and right. I must say, I do think it happens more on the left, but those on the right are just as guilty lately. Radicals and revolutionaries on both sides of the aisle are contributing to this garbage.
Good stuff, enjoying this.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I apologize, with thought is as detached from reality as yours is, it’s hard to tell. :)[/quote]
Oh, no worries, I was never bothered - quite humorous. But what is this about being detached from reality?
Indeed - fun to watch.
"But I never said it did. Welfare doesn’t diminish your freedoms - it presumably enhances them. The problem is that by doing do, bad side effects follow suit. "
So because some bad side effects follow, leave everyone to the dogs?
"No, you completely missed it. Liberals don’t like judiciaries that protect rights - they like judiciaries that invent rights and remove them from the democratic process. They also like the judiciary to take away democratic powers to make law when Liberals don’t like the policy results the laws, by way of majoritarianism, are achieving.
In short, Liberals don’t want judges to be judges - they want them to be all-wise oligarchic rulers that make policy that Liberals prefer because stubborn legislatures won’t, i.e., provide an end-around the legislative process. "
Wha?
Thats about as truthful as if I said the conservatives don’t like judiciaries because they won’t let them ignore the consitution.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I think you are swallowing the common twist on what liberals want, to turn it into a negative. Even so, these programs are about supporting people, not empowering institutions – though of course it required an institution to administer it.
Thunderbolt replied:
Huh? This is largely bad semantics. An institution has to be empowered if it is going to help anyone. You need to tighten up your language - it is getting difficult to know what you are getting at. [/quote]
No, it isn’t bad semantics. There is a difference between having the government in place to administer something and giving the government additional powers to impinge on rights and freedoms.
The key concept we are discussing between liberals and conservatives is who gets empowered – the people or the instituations. Neither viewpoint is going to be able to eliminate the institutions themselves.
There is very much a politically motivated movement out there which equates the concept of providing opportunity and safety to the populace with a desire for large government, and the two are NOT the same.
The same is true with your characterization of liberals and the judicial system. I truly doubt either side is trying to circumvent the constitution with their views of what judges should or shouldn’t do… and it is a mistake to claim that liberals don’t want to live within the laws that are passed.
The interpretation of the constitution, and whether you ascribe more powers to the state or more powers to the people has a lot to do with how the laws will be interpreted. Once again, the mischaracterizations are slapped on to suggest that liberals “don’t like to accept laws passed by majority government”, but you have to recognize, that the constitution can’t be overridden just because someone tries to pass a bad law.
We all know there is a process to be followed to amend the constitution if that is what is required.
Anyway, give it some thought. And realize I’m not saying anything bad about conservatives in this thread…
The simplistic version:
Liberals= Maternalistic (Welfare)
Modern day conservatives= Paternalistic (Virtue)
Classical liberals= Individualistic (Freedom)
[quote]ExNole wrote:
So because some bad side effects follow, leave everyone to the dogs?[/quote]
You’re going to have to stop usin unwarranted conclusions. I went through great pains to say that there is a difference between a welfare state and government help. Nowhere did I suggest that I thought people who need help should be abandoned under a ‘Law of the Jungle’ approach.
[quote]Wha?
Thats about as truthful as if I said the conservatives don’t like judiciaries because they won’t let them ignore the consitution. [/quote]
That is ridiculous - show me where conservatives want to ignore the Constitution to do something and the judiciary has put a stop to it.
The Constitution - the actual one, not the illusory one - is quite sparse and gives a great deal of deference to the legislative branch to effectuate the political will of the majority. Not everything is a ‘constitutional right’, nor was it ever supposed to be.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ExNole wrote:
So because some bad side effects follow, leave everyone to the dogs?
You’re going to have to stop usin unwarranted conclusions. I went through great pains to say that there is a difference between a welfare state and government help. Nowhere did I suggest that I thought people who need help should be abandoned under a ‘Law of the Jungle’ approach.
Wha?
Thats about as truthful as if I said the conservatives don’t like judiciaries because they won’t let them ignore the consitution.
That is ridiculous - show me where conservatives want to ignore the Constitution to do something and the judiciary has put a stop to it.
The Constitution - the actual one, not the illusory one - is quite sparse and gives a great deal of deference to the legislative branch to effectuate the political will of the majority. Not everything is a ‘constitutional right’, nor was it ever supposed to be.
[/quote]
Exactly, it is ridiculous. So is saying that liberals only want the judiciary circumvent the legislature.
Strict contructionism is an untenable platform. The common law process and the evolving interpretation of laws has been how our courts have worked since before the revolution.
“You’re going to have to stop usin unwarranted conclusions. I went through great pains to say that there is a difference between a welfare state and government help. Nowhere did I suggest that I thought people who need help should be abandoned under a ‘Law of the Jungle’ approach.”
How exactly is the government supposed to help people with out government programs designed to help people?
What creates more government programs and expenditures the social interest programs or the military industrial complex? I’m not saying get rid of the military, but let’s get some perspective here.
“As stated earlier, a desire for a welfare state is not being for people controlling their own destiny and being self-masters.”
What exactly does this mean, and how does welfare reduce autonomy? I don’t want to here Friedmanisms about responsibility and the like, I want an example of how a government program somehow limits someonts autonomy.
[quote]vroom wrote:
[
No, it isn’t bad semantics. There is a difference between having the government in place to administer something and giving the government additional powers to impinge on rights and freedoms.[/quote]
But your key word - ‘impinge’. Every law or policy in some way restricts your liberty to do something somewhere. High taxes ‘impinge’ on your right to accumulate as much money as you want through private endeavor, a law against public nudity restricts your right to walk about stark naked.
‘Impingement’ on your rights assumes you have those rights to begin with - and policy largely determines the boundaries of those rights. What is more likely is that you really don’t have the ‘rights’ you think you do - they are issues subject to restriction.
Government institutions do not exist for their own sake - they are presumed to be doing something for the people, or they wouldn’t exist. Name a government institution that exists - in spirit - only to its own ends and not for the help of people.
Perhaps, but is that movement conservative?
And you would be wrong. What liberal wants to put abortion up to a democratic vote and then live with whatever results from the popular result?
As for circumventing the Constitution - no, I am suggesting that liberals are circumventing democratic process by way of using the Constitution and its oligarchic judges to manufacture rights when they cannot achieve those rights in the ordinary sturm and drang of political process.
Correct, nothing new there, Vroom - but what the Constitution covers is much narrower than ‘progressives’ advocate. Nothing wrong with striking down a law repugnant to the Constitution - that is what the judiciary does under the framework - but liberals want the Constitution to mean all kinds of things it doesn’t so judges can strike down laws that don’t match up with their policy prefereces - i.e., judges are supposed to ‘advance’ liberty and human rights, etc. No they shouldn’t, they should impose judgment on the laws as they are written, not force their will.
Correct again, and it cuts both ways - if we want the Constitution to recognize new rights, it should be done by way of Amendment, not nine lawyers substituting their will on the nation for that of the elected representives.
No, I understand - it’s a dialogue.
"And you would be wrong. What liberal wants to put abortion up to a democratic vote and then live with whatever results from the popular result?
As for circumventing the Constitution - no, I am suggesting that liberals are circumventing democratic process by way of using the Constitution and its oligarchic judges to manufacture rights when they cannot achieve those rights in the ordinary sturm and drang of political process. "
a) I think 2/3 of the country supports a qualified version of abortion rights (late term/parental notification)
b) Roe was decided through common law, based on probably dozens of decisions/precendents over two hundred of years. It’s not like the court just decided to through on abortion to the list of things we’re entitled to.
[quote]ExNole wrote:
Exactly, it is ridiculous. So is saying that liberals only want the judiciary circumvent the legislature. [/quote]
I didn’t say that. Liberals want the judiciary to circumvent the legislature when their agenda gets stalled or defeated in the democratic process.
I don’t advocate strict constructionism.
More importantly, you misunderstand the common law. It was at its height when there was two sources of law - the King and the Judges. Then came the development of the third source - the legislature, and ever since the legislature developed, the common law has not had carte blanche on formulating policy.
For example, if the legislature passes a law that says X, judges can’t use the common law to invalidate the law that says X.
Further, the federal courts recognize ‘no general common law’ because of two things: Congress and the Constitution.
Dunno - I didn’t suggest it.
Autonomy means self-reliance. With an overarching welfare state, self-reliance is eroded - people become dependent on others to take care of them, even ones who are capable of taking care of themselves.
If you are welfare-state level dependent on someone, you aren’t autonomous.
[quote]ExNole wrote:
a) I think 2/3 of the country supports a qualified version of abortion rights (late term/parental notification)[/quote]
If the numbers are that overwhelming, then why not let the legislatures go forward and pass the law? Why do we need a judicial pronouncement if legislatures are stacked with those kinds of numbers?
This could not be more wrong. Abortion rights developed out of the sketchy ‘right to privacy’ that emanates from prenumbras and emanations of other Amendments because the justices wanted advance an agenda. Roe has nothing to do with the ‘common law’. Maybe ‘substantive due process’ - yay, Dred Scott - but not common law.
Even liberal scholars are coming around to the idea that Roe has no constitutional underpinnings.
I also take notice of how you said the court made the decision based on ‘probably dozens of decisions/precedents over 200 years’ - which flatly states you have no idea how they made the decision.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ExNole wrote:
Exactly, it is ridiculous. So is saying that liberals only want the judiciary circumvent the legislature.
I didn’t say that. Liberals want the judiciary to circumvent the legislature when their agenda gets stalled or defeated in the democratic process.
Strict contructionism is an untenable platform. The common law process and the evolving interpretation of laws has been how our courts have worked since before the revolution.
I don’t advocate strict constructionism.
More importantly, you misunderstand the common law. It was at its height when there was two sources of law - the King and the Judges. Then came the development of the third source - the legislature, and ever since the legislature developed, the common law has not had carte blanche on formulating policy.
For example, if the legislature passes a law that says X, judges can’t use the common law to invalidate the law that says X.
Further, the federal courts recognize ‘no general common law’ because of two things: Congress and the Constitution.
How exactly is the government supposed to help people with out government programs designed to help people?
Dunno - I didn’t suggest it.
What exactly does this mean, and how does welfare reduce autonomy? I don’t want to here Friedmanisms about responsibility and the like, I want an example of how a government program somehow limits someonts autonomy.
Autonomy means self-reliance. With an overarching welfare state, self-reliance is eroded - people become dependent on others to take care of them, even ones who are capable of taking care of themselves.
If you are welfare-state level dependent on someone, you aren’t autonomous.[/quote]
Capitalism is very successful, but we always seem to have less jobs than people looking for jobs. Even full employment is what 5% unemployment, by the economic definition. So no matter how self reliant you are, there are some people who simply will not be working at any given time.
If working full time at minimum wage still keeps you below the poverty line, you are not autonomous either. Economic conditions can severely limit your freedom.
-For example, if the legislature passes a law that says X, judges can’t use the common law to invalidate the law that says X.
Common law may have been misused. If the law is unconstituional, it can be invalidated.
If you are not a strict constructionist, I don’t see how it’s you are opposed to its not being written literally in the actual document, but developed as the interpretation of the law has evolved.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ExNole wrote:
a) I think 2/3 of the country supports a qualified version of abortion rights (late term/parental notification)
If the numbers are that overwhelming, then why not let the legislatures go forward and pass the law? Why do we need a judicial pronouncement if legislatures are stacked with those kinds of numbers?
b) Roe was decided through common law, based on probably dozens of decisions/precendents over two hundred of years. It’s not like the court just decided to through on abortion to the list of things we’re entitled to.
This could not be more wrong. Abortion rights developed out of the sketchy ‘right to privacy’ that emanates from prenumbras and emanations of other Amendments because the justices wanted advance an agenda. Roe has nothing to do with the ‘common law’. Maybe ‘substantive due process’ - yay, Dred Scott - but not common law.
Even liberal scholars are coming around to the idea that Roe has no constitutional underpinnings.
I also take notice of how you said the court made the decision based on ‘probably dozens of decisions/precedents over 200 years’ - which flatly states you have no idea how they made the decision.[/quote]
I know it was based in Griswold, but no further.
[quote]ExNole wrote:
Capitalism is very successful, but we always seem to have less jobs than people looking for jobs. Even full employment is what 5% unemployment, by the economic definition. So no matter how self reliant you are, there are some people who simply will not be working at any given time. [/quote]
True. And I had never said otherwise.
Yes they can - so what?
See, now you are showing you have no idea what you’re talking about because you are changing your story. Invalidating a law based on the constitution is not the same as invalidating based on the common law.
[quote]If you are not a strict constructionist, I don’t see how it’s you are opposed to its not being written literally in the actual document, but developed as the interpretation of the law has evolved.
[/quote]
Then learn up - I think the law has to be reasonably evaluated in accordance with ever-changing circumstances, but must be done so with a deference to the original meaning of the law, judicial restraint and deference to popularly elected bodies, a dedication to separation of powers, and traditional/historic understandings of the policy. In short, let the legislature change the laws - the judiciary will interpret what they mean with a clear desire not to venture into lawmaking territory.
This may highlight a philosophical difference.
The government can only take away rights, it can’t give them, because these rights are inherent. People inherently have rights, because they are people.
I can agree to have my rights infringed, because of the society I live in, if it is done for good enough reasons and through the appropriate process.
Your arguement, from the other direction, suggests that individuals are at the mercy of the government, and that is exactly what I would flip around.
The government is at the mercy of the people, and if it takes away too many rights or interferes in their lives too much, it should find itself in danger.
That is how it is supposed to be.
Anything not explicitly taken away, is a right. It can of course be legislated away, and it happens all the time, but indeed, until it is, it is in fact a right.
So, I did have the right to prance around nude, as well as just about any other “right” you think people claim that they should not. It is only by convention and law that we concede any rights whatsoever.
As for taxation, I’m against it, but I’m not sure how to fund government without it… however, taxation may interfere with my rights, but it doesn’t do so in a way that restricts my behavior.
Obviously, I am more concerned when the government attempts to control my behavior then when it attempts to offer me opportunities or protect me from external enemies.
I strongly feel that the government should fuck off and let me do what I want, think what I want, wear what I want and say what I want. Luckily, we are indeed pretty free around these parts, but some people are afraid of what they can’t control… and they generally work for the government it would seem.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ExNole wrote:
Capitalism is very successful, but we always seem to have less jobs than people looking for jobs. Even full employment is what 5% unemployment, by the economic definition. So no matter how self reliant you are, there are some people who simply will not be working at any given time.
True. And I had never said otherwise.
If working full time at minimum wage still keeps you below the poverty line, you are not autonomous either. Economic conditions can severely limit your freedom.
Yes they can - so what?
Common law may have been misused. If the law is unconstituional, it can be invalidated.
See, now you are showing you have no idea what you’re talking about because you are changing your story. Invalidating a law based on the constitution is not the same as invalidating based on the common law.
If you are not a strict constructionist, I don’t see how it’s you are opposed to its not being written literally in the actual document, but developed as the interpretation of the law has evolved.
Then learn up - I think the law has to be reasonably evaluated in accordance with ever-changing circumstances, but must be done so with a deference to the original meaning of the law, judicial restraint and deference to popularly elected bodies, a dedication to separation of powers, and traditional/historic understandings of the policy. In short, let the legislature change the laws - the judiciary will interpret what they mean with a clear desire not to venture into lawmaking territory.[/quote]
The interpretation of the constitution is carried out in judicial opinions. The interpretation changes over time, based on these opinions. This, if not true commons law, at least is analogous, and I was not completely off base in saying so. The precedents are set over time in decisions, and the scope of the rights set out in the constitution are defined.
If you are agaisnt welfare on the basis that it limits people’s autonomy, admitting that the lack of welfare can also limit people’s autonomy isn’t a very consistent position.
If the legislature passes a law that is invalid agaisnt the evolving constitutional rights, decided in judical opinion, its right to be invalidated. And how many laws are invalidated anyhow? The judiciary is remarkably restrained.
Every judicial opinion, on every level, interprets the law, and in turn modifies it, if ever so slightly. Even legislatively passed laws must be in turn interpreted my judges to see how to apply them. It’s not as if the law gets passed and then that’s that.
I don’t think the demarcation between liberals and conservatives with the former approving of judicial activism and the latter embracing strict constructionism is valid at all. Though I might term myself a liberal, I like some of Scalia’s rulings, bc he is attempting to do exactly what you suggest most conservatives do. However, especially in the Bush administration, but also in prior Republican and Democrat administrations, you have seen conservative judicial activism as well as its much more well known counterpart. The enormous powers that the executive branch enjoys are an example of this, as through a series of court decisions and presidential orders, the power of the Executive Branch has expanded to the point where either the President (Supreme Court Ruling) or the Vice-President (Bush I Executive Order) can declassify documents or leak classified documents, and not be breaking federal law. This is why this morning’s news about Bush ordering Iraq intelligence leaks is probably not going to get him in actual legal trouble.
Likewise, the Analog Act prohibiting whole classes of drugs is constitutional ly problematic (bc taking a new amphetamine or chemical derivative not expressly banned seems very close to an ex post facto law). NSA phone tapping by presidential fiat, outside the provisional court (of citizens, not neccesarily that of foreign nationals) is unforseen by the Constitution, as is Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay. It’s not that these things are bad, in and of themselves, but there all examples of situations the Constitution could not foresee. That is one of the arguments for having a Supreme Court at all, is that emeregent issues will require interpretaion vis-a-vis the Constitution, and absolute strict constructionism is impossible (although a slightly more adaptive version of it might not be).
You can list dozens of cases of liberal judicial activism, but the thing is, the court rulings, and the powers derived from them, have tons of examples of conservative judicial activism as well. This isn’t a consquence of anybody being an asshole, or anything like that, just the reality that a piece of paper isnt going to have the answer to every question that could ever arise anywhere at anytime.