Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 09/18/2010 9:02:53 PM PDT by OneWingedShark
So, I wondered what would lead someone to think that and this is the result I came up with. {I may add more to this later... it still feels unfinished to me.}
Comments?
Wut?
Huh?
Ping! / Thought you might like this.
>Huh? /Wut?
Think of it in terms of rats; scientists found that they could condition rats so that they would rather stay in their [familiar] painful environment* than go outside their cage... even with cage door left wide open. (*the painful environment was the electrification of the cage floor.)
How can you claim to discuss the Constitution and not address the doctrine of negative rights?
You need to read and learn, not post.
...Actually I do discuss negative rights [though tangentially]; I just don’t use the term as such.
Look around the word forms of “delineate.”
You wrote: "...and limits the authority of the position to some specifically delineated section.
This is grossly incorrect. Negative rights are not a "section" of the Constitution - they are the fundamental orientation of ALL power in it. If anything, designated powers are a "delineated section" of fundamental negative rights, lthough that would be a terrifically clumsy way of putting it.
You don't know what you're talking about.
So then, are you saying that a definition of something by giving all the things that it is not is not a valid definition?
Negative rights are, to my understanding, the things that the government is prevented from doing (as opposed to obligated/authorized to do); i.e the fourth amendment [supposedly] prevents the government from issuing a blank “find dirt on this guy”-warrant.
The Constitution is NOT a social contract between [particular] individuals, rather it is a contract between the people-themselves which sets-up the government and as such details how that government should interact with its people.
True... How can States be sovereign and be loyal to a “federal” Constitution.. at the same time.. Could be why America cannot figure out whether its a Republic or a Democracy.. even tho a democracy is a political disease that degrades into socialism..
>True... How can States be sovereign and be loyal to a “federal” Constitution.. at the same time..
Well, it’s supposed to be “kinda like” Power of Attorney; when I was deployed overseas I set up a Power of Attorney with my father so that he could do certain things: namely take care of any big financial things that I could miss (like the phone bill before I shut it off, or somesuch). Only in the case of the federal government it’s [supposedly] MUCH more restricted... more like limiting the power of attorney to medical matters like a “living will.”
The specific things that the States have “Power-of-Attorneyed/willed] to the Federal government are actually quite small: things like a common money, a common rule for immigration, establishment of a post-office [which is NOT Constitutionally mandated to generate no income/profit], and ‘regulate’ interstate commerce.
The regulate interstate commerce is where things have been SOOOO badly read over the years {a symptom of the “the supreme court says what is-and-isn’t constitutional” mindset}. This is roughly analogous to you having a living will for medical purposes, and then the executor of it running your life because “your life impacts your health; and your health is a medical issue!”
>Could be why America cannot figure out whether its a Republic or a Democracy..
Could be; but I think that people are just too used to the government telling them what the Constitution means {and therefore what the government’s purpose and authority is}.
>even tho a democracy is a political disease that degrades into socialism..
Not always. There are kingdoms that have come from ‘democracy’ notably recorded is that of the Israelites.
thanks for the ping...I’ll ponder it, but it did seem to be missing something...the negative Rights pissin match will be worth a check later...8^}
If the U.S. Constitution is to mean anything at all it must be defined by those who have empowered the same to secure their rights.
As individually as possible, given that groups are not the subject of protection for republican governments but rather all the individual members of groups.
>If the U.S. Constitution is to mean anything at all it must be defined by those who have empowered the same to secure their rights.
>
>As individually as possible, given that groups are not the subject of protection for republican governments but rather all the individual members of groups.
This is the whole point; as things stand the “normal citizen” has ceded his understanding of [and reasoning upon] the Constitution. ‘Liberty’ cannot be sustained in that environment because the Constitution is the very element that defines the power/authority of the government.
“It is not permitted to the most equitable of men to be a judge in his own cause.” — Blaise Pascal [Pensées]
Yea, I’ve been coming to understand this more and more for over a year now.
I’ve spent a lot of time working out ways to both better my understanding of the concept and just as importantly increase other peoples understanding.
If the U.S. Constitution is to mean anything at all it must be defined by those who have empowered the same to secure their rights, not those who are the object(the Government) printable restraint of the same.
I think we would be wise to simply and segregate our Constitution from the laws of the government authorized by that constitution. For the ones who must interpret and enforce each must be at opposite ends of the table.
Due to the practicality of individual people standing up to something so powerfully as the Federal government, it is clear that the only realistic level of resistants to the Federal Government is the State Governments. It is therefore essential that at least some of them are on the side of the individual people.
We have no hope of standing up to the Federal government and confounding their raw force with out the aid of our State.
... We may need to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and completely disarm the Federal miltiary forces or at least transfer their assets to the various State National guards for safe keeping. Admittedly we might be taking a temporary loss but if we let the Federal Government keep its guns we will be losing A LOT more then a war over seas, and we will have no chance of regaining that ground.
Hopefully the wars will be over before it comes to that.
“if words mean things, then the oath the Supreme Court’s Justices say bears some investigation:
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Justice of the Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Yet the popular belief is that the Constitution is whatever the supreme court rules/finds that it is; if that is the case than the oath is utterly meaningless, as it is nothing more than saying “I promise to submit to the limits [of authority] placed on my position by the document which says whatever my group says it says.” Utterly Ridiculous!”
You know it really is a mazing how bluntly people can say things without most people really taking note of what they actually said.
The U.S. Supreme Court calmed this authority from one of its own edicts under the Marshal court Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
In short the court gave itself this power after presuming it had the broad power to “Say what the law is” even that law which is specifically binding upon them and their employers.
This is of course NOT to say that everyone just accepted what the court said. Indeed until about the time of the “Civil War” most people believed it was the people in their capitalist as States who had the final word on the meaning of the Constitution.
The “Civil War” of course ushered in a whole new era of Federal Imperialism, due to the simple fact that the Feds had not only acquired the means to force their way down everyone else’s throats with the sword they demonstrated the will.
Whether or not you supported the “Union” cause in that war or not, you must acknowledge that the act of fighting the war did unbalance the balance of power in federalism.
This is one of the Main reason most of the Founders were so afraid of a Standing army, not just because of what rogue generals could (coups), but because what they feared the president and congress could do with the ability to enforce their edicts directly. An ability afforded to them only by the Standing army under their direct control.
Remember the militia(National Guard) has all its officers and training appointed by the States, so they are unlikely to mobilize against the wishes of their State government.
A fact recently reaffirmed in the Katrina mess were President Bush tried to mobilize the LANG and move them into the city in an effort to force Louisiana Governor Blanco to abandon her containment/evacuation strategy and deal with New Orleans on the terms of the Mayor’s weathering strategy.
“Third, there comes the “orders of the President and the Governor;” it is interesting to note that the oath for officers of the regular army or federal reserves do not contain this clause. The relatively late appearance of any mention of the Commander in Chief [the governor when not on federal duty, otherwise the president] illustrate exactly how low of a precedence *ANY* sort of consideration for a particular person is under a Constitutionalist mindset; if it [the military organization] were able to function without a Commander in Chief I daresay that the militaries would be autonomous and virtually unanswerable to the State!”
Not necessary, legally in the united States the Federal military is supposes to answers to the Sectary of Defense not just the President. Likewise every State has an Adjutant General, who is the head of the State’s military forces.
My point is if we didn’t have a Governor or President, theses people would be elected by the State legislator or congress directly to preform their spesfic functions, and our system almost by default would resemble something like the parliamentary systems of Europe. With the speaker of the most numerous branch of the legislator becoming the general head of government due to their indirect power to fire or employ any of the administrators.
So you would compare the Constitution as a cage for rats? Using that analogy, I would be more concerned about the DemonRATs who go outside the Constitution.
As defined by the Declaration of Independence, Rights are affirmative, and as such, can limit or trump the scope of powers and authorities that may be delegated to government. Furthermore, governments cannot have "rights," only delegated authority. Therefore a "negative right" cannot exist.
Anyone that uses the term "negative rights" is a moron and has no concept of our Constitution.
That last sentence is not directed at you, but at the, ahem, "Constitutional Scholar" currently infesting the White House.
The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a "warm body" democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction.... [O]nce a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader — the barbarians enter Rome.(1987)
-Robert A. Heinlein's To Sail Beyond the Sunset
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.