Posted on 06/30/2011 4:39:19 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
Give some thought to how a nation is built and maintained, families are what a nation is, and families cannot thrive and succeed, and new generations have their conservative, Christian, moral traditions, passed down to them once the society is broken up into a road warrior culture.
A traditional America can’t be built in a culture that tells them we will leave little Johnny and Jane alone once you get them inside the house, but out here it is a jungle baby, and we are unrestrained, and it is all hanging out.
Ghettos have dropped maintaining barriers between the children and the now open adult decadence, and their ability to continue a moral, stable, passing of values from one generation to another, has ended.
When are they going to vote on abortion.
Drama Queen...
Nonsense. Society is governed by the values of its citizens. Whatever those citizens are founded in becomes the character of the law. It matters that God fearing people actively pursue laws that represent their values. If they do not government will become their enemy, as is the case in our present society.
The real question is about legislating morality. This is where you stumble. Unless morality is legislated immorality will be legislated. All law is about legislating morality. The issue is whether it will be my morality or that of those I consider immoral.
LOL, you seem to think that being libertarian is not being liberal.
Warren is a famous libertarian, these are quotes from “West’s Encyclopedia of American Law”.
“From 1953 to 1969, Earl Warren presided as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Under Warren’s leadership, the Court actively used judicial review to strictly scrutinize and overturn state and federal statutes, to apply many provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states, and to provide opportunities for those groups in society that had been excluded from the political process. During Warren’s tenure, the Court became increasingly liberal and activist, drawing the fire of political and judicial conservatives who believed that the Warren Court had overstepped its constitutional role and had become a legislative body. The Warren Court itself became a catalyst for change, initiating reforms rather than responding to pressures applied by other branches of government.
The Warren Court was committed to the promotion of a libertarian and egalitarian society. The Court used the strict scrutiny test of constitutional review to strike down legislation that directly abridged the exercise of fundamental rights or narrowed the number of people who might exercise them, and to invalidate legislation that discriminated on the basis of race, religion, and other suspect classifications. Under strict scrutiny, the government has the burden of proving that a compelling state interest exists for the legislation and that the law was narrowly tailored to minimize the restriction on the fundamental right. This burden proved difficult to meet during the Warren Court years, turning the federal courts into institutions that protected the interests of politically unpopular individuals and members of relatively powerless minority groups who had been victimized by pervasive historical, political, economic, and social discrimination.”
These are different issues. Though I will agree that the individual, the building block of the nation is produced by the family; I cannot and will not agree that the nation is responsible for that production.
and families cannot thrive and succeed, and new generations have their conservative, Christian, moral traditions, passed down to them once the society is broken up into a road warrior culture.
Ah, then you are woefully ignorant of Christianity's history; or do you mean to assert that of all the small christian communities in in 'barbarian,' immoral and/or brutal cultures had no moral grounding?
A traditional America can’t be built in a culture that tells them we will leave little Johnny and Jane alone once you get them inside the house, but out here it is a jungle baby, and we are unrestrained, and it is all hanging out.
Um, I hate to break it to you but it IS "a jungle out there."
Ghettos have dropped maintaining barriers between the children and the now open adult decadence, and their ability to continue a moral, stable, passing of values from one generation to another, has ended.
And that is all, in my opinion, the result of the sorts of laws you are advocating; it removes the accountability of the individual by making it the responsibility of the government to ensure "proper behavior."
I give up, good luck with your theories.
Did it ever occur to you that ‘God fearing people’ can operate independently of government intervention into their lives?
What are you going to say if/when the gove comes to your church with a law making it illegal to preach against islam?
How about if your ‘community’ decides one day that henceforth all female residents will wear a burka? And don’t tell me it can’t happen at the rate Obama is going.
How is that any different? The problem isn’t as much with a dumb law about video games. It’s where some liberal court can use it to further erode your rights as both a parent and as a citizen.
I don’t like Hustler Magazine. I don’t like what Larry Flynt does to women. But that same law that frees him to show/sell porn also protects your preacher on the pulpit from ‘hate speech’ against homos. And it protects you from the same.
Remember the quote (paraphrased)
“I may not agree with what you say (watch/play etc) but I will defend to the death your right to say (watch/play) it.”
A lot of people here really need to step back and think about what that really means because the implications are at the core of the 1st amendment.
And the other one...”First the came for the jews, but I wasn’t a jew....”
When your ox gets gored will you speak up then? Will anyone be left to speak for you?
“And that is all, in my opinion, the result of the sorts of laws you are advocating; it removes the accountability of the individual by making it the responsibility of the government to ensure “proper behavior.”
Perfectly put.
The Second Amendment states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Why would you attempt to suggest that I do not believe that the original intent of the Second Amendment does not present a prohibition on the power of the states to deny that right?
Stupid is not unconstitutional. California - LaLa Land - has a right to be Stupid. That's why people live there!
SCOTUS has no business approving or disapproving of California laws on the basis of whether Colleagues of the Wise Latina like it or not. And it is flat-out ridiculous to object to it on First Amendment grounds.
Gays are not sterile by nature. Many have had children in prior heterosexual relationships and, more recently, those in homosexual relationships used in vitro fertilization treatment with donated eggs or sperm to produce biological children.
The pandora's box was opened in the 70s with first successful "test tube baby's" birth.
You think if they can strip parental rights, ban God from the public square and instill gay marriage on us they can’t strip the 2nd? How many amendments have been nullified/overturned so far? More than Zero. The 2nd isn’t safe either.
Nothing natural about test tube birth. Scientifically doable, but not natural. Put to lesbians or gay men in a room and see how long it takes for procreation to happen.
You still haven't answered the question about whether you think people have the right to pass local laws against selling liquor to school kids. Instead, you've asked me to show you "alcohol and video games" in the Constitution, and tried to paint me as a gun grabber.
Is the remainder of this discussion going to consist of you trying to keep me on the defensive and you continuing to avoid answering any questions yourself?
They can, at least for books and movies if those books and movies have naked pixs in them.
Actually, even extreme violence can restrict those under 17 from access to a movie.
You might want to look back through and find the post where I clearly answered that question and save yourself further embarrassment.
This is a state’s rights issue. Justice Thomas was right. Justices Alito and Roberts were also right in that the law legitimately could have been ruled invalid for being too broad.
You see, government and parents are the same thing in America. We are supposed to live in a representative republic where a majority of parents are supposed to be able to set standards for their own communities.
There are many situations where parents (aka the government) have the right to set restrictions on minors, to include restricting constitutional rights, like the 1st Amendment. For example, communities (of parents) can prevent the selling of obscene materials to children.
Some FReepers disagree and state video games are not obscene or harmful to minors, but in a representative republic, we are supposed to respect the right of other communities to make that determination for themselves. We may not always agree with laws passed by different communities, but that doesn’t make those laws unconstitutional.
What amazes me is how some FReepers put the onus on parents to raise children but then take away the power of parents to run their own communities! In other words, blame the parents but take away their authority to act. So each family is supposed to be its own tiny island in the vast sea of our dysfunctional culture. Send the children out like little fish swimming in shark infested waters, and if a shark nabs them, blame the parents. Ah, but whatever we do, don’t let the parents band together to try and protect the children. Oh no. That would be unconstitutional!
What nonsense!
Here you go:
“Yes. The country ran just fine for a couple hundred years when parents decided when their kids should, if at all, consume those products and not the government.”
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.