Do people here really not know what Colin Kaepernick is protesting?

Good question ! Unfortunately, through 12 years of school, we manage not to teach folks the main 2 principles on which this nation was founded .... as per the Declaration of Independence (DOI). It is these principles by which Law and the Constitution are supposed to be interpreted.

1) Individual rights and freedoms/Liberty were put "ABOVE" the legitimate Authority of Gov't.

Everyone (except for raging Nazi's and Communists) agrees that the the power of Gov't should be limited ... as opposed to totalitarianism. The question is then OK what then are the powers of Gov't limited to ? Every kid should be able to answer this question .... good luck with getting an answer from an adult never mind a teenager.

You asked "What do you think" ? It matters not what I think. The question is "what did the founders think" ?

This is Jefferson's answer in relation to essential liberty. Without trotting out all the tenets of Classical Liberalism and Republicanism .... The authority of Gov't comes from we the people and that authority is to be extremely limited. The reason the Gov't was given the power to punish was for protection from direct harm .. one person on another (Murder, Rape, Theft and so on)

That's it ... especially in relation to messing with essential liberty.

2) The authority of Gov't comes from "we the people" rather than "divine right/God" as was the case in the past.

Gov't authority comes from the people via a construct called "the social contract". The Gov't is not allowed to make laws outside its legitimate purview (especially in relation to individual liberty) without consent - making a change to the social contract.

Such a change requires not 50+1. Such a change requires a super majority ... at least 2/3rds. Simple majority mandate is not enough. There would be no point in putting essential liberty ABOVE the legitimate authority of Gov't is simple majority mandate was enough. Every Gov't (Federal, State, Municipal) has a simple majority mandate.

Simple majority mandate was referred to in both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism as "Tyranny of the Majority". "Tyranny of the Majority" was not what the founders had in mind.

The enlightenment thinkers posited that "No man wants to be ruled over by another" (do you disagree ?) however, they realized that if there were not certain codes of conduct within a group that bad things would happen (this is a very short summary). There is no point in having codes of conduct if there is no authority to punish would be violators.

The people then agreed to give some authority power but, this authority was to be extremely limited. This agreement was for protection from direct harm (murder, rape, theft) one person on another.

There are few that think that murder should be legal. Same with theft and rape. An overwhelming majority agrees. The bar is no different for any law that messes with individual liberty.

Take Pot vs Heroin/Meth It would be relatively easy to get 66% to agree that some drugs are so dangerous and represent such harm that they should be illegal. Drugs such as Heroin or Meth.

Pot ?? Good luck with that. No way you could get 66% in general. This is then an illegitimate law.

Glad you brought up the Patriot Act. Have you ever heard of the phrase "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" ? Thought so. This is what the fight was about "LIBERTY" of the individual.

Ben Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary Security deserve neither liberty nor Security"

The founders knew the age old trick of using fear of an external threat to take away essential liberty. Trade liberty for security on the basis of fear of external threat.

Stalin used this trick "Security for the Motherland"
Hitler did the same "Fatherland Security"
Bush ... lacking the creative ability to come up with a new name "Homeland Security"

Bush then made it our "Patriotic Duty" duty to trade liberty for security "Patriot Act".

Obama then came along and changed the name to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom Act".

How did we go from "Give me liberty or give me Death" to so many US citizens on their knees begging to give up essential liberty over fear of a risk of harm that is 400 times less than the risk of harm from walking ?

Every sitting member of SCOTUS should be dismissed for dereliction of duty - failure to interpret law and the constitution on the basis of principles on which this nation was founded.

The founders tried to limit Gov't power. For 200 years Gov't has been trying to get that power back (as Gov't is wont to do) ..... and they have succeeded.

What would the founders think about this ? ... they would be horrified.

 

I disagree. The Constitution is constantly "Interpreted", attempting to identify what the founding fathers meant, rather than what they actually put on paper. This is a massive slippery slope. Raising interpretation into every action of our government, bottlenecks our ability to efficiently run government.

Section 7 of the Constitution clearly and explicitly outlines how laws are to be passed.

Section 8 of the Constitution provides explicit limitations on the government in terms of what and what they cannot do.

Not so. The Constitution provide limitations on what the federal government could do, but in no way invalidated their power on the grounds of personal rights and liberties.

What you are talking here is anarchy.

The intention of our government to limit authority was not based on hold individual liberty above the rule of government, but rather government following a specified protocol with members of a representative congress to pass laws.

These founding fathers came from monarchies which often unilaterally passed laws in opposition to the beliefs for which that authority was being mandated. THIS is totalitarian.

There a multitude of quotes from the fathers that drafted the Constitution where the founders discuss HOW laws are to be passed and that they are important.

This idea of individual liberty superseding the authority of government is nothing more than an anarchist dream which was never the intention of the founding fathers.

 

When the courts stretch the law we become a nation of men, and the rule of law is dead.

 

This is where the rule of law ends and anarchy begins:

“The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.” Alan Dershowitz, http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

 

You say "I disagree" and then repeat what I claimed "the constitution is constantly interpreted" ? Then you say something more strange by suggesting the constitution and Law should not be interpreted on the basis of the founding principles.

Setting your contradiction aside, what then should form the basis of interpretation if not the DOI?

Clearly you did not understand what was written. Anarchy is not what is being discussed. Individual rights and freedoms end where the nose of another begins. This is also where the legitimate authority of Gov't begins and ends. What part of "The legitimate purview of Gov't is to protect people from harm (murder, rape, theft and so on) did you not understand ?

Clearly you do not understand what the limitations to Gov't power are (not just Federal .... any Gov't - State and Municipal included)

The whole point of " life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - Endowed by creator" is to put essential liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

You have not studied "Classical Liberalism" this much is clear. You are talking out your backside. Regardless, you should at least be able to understand Jefferson's comments on the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The first part is correct. The part in (Bold) is false. The authority of Gov't was not mandated by "we the people". The authority of Gov't came from God - Divine Right. The word of the King/or Religions leader "was beyond contestation"

You are correct that this is totalitarian. We are also moving towards quazi totalitarianism as our Gov'ts violate the main principle on which this nation was founded by exceeding their legitimate purview an passing laws that do not have 2/3rds majority approval.

Earlier you argue for totalitarianism by inferring that Gov't should be able to interpret law in any way it wants. This is totalitarianism.

We now live in "Tyranny of the Majority" never mind we live in "Tyranny of the Minority".

This is a big fat straw man as I never suggested an such thing (Anarchy) ... and you clearly do not understand what the intention of the founding fathers was, you clearly have not studied this issue in any detail, and you have not studied the DOI in any detail (meaning you need to know something about the enlightenment thinkers who's ideas Jefferson used in the creation of that document.

Do the words "Give me liberty or give me death" have no meaning for you ? Have you never heard: "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" Ben Franklin ?

(clearly you do not know what essential liberty is as you think this means "Anarchy")

 

And millions of people speed. That doesn't mean the law is unjust.

 

Ok, just for fun, let's discuss drug laws. In your mind, it is out of government purview to pass these laws of we rely on the founding fathers intent. Correct?

 

Obviously Drugs are out of the legitimate purview of Gov't as this deals with right of a person to risk harm to themselves ... as opposed to one person harming another directly (murder, rape, theft and so on). Rights end where the nose of another begins.. this is where the legitimate purview of Gov't also begins and ends.

This however does not mean that "we the people" can change the social contract to allow the Gov't to make Laws against drugs or that the Gov't can not appeal to "we the people".

The bar for messing with individual liberty is 2/3rds majority. If 2/3rd majority can agree that something should be illegal this is then legitimate. 50+1 or simple majority mandate is not enough to mess with essential liberty. This is called "tyranny of the Majority" in both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism.

There would be no point in putting essential liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't if simple majority mandate was enough. This is not much of a "limit" to Gov't power.

An overwhelming majority think that the power/authority to punish violators of codes of conduct such as murder, rape, theft should be given to some authority. The bar is no different for any other law.

In the case of Pot vs Heroin/Meth for example ... there is an overwhelming majority that thinks that really some drugs (such as Heroin or Meth) are so dangerous that use of these drugs should be banned.

In the case of Pot ? Not so much. Sure one can argue that Pot carries a risk of harm, but it is not so dangerous that an overwhelming majority think that the "heavy hand of the State/Physical violence" should be used to force people to not to use Pot.

 

"Three felonies a day" - speeding is not a felony. The US Congress has crafted a politically expedient very Kafkaesque criminal code.

"Give me a man and I will find the crime."[28], Andrey Vyshinsky, State Prosecutor, Josef Stalin’s Moscow Trials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vyshinsky#cite_note-28

 

According to new York it is we guess, you really don't see how the greed and control nature got to the left?

 

Well apparently judging by the reaction of the RIGHT on this thread it is an appropriate use of LE resources...AND a capital offense...

 

But it's the left's laws that caused it, why don't you see the problem here? Who cares if some guy is trying to make a buck by selling single cigarettes?

 

There are laws against many things. Most don't result in the state killing you

 

Yes but when the left creates assnine laws like this....what do you expect was going to happen?

People follow them?

 

Exactly. Taxes keep going up and for what ? To have a swat team burst into the house of some Pot smoker ? It it is a meth lab... fine... but Pot ? Do most people really care that much about some pot smokers sitting in some basement getting high and philosophizing ? Are there numerous cases every week of pot smokers overdosing and being taken to the hospital ? There is for alcohol ... Pot ? Nope.

Do I want the Gov't telling lies and creating propaganda (in relation to Pot) to justify this massive "Pot War" expenditure. Is this Pot smoker such a threat to society that it justifies the court costs and the cost of keeping this dude in jail ? Is it worth the cost of all the violence and gang funding that is created by Prohibition ?

This is not what I want my tax dollars going towards and I have never had any serious person be able to justify this expenditure. Most give up very quickly when it comes down to dollars and sense. ... Even the "Law is the Law" crowd. While they will support enforcement of Law .. they will not cling to this bad law.

The more bad law we create or keep on the books, the more interaction is created between police and citizens. Since these are bad laws, such that the people feel that their rights are being violated, the intensity of these interactions also increases. So we have more interactions with increased intensity.

Both the Left and Right are responsible. The responsibility of the "Law and Order/ pro Drug War, anti ALCU, Pro Increasing Police Powers" right is obvious.

The Left is more insidious. The left hates individual rights and freedoms and uses "Utilitarianism" to justify bad law. Utilitarianism is a justification for law that looks at what will increase happiness for the "collective". This justification completely ignores individual liberty. Another problem is "who gets to decide" ? One man's poison is another's pleasure.

Right now we have a plague of fallacious utilitarian arguments. The term fallacious means that these are not even good utilitarian arguments.

For example - "If it saves one life" or "Harm Reduction" as justification for some law.

These arguments sound good on the surface - who does not want to save one life ? This is what makes them insidious. Dig a little deeper and these arguments are true wolves in Sheeps clothing they are a slippery slope into totalitarianism of the Borg. The "Collective"

So let's test this argument. Is "If it saves one life" valid justification for law ?

If this is the case then we better ban skiing tomorrow. Would this not save one life ? What about boating - water is really dangerous, one could drown.
Cars ? forget it. In fact, one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

As one can quickly see ...anything can be justified using such arguments.

In a society that respects freedom and individual liberty - the main principle on which this nation was founded - a person has to right to risk a reasonable amount of personal harm. Sky diving is Legal.

We allow testing of Athletes for Pot (even though this is not a performance enhancing drug) and justify this on the basis of "Role Model for the Children".

1) Any parent who relies on Athletes to teach their children should be shot, pissed on or at minimum have their children taken away. I am obviously exaggerating here but seriously, what a worthless parent.
2) Last time I Checked the "Rule of Law" states that one person is not to be punished for the actions of another.
3) Equal Justice (another Rule of Law) - How is treating an Athlete different than Ave Joe .. Equal Justice ?

If it is someone driving a School Bus or Airline .. OK .. Got it ... at lease one can make a legit argument (Rights end where the nose of another begins).

This is just one of hundreds of examples of this fallacious Utilitarian Plague. It is also an example of how the the raging masses can be duped. We talked early about "Its the fault of The People". Well it is not my fault that "the people" are easily duped. It is the fault of these Political Leaders and the bureaucracy for knowingly duping "the people" with these insidious and bad arguments. It is also the fault of the MSM for going along with this nonsense and not pointing out this fallacious nonsense.

 

So you want all laws, which affect personal liberty, to be required to pass with a 2/3rds majority? If that happens, you are ok with it?

 

That's an astonishing statement!

 

Trump is obviously not a racist.

 

Sorry, I got confused.

 

Np.

 

Amending the COTUS requires far more than a single 2/3 vote.

 

That is what the founders envisioned and I agree. I do not think ever law has to go to a vote. It can be a stepped process. In some cases a majority can be assumed. If there is enough public outcry (say through petition or some other means)... then the last resort is to have a vote.

This is very similar to what we do now - and in many States... some measures need more than simple majority mandate. The change is that overwhelming majority should be required for any Law that messes with essential liberty.