Even a comedian can make some pretty valid points in reference to the hypocrisy of "values voters."


http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=4ZihRD9jjpY

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

Yeah, these "values" voters... poor guys - these are like... you know what I think of, when I think of those guys?

I think of all the "bitter old men" that're running around in my business (the music business) - it's like, everyone's been "screwed" by someone, right? (Usually a record company or something) - and so these guys, they spend the rest of their lives holding a grudge, and then holding everyone else responsible for the record company's behavior, you know, like, twenty years after the fact - that kind of thing.

These guys are just moralists, that's all - they want everyone else to have to conform to their value systems. And they can't get what they want the "usual" way (ie "socially" - through church, and through interpersonal relations or whatever) - so they want to try to do it "politically" -

And I ask you, what does that crap have to do with running the country?

I'll answer my own question, 'cause it's easy: the answer is: nothing.

I mean, this is the same kind of stupidity that leads Bushie to veto the stem cell bill, right? You know, like, it has ten thousand benefits and only one drawback, but Bushie's gonna go with the drawback 'cause that's how his "value system" works. He's just like the little old lady doing 65 in the fast lane, in that regard - when a Mack truck is barreling down on her a** and she refuses to get out of the way -

Supid moralists. They're so missing the point - and none of 'em know a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing about the law in the first place, 'cause if they did, they'd realize that US law is based on practical logic, not moral logic. The Rights - those are "moral". The law, that's entirely practical. So, I mean, what we're really talking about when we're talking about a pro-life constitutional amendment, is that we're changing the legal definition of a "person", and that has huge legal ramifications - I mean, enormous......

Well, you know, it's like, everyone has their "pet issue", I suppose.

Mine has more to do with the Constitution - I'm still trying to figure out how we got from point A to point B, historically speaking. I mean, you know, like what's the guy - Breyer, right? The Justice that believes in the "living Constitution", which is something different from an "originalist" who tries to adhere to the intent of the Founding Fathers -

I mean, historically speaking, what we started out with is a document giving the federal government explicit powers, and then specifically restricting those powers from expansion, without considerable oversight, and without widespread popular approval -

And what we seem to have now, is a federal government with these nebulous "implied powers" that no one can seem to find in the Constitution - I mean, the point is, that the Constitution doesn't seem to have kept up with what's going on in the Judiciary, right?

You know, I got to thinking about that in relation to someting someone said in another thread, about "racial mandates", and I got to thinking about the whole idea of a "court order", and how "different" that is from a mandate on the government - on the other hand, I don't see anything that specifically prevents that, but then again, I don't see it listed as a Power of the judiciary either -

So I'm still kinda looking through these historical Supreme Court cases, seeing if I can make of the timeline, like "where" we diverged, and "when", that kind of thing -

So that's "my" pet "issue-du-jour"..... but it's like, that has nothing to do with your values, right? It only has to do with "how do we get people with differing values to live together in something resembling peace and harmony".

Nonsqtr wrote:So right you are.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

Yeah well, the wierd thing "politically" is that these guys are still around, right?

'Cause I mean, every single lesson in history points to the wrong-headedness of that kind of thinking, and yet.... it's still with us. You know, it hasn't gone the way of the "earth is flat" theories.

But I think the Founding Fathers recognized that (I mean, that was certainly the case at the time, they had a "diversity" of moral viewpoints, right?), and that's kinda where things like "separation of church and state" came from. You know, 'cause one would think that would be kinda "automatic" upon divorce from King George, right? But no, they actually institutionalized that concept.....

So, yeah - I mean, the way our country is supposed to work, each little place is supposed to be able to have its own "personality", according the local laws and customs, so like, if someone wants to go live in that Catholic village down in Florida, they're free to do that, and if someone wants to leave there and go to San Francisco, they're free to do that too.

The thing that's not supposed to happen, is that the federal government isn't supposed to get in there and try to make things "uniform". That's what the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are all about.

So that's why we have a 2/3 vote to change the Constitution, so people like the moralists ("crazies" I call 'em, but you can call 'em "social conservatives" if you want) can't go off the deep end on any given day ('cause you know, today it'll be alcohol, and tomorrow it'll be teen sex, and the day after it'll be rock 'n' roll lyrics, and.... you know, book-burning and all that... ) -

So, it seems to me, that the Constitution was set up to allow moralism at a local level (that keeps people happy, it lets them congregate with their own kind, etc etc) - but makes it very difficult to implement at the federal level (because, it would actually have to be done through a Constitutional Amendment, like Prohibition was - that would be the "correct" way to deal with issues like this, constitutionally speaking) -

But what seems to have happened, is that members of Congress (some moralists among them), have created laws that allow the federal government to have magical new Powers that don't exist in the Constitution -

And then they depend on the Courts to strike 'em down, only the Court gets to hear just a few cases a year (less than a hundred, usually), and so they don't catch all the "problems", and a lot of 'em fall between the cracks -

What should be happening instead, is that the Counsel on the Judiciary Committee, or someone like that, is supposed to tell these weasels, "no, you can't do that, that would be un-Constitutional" - I mean, they want to pass laws that work, they want these laws to succeed, right? So all they gotta do, is write in such a way that they obey the Constitutional constraints - and then when they can't do that, that oughta be a heads-up that they're getting into "problem territory" -

But instead, what do we have? The federal government regulates every god(*)(*)(*)(*) thing - I mean, they're stopping little old ladies up in Oregon, terminal cancer patients, from killing themselves. That's absa-freakin'-lutely un-Constitutional, I'll bet my left nut on it. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government has that Power.

They're only claiming that Power, 'cause they claim jurisdiction over medical issues - but even that is a specious argument, because doctors are licensed by States, and the only reason the federal government is even involved in the first place, is because of the Harrison Act and DEA numbers and stuff like that ('cause the rest of it goes under "foodstuffs", which is service and not enforcement) -

But they've got a law, right? And someone gave 'em that law, and apparently the Court has either never looked at it, or, they looked at it and waved their hands over it. And since then, an entire institution has built up around that, and it's called the pharmaceutical industry, and then there's also the AMA for the doctors, and put together those two are the second largest lobbying organization in the country. (And the third are the seniors, who're in bed with the first two, most of the time).

And this all started with a "moralist", right? Some brilliant law-maker, at some point, thought it would be a good idea to get the federal government involved in drug enforcement, so they passed a federal "drug law" - but the problem is, that's un-Constitutional if it's applied "internally" to the citizenry, 'cause it's not an enumerated Power. They can interdict, along the borders, 'cause that's their specified job. But they can not enforce on a citizen of the United States, without explicit enumeration in the list of Powers in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.

So, I mean, this is the danger of moralism, right? 'Cause I mean, Prohibition got repealed, and now all those corporate profits go into the government's coffers as tax dollars. On the other hand, the drug laws are still on the books, and all those profits go directly into the pockets of the drug lords, and they use 'em to buy weapons and stuff.

That's the result of moralism. You can call it an "un-intended consequence" if you want, but I just call it stupidity. The only excuse for that is ignorance, like, you haven't read your history, and you haven't learned your lessons from it.