DHAI--Is America like Michael Jackson?

[manhunter098]

No. None of those things you talk about are about rights implicit in the constitution (the DEA and FBI), they are about LAWS passed by congress and the powers of congress to act within the bounds set by the constitution. You cant just assume that everything the government does is to protect peoples rights. It doesnt actually work that way.

Judges protect peoples constitutional rights and ensure that the legislative and executive branches play by the rules. The more you talk about the government only giving and protecting rights the more you show how little you actually know about American government. I wish it were that way, but protecting corporate and lobbyist interests is not protecting the peoples rights. (Not to say that that is all the government does).

You should try reading the constitution some time, it tells you what the government does. Inserting the idea that constitution is only to protect the peoples rights is a foolish assumption. Furthermore to extend that idea to apply to laws passed by congress as well is only more foolish, you could at least make the argument that the constitution is there to limit government power, and that has to do with protecting peoples rights, but laws are not solely (and are rarely) intended to protect the rights of the people.

 

[CRASHiC]

No. None of those things you talk about are about rights implicit in the constitution (the DEA and FBI), they are about LAWS passed by congress and the powers of congress to act within the bounds set by the constitution. You cant just assume that everything the government does is to protect peoples rights. It doesnt actually work that way.

Except, the very purpose of laws is to protect people's rights. The constitution states the people have the right to do as they wish, as long as these actions do not interfere with other people's rights, and in here the government must step in. We make laws to set the boundaries and provide legal reason to punish people for interfering with the rights of others.

I wish it were that way, but protecting corporate and lobbyist interests is not protecting the peoples rights. (Not to say that that is all the government does).

Boy, I waited for this argument to pop up Believe it or not, people run companies, and those investors have rights the same as other people. A lobbyist is nothing more than an individual representing a companies interest. There are lobbyist for nursing practices and hospitals. Demonizing lobbyist, and saying that this system goes against people's rights is absurd, because it denies that employers have rights as well as employees. Where the line is drawn to when they step over these rights, that is for the government to decide, as they had done very recently.

You should try reading the constitution some time, it tells you what the government does. Inserting the idea that constitution is only to protect the peoples rights is a foolish assumption. Furthermore to extend that idea to apply to laws passed by congress as well is only more foolish, you could at least make the argument that the constitution is there to limit government power, and that has to do with protecting peoples rights, but laws are not solely (and are rarely) intended to protect the rights of the people.

Name a single law or article of the constitution that does something other than protect people's rights, or provide the government with the ability to sustain itself and its people, tus protecting their rights. The constitution itself lays out the purpose of a law to protect the rights of others in the clause I mentioned above. Maybe you should try reading the constitution some time, instead of assuming that because my interpretation is different than yours, I must have not read it.

 

[manhunter098]

Except, the very purpose of laws is to protect people's rights. The constitution states the people have the right to do as they wish, as long as these actions do not interfere with other people's rights, and in here the government must step in. We make laws to set the boundaries and provide legal reason to punish people for interfering with the rights of others.

No it doesnt. And laws are not made to protect peoples rights, they can, but that is not the definition of a law.

Boy, I waited for this argument to pop up Believe it or not, people run companies, and those investors have rights the same as other people. A lobbyist is nothing more than an individual representing a companies interest. There are lobbyist for nursing practices and hospitals. Demonizing lobbyist, and saying that this system goes against people's rights is absurd, because it denies that employers have rights as well as employees. Where the line is drawn to when they step over these rights, that is for the government to decide, as they had done very recently.

I dont demonize all lobbyists, but the interests of a company are not the interests of the people. Thats relatively easy to understand because companies will interfere with peoples rights if it means making more money, the law is there to stop them, thats one utility of the law, but just because that is the case doesnt mean that laws are always to protect the peoples rights. You are generalizing way way too much when it comes to laws protecting peoples rights.

Name a single law or article of the constitution that does something other than protect people's rights, or provide the government with the ability to sustain itself and its people, tus protecting their rights. The constitution itself lays out the purpose of a law to protect the rights of others in the clause I mentioned above. Maybe you should try reading the constitution some time, instead of assuming that because my interpretation is different than yours, I must have not read it.

The nature of the constitution is to help support the country, thus your argument is using circular logic and is fallacious. If this is the logic you have been applying all this time then all your reasoning this entire time has been circular, but since you have not really stated your reasoning until now I do not know that, Im simply informing you so that you know.

I know you took high school government, so I KNOW you read the constitution at least once because the typical high school government class involves that.

 

[CRASHiC]

No it doesnt. And laws are not made to protect peoples rights, they can, but that is not the definition of a law.

Amendmendt 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Can you find me a law that doesn't either defend people's rights, or allow the government the power to do so?

I dont demonize all lobbyists, but the interests of a company are not the interests of the people. Thats relatively easy to understand because companies will interfere with peoples rights if it means making more money, the law is there to stop them, thats one utility of the law, but just because that is the case doesnt mean that laws are always to protect the peoples rights. You are generalizing way way too much when it comes to laws protecting peoples rights.

'the people' are not the issue here. We are not protecting the rights of the people as a whole, but the right of the individual. Can you express a current law or lobbyist act that has infringed upon the people? I also ask how does the actions of a lobbyist affect the general purpose of laws. An act of a corporate politician does not change the purpose of politicians. We have the judicial branch to ensure that lobbyist, no matter how powerful, can pass a law the infringes upon the basic rights of the people.

I know you took high school government, so I KNOW you read the constitution at least once because the typical high school government class involves that.

Most high school classes though only skim the constitution, and don't go into detail, even if it is an AP or IB class.

 

[Aesir]

You are mostly referring to politicians who, in your eyes, do not do their job.

No I'm refering to people who don't know the meaning of public service and have turned it into a bad word.

Weather or not you feel your politicians serve you is not of my concern. I spoke of what the constitution states that the government is made to do, weather or not this role is filled by today's politicians is beyond my concern, and not at all what I was referencing.

The only thing listed in the constitution about the role of the federal government is the powers each branch has. The thing about our constitution is, if it isn't prohibited it's allowed.

Can you find me a law that doesn't either defend people's rights, or allow the government the power to do so?

He doesn't have to because I already gave you one. The Defense of Marriage Act doesn't protect anyone's rights, the patriot acts regulates our rights, and FISA definitely doesn't protect our rights.

 

[CRASHiC]

The only thing listed in the constitution about the role of the federal government is the powers each branch has. The thing about our constitution is, if it isn't prohibited it's allowed.

the "Necessary and Proper Clause" only gives the government the ability to increase its powers to preform what the constitution sets outs as its power. The government is in no way unlimited by the constitution.
And there is a lot more than that. Article I, Section 8, clause 18 list the basic powers of the government in general, and we have the bill of rights to protect the people's rights.

He doesn't have to because I already gave you one. The Defense of Marriage Act doesn't protect anyone's rights, the patriot acts regulates our rights, and FISA definitely doesn't protect our rights.

Faulty laws are passed all the time, from hand gun bans to flag burning bans, it is the job of the supreme court to shut down these laws that either infringe on constitutional rights, or have no basis for being a law what so ever.

 

[Aesir]

the "Necessary and Proper Clause" only gives the government the ability to increase its powers to preform what the constitution sets outs as its power. The government is in no way unlimited by the constitution.
And there is a lot more than that. Article I, Section 8, clause 18 list the basic powers of the government in general, and we have the bill of rights to protect the people's rights.

You're putting words into my mouth, I never said they were unlimited, I said the federal governments powers are only limited to what it's prohibited in doing.

Faulty laws are passed all the time, from hand gun bans to flag burning bans, it is the job of the supreme court to shut down these laws that either infringe on constitutional rights, or have no basis for being a law what so ever.

So do you acknowledge what you asked was a loaded question?

 

[CRASHiC]

You're putting words into my mouth, I never said they were unlimited, I said the federal governments powers are only limited to what it's prohibited in doing.

Please sir, rephrase, because this makes no sense.

Something is only limited by what its limited by?

So do you acknowledge what you asked was a loaded question?

No, because my point is still proven by the actions of the supreme court.

 

[manhunter098]

That actually NOT what the 9th amendment means, if your high school teacher taught you otherwise I will correct his misinformation. The 9th amendment deals first of all with the previous 8 amendments and states in layman's terms that in spite of the previous 8 amendments that other rights exist and that having the previously mentioned rights afforded to you, does not mean you surrender rights that are not enumerated.

Its a vague amendment though, and so in constitutional law it is typically used as a supplement to rights supported or hinted at in other areas.

Here is a link with a more detailed explanation.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment

And yes, I know you can interpret the constitution how you like, but you have to consider the precedent, and what you claim the 9th amendment means is not supported by any precedents.




The judicial branch however doesnt stop legislation at all, they simply review it, after the fact. Which
means that unconstitutional legislation can pass congress and be signed by the president very easily (for example certain provisions in the Violence Against Women Act were deemed unconstitutional), and only until it is questioned afterwards will it have the chance to be overturned.




My honors government class in high school had me go through the constitution completely, we didnt do much beyond just reading it (and covering the basics), but we did have to read it all. Since then however I have taken a more comprehensive course on the constitution, which was my college American National Government class, which covered in depth the entire constitution and court cases involving the constitution to emphasize basic precedents.

 

[Aesir]

Please sir, rephrase, because this makes no sense.

Something is only limited by what its limited by?

The constitution limits the powers of the federal government, the federal government is free to act in ways so long as it isn't unconstitutional to do so.

No, because my point is still proven by the actions of the supreme court.

YOu're not making an sense here.

Bbl.

 

[CRASHiC]

The judicial branch however doesnt stop legislation at all, they simply review it, after the fact. Which
means that unconstitutional legislation can pass congress and be signed by the president very easily (for example certain provisions in the Violence Against Women Act were deemed unconstitutional), and only until it is questioned afterwards will it have the chance to be overturned.

A kink in the system, however, if you consider that the supreme court would have to review every action, law, bill, etc. that the congress pass, then you would not expect in depth discussion onto the rights, the constitution, and the bill in question that we now receive from the supreme court. Also, a lot of cases are generally specific, though these aren't the ones we hear the press speak about. Instead we hear the large, general cases such as the DC handgun ban. Still though, despite its kinks, in some cases it has proved effective. It shut down the ban on flag burning rather quickly.

The constitution limits the powers of the federal government, the federal government is free to act in ways so long as it isn't unconstitutional to do so.

Some would argue other wise based on the 10th amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause, though the extent. It all depends upon weather you interpret liberally or conservatively, weather the government only has the right to act under the powers stated in the constitution, and not outside of that, or weather the government is limited by the constitution, but can act as it pleases outside of this. I know that the supreme court nearly always rules in favor of federal government involving cases with reported 10th amendmend breaches, and favors the liberal interpretation, but does anyone know any cases that show examples of how they feel about the Necessary and Proper Clause?

 

[manhunter098]

CRASH, I am simply stating that a law does not need to be constitutional to be passed and signed into law (not that it will forever remain law), that a law can be constitutional and not be designed to protect or promote the people's rights, and that laws that are passed do not become part of any kind of constitution.

The last two are the only real problems I have had with anything you have said in this thread.

 

[CRASHiC]

Can I ask what DHAI means? You put it on a lot of threads.
Isn't it that contest we are no longer doing?

 

[manhunter098]

Yes it is, or was. Whichever tense you prefer.