ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 12, 2011 9:07:17 GMT -5
Would that make federal laws regarding autos unconstitutional? Should every state have different safety regs?
|
|
|
Post by magichat on May 12, 2011 9:08:10 GMT -5
Would that make federal laws regarding autos unconstitutional? Should every state have different safety regs? Auto regulations should only go so far as needed to regulate interstate commerce. Now you are deflecting, let's get back on the topic of slavery.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 12, 2011 9:09:09 GMT -5
Would selling guns to some not in a militia be unconstitutional because the right to keepone under the bed for self protection is not mentioned?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 12, 2011 9:10:24 GMT -5
I don't know what else to tell you.I don't feel like I am a slave.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on May 12, 2011 9:11:07 GMT -5
I don't know what else to tell you.I don't feel like I am a slave. Stop paying taxes and get back to me.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on May 12, 2011 9:11:55 GMT -5
Would selling guns to some not in a militia be unconstitutional because the right to keepone under the bed for self protection is not mentioned? The American citizenship is the militia, go look it up. Keep digging you may find something yet. ;D
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 12, 2011 9:13:08 GMT -5
I feel for the most part,the federal taxes I pay are well worth living in this country.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 12, 2011 9:15:35 GMT -5
You win....US citizens are slaves.
|
|
Colleenz
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 8:56:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,983
|
Post by Colleenz on May 12, 2011 9:17:31 GMT -5
Um, no - read Snerd and Pauls posts. You have the right to bear arms, not the entitlement of the government to give you a gun.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on May 12, 2011 9:19:45 GMT -5
I feel for the most part,the federal taxes I pay are well worth living in this country. I don't think you feel it enough, pay an extra 50% next year, otherwise move somewhere else.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 12, 2011 9:25:29 GMT -5
If I get tothe point where I feel the federal taxes I pay are not worth living here, that is an option open to me.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on May 12, 2011 9:29:38 GMT -5
If I get tothe point where I feel the federal taxes I pay are not worth living here, that is an option open to me. That's not what I asked, I asked that you pay more, why shouldn't you? It's worth it isn't it? What if we start 5 more wars, is it worth it or will you complain that the wars are expensive and not necessary?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 12, 2011 9:42:45 GMT -5
Straight forward answer is yes. The federal government actually has NO authority to regulate automobile safety.
In fact, there's no Constitutional authority for the Interstate system. The only reason we have one is that Eisenhower initially proposed it as a Department of Defense project. I bet many of you aren't even aware of that.
They can only regulate interstate commerce in accordance with the wording and intent of the Constitution-- which had to do with things like making sure Wisconsin doesn't ban automobiles made in Iowa (though WI could certainly say ALL autos in that state would have to meet WI safety regs).
And those of you that continue to support unConstitutional, top-down, command and control government-- it's amazing to me that you can't see how things would INSTANTLY improve if we had 50 state experiments running at all times, free of central government interference.
We tried the 1920's and '30's great socialist experiment. It has ballooned out of control, and finally is teetering on the verge of collapse. It's time for a new experiment. A return to the successful experiment in self government that put us on the map. It'll succeed this time, too.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 12, 2011 9:50:47 GMT -5
I feel for the most part,the federal taxes I pay are well worth living in this country. Yes, Mass'a, I gets the room and board so I don't minds workin' the fields...and since them others didn't work the fields like they's supposed to they deserved the whippin's!
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 12, 2011 9:52:59 GMT -5
On the wars- I'm a little more nuanced that most libertarians. I don't buy that there must be the words "declaration of war" to authorize the President to use force. An authorization by Congress must be obtained. But I don't care how they word it- just so they approve (or not).
I am for going into Iraq, Afghanistan-- or anywhere else we need to go-- to get whoever it is we need to get. But I am not for nation-building. I don't think we need to build the same school 9 times in Falluja. I think we should go in, get who we need to get-- and if that means we LEVEL Falluja and leave it in ruins-- fine. Because the thing is-- it won't take that long for civilians with sympathy for the enemy to understand that if they don't start giving up the people we want, it's THEIR ass. It's their house. And nobody is putting it back like it was.
But I think that the war against radical islam is one that we have to win ideologically, and economically-- primarily. We should engage in an energy and foreign policy that can be summed up as "Let Them Eat Sand". We should greatly expand nuclear power, we should become an exporter of coal and natural gas, and we should exploit all the domestic oil resources we can. We are an energy giant- we are the Saudi Arabia of coal- we could exploit this resource to close the trade gap with China.
We also have to stop turning a blind eye to regimes that prop up islamist extremists. We have to get serious about Russia and China and we should use covert, sophisticated means to interrupt the transfer of nuclear materials to Iran. Iran's nuclear sites should be hit, and hit hard. North Korea should be next. I am in favor of using low yield bunker buster nukes if necessary.
But we don't need to spend $100 million a day for a military that acts like an international meals on wheels program.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on May 12, 2011 9:54:22 GMT -5
Straight forward answer is yes. The federal government actually has NO authority to regulate automobile safety. In fact, there's no Constitutional authority for the Interstate system. The only reason we have one is that Eisenhower initially proposed it as a Department of Defense project. I bet many of you aren't even aware of that. They can only regulate interstate commerce in accordance with the wording and intent of the Constitution-- which had to do with things like making sure Wisconsin doesn't ban automobiles made in Iowa (though WI could certainly say ALL autos in that state would have to meet WI safety regs). And those of you that continue to support unConstitutional, top-down, command and control government-- it's amazing to me that you can't see how things would INSTANTLY improve if we had 50 state experiments running at all times, free of central government interference. We tried the 1920's and '30's great socialist experiment. It has ballooned out of control, and finally is teetering on the verge of collapse. It's time for a new experiment. A return to the successful experiment in self government that put us on the map. It'll succeed this time, too. I still wonder whether the fed couldn't regulate things like maximum vehicle width etc in the name of interstate commerce. Nothing in the way of safety at the federal level though.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on May 12, 2011 9:58:14 GMT -5
On the wars- I'm a little more nuanced that most libertarians. I don't buy that there must be the words "declaration of war" to authorize the President to use force. An authorization by Congress must be obtained. But I don't care how they word it- just so they approve (or not). I am for going into Iraq, Afghanistan-- or anywhere else we need to go-- to get whoever it is we need to get. But I am not for nation-building. I don't think we need to build the same school 9 times in Falluja. I think we should go in, get who we need to get-- and if that means we LEVEL Falluja and leave it in ruins-- fine. Because the thing is-- it won't take that long for civilians with sympathy for the enemy to understand that if they don't start giving up the people we want, it's THEIR ass. It's their house. And nobody is putting it back like it was. But I think that the war against radical islam is one that we have to win ideologically, and economically-- primarily. We should engage in an energy and foreign policy that can be summed up as "Let Them Eat Sand". We should greatly expand nuclear power, we should become an exporter of coal and natural gas, and we should exploit all the domestic oil resources we can. We are an energy giant- we are the Saudi Arabia of coal- we could exploit this resource to close the trade gap with China. We also have to stop turning a blind eye to regimes that prop up islamist extremists. We have to get serious about Russia and China and we should use covert, sophisticated means to interrupt the transfer of nuclear materials to Iran. Iran's nuclear sites should be hit, and hit hard. North Korea should be next. I am in favor of using low yield bunker buster nukes if necessary. But we don't need to spend $100 million a day for a military that acts like an international meals on wheels program. We could push nuclear forever and it would make little difference in our need for oil. www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.htmlLess than 6% of electrical power in 2009 was produced from petroleum.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on May 12, 2011 10:02:20 GMT -5
On the wars- I'm a little more nuanced that most libertarians. I don't buy that there must be the words "declaration of war" to authorize the President to use force. And you'd be correct. The last time congress passed a formal "Declaration of War" bill was in 1942. In fact, the Constitution declares that only congress has the right to "declare war" but it does not dictate any specific format for that declaration.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on May 12, 2011 10:44:34 GMT -5
And you'd be correct. The last time congress passed a formal "Declaration of War" bill was in 1942. In fact, the Constitution declares that only congress has the right to "declare war" but it does not dictate any specific format for that declaration. I think the distinction is that in our Government only Congress can change our status to 'at war', however, if an external force attacks us, we are 'at war' by there action and the CinC can take fairly broad actions to defend the republic. The executive branch wages war, but legislative branch makes war. Also it is fairly obvious that Rand Paul is using hyperbole to make his point
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 12, 2011 11:08:58 GMT -5
This just in.The pope advocates slavery-------....World Governments To Provide Universal Coverage At an international papal conference on health care yesterday at the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI and other Catholic church leaders said it is the “moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.” Saying access to adequate medical care is one of the “inalienable rights” of man, the pope said, “Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on May 12, 2011 11:33:59 GMT -5
This just in.The pope advocates ..... The pope also says "Abortion is a crime of aggression not only against the unborn, but also against society" and that "saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior is just as important as saving the rain forests." Shall we let the pope determine our morals and values or should we not really care what he thinks?
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 12, 2011 11:40:20 GMT -5
I really don't pay much attention to the Vatican goings ons...just happened to see that piece after this thread and found it worth a grin,that's all. I also don't think healthcare is a right...more like a necessary expensive evil....
|
|