Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye
I do believe I just told you that I hate liars.
And seriously, stop building yourself up. If you have to tell me how great and wonderful you are, you're not that great.
|
So, you assault my character, then claim I am building myself up when defending it. That's a catch-22 and it's dishonest bullshit. Why do you use it and let so many other points of contention fall by the wayside?
Petty name-calling is an act of unjustifiably referring to an opponent in a derogative term like liar, dogmatist, and big mouth to belittle them and their argument. I feel comfortable saying that I was describing attributes I have derived from your debate tactics not because you disagree with me, but as a matter of how you disagree with me in voicing a real concern. I have encouraged you to consider other viewpoints and have found myself met with hostility and repeated misrepresentation and omission of my arguments. I advised against these, and it just got worse. I genuinely do feel that you are wronging other in trying to proving yourself right and the reasons I listed are why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye
For starters, do the words "Patriot act" mean anything to you?
How about the war on drugs? Show me where they get the constitutional authority to tell people what they can and can't put into their own bodies.
Banning gay marriage, prohibiting two people to engage in a contract to which there is voluntary, mutual consent. Last I checked, constitution says gov can't do that.
Censorship, how much spin does it take to say this doesn't conflict with the first ammendment?
Gun control, it's pretty clear where it stands there too.
Illegal prostitution, why is it illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away for free? More to the point, isn't this another clear violation?
I can go on but give those a spin.
|
I will argue that people do believe that some of these issues fall into the realm of constitutional powers, whether I like it or not.
Some think the Patriot Act provides safeguards for the common defense in an age in which we are under attack but secretive rogue agents instead of nations. Of course, the act is being challenged for unchecked powers that defy principles of personal liberty and property.
Some argue that there is grounds to infer that government can constitutionally take a role in prohibiting the exchange of dangerous, consumable substances in promoting the general welfare and with power derived from the Commerce Clause, even to the point of prohibiting possession to prevent exchange. This is debated as a breach of state's rights (see California) and wrongheaded outlaw of innocuous or even helpful products to the benefit of noone.
Some argue that marriage, despite it's adoption as a civil institution enumerated governmental rights, is still an important religious institution that some feel government trounces upon in changing the definition. The opposition that has been successful so far in reviewing the constitutionality of such bans claims that government does, indeed, not have a right to interfere in a civil contract of mutual consent and that allowing expanded meaning of the civil institution in no way mandates the religious practice of affirming a limited scope of the institution.
The freedom of speech is not absolute, it does not guarantee the right to say anything, anywhere, anytime with government response. There are multiple scenarios in which it has been found that there are cases in which the speech can be limited without burdening the freedom of speech like yelling "Fire" in a crowded room, perjury, or obscenity in public (the point of contention here). Now, the electronic spectrum has been commissioned as public property under the control of the federal government since it is inherently interstate. It is licensed for commercial use, but with restrictions on things like obscenity as the medium is still inherently public. This standard has been challenged and consistently upheld as constitutional.
I think the argument for gun control is that the right to keep and bear arms is not completely unrestrained and that practices like limiting free access to certain weaponry, tacking weaponry, and mandating safety courses for keeping certain weaponry and bearing it in certain ways do not place an unnecessary burden on the right while serving the public good. Of course, there are argument that it can go too far an unduly restrict the basic right.
I think basic anti-prostitution laws only exist at a state level and likely have bases in maintaining public order and regulation of intrastate commerce.
All that said, I think I've pointed out that there are constitutional contentions on both sides of most of these issues. Each side thinks they're right and neither really has the place to say the other is wrong and dismiss it. In keeping with the Constitution, the decision on which side is correct on a matter of constitutionality must be decided by the Supreme Court, which is the course often still being taking in addressing the contentious points you raise.