«12. . .2,0332,0342,0352,0362,0372,0382,039. . .2,1812,182»
True. The Amendment process was used correctly for Prohibition. The 18th Amendment outlawed the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages. There was no reliance on the “commerce clause” or things “necessary proper” but the constitution was changed to specifically give the Federal government that authority. Then the 21st Amendment was used to return that power to the states. Too many modern laws usurp state authority without a proper constitutional foundation.
No, that's patently true. No proper clinical study showed any benefit from Hydroxychloroquine. It was rejected because it does not work (while having serious side effects). You just assert falsehoods without showing any clinical studies to support them.
No, it's an absurd lie that the federal government is supposed to have limited power. The very existence of the Constitution disproves that lie. I.e. if the government was indeed supposed to have limited power, there would be no Constitution. We already had Articles of Confederation. Under which states had most power and the central government had limited power. But very soon it became clear that it was not a viable arrangement, and that's why the Constitution was adopted. If you wanted to describe in one sentence what the Constitution accomplished it would be something like "a massive transfer of power from states to the newly created strong federal government" - not "limited the federal government". You have to look not at some abstracts turns of phrase in the document, but at how it changed the status quo. You know, a new law setting a 50% tax rate can be a draconian tax increase (from 10%) - or it can be a dramatic tax cut (from 90%). It all depends on what it was before. Very often when Libertarians talk about the Constitution they basically pretend that we still have Articles of Confederation. But in reality the original text of the Constitution had virtually no limits on the federal government power (except for a ban on ex post facto laws, bills of attainder etc.). Some states were actually concerned that there were no limits on the government infringing on freedoms and insisted on adding a Bill of Rights. Still, not many limits were added. And then in 1819 the SCOTUS confirmed (in McCulloch v. Maryland) that contrary to what libertarians claim even now, Article I, Section 8 does not actually limit the federal government to those powers explicitly listed therein.
Yes, it's your choice as long as you don't go out in public. Just as it's your choice to drink or not as long as you don't drive on public roads.
And yes, vaccines are effective and have already saved over a million Americans.
OK, fine. Then as a concerned citizen I claim the right to mitigate the danger from you by shooting you if you come within 50 feet of me.
Do you realize that everything you say about vaccination also applies to drunk driving?! By your own argument you should be free to decide whether or not to put alcohol inside your body before driving, and concerned citizens are free to mitigate as they see fit rendering any perceived danger from you moot.
BTW there's also other way in which you danger others if you unvaccinated. You are much likelier to end up in a hospital, and American hospitals were already overwhelmed in Delta and Omicron waves, resulting in deaths of many people from other causes. Also, for many people Covid is a chronic disease, and I don't want to pay for your treatment for the rest of your life. Somehow I doubt that if you get chronic Covid, you'll follow your professed beliefs and pay for everything out of pocket.
1819…then vs now.
Then:
Very rarely did the federal government overstep their bounds
Most power was within the states, as long as constitutional provisions were followed
Congress could conduct enough to satisfy the problems the articles created
Now:
Congress can simply use outdated antiques to suppress states rights, for example marijuana legalization
Congress can misuses “necessary and proper” or the commerce clause to, out of nowhere, create new areas they can legislate
Power has mostly became centralized over the past century
States are much more limited in how they conduct themselves
When the court is of a certain political leaning it takes an activist stance that was unheard of then
When will it stop? How far will it go? As power has shifted towards the feds on things it never did 200 years ago we have seen America slowly become a centralized government. Sometimes for good (civil rights) and sometimes for worse (roe v. wade). My interpretation of our constitution is, in matters of federal power, the power of the feds should be limited to what is in the constitution or any law or action that is necessary for our continued survival (war, tax, etc). The various power clauses need to be construed as strictly as possible, or we run the risk of them becoming further misused and misinterpreted, then what good is the constitution since it basically is ignored as a “damn document that gets in the way”, leading us into a totalitarian dystopian America.
Yes, we are becoming more centralized because the world is becoming more complex and interconnected, requiring more done by the government in general and more of it done by the central government. We can't possibly know how far it will go. We can no more imagine the world in the middle of the 23rd century than the Constitution framers were able to imagine ours (just one bit: back then the 10 biggest American towns and villages - there were no cities - had the combined population about the same as modern Peoria).
Because no protection is perfect (and each one listed by you is actually far from perfect). So the danger also depends on the level of your exposure. If I don't mask, I increase your exposure. If I'm not vaccinated - along with many other people - I increase the overall infection level, and that increases your exposure too (not even necessarily from me).
The whole point is that epidemics (just like wars) are collective problems, and therefore public health is a collective solution. And that's part of the reason why any heavily individualistic ideology is as utopian and evil as Communism.
I was on board until I read this part, and then I started thinking to myself:
Here's the classic catch in the communist gambit of riling up people's emotions to "convince" them.
A true marxist, you are; you should be proud!
1. Propose limiting the corrupt government that opresses us
2. Switch to the call-at-arms of
installing a large government replacing
the elites with a new type of elites.
History repeats itself.
Says the guy subscribing to the evil mom school of governance.
Few things in history have inaugurated more atrocity than sacrificing people for a common "good".
Meanwhile, you are going to love this.
The WHA is going to amend the WHO's treaty with provisos that will allow it to declare a health emergency in any nation, commandeer its infrastructure, and coerce its citizenry to take whatever action the WHO deems necessary.
What could go wrong?
It is not like there has ever been a regime that hijacked and retooled a public health system to conduct heinous experiments on people.
Right?
It is ironic that you use taxation as your example of unlimited federal power when our original limited Constitution required the 16th Amendment to be passed before Congress was ever granted unlimited taxation authority.
Corporate fat cats, Dennock, Gelth confederacy, Informed consent, and 1 otherLutiania
Post self-deleted by Kalatchevia.
Yeah- I was totally off for assuming marxism for the standard socialist; it's totally not like it prevailed for 99% of socialism's actual use in society or anything (like a century or so) totally!
Maybe this is nihilist, but yeah- show me an example where "as much decenteralization as possible" applied to socialism in the real world. For all the words socialists like to use, history has no evidence of a "working" model for.
Decenteralism only works for an efficient model (capitalism, doi) otherwise, "putting power in the hands of the states" still means expensive af for everybody.
I dunno. Liberal and Conservative face their entire history of trying to make the name of the other's adversary an insult. Even adding "tard" to lib. Or, the classic "extremist" which is the wild card.
That's not new. What is new is people actually believing the bs that either side slaps to the actual meaning.
Yep.
Before WWI, the federal government fed its general funds primarily with import tariffs.
Federal excises had to have a specific stated purpose, and be collected from every state at a flat rate.
Fair, transparent, and wholly antithetical to progressive ideology.
Domestic entitlement coupled with a trade dynamic that favored the US less and less as the Cold War unfolded, and the culture flipping over time from production to consumption, made for entrenched national, and global engines of wealth redistribution that cannot be rolled back.
Two thirds of the federal budget is classified by law as mandatory, and it primarily centers around social security followed by medicare, then the rest of the federal social programs.
The next time you hear someone prattle on about US defense spending, kindly remind them that it is allocated out of a discretionary fund that represents only one third of the total federal budget.
Funny. I see more of that in leftwing identity politics.
Anyway, I think Gallagher said it best.
"If pro means for, and con means against, does that mean that Congress is the opposite of Progress?"
Unlike those such as Anchillas, Informed consent, and others you just seem to want to drill it that you are right and I am wrong. Don't think that your view is an absolute, as none are, not even mine. Open your mind to those who are different, only then will the best viewpoint be developed. You seem to think that I somehow am not libertarian, how many times must my kind state this, Marxism-Leninism is a form of Socialism but is by far not the only form. Read about how diverse of a movement socialism is. It is about as (if not more) diverse than liberalism or conservatism, and socialism can combine liberal or conservative aspects into itself, i.e. become a syncretic stance with a wide variety of views. Socialism as a movement is united only by one tenet, worker (or employee in the modern sense) control...no other. Don't conflate my socialism with the communist utopian fools who are not willing to be flexible with there stance, I am not that but the very opposite.
Depends upon your point of view.
It is part of a standup comedy act.
Gallagher did have a strong libertarian streak if I remember him right.
He would ask things like;
"What would we call a fly if it did not have wings?
"A walk?"
"Why are they called apartments when they are so close together?"
"Why is it called a TV set when you only get one?.
"Cargo goes by ship, but a shipment goes by truck."
"A woman wears a pair of panties, but just one bra."
«12. . .2,0332,0342,0352,0362,0372,0382,039. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement