Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was expecting to see fox news on fire with Judge Napolitano fire giving his speach.
But his comments are kinda dumb. I can see why he was fired.

Stormrider wrote:States do. The Feds DON'T.

Article 4, Section 1 of the US constitution.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This is the legal justification given for that horrible piece of gak that Clinton pushed through called DoMA anyway.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

CptJake wrote:Local, county and state gov'ts give the people quite a bit of say if they choose to make their voices heard.

But not the Federal Government, obviously. Because recognising democracy at that level is against the party line.

Art. I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power To..."
9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Your general ignorance of US law, specifically the US Constitution, is generally excusable, but if you're going to talk about something like this, you should at least try to understand the subject matter.

I'm confused, which one of those segments of the Constitution eliminates democracy at the federal level?

biccat wrote:Art. I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power To..."
9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Your general ignorance of US law, specifically the US Constitution, is generally excusable, but if you're going to talk about something like this, you should at least try to understand the subject matter.

If I had engaged in constitutional debate some of that wuold probably have been relevant. I didn't, so it was basically a waste of time. I suspect you've already stopped reading, and begun feeling satisfied that you totally made a good point, but just in case you're trying to figure this out I'll explain it to you...

Pacific said the government had no interest in helping the common people, Cpt Jake responded to that very point by commenting that the Federal Government wasn't created to help people per the constitution, and then went on to say that a person can have a fair influence in local, county and state politics if they choose to make their voices heard.

I commented on that last bit, and that last bit alone, editing my quote of Cpt Jake's post to just his part on local, county and state politics because the first part about the limits of the constitution is a boring and completely pointless argument.

You ignored that, and pretended I was making a point on the presence or not of constitutional limitations on the purpose of federal government.

I, for one, would like to hear more about the Kangaroo Cavalry.

sebster wrote:

CptJake wrote:Local, county and state gov'ts give the people quite a bit of say if they choose to make their voices heard.

But not the Federal Government, obviously. Because recognising democracy at that level is against the party line.

Ain't got crap to do with any party line. Has to do with they tiny fact we are NOT a democracy but instead a representative republic.

Look it up.

Probably not popular to say, but read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" to learn more about the Judge's train of thought.

Zinn's sections about pre-Revolutionary America are very interesting.

Monster Rain wrote:I, for one, would like to hear more about the Kangaroo Cavalry.

You'll have to ask some Australian.

sebster wrote:I commented on that last bit, and that last bit alone, editing my quote of Cpt Jake's post to just his part on local, county and state politics because the first part about the limits of the constitution is a boring and completely pointless argument.

Actually, I was responding to this part of your comment:
"recognising democracy at [the Federal] level is against the party line"

Democracy doesn't apply at the federal level because the Federal Government in the United States is a government of limited powers. You can lobby all you want for the Federal government to ban guns in schools, but that is a power that the Federal Government does not possess.

Party affiliation has nothing to do with it (or at least, shouldn't).

To quote a wise man: "I suspect you've already stopped reading, and begun feeling satisfied that you totally made a good point."

Ta.

Stormrider wrote:

Melissia wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

purplefood wrote:Is small government not the idea that the government shouldn't be allowed/able to interfere in anything?

To some extent, you also get into trouble with what should or shouldn't be interfered with. It is more a rhetorical code word than anything that can be objectively pinned down.

Fair enough...

For example, most "small government" people around here still think the government shoudl regulate marraige to block homosexuals from marrying.

But how DARE government try to prevent monopolies, that's big government intrusion. FIGHT THE POWER FIGHT THE POWER!

Does the Federal Government have the authority to regulate weddings/marriage?

States do. The Feds DON'T.

The Feds only have the authority to regulate monopolies thanks to biased SCOTUS decisions.

Actually, under the Constitution, the Federal situation is mostly that each state has to recognize the other state's acts in this area - hence the freakout by more conservative states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I, for one, would like to hear more about the Kangaroo Cavalry.

Seconded.

Easy E wrote:Probably not popular to say, but read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" to learn more about the Judge's train of thought.

Zinn's sections about pre-Revolutionary America are very interesting.

Oh goody, an avowed Communist talking about American History. Awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Melissia wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

purplefood wrote:Is small government not the idea that the government shouldn't be allowed/able to interfere in anything?

To some extent, you also get into trouble with what should or shouldn't be interfered with. It is more a rhetorical code word than anything that can be objectively pinned down.

Fair enough...

For example, most "small government" people around here still think the government shoudl regulate marraige to block homosexuals from marrying.

But how DARE government try to prevent monopolies, that's big government intrusion. FIGHT THE POWER FIGHT THE POWER!

Does the Federal Government have the authority to regulate weddings/marriage?

States do. The Feds DON'T.

The Feds only have the authority to regulate monopolies thanks to biased SCOTUS decisions.

Actually, under the Constitution, the Federal situation is mostly that each state has to recognize the other state's acts in this area - hence the freakout by more conservative states.

Why? If the state of Texas made being Arkansan illegal, would it be enforceable or recognized by Louisiana or Oklahoma?

There perhaps could be an argument in the supremacy clause, but not according to the 10th Amendment. Furthermore, there is no direct authority for the Federal Government to legislate regarding marriage. Hence why it is and should remain a state issue. There's also no guarantee of a spouse, so there's no equal protection argument.

CptJake wrote:
Ain't got crap to do with any party line. Has to do with they tiny fact we are NOT a democracy but instead a representative republic.

Look it up.

This is one of the worst popular political arguments that exists.

Yes, the US is a republic as its head of state is not chosen by heredity. Yes, it is representative, as the people do not have direct control of the government. But guess what, its also also a democracy because those representatives are chosen by way of free and fair elections.

In fact, one could argue that a state effectively cannot be a republic without also being a democracy of some type.

If you're arguing that the federal government is not democratic, then also have to argue that every state without binding ballot day initiatives is also not democratic, because they use systems of government that are basic approximations of the federal system.

biccat wrote:
Democracy doesn't apply at the federal level because the Federal Government in the United States is a government of limited powers. You can lobby all you want for the Federal government to ban guns in schools, but that is a power that the Federal Government does not possess.

The federal government has the power to amend the Constitution, which means any part of the document can be changed if sufficient support exists, which means it is essentially subject to democratic control. Congressional support being tied to popular support.

In essence, yes, the federal government has the power ban guns, its just very difficult, legally, for it to do so.

CptJake wrote:Ain't got crap to do with any party line.

No, it just happens by miraculous coincidence to match 100% with the line trumpeted

Has to do with they tiny fact we are NOT a democracy but instead a representative republic.

Look it up.

The representatives in your representative republic... they're elected. Democratically. Which is why it's called representative democracy. Which is, of course, the most common form of democracy in the world. Which is why it's so utterly stupid to pretend you don't have democratic institutions at the federal level.

It's so odd to see Americans of a certain political stripe to fuss and bother about that 'republic' part. That means you don't have a king. It differentiates you from democratic monarchy, like the UK or Australia. Nothing more, nothing less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Actually, I was responding to this part of your comment:
"recognising democracy at [the Federal] level is against the party line"

Democracy doesn't apply at the federal level because the Federal Government in the United States is a government of limited powers.

Having limited powers doesn't make a system not a democracy. If I got together with two other guys and we agreed that every week we'd vote to see if we would go to a sporting match or to the movies, it would be a democracy, because we were using a democratic process to make a decision. It wouldn't stop being a democracy because the process was limited only to what entertainment we saw, and not to what we had for dinner.

If we were to follow your reasoning then there would be no democracy anywhere in the world, because every constitution, by the nature of being a constitution, places some things off limit from popular vote. Even the forms of government Cpt Jake mentioned positively wouldn't be democracies, because things are most definitely placed off limits from a popular vote.

Party affiliation has nothing to do with it (or at least, shouldn't).

It shouldn't, but it's been a key argument for one your two major political parties for quite a few decades now. Some people have strong, independant convictions, and are able to believe in some elements of their movement while rejecting others, but that's clearly not the case with Cpt Jake. Instead, it's clear that it was important for Cpt Jake to exclude Federal government because he, like you, is a true believer, and has embraced every part of movement conservatism, and will repeat them wherever given the chance.

To quote a wise man: "I suspect you've already stopped reading, and begun feeling satisfied that you totally made a good point."

I'm pretty sure you didn't read my whole post, by the way. I'm also pretty sure you've stopped reading this one by now.

Stormrider wrote:

Easy E wrote:Probably not popular to say, but read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" to learn more about the Judge's train of thought.

Zinn's sections about pre-Revolutionary America are very interesting.

Oh goody, an avowed Communist talking about American History. Awesome.

Then I think the Judge has gone so far Right on the political spectrum, that he has circled back around to the Left, and is now a Communist too.