electoral-vote.com

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Pointedstick »

Storm, you're absolutely right, but it's not just Citizens United; this election is truly about the makeup of the Supreme Court and that matters for far, far more than just corporate free speech. A 6-member liberal majority would also eliminate the right to keep and bear arms. A 6-member conservative majority would eliminate abortion. Neither would declare anything related to the drug war or indefinite detainment unconstitutional. So it really comes down to which culture war wedge issue you want emphasized. Keep in mind eliminating abortion or the second amendment would severely energize the people who care about what was just damaged or outlawed, causing them to probably push for a constitutional amendment.

Regardless of who's elected, I expect the Supreme Court to become the next major ideological battleground, and I hope that we Americans rediscover the constitutional amendment process. Anything the Supreme Court rules can be overruled by a constitutional amendment.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Xan »

The whole McCain-Feingold ban of speech leading up to an election is so completely wrong at every level.  Originally, an organization called Citizens United was banned (BANNED by the federal government) from advertising a movie it had produced.  What kind of sense does that make?  What country are we in, anyway?
User avatar
Lone Wolf
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1416
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:15 pm

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Lone Wolf »

Xan wrote: The answer to "getting money out of politics" is to limit the vast and ever-increasing role of government in our lives.  Corporations feel that they must influence lawmakers because they perceive lawmakers as arbitrary thugs, capable of allowing businesses to thrive or destroying them at a whim.  Take that power away, and it won't be a problem anymore.
Exactly.  When it's a better deal to invest in some slimy statist than to invest in your business, might it be that you have entrusted the slimy statist with too much power?

The all-time best quote on this is still:

"Lord Acton said, 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The corollary to this is that without power, there can be no corruption -- for the politician has nothing to sell."

-- Harry Browne
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Pointedstick »

Xan wrote: Originally, an organization called Citizens United was banned (BANNED by the federal government) from advertising a movie it had produced.  What kind of sense does that make?  What country are we in, anyway?
That's a great point. For detractors of Citizens United, it would be worth considering just how much government censorship is tolerable in the name of attempting to "get money out of politics". Remember that in oral arguments, the government's attorney claimed that the government could prohibit the printing and sale of a book that contained political advocacy material because the organization doing the printing and sale was a corporation.
During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_ ... Commission
Does that sounds like something that should be able to happen in the United States of America?
Last edited by Pointedstick on Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
Storm
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Storm »

Pointedstick wrote:
During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring a writer to author a political book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_ ... Commission
Does that sounds like something that should be able to happen in the United States of America?
To be fair, those are edge cases that are designed to show extreme interpretations of FEC rules.  I do believe there is a balance somewhere between banning books with political speech and allowing the Koch brothers to use a couple $billion to carpet bomb the air waves and get pro-oil candidates elected.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines.  Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Xan »

Why shouldn't they be allowed to try to convince people to vote a particular way?  Nobody's forced to vote in a manner they don't want to, no matter how many dollars are involved.  You believe that the Koch brothers (or whoever) should have a gun pointed at them and be told what they can and can't publish because it's related to politics?

What I'd like to know is, how does that at all square with "Congress shall make no law".  Political speech is EXACTLY the speech which is most precious in terms of the first amendment.  There is no excuse for limiting it.

Talk about concentration of power!  Putting federal politicians in charge of who can say what in federal elections is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.  It is utterly indefensible.  When Bush signed it, he did so saying he thought it would be struck down because it was unconstitutional.  Signing it anyway was one of the greatest derelictions of duty I can recall.  The president is supposed to uphold the Constitution as well.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Pointedstick »

The thing is Storm, I actually sort of agree with Stevens in his dissent. I think it's quite possible that billions of dollars in corporate and union money does at least reduce peoples' confidence in democracy. IMHO that's a problem with democracy itself, but that's another story.

The problem is that we have this thing called the first amendment, and there's no exception in it for corporations or unions. If it's desirable to prohibit or regulate corporate or union speech, there's a perfectly acceptable means to do so that is so often forgotten by many people--including Justice Stevens, apparently: a constitutional amendment. If this is something that the people want, it ought to be decided in a democratic manner that respects the constitution. Having judges re-interpret the first amendment to suddenly find this big exception for collective speech is undemocratic, while having congress pass a law that violates the first amendment is unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment is both democratic and constitutional.

That's why I think Stevens was so wrong. All his logic is pretty reasonable as far as potential outcomes go… but that's not his job. He's not supposed to say, "this law is constitutional because I believe it prevents a bad outcome". He's supposed to say, "I don't like the outcome I foresee if I strike down this law, but I have to do it because the first amendment forbids it. If you all really want what this law does, you need to create an exception in the first amendment in the form of a constitutional amendment."

If judges can just reinterpret constitutional amendments to blow huge holes in their protections, then they offer very few safeguards to our liberty… just as Harry Browne wrote decades ago:
Many people believe the Constitution should protect their rights. But has it done so? I’ve heard it said that the Constitution is perfect but that the politicians create problems by ignoring it. But if the Constitution can’t make the politicians respect it, of what value is it? It’s interesting to talk about, but not really useful to your freedom. For, in practice, the Constitution is whatever the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court choose to think it is — and that may be considerably different from what you think it is.

If a law is passed to protect your rights, it’s an uncertain, temporary safeguard at best. Laws are broken, amended, repealed, overruled, ignored, and ill-enforced. They’re not very effective protectors.

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, p.76
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by moda0306 »

The first amendment is up to some interpretation.  You can't commit fraud, incite violence, plan a murder, yell "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.  I don't think looking at the realities of the end results of an act is completely irrelevant, but I really have no way of drawing a line.

I have a pretty firm belief that a representative democracy with various branches is about the best form of government one could want, though I would say that I also believe tyranny of the majority is a huge risk.  How do you handle this?  Well I don't necessarily love the libertarian/Austrian model, but developing an education system that challenges people to debate in the manner we do here (for the most part) is probably the best start and allows the proper role of government to rise to the top.

I agree that anyone should be able to make a movie... After the most recent Obama 2016 movie coming out, it makes me wonder whether or not that movie would even be allowed in a world where Citizen's United was decided the other way. 
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by MediumTex »

moda0306 wrote: I have a pretty firm belief that a representative democracy with various branches is about the best form of government one could want, though I would say that I also believe tyranny of the majority is a huge risk.  How do you handle this?  Well I don't necessarily love the libertarian/Austrian model, but developing an education system that challenges people to debate in the manner we do here (for the most part) is probably the best start and allows the proper role of government to rise to the top.
Starting in about the third grade I enjoyed challenging the ideas my teachers offered in what I considered to be a lively and spirited search for truth.

Near the end of the seventh grade my principal informed me that if I didn't stop "challenging his teachers' authority" through my classroom participation, I would be expelled from school.  In response to this news, I stopped challenging the ideas teachers were asking me to accept, either verbally or in writing, I grew out my hair, started playing in a band, began reading widely outside of school and was a very mediocre student from grades 8-12.

When I got to college I encountered a group of professors who were less intellectually insecure than the teachers who had complained about me in junior high and high school and I resumed my active challenging of what they were passing off as truth, which they mostly appreciated (with a few notable exceptions), and  which I have continued to do ever since. 

I have since crossed paths with some of those public school teachers who saw my intellectual curiosity as a threat, and I sort of feel sorry for them.  To me, a teacher who feels threatened by an intellectually aggressive student is sort of like a juggler who is frightened by the sight of balls in the air--it's just completely ridiculous.

I'm still a little annoyed by the whole thing.  I always wanted to ask some of those teachers if they were really that insecure that they felt threatened by a kid with a lot of curiosity and skepticism, or if they were just such crappy teachers that they couldn't tell the difference between intellectual curiosity and disrespect for authority.

I remember one time one of my teachers was going over some of the characters in Greek mythology and making snide comments about how stupid the Greeks were to believe in their whole mythological system.  I asked her if she thought that they might feel the same way about our belief system.  She didn't skip a beat before telling me that there was no comparison between the two, because her beliefs were true and the beliefs of the Greeks were false.  "Oh, okay", I thought to myself, "I'll just go back to my daydreaming then."
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Xan »

Actually the first amendment is quite clear.  The muddiness comes in with the 14th amendment, and subsequent court decisions that have ruled that the first amendment applies at all levels of government.

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech".  This limits federal laws.  It's up to state laws and state constitutions to figure out the boundaries of speech regarding fraud, inciting violence, conspiracy, mischief, etc.

I agree that "free speech" is a muddy concept, but *at the federal level*, it should be absolutely inviolable.
User avatar
Storm
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Storm »

I still don't agree that all speech should be allowed.  I mean, in general, the First amendment is a great thing, however, we can't allow people to do anything they want without repercussions.  What if Osama bin Laden were still alive, and wanted to spend millions of dollars running TV ads inciting violence and asking people to commit suicide bombings?  Should this be allowed?  After all, "congress shall make no law..."

Results matter.  There is another article posted mentioning that we pay some ridiculous amount of money every month for substandard cable, internet, and phone service.  This is because the telcos got together and realized that if they bribed congressmen for X (where X = $millions) they could get a return on their investment of Y (where Y = $billions).

They completely co-opted the political process, got congress to use federal funds to build out their data networks for them, and now proceed to rake US consumers over the coals in many markets where they have a de-facto monopoly on TV and Internet.  Should this be allowed?  What if GM figured out they could bribe congress to pass import tarrifs on all foreign cars, then proceed to jack up the price on their sub-standard cars because there was little competition?

The problem is that money corrupts.  If you allow people to spend a lot of money on political ads, you get the best government that money can buy...  We need publicly funded elections.
"I came here for financial advice, but I've ended up with a bunch of shave soaps and apparently am about to start eating sardines.  Not that I'm complaining, of course." -ZedThou
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Xan »

Public employee unions shouldn't even exist.  I'm okay with teachers getting together to expound a political position, but that doesn't mean that one such group should have a monopoly on all teaching jobs.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by MachineGhost »

Storm wrote: I have a question for those voters that support less corporate influence on politics:  Why are you still supporting Romney?  It seems pretty apparent that Obama is our best chance at getting Citizens United overturned and reducing the influence of money on politics.
Not that tired old argument again.  There's nothing wrong with money buying advertising in a free market of political speech; its not coercive and it doesn't manipulate anyone like a puppetmaster.  Does Microsoft or Best Buy force you to purchase Windows or buy a HDTV?  PACs and SPACs are just not the same thing as directly bribing politicians (above or under the table) with kickbacks, etc..  What you want is increased anti-lobbying and anti-corruption laws, not campaign finance reform.   Guess which politicians don't like?  Hint: its not the latter.

The real issue is if you try to get money out of political speech which is as impossible as winning the War on Drugs, you will empower yet another bureaucracy of terrorist bureaucrats who get to decide the who, what, when, where, why of any kind of political speech that is allowed to be spoken or written, all needing kowtowable permission beforehand from said such bureaucrats.  Historical experience has shown it becomes just another example of crony capitalism.  That ridiculous B.S. is exactly what Citizens United overturned.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by MachineGhost »

Storm wrote: The problem is that money corrupts.  If you allow people to spend a lot of money on political ads, you get the best government that money can buy...  We need publicly funded elections.
Money doesn't corrupt.  Weakness corrupts.

If you can't tell the difference between free speech and crony corruption, then don't be surprised people are rabidly against your ignorance.  Some principles are just inviolate.  Free speech is one of them.

There's no way I'm submitting to a terrorist gatekeeping bureaucrats' nirvana of pre-approved, pre-selected, crony election candidates sucking at the tit of unlimited government money which is what "publically funded elections" really are.  It is a complete mockery of democracy.

I think you need to look more at the actual real world results of your proposals and stop living in a futuristic fear-fantasy.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Benko »

Storm wrote: we pay some ridiculous amount of money every month for substandard cable, internet, and phone service.  This is because the telcos got together and realized that if they bribed congressmen for X (where X = $millions) they could get a return on their investment of Y (where Y = $billions).

They completely co-opted the political process,
Which is worse for the country, "substandard cable, internet, and phone service" or our screwed up educational system because the teachers union has an iron grip on the congress e.g. you can't get rid of bad teachers, more money thrown at the problem does not yield better results,etc.  People who go on about special interests and buying congress seem to never mention the teachers union.   Or of course tort reform (but that is another issue).
TennPaGa wrote: How is what the teacher's union does any different than what any lobbying group does:
It is possible to find politicians who have not been influlenced by any particular e.g. defense lobying group.  The democrats are  wedded to the teachers union beyond any hope of reform.
Last edited by Benko on Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by moda0306 »

We know that eventually the government is going to have to bargain w/ the private sector for goods/services just like it bargains w/ teachers unions for goods/services.  Why only unions should be looked at with a furled brow is beyond me.  Both eventually end up at the bargaining table.  Further, if you do believe in some level of regulation, then that process becomes neutered as well.

Xan,

Your idea that the constitution only should apply to the federal government is one I've tried to debate w/ myself (as so few people understand that nuance).  To me, it'd be pretty disgusting to have the federal government allowing the electoral results of states that suppress voting of classes they don't feel like allowing to vote.  It would be tyrannical and self-fulfilling.  This is the kind of stuff that happens when you have absolutely no standards by which state/local governments have to abide by in terms of how they serve their constituants and how they manage the voting process, especially since those voting processes effect federal election outcomes.  
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Pointedstick »

moda0306 wrote: Xan,

Your idea that the constitution only should apply to the federal government is one I've tried to debate w/ myself (as so few people understand that nuance).  To me, it'd be pretty disgusting to have the federal government allowing the electoral results of states that suppress voting of classes they don't feel like allowing to vote.  It would be tyrannical and self-fulfilling.  This is the kind of stuff that happens when you have absolutely no standards by which state/local governments have to abide by in terms of how they serve their constituants and how they manage the voting process, especially since those voting processes effect federal election outcomes. 

That's exactly why the 14th amendment was passed. The provisions of the bill of rights were originally intended to only apply to the federal government, which is why states have their own constitutions with their own constitutional guarantees of various freedoms for their citizens. After the passage of the 14th amendment, states became bound by the "incorporated" parts of the federal bill of rights as well as their own constitutions.

In the end, though, constitutional law all pretty meaningless ethically and logically since judges can say whatever they want with no real consequences. I recommend reading The Myth of the Rule of Law.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by MachineGhost »

moda0306 wrote: Your idea that the constitution only should apply to the federal government is one I've tried to debate w/ myself (as so few people understand that nuance).  To me, it'd be pretty disgusting to have the federal government allowing the electoral results of states that suppress voting of classes they don't feel like allowing to vote.  It would be tyrannical and self-fulfilling.  This is the kind of stuff that happens when you have absolutely no standards by which state/local governments have to abide by in terms of how they serve their constituants and how they manage the voting process, especially since those voting processes effect federal election outcomes.  
I think I read somewhere that the notion of the Constitution being about limitations on the Federal government was a romantic right-wing fantasy with no historical precedent.  The original Bill of Rights, however, certainly are limitations on the Federal government.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by moda0306 »

PS,

Here's a summary of my quandry, which may or may not be reinforced by your link:

Regarding non-constitutional law, the judges are there to interpret the law based on the intentions of the writers of the law.  I can’t imagine this is particularly easy, though at least you know what to base it on.  Assuming there is not constitutional conflict, I definitely think the judges should be purely an interpretive entity.

Regarding constitutional law, though, it gets a little hairy, because you have a few options:

1) Interpret the law based on how the founding fathers or authors of the further amendments would think or how they meant it… this would classify most black people and women as second-class citizens.  Further, the “founding fathers”? didn’t really agree on the role of gov’t in as perfect a way as some would naturally believe.  Jefferson thought it put way too much power to the central government.  Madison and Adams disagreed.  Who's opinions do we use?

2) Interpret the law based on what you, as a judge, think is fair, or produced ideal results… this has obvious drawbacks.  This is indeed “legislating from the bench.”?  However, when compared to the other alternatives, it may not seem that horrible that someone who’s spent years studying constitutional philosophy, law, etc, be the one to massage the decision.  Is that maybe better than permanently setting who is considered a “man”? to white males?  I think, maybe so.

3) Interpret the law based on how the majority of the current population would think.  This is somewhat dead in the water because the constitution is there to prevent tyranny of the majority… simply taking a poll on what the constitution should mean is oxymoronic.

I don’t think there is a “good”? way to interpret the constitution, if you can even call it that.  Americans would revolt if we turned the electoral/gov’t clock back to 1776.  We wouldn’t even be electing our president directly… is this really what people that cry that “we’re a Republic, not a democracy”? want to have happen?  We have to find a balance between democracy, firewalls between gov’t branches, and individual sovereignty.  I don’t think anyone’s blueprint is automatically any better than someone else’s.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Pointedstick »

moda, your quandry is a very legitimate one. The basic problem is that law is so murky and contradictory that there can be no faithful originalist/textualist interpretation. But once you discard originalism/textualism, what else are you left with? Rule by the personal preferences of judges, which is obviously undesirable as well.

For example, say I am an originalist/textualist and I am confronted with the task of determining what the second amendment means (perhaps I am a SCOTUS judge ruling on DC vs Heller). I immediately have several problems:

1. Laws governing firearms at the founding were far less restrictive in some ways, but far more in other ways. For example, every man was expected to own a personal firearm, but in many cases was also obligated to train with it. Today we cast a very leery eye at mandatory conscription.

2. The arms deemed protected at the founding were at the time modern military weapons, including not only muskets but cannons and private warships (privateers)! Modern equivalents would be automatic assault rifles, howitzers, planes, and tanks. Does this still make sense in a modern context? If there is a line, where should the line be drawn? Before automatic weapons? Before explosives? Before armed crew-served vehicles? Before weapons of mass destruction? How could you possibly determine the location of this line in a manner consistent with originalism or textualism?

3. Open carry of pistols and often even long arms was socially acceptable at the founding, but concealed carry was looked down upon as a cowardly act of thieves and untrustworthy people. Today, concealed carry is socially acceptable, but open carry freaks people out. Does this mean that concealed carry is not a protected form of bearing arms? How does that square with modern customs? Would it make sense to say that an archaic and infrequently-practiced form of weapons carry deserves full constitutional protection?

4. The text and history get murkier the farther forward in time you go. Many states quickly abrogated the right to keep and bear arms for racial minorities and immigrants. Does that make these restrictions consistent with the second amendment? Or are these examples of bigoted thinking that have no place being enshrined in law?



But on the other hand, if you disregard the text and history, you have an even harder task!

1. Since the founding, some states have gotten much less restrictive (Arizona, Florida, Tennessee, Wyoming, etc), while some have become much more restrictive (New York, New Jersey, California, etc). Is a federal protection for the right to keep and bear arms even relevant in a country to divided on the issue? What would be the effects of forcing a political entity to recognize a right that the majority of its residents fear and despise? Isn't that exactly what the 14th amendment and civil rights act did? Should this be any different?

2. What about modern laws such as bans on weapon possession by felons, the mentally ill, or domestic violence misdemeanants? These laws have no real historical support, and clearly infringe on the right in question… but they're hardly controversial and clearly set peoples' minds at ease regarding the legal availability of weapons ownership. Should these laws be upheld? Is it okay for a judge to uphold a law because he or she believes it results in a good outcome? How would that not constitute simply imposing your personal preferences on the whole of the population?

3. All modern personal firearms clearly permit far greater firepower than those single-shot flintlocks protected at the founding; does that mean that they are not protected? How would that be consistent with assertions that other rights (such as freedom of speech or the press) are not diminished by technological progress? Should an exception be made because firearms are unlike self-expression in that they are weapons that can cause damage, and thus traditionally subject to the states' police powers?



To questions such as these, my answer--and the answer professor Hasnas gives in my link--is that we are left with the "Rule of Judges." There can be no objective answer to these types of questions, so we truly are at the mercy of the men and women making the decisions. Objective law is a myth. I think Harry Browne had it right when he said we should put no stock in constitutional rights to protect our freedoms.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by moda0306 »

PS,

Since judges are often either elected, or nominated by elected officials, I tend to think that the constitution ends up being some loosely indirect interpretation of the constitution by the voting majority.  Yes, judges hold the gavil, but it took a process to get them there, and often it's a very democratic (not good or bad in meaning.. just that it represents the will of the majority) process.

Your 2nd amendment observations are the same things I think and observe.

Overall, I find HB's personal philosophy & handbook on freedom a lot more useful than trying to get angry about interpretations on the constitution and judges, tyranny and coercion, that I will never control.  I can't even think my way through a basic philosophy on how judges should make constitutional decisions, so it's hard for me to get terribly angry about what they do decide in the end (fiscal hawks, on the other hand, I can fully enjoy banter with :)).
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Xan »

Coming back around to the beginning of this segment of the thread: having a "rule of judges" rather than a rule of law makes Storm's graphic a couple of pages ago even more relevant.  I interpret it as a strongly pro-Romney advertisement.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by moda0306 »

Xan,

How should a "rule of law" manifest itself?  Judges following the interpretations of men in 1776?  Should black people be qualified as men worthy of rights?  Should women have those same rights?  Who should be able to vote?

If we can agree that following their interpretations is a bit much, then whose interpretation do we use?  The members of congress?  The electorate?

Really not trying to sound snarky... just trying to ask the same questions I ask myself when I try to decide what standard we should hold ourselves to.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4555
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by Xan »

Oh I wasn't trying to sound snarky either, and I think I may have.  I probably (very reluctantly) agree that the "rule of law" is a myth.  PS, I've read that article you linked to before and found it quite, well, I suppose depressing is the word.  Certainly assumption-challenging.  It's difficult to accept that there isn't a "right answer" out there.

I was just trying to say that the point about the makeup of the Supreme Court being a result of the upcoming election is valid, and even more important under the "rule of judges" in which we find ourselves.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: electoral-vote.com

Post by moda0306 »

You didn't sound snarky at all... just was making sure my comments weren't coming off as veiled racism accusations or anything.

The way I see judges is basically another segregated, fire-walled (to a degree) branch of government that are there to interpret laws and protect the individual from the more aggressive branches of government.  Statutes, regulations, as well as the constitution itself, are their guide-book, and luckily they're insulated from the DOJ, president, congress, or regulatory agencies enough so that we can at least have some hope of fair-minded thinking.

But by no means is there a convenient mechanism for a limitation on the tyranny of the majority to manifest itself through a government elected by a majority... nor is there agreement on really what constitutes "tyranny of the majority."  Some would say the draft, legally-backed slavery, and segregation were the worst manifestations of that tyranny... others would say welfare, income taxes, and social security payments/taxes are far worse.

Basically, "I give up!"  I'll stick to MMR, macroeconomics, the PP, etc., where I at least can pretend to understand oft-misunderstood mysteries & complexities... until I'm completely proven wrong someday when we default on our debt in a hyperinflationary ball of flames w/ 25% unemployment, the PP fails, and Peter Schiff is declared king for having predicted everything right.
Last edited by moda0306 on Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
Post Reply