What has Judge Napolitano said about SCOTUS Obamacare decision?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think it was the people's responsibility to prevent tyranny. The Constitution was really just a document that the people could point to and say to tyrants, "See, you broke this rule, this rule, and this rule, and that is why we're sending you to the gallows."

You wouldn't blame a gun for a murderer's actions.

Why blame the Constitution for a politician's actions?

You have a point, but my retort would be that the purpose of the document was to restrain the Government, no? Furthermore, if it's entire purpose has been unfulfilled and you say you can't point to that as a reason of it being a failure, then for what reason could it ever be a failure? In your argument the Constitution cannot be a failure ever, and I disagree.

I do not argue that only the document is to blame, but remember, the institutions in society influence the people. This document gave taxing authority (destruction of property rights), power to raise and fund standing armies, power of granting monopolies and other privileges (Posts, IP, etc.), and worst of all, the codification of an entire NEW layer of Government. You want to know why there is so much tyranny...something Montesquieu and Rousseau completely missed, is that with every new layer or branch of Government there is an entirely new opportunity to usher in tyranny. Far from restraining Government, it empowered it. We have today, the largest Government ever seen in history though can be argued the USSR was larger..., but not monetarily.

Abolish the Federal Leviathan. Abolish the state Leviathan. Abolish the county Leviathan's. I'd be ok with City-States...the only compromise you'll ever see from me.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Well, where I'm from, the county governments are actually weaker than cities (mostly because they are too broke to do anything troublesome), but otherwise, I like your ideal.

It still will depend on people to change things, though.

 

[TheTexan]

In defense of our founders, there was no way they could have imagined the creativity with which politicians would fuck our liberties and call it freedom

 

[Dr.3D]

Beside the fallacy of authority, yes, it is unconstitutional, but not because some robed men said so, but because through our reason we can read and understand what the document says, and then compare it to the action and see they are incompatible. Using your own logic, you must support the tax as constitutional because...even the SCOTUS said so.

Beside that, the document is worthless. If it's only merit to being was to prevent tyranny, it's an abject failure.

This is for Matt and the rest of the incrementalists:

~snip

PS: It would also help you to read MLK's letter while he was incarcerated in jail about the 'white moderates'. Replace 'white moderates' with 'libertarian moderates', and it describes it well.

What I was saying is, since the individual mandate isn't constitutional, having some sort of tax involved with the noncompliance of said mandate is also unconstitutional. Saying taxation is constitutional is fine, but that really depends on why the tax is due. If the tax is due to noncompliance with an unconstitutional mandate, then the tax is also unconstitutional.

 

[davidkachel]

Well, the individual mandate is unconstitutional, SCOTUS even said so. If you call it a tax, that doesn't make it constitutional.

You know that. And I know that. Apparently Justice traitor does not.

 

[Dr.3D]

You know that. And I know that. Apparently Justice traitor does not.

Well, he is using what's known as scrogic. That's short for screwed up logic.

 

[davidkachel]

Well, he is using what's known as scrogic. That's short for screwed up logic.

At first I thought scrogic might have something to do with male reproductive anatomy.

;-)

 

[Dr.3D]

At first I thought scrogic might have something to do with male reproductive anatomy.

;-)

Well, sometimes the male reproductive anatomy does cause it's owner to use scrogic.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

In defense of our founders, there was no way they could have imagined the creativity with which politicians would fuck our liberties and call it freedom

I disagree. Have you ever read the Anti-Federalist papers?

 

[Contumacious]

(Ben Swann) about how it is now invalid since it is a "tax" and was introduced in the Senate. I would like to know his take on it?

Say, doesn’t the Constitution require tax bills to originate in the House?

Just a quickie post to debunk an argument that we’re already seeing in threads and e-mails: Namely, doesn’t Article I, section 7 of the Constitution say that all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House? And didn’t ObamaCare pass the Senate before it passed the House? And doesn’t that in turn mean that our nifty new health care “tax” was passed according to unconstitutional procedures?

Unless I’m missing something, no. The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners.

Are thry corrupt or are they corrupt?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[TheTexan]

I disagree. Have you ever read the Anti-Federalist papers?

Some of them. Did they predict the commerce clause would be fucked six ways sideways?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Some of them. Did they predict the commerce clause would be fucked six ways sideways?

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, of the abuse of the SCOTUS, of the abuse of every clause wielded by the unscrupulous and power-gorged. There is a reason that they were vehemently anti-Constitution. Their insights are very prescient and devastating. Every person is implored to read their writings so as to avert the mistakes of the past. If ever we are thrown into conversation on the nature and proclivities of the Government, and to render it anew (of which I'd argue against), failure to take into account what they wrote would be a complete waste of life and property.

All reformation would be in vain to ignore their warnings.

 

[TheTexan]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, of the abuse of the SCOTUS, of the abuse of every clause wielded by the unscrupulous and power-gorged. There is a reason that they were vehemently anti-Constitution. Their insights are very prescient and devastating. Every person is implored to read their writings so as to avert the mistakes of the past. If ever we are thrown into conversation on the nature and proclivities of the Government, and to render it anew (of which I'd argue against), failure to take into account what they wrote would be a complete waste of life and property.

All reformation would be in vain to ignore their warnings.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Austrian Econ Disciple again.

 

[Matt Collins]

There are many non-political solutions. Some of which could theoretically work. Some of which absolutely would work (FSP).

FSP IS a political solution

But we don't need anything nearly as extravagant as the FSP in order to win back liberty. It's a matter of organizing and hitting the politicians on their political pressure points. I've done it before, it works.

You've got the key to your own prison Matt, but as long as you keep playing politics, it'll never occur to you to just open the door and leave.


Some of us are actually trying to take our freedoms back in our lifetime. Your plan of hoping to get permission to be free about 50 years after you die, really, really sucks Matt. That's not productive, at all.

1- Politics is inseparable from human nature. To ignore that is naive. 2- I don't know why you keep making stuff up, I never said anything about asking permission about anything. I said fighting and taking it through the political process, which is NOT hard to do. I know because I've done it before!

 

[Matt Collins]

And BTW, I never said anything about waiting for a societal collapse. Don't know where you got such a silly idea. Societal collapses usually result in a brand new despot; often one exactly the same, but worse, than the one who caused the collapse in the first place.

So what are you doing to take back liberty?

 

[Matt Collins]

In defense of our founders, there was no way they could have imagined the creativity with which politicians would fuck our liberties and call it freedom

I disagree. Have you ever read the Anti-Federalist papers?

Or just reading the notes of the discussions / debates in the Con Con - specifically reading and listening to what Hamilton was saying.

 

[TheTexan]

FSP IS a political solution

FSP has a political component but the strategy behind it is not political.

But we don't need anything nearly as extravagant as the FSP in order to win back liberty. It's a matter of organizing and hitting the politicians on their political pressure points. I've done it before, it works.

"I've done it before, it works"... lol man, you're a funny guy

1- Politics is inseparable from human nature. To ignore that is naive. 2- I don't know why you keep making stuff up, I never said anything about asking permission about anything.

Telling the politicians to go fuck themself has a long and successful history. Asking the politicians to please vote your freedom back on the other hand has an extremely poor track record.

I said fighting and taking it through the political process, which is NOT hard to do. I know because I've done it before!

Not hard to do but it'll take 100 years? k

 

[davidkachel]

Say, doesn’t the Constitution require tax bills to originate in the House?.

Yes it does. And you heard it from me first: they will absolutely, positively, come up with some sort of mental masturbation declaring it OK this one time.

 

[davidkachel]

So what are you doing to take back liberty?

I've already taken it back! No doubt that statement will puzzle you. Others here will get it immediately.


Consider this; as you continue to beg them to set you free, you act as their accomplice in your own enslavement AND lend them legitimacy.

You are not the solution. YOU are the problem!! And you are the problem precisely because you don't believe that you are the problem!

There is one and only one way to deal with a tyrant. Send him directly to hell.

 

[Matt Collins]

FSP has a political component but the strategy behind it is not political.

I'm interested in what you mean by this, please elaborate.

"I've done it before, it works"... lol man, you're a funny guy

I killed a DNA-grabbing bill in TN by brute political force, didn't cost me any money, and it gained me political power. The legislators have a dartboard with my face on it, but more importantly, people won't get their DNA stolen if they get arrested for non-violent crimes because of my activism. I am working on other issues too; if everyone else joined in we'd have a very much restrained government.

Telling the politicians to go fuck themself has a long and successful history. Asking the politicians to please vote your freedom back on the other hand has an extremely poor track record.

I don't ask the politicians for anything. I tell them what to do and they typically do it. Again, it's about the acquisition of power. If you're not feared you're not respected. You must gain power in order to get them to do what you want them to do.