Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (229412)	4/15/2005 9:04:13 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573983

.here's one more description of what I mean as presented by the Libertarian party's candidate for president in 1996. If he can't explain it adequately to you, then I give up.......after all, you say you're a libertarian: Do you agree with anything any Democratic candidate says? re Browne's comments "I also searched the Constitution and I couldn't find the word marriage either. Does that mean I don't have a right to be married - that a so-called "right to marriage" was invented by some bleeding-heart liberal judge somewhere?" If marriage isn't mentioned (even using another term) than there isn't a constitutional right to a marriage. That doesn't mean there is no right to marriage. There is common law, statuary, and arguably natural rights to marry. The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution. Actually that would be correct if it said that the federal government had no powers that were not authorized in the constitution. Of course it has taken a number of unauthorized powers to itself anyway, often without the courts seeming to mind. Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X: 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. Now, where's the right to privacy? It is clearly in those two amendments. That isn't clear at all. The only way a right to privacy would be in those amendments is if a right to do just about anything you want was an explicitly constitutional right against both the federal and state governments. He is basically arguing that the constitution requires libertarian government. As much as I might prefer such a government to our current scheme its silly to say the constitution makes has such a requirement. Amendment X in particular does nothing to limit the rights of the states. Amendment IX doesn't give any specific power to, or limitation on, any part of the government. The words of amendment IX contain an idea that I agree with very strongly, but there is no legally active clause there. It's a statement of an idea only. If amendment I just said "people should talk a lot", it would not only be a silly amendment it would also not provide a right to freedom of speech, assembly, religion, ect. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts I agree that the feds have no such constitutionally granted power. While the states have no such restrictions it is unjust for them to try to impose control in this area. no right to invade our privacy If the feds or the states really had no such authorized power than it would be unconstitutional for them to require me to state my income, and how I got my income. If I have an enforceable right to privacy than the government has no right to know anything about me that I don't do in public. If that were the case it would be very hard for the government to function esp. a government that was more than a minarchy. Certainly most of what out government does now would have to be stopped. no right to manage our health-care system Again the feds have no such power. But I doubt you would agree. no right to tell us what a marriage is Even if they do have "no right to tell us what a marriage is", that doesn't mean they have an affirmative obligation to recognize everything as a marriage that someone calls a marriage. I met a woman who talks about marrying her cat, do the feds have to accept her "marriage" and give her full legal benefits of a marriage? no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. That applies to the feds under Amendment X (but again I doubt you would really support this idea as the majority of the non-defense parts of the federal government would have to go away. Notice also that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that government may violate the Bill of Rights if the target of its wrath is a non-citizen. Nowhere does the constitution require that we not capture and hold foreign enemies if we can't prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they have committed specific illegal acts. Should we have released all the German and Japanese POWs in WWII after giving them a stern lecture and a slap on the wrist? Or would the slap amount to torture? Tim