I've Been Accused of being Liberal. Okay I'm laying my cards on the table (1 Viewer)

[RebSaint]

I don;t see how history can discover the reasoning/interpretation/intent every single citizen of the 11 states that ratified the Bill of Rights.
Its the history of those people and putting our best guess as to how they understood the power of government and the people that should control. While the intent of the so-called "founding fathers" might be helpful, they are far from the source of power and therefore their intent is no more important than that Joe Blow from Newark.

No, but the framers thought that both document represented the pulling, tugging, compromise, and interests of the "people," granted the people at the time were property-holding, white males.

History can ascertain why particular amendments were formulated, adopted, and agreed upon. The framers even recognized that the all people's interests were represented. The framers all didn't agree, but I think the historical record through the Federalist Papers, biographies, etc. can offer some context in what they intended given the time period THEY lived in. Some of those ideas are obsolete, I agree. But some aren't.

Hence the 2nd Amendment, which I think from a historical context may be viewed as a very democratic, revolutionary amendment giving the "people" a safety valve to revolt against a tyrannical government. To place the 2nd Amendment outside the context of the potential of overthrowing an overreaching, tyrannical polity is ignoring the history in which the Bill of Rights was formed. And in the modern context, the rise of fascism, communism, and other weird forms of "isms" which take away basic civil liberties such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and privacy, I think the 2nd Amendment is a pretty smart vangard of some real fascism from emerging.

 

[whiteshadowen]

Well on gun control, I've probably seen way too many movies and read way too many books, but how does it play personally in a "end of life as we know it scenario"? I'm talking about a scenario whether due to terrorism, biological or natural disasters that cause the collapse of the US and / or civilization. While I don't consider myself any kind of the normal stereotype of a survivalist, I do have guns and I do have books that would give me the knowledge of how to live w/o technology. We all like to think that is a remote possibility. But IF it did happen I would think that those without weapons would be at a serious disadvantage. I think I'll sign off now while I go get another case of ammo.

 

[JimEverett]

No, but the framers thought that both document represented the pulling, tugging, compromise, and interests of the "people," granted the people at the time were property-holding, white males.

History can ascertain why particular amendments were formulated, adopted, and agreed upon. The framers even recognized that the all people's interests were represented. The framers all didn't agree, but I think the historical record through the Federalist Papers, biographies, etc. can offer some context in what they intended given the time period THEY lived in. Some of those ideas are obsolete, I agree. But some aren't.

But even with respect to the so-called "framers" themselves, more than a few have left no written record. So not only would an "originalism" ignore the thinking of almost every person in whose power the Constitution was ratified, but they will even ignore the thinking of many of the drafters. Why should the historical accident of, say, the Federalsit and Anti-Federalist papers, and teh other writings concerning ratification, become dispositive?

Not to get off topic, but this reminds me of a talk I had with a professor of Sanskrit. He was telling me that our view of India - particularly India before the Moghul invasion, is seriously skewed because the vast majority of writings we have come from the Brahaman class.

 

[TPS]

>>Where do I even begin

Don't bother. Please. Really.

And thanks.

TPS

 

[RebSaint]

But even with respect to the so-called "framers" themselves, more than a few have left no written record.

This claim is not really accurate, and most of the records of those who participated in the Const. Convention is well, well documented. These guys took lots of notes, wrote diaries, engaged in correspondence--there's lots of stuff which historians are poring over right now. Even Geo. Washington's records aren't complete yet. The big shakers--Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franlklin, Mason, Jay, Butler--they all left a pretty decent paper trail. The records, of course aren't comparable to what we have today but these guys were known for the proclivity in writing letters, taking notes, and documenting official meetings. They were all wealthy, so they had the time, energy, and money to keep records, or at least pay other people to keep records for them.

So not only would an "originalism" ignore the thinking of almost every person in whose power the Constitution was ratified, but they will even ignore the thinking of many of the drafters. Why should the historical accident of, say, the Federalsit and Anti-Federalist papers, and teh other writings concerning ratification, become dispositive?

The framers, as would I would argue that the Const., indeed is an imperfect document, but I would also claim that it hardly "ignored" any interest or mindset of any representative. And the Bill of Rights was arguably a fruition of a lot of the Anti-Federalists' concerns about the document. See Saul Cornell's book on the anti-federalists on this issue.

Not to get off topic, but this reminds me of a talk I had with a professor of Sanskrit. He was telling me that our view of India - particularly India before the Moghul invasion, is seriously skewed because the vast majority of writings we have come from the Brahaman class.

Wasn't that dude with Motown?

 

[Sabine]

Okay, I'm in. Here's my two cents:

Gun control -- The only control I would like to add is mandatory safety/responsibility courses, test and registration for all guns. Just like a driving test, half of it is about the consequences of breaking the law, and if you don't pass you don't get your license. I think limiting guns by class (fully automatic, semi-automatic, etc) runs contrary to the 2nd Amendment.

Gay marriage -- I think this is a 14th Amendment issue, not a states matter. States have proved themselves inept in this area anyway and submissive to religious forces. There are hundreds of legal benefits available through marriage, and there is no rational basis to deprive citizens of these benefits based on whether their X and Y chromosome counts match or not. Marriage should be available to all or none.

Abortion -- Woman's choice, period.

Church and State -- Remove Church from State, and keep it that way. "When the power, prestige, and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. . ." This applies to monotheism too. No "In God We Trust" on our money, no prayer/moment of silence in public schools, no "under God" in mandatory pledge. Decisions about scientific and health policies should be based on the best available scientific data, not on religious doctrine. Public schools should teach with academic integrity and without the promotion of religious preference, belief or slant. No tax-free status for churches or religious organizations unless they can prove they serve a substantial and tangible community service that would qualify them as it would any other non-profit organization.

Taxes -- I agree with HouDat on this though I would raise the floor about 50% above the poverty level.

Foreign policy -- I'll repeat part of what Richard said and then add a little because the issues are way too complex to sum it up with a few lines. If we as a nation decide to engage an enemy militarily, the world should know that we will win. Totally commit, win decisively, help the remaining people rebuild, but let them make their own decisions about how they will proceed. Leaders will emerge. If they decide to be our friends, as Germany and Japan did after WWII, great. If they want to remain an enemy unfortunately, they will be deciding to get the same thing again. To that I would like to add that we shouldn't be engaging anyone until we are fully commited to providing the medical care and benefits our soldiers and their families are promised and deserve.

Education -- This is another complicated area. I don't think the Feds should stay out. The states have proved here too that they are inept in some areas when it comes to providing the free appropriate pulic education to which all are entitled. Look at the history of the American Disabilities Act, IDEA, Brown vs. Board of Education, etc.if you disagree.

Trade -- Free trade with a caveat. There are times/circumstance when something less than free benefits both parties, not just economically. It is in our interest to promote economic stability in certain areas of the world in order to promote civil stability there too. South American comes to mind.

Welfare -- There must be welfare for some. We can't ignore our truly needy and turn them over to Darwinism. I would like to see more programs aimed at helping people get back on their feet. There are a number of good programs outside of government that I think we could learn from. St. Patrick's in St. Louis has a highly successful program that helps the homeless become self-sustaining.

Death penalty -- I am for the death penalty. I do not want to see the appeals process shortened. I would like more funding for and quality of representation in public defenders. Our current system isn't fair.

Social Security -- I don't think social security is as problematic as some would have us think. Moving the retirement age back periodically to adjust for longer life expectancies is fine with me and that should make a huge difference. Going private scares me. There were a lot of private pension funds hurt by Enron and the like.

Energy -- Agree with RebSaint. To that I would like to add that many cities /utility providers should look at Austin and expand on what is being done here. I would also like to see NEV's (neighborhood electric vehicles) MPH be raised from 25 to something more practical for inner city daily use. Without it, we won't likely see many changing from their gas burning cars anytime soon.

Environment -- I agree we need to protect the environment, but I also think that many private land owners are being overregulated on land use. Many individuals are and have been better stewards of the land than some of our government entities.

Immigration -- Fold the hand we have. Legalize as many of those here as we can without disrupting their lives any more than is absolutely necessary and without compromising our economy, safety and security. Then make future immigration easier, and enforce the laws currently on the books. No fence. Use technology.

Civil Liberties -- Civil liberties are getting stomped on left and right. See CHURCH AND STATE, ENVIRONMENT, DEATH PENALTY. GAY MARRIAGE, ABORTION, etc.

What does the above make me, besides ticked off?

EDTI: Well, I looked mine up. I'm a Social Liberal and an Economic Conservative. This puts me in the same corner as Jefferson.

.

 

[Richard]

A liberal with moments of conservative clarity.

Just messing with you Sabine.

 

[Jacob]

>>Where do I even begin

Don't bother. Please. Really.

And thanks.

TPS

lus-un2:

 

[HouDat]

For those still debating/discussing the 2nd Amendment, I'll offer up the words of Thomas Jefferson here, in hopes that they may lend some clarity:

The strongest reason for the people to retain their right
to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect
themselves against tyranny in government. -- Thomas Jefferson

 

[JimEverett]

For those still debating/discussing the 2nd Amendment, I'll offer up the words of Thomas Jefferson here, in hopes that they may lend some clarity:

That is helpful, but its not dispositive - and that is my point. If you read the Constitution it says "we the people" not "we the framers" or "we the people who wrote this document and/or who wrote about supporting or opposing it." Why should anyone concerned about jurisprudence try to adopt a method that only takes into account those who actually wrote something about it and whose writings have actually survived?

And, of course, it doesn;t help in solving (or getting out of) the dilemma I posed.

 

[Saint Tillage]

Cool Thread. I am not as well versed in some area like I probably should be but here goes:

Gun Control - like someone said earlier fine by me if you want to own a gun, but why would you need an assualt rifle?

Gay Marriage - If bob and steven want to get married then great. I am not in the business of being all up in peoples koolaid. I dont get why people are so riled up about this. If it doesnt effect you and yours then what the hell?

Abortion - I dont agree with it but I dont have to carry a child for 9 months and everything that comes with it.

Church & State - seperate

Taxes - I hate seeing so much of my check going to other places. I dont know

Foreign Policy - I wasnt against going to Iraq but I feel at this time there is no end in sight and no kinda plan or exit strategy. I feel like let them fend for themselves.

Education - Every school should have the same opportunities and tools for learning no matter where they are geographically located.

Welfare - I dont welfare should be a lifetime thing. it should be used as a tool to get you to a better place. I have seen people who really need it and are honestly trying and I have seen the opposite.

 

[Sabine]

It's interesting to see where my fellow posters stand. A few of the responses surprised me.

Thanks DD for bringing this one back. (I wasn't registered the first time around.)

Richard, I should have just listened to you, but No. I had to go test myself.

Anybody else?

 

[Saint Mike]

For some reason I never responded to this thread. Here goes:

Gun Control - As Reb stated, see 2nd Amendment. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Gay Marriage / Abortion - should be left to the states to decide

Church and State - separate meaning no recognition or establishment of state church. This does not foreclose cultural celebrations based on religious observance recognized by the government - Christmas, Hanukkah, etc.

Taxes - the lower the better. Reduce spending, don't increase taxes.

Foreign policy - we should do as George Washington advised us and limit our meddling in foreign affairs. However, when attacked we must respond, when provoked we must defend ourselves and our allies.

Education - get the federal government out of it. Period.

Trade - Free trade.

Welfare - must be turned into workfare. If not, it must be ended except for the absolute destitute among us.

Campaign finance - political speech must be protected. Full disclosure is fine but no restrictions.

Death penalty - support it.

Social Security - privatize it or phase it out. The system is broken and increasing s.s. withholdings and increasing the retirement age won't fix it.

Energy - I believe in exploiting the resources we have here. That means ending the restrictions on drilling off the coast of Alaska, the Pacific coast, and the Atlantic. We must reduce regulations relating to the building of refineries and we must certainly expand production of nuclear power and other alternatives.

Environment - protect it, but not at the expense of progress. Human lives are more important than trees and animals.

Unfunded state mandates - unconstitutional.

Civil Liberties - legislation like the Patriot Act and Fairness Doctrine are, I believe, facially unconstitutional. The central government has very limited powers as enumerated in the Constitution. We must return the federal government to only exercising those powers, the remainder belong to the states and to the people.

 

[St. Reginald]

Gun Control -I don't trust the military and the police having a monopoly on arms and with the power to determine which civilians may have them.

Gay Marriage / Abortion -In the area of family law the government should be in the business of adjudicating contracts between consenting adults and advocating for the interests of children. That the role of determining which unions are sacred and which are profane should be a matter for the various churches.
Whatever you believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs. The government should not be able to impose it's way on abortion. For those who are pro-life, if you want to reduce abortions, there are much better ways than by depending on the government — because it will only disappoint you. Every day you spend trying to get the government to do something to reduce abortions is a day wasted, a day that could have been spent doing something effective about abortion


Church and State -very separate

Taxes -<s>show me a law in the books that says I have to pay income tax. You can't.</s>

Foreign policy -The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

Education -Obviously not America's strong point. Again, the government isn't going to be able to fix this. Government-funded education for the common societal benefit of general education. However, to require a uniform standard of academic achievement and teacher qualifications across the country is a noble but unrealistic idea. Some schools have more low achieving students than others. Highly-qualified teachers may be attracted to high-quality schools, and no amount of bonus or benefits will lure them to low quality schools, especially in bad neighborhoods.

Trade -free

Welfare -All social services need victims to justify their existence. If there were no victims, there would be no reason for these services. Consequently, they create victims from thin air while believing completely that what they are doing is helping the people whose lives they are destroying.

Campaign finance -Political campaigns are one of the foundations of democracy. Free speech - while protecting all kinds of speech - was meant to especially protect political speech. Limiting how much a person spends, who they spend it on and how they spend it is abridging their right to speak on political issues.

Death penalty -is an extreme exertion of state power and is of little use in a free society, and it is of great use to a tyrannical government.

Social Security -obviously not the product of rational thought.

Environment -Again, I'll take the libertarian stance on this:make government officials personally liable for the environmental damage they do; repeal taxes and regulations that discourage free-market environmentalism; and make polluters pay for their crimes.

Civil Liberties -rights rest originally in individuals and never in groups. Of course, any discrimination done by a tax-payer funded organization or business should never be permitted.

 

[Jacob]

...show me a law in the books that says I have to pay income tax. You can't...

I always thought Income Tax was in the Constitution. I'm not a student of history, though.