Comments on: Republicans: The Fake Party of Small Government http://c4ss.org/content/798 building awareness of the market anarchist alternative Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:38:18 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Kevin Carson http://c4ss.org/content/798/comment-page-1#comment-637 Kevin Carson Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:57:34 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=798#comment-637 Michael: The problem is that, in the legislative history of the Equal Protection clause, it was almost exclusively discussed in the context of unequal treatment of former slaves and aliens or persons born in other states. The problem with taking "equal protection" outside of the historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the specific evils it was drafted to remedy, is that granting an open-ended authority to the federal courts to overturn state law based on such a broad abstraction can backfire. It was just such a broad interpretation of Due Process that led to the corporate excesses of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence in the late 19th century. A government with the power to "grant" liberty can also use the same "living Constitution" authority to take away liberty. That's why--to repeat--I am not a libertarian centralist. So long as government exists, and claims to be bound by law, it should--at the minmimum--be held to Blackstonian rules of construction in interpreting its own "authority." Michael: The problem is that, in the legislative history of the Equal Protection clause, it was almost exclusively discussed in the context of unequal treatment of former slaves and aliens or persons born in other states. The problem with taking “equal protection” outside of the historical context of the
Fourteenth Amendment, and the specific evils it was drafted to remedy, is that granting an open-ended authority to the federal courts to overturn state law based on such a broad abstraction can backfire. It was just such a broad interpretation of Due Process that led to the corporate excesses of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence in the late 19th century. A government with the power to “grant” liberty can also use the same “living Constitution” authority to take away liberty. That’s why–to repeat–I am not a libertarian centralist. So long as government exists, and claims to be bound by law, it should–at the minmimum–be held to Blackstonian rules of construction in interpreting its own “authority.”

]]> By: Michael Bindner http://c4ss.org/content/798/comment-page-1#comment-636 Michael Bindner Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:45:00 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=798#comment-636 Kevin, equal protection for every individual is a bit of a radical concept, especially reading the plain language of the Amendment. Also, the drafters of the Amendment were a part of a larger movement which included the women's movement, who made concessions on sufferage but not on their basic rights. Of course, once you concede gender you must concede that all gender based protection includes other sexual minorities, most especially homosexuals. Kevin, equal protection for every individual is a bit of a radical concept, especially reading the plain language of the Amendment. Also, the drafters of the Amendment were a part of a larger movement which included the women’s movement, who made concessions on sufferage but not on their basic rights. Of course, once you concede gender you must concede that all gender based protection includes other sexual minorities, most especially homosexuals.

]]> By: Kevin Carson http://c4ss.org/content/798/comment-page-1#comment-634 Kevin Carson Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:22:57 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=798#comment-634 Scott: But they can't consistently call themselves originalists, and at the same time advocate the doctrine that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights. I believe Raoul Berger made a very good case that the Fourteenth did not guarantee any substantive rights, but rather simply required that the entire citizenry of a state be equally protected in the enjoyment of whatever civil rights were recognized in that state, without any discrimination based on the categories of race, foreign birth or birth in another state. Scott: But they can’t consistently call themselves originalists, and at the same time advocate the doctrine that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights. I believe Raoul Berger made a very good case that the Fourteenth did not guarantee any substantive rights, but rather simply required that the entire citizenry of a state be equally protected in the enjoyment of whatever civil rights were recognized in that state, without any discrimination based on the categories of race, foreign birth or birth in another state.

]]> By: Scott Bieser http://c4ss.org/content/798/comment-page-1#comment-633 Scott Bieser Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:50:14 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=798#comment-633 Actually the right to keep and bear adequate self-defense tools (arms) is a fundamental human right. And a right which the Southern States often denied their black freedmen after the civil war, and a right which was vital for black families defending themselves against Night Riders and similar scum. Do some research on the Tulsa Riots of 1921 some time. The judiciary may not have consistently "incorporated" the 2nd Amendment into the 14th, but a good case can be made that they should. Granted Republican hypocrisy and political opportunism, this is one issue where they happen to be in the right, perhaps despite themselves. Actually the right to keep and bear adequate self-defense tools (arms) is a fundamental human right. And a right which the Southern States often denied their black freedmen after the civil war, and a right which was vital for black families defending themselves against Night Riders and similar scum. Do some research on the Tulsa Riots of 1921 some time.

The judiciary may not have consistently “incorporated” the 2nd Amendment into the 14th, but a good case can be made that they should. Granted Republican hypocrisy and political opportunism, this is one issue where they happen to be in the right, perhaps despite themselves.

]]> By: Brainpolice http://c4ss.org/content/798/comment-page-1#comment-632 Brainpolice Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:28:10 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=798#comment-632 I flubbed that joke up big time. What = why. I flubbed that joke up big time. What = why.

]]> By: Brainpolice http://c4ss.org/content/798/comment-page-1#comment-631 Brainpolice Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:27:24 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=798#comment-631 "What do you hate America?", Mr. Carson? “What do you hate America?”, Mr. Carson?

]]> By: Michael Bindner http://c4ss.org/content/798/comment-page-1#comment-626 Michael Bindner Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:22:15 +0000 http://c4ss.org/?p=798#comment-626 Their small government credentials are sound when it comes to abusing poor people, however as the party of family values, not so good. For example, the Republican insistence that no able bodied man reside in a home where welfare benefits are received as led to the collapse of marriage among the poor and the rise of illegitimacy. The lifetime limits imposed on recipients has also led to a rising abortion rate among beneficiaries. Pro-lfe party? In which universe? Their small government credentials are sound when it comes to abusing poor people, however as the party of family values, not so good.

For example, the Republican insistence that no able bodied man reside in a home where welfare benefits are received as led to the collapse of marriage among the poor and the rise of illegitimacy. The lifetime limits imposed on recipients has also led to a rising abortion rate among beneficiaries. Pro-lfe party? In which universe?

]]>