meanjoegreen
Footballguy
The legal limit for DWI in North Carolina in 1985 was .10.Ditkaless Wonders said:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Tim was never very good at the Libertarian thing despite apparently being well-read on the subject.
timschochet
Footballguy
thanks. Well OK I'm wrong. But its a comment in the middle of some lecture. I still doubt he would regard it as a priority. To me it's no different from those atheists who want to remove "under God" from the Pledge. Sure in a perfect world it shouldn't be there, but don't we have bigger fish to fry?
I think it's pretty safe to say his views on seat belts mirror those about motorcycle helmets that he spends the whole video on. Either way, isn't this about which policy is right and which policy is wrong? Modern libertarians seemed engaged in all sorts of discussions about policy; they aren't as narrowly focused on these items as you suggest.
timschochet
Footballguy
Mea culpa. You are correct. It just annoys me that so many libertarian types waste their time (IMO) conplaining about these issues while saying nothing about restrictions on immigration. That used to be a key issue for libertarians and it was one of the main reasons I joined the party years ago. Now it's barely mentioned.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I think Tim asks a fair question though about why seat belt and helmet laws get so much national attention compared to other objectives that ought to be more important to libertarians.
And the answer is that is really easy to understand and really visible to people because the laws meant that suddenly they could not only get a ticket if they didn't change their behavior immediately, but that the enforcement would be arbitrary and capricious.
I once saw a cop in a mall parking lot waiting by the exit and pulling people over before they got out onto a main road. I know lots of people who start the car and pull out before they slide the seat belt over their shoulder and this cop was ticketing them. And then he had the right to choose who he would pull over and whether they got a warning or a ticket. Maybe if you had a car seat in your car or showed some cleavage or pumped his ego or were of a race he liked. Impossible to know his criteria. Absolutely absurd imo.
There are other laws that might impact me more but few that are as visible. Fwiw, not a hot button issue for me. But I get it.
And the answer is that is really easy to understand and really visible to people because the laws meant that suddenly they could not only get a ticket if they didn't change their behavior immediately, but that the enforcement would be arbitrary and capricious.
I once saw a cop in a mall parking lot waiting by the exit and pulling people over before they got out onto a main road. I know lots of people who start the car and pull out before they slide the seat belt over their shoulder and this cop was ticketing them. And then he had the right to choose who he would pull over and whether they got a warning or a ticket. Maybe if you had a car seat in your car or showed some cleavage or pumped his ego or were of a race he liked. Impossible to know his criteria. Absolutely absurd imo.
There are other laws that might impact me more but few that are as visible. Fwiw, not a hot button issue for me. But I get it.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Okay. First of all, if you understand it, don't lie and say that you don't. That's dishonest.
Second, I agree with you on all the stuff in the first paragraph, and I think you're making a huge error by lumping libertarians in with anti-Warren conservatives. Those two groups aren't the same.
Finally, nobody is arguing that mandatory drinking cup sizes are the same thing anti-miscegination laws. Not sure where you're getting that from other than your imagination. It's just that some of us think that you ought to be allowed to buy a 64-oz soda if you so choose. No, that's not the civil rights struggle of our time, but WTF with denying this?
timschochet
Footballguy
It wasn't a lie. The phrase "I don't get it" is used often in argument- it means I think you should think like I do, rather than literally I don't understand.
I don't think we disagree on the rest of it. And I was wrong to complain about you- I apologize. You strike me as a genuine libertarian. I get annoyed by conservatives who grab the libertarian mantra and complain about things like motorcycle helmets, but are silent on other libertarian issues which I find to be more important. But perhaps I shouldn't be griping about this at all, because I'm no longer a libertarian myself.
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well there's no time like the present to start with the Constitution. I'm hoping that other people will chime in here, since I'm pretty much of an idiot on this subject. I've never taken a class on this or read a book about it. Thankfully there's a lot of information on the internet.
Anyhow, we might as well begin with:
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Anybody else old enough to remember the Schoolhouse Rock melody to this? They did a pretty good job of it.
Over the next few days I have some questions to explore about the Preamble. Right now, I just want to note that according to Wiki, the Preamble is not considered to be law in itself and is not binding.
Anyhow, we might as well begin with:
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Anybody else old enough to remember the Schoolhouse Rock melody to this? They did a pretty good job of it.
Over the next few days I have some questions to explore about the Preamble. Right now, I just want to note that according to Wiki, the Preamble is not considered to be law in itself and is not binding.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Ensuring domestic tranquility seems pretty open ended imo
timschochet
Footballguy
It actually sounds scary to me. All dictatorships have justified themselves by ensuring domestic tranquility. The most tranquil society of all time was the Soviet Union.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Drunken Poster
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
First, immigration is much more complicated. It's not nearly as cut and dry as policies that are so obviously wrong as soda cup sizes.
Second, your opinion on immigration is not necessarily the libertarian opinion. Many libertarians don't make your immigration ideas a priority because your ideas aren't necessarily libertarian.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Few holes invite a camel's nose into the tent as much as "promote the general welfare".
otello
Footballguy
it's all rather open ended.
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
Rich, I'm not quoting you to take a side on whatever you guys are talking about.
I just wanted to tell you that I'm starting to get a little guardedly excited about dem Terps.
HellToupee
Footballguy
Eva Green looked great in Dreamers with fully muffed. It was so different than the norm it looked good.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That is because it is an intro and just states backgrounds and goals. Into's in general are non-binding in contracts. The Constitution is a Contract between the people and the government. It formally establishes the government and gives it its power and also its limits. Some people try to use the Constitution to limit what a church can and can't do, which is a bit absurd because churches are not a party to the contract. Our Constitution establishes a wall of separation protecting people's religious beliefs from the power of government. It only establishes rules for the government.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mister CIA
Footballguy
Hence to "insure" domestic tranquility instead of "ensure."I guess the federal government forcing people to buy insurance is Constitutional
timschochet
Footballguy
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
it's seems like the phrase "We the people" is pretty extraordinary. Perhaps it was the first time in history that such a document declared a government to be representative of the public will? Notice they don't say "We the officials of each State"; they deliberately use the word people because it implies that everyone in this country will have a hand in the governing of this country- in other words, a democratic republic. Putting aside the reality that decision making at that time was largely limited to a small white male upper class oligarchy, the rhetoric here is still amazing, especially when considering historical context.
"Of the United States"- Wikipedia makes the point that the writers were intent on using the Preamble to separate this document from the previous Articles of Confederation- thus the states are no longer independent entities who have united together only due to common cause against the British; now they are part of a whole, a new country which not only encompasses them but removes their individual sovereignty. Obviously not every state would agree with this interpretation and it the issue wouldn't be settled until 1865- or has it been settled?
it's seems like the phrase "We the people" is pretty extraordinary. Perhaps it was the first time in history that such a document declared a government to be representative of the public will? Notice they don't say "We the officials of each State"; they deliberately use the word people because it implies that everyone in this country will have a hand in the governing of this country- in other words, a democratic republic. Putting aside the reality that decision making at that time was largely limited to a small white male upper class oligarchy, the rhetoric here is still amazing, especially when considering historical context.
"Of the United States"- Wikipedia makes the point that the writers were intent on using the Preamble to separate this document from the previous Articles of Confederation- thus the states are no longer independent entities who have united together only due to common cause against the British; now they are part of a whole, a new country which not only encompasses them but removes their individual sovereignty. Obviously not every state would agree with this interpretation and it the issue wouldn't be settled until 1865- or has it been settled?
timschochet
Footballguy
BTW, I pasted the Preamble off Wiki, so if it's ensure instead of insure they got it wrong.
There's archaic spelling all over the document- defence instead of defense; chuse instead of choose; etc. Why they capitalize certain words seems strange at times as well.
There's archaic spelling all over the document- defence instead of defense; chuse instead of choose; etc. Why they capitalize certain words seems strange at times as well.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim try the Cornell version.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The People is extremely important. There are three players in the USC, the Feds, the States, and The People. The People are always the default authority when there are ambiguities, as shown in the 9th & 10th Amendments, all power issues are resolved in their favor.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
dont know what that is, but I'll google it, thx.
Q: A coworker points out that the Founding Fathers used “insure” incorrectly. Of course no one wants to say Thomas Jefferson was wrong! And as you note, “ensure” and “insure” have much in common.
A: The Constitution and its Preamble were written in 1787, and the language, capitalizations, and spellings reflect the usage of the day. The Preamble reads:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We’ve reproduced the original 1787 spellings, quoting from the document held in the National Archives. The spellings “defence” (still used in British English) and “insure” were common usage in the 18th century.
As we’ve written before on our blog, in current usage to “insure” is to issue or buy insurance against financial loss, while to “ensure” is to make certain of something.
That’s the usual practice, and the one recommended by usage guides, though dictionaries say the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.
Meanwhile, in current usage to “assure” means to reassure or remove doubt, though the British sometimes use the term in the technical sense of to underwrite financial loss.
As you can see, English usage changes over time!
Thomas Jefferson used “insure” in the general sense in a memoir he wrote in 1825, cited in the Oxford English Dictionary: “A recurrence to these letters now insures me against errors of memory.”
Jefferson, by the way, didn’t write the Preamble or any other part of the Constitution. He was ambassador to France at the time, and was out of the country during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
But he did write the Declaration of Independence in 1776, though a few touches were added by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.
The authorship of the Preamble and much of the rest of the Constitution is credited to another of the Founders, Gouverneur Morris, who was a Pennsylvania delegate to the 1787 convention.
In the past, we’ve answered several other questions about the Preamble, in case you’re interested.
In 2011, we had postings in May and November about the phrase “We the People.” And in 2008, we had postings inJanuary and November about the phrase “more perfect.”
A: The Constitution and its Preamble were written in 1787, and the language, capitalizations, and spellings reflect the usage of the day. The Preamble reads:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We’ve reproduced the original 1787 spellings, quoting from the document held in the National Archives. The spellings “defence” (still used in British English) and “insure” were common usage in the 18th century.
As we’ve written before on our blog, in current usage to “insure” is to issue or buy insurance against financial loss, while to “ensure” is to make certain of something.
That’s the usual practice, and the one recommended by usage guides, though dictionaries say the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.
Meanwhile, in current usage to “assure” means to reassure or remove doubt, though the British sometimes use the term in the technical sense of to underwrite financial loss.
As you can see, English usage changes over time!
Thomas Jefferson used “insure” in the general sense in a memoir he wrote in 1825, cited in the Oxford English Dictionary: “A recurrence to these letters now insures me against errors of memory.”
Jefferson, by the way, didn’t write the Preamble or any other part of the Constitution. He was ambassador to France at the time, and was out of the country during the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
But he did write the Declaration of Independence in 1776, though a few touches were added by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin.
The authorship of the Preamble and much of the rest of the Constitution is credited to another of the Founders, Gouverneur Morris, who was a Pennsylvania delegate to the 1787 convention.
In the past, we’ve answered several other questions about the Preamble, in case you’re interested.
In 2011, we had postings in May and November about the phrase “We the People.” And in 2008, we had postings inJanuary and November about the phrase “more perfect.”
G
General Tso
Guest
Boy, it is so hard getting past the hypocrisy of the words juxtaposed against the backdrop of legal slavery. I know all about the aspirations of some of the founding fathers to create an ideal state to strive for... but still. So hard to take a document seriously when the first three words are such bs.
timschochet
Footballguy
Thx for the explanation, jon.
in order to form a more perfect union
This seems like an interesting, rather ambiguous phrase. Per Wiki:
The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation.[71] In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states.[72] Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.[73] The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law,[74] dissolution of the Union,[75] or secession from it,[76] are not contemplated by the Constitution.
Of course both nullification (1830) and secession (1860-61) were attempted by various states anyhow. And as we know, some Americans continue to regard secession as a viable option In case the federal government becomes too "tyrannical" (see Rick Perry.)
On a side note- do you guys remember the speech Senator Barack Obama gave during his campaign for President about Jeremiah Wright and race in general? IMO, this speech remains the finest of his entire career. That title of that speech was "A More Perfect Union". An excerpt:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
in order to form a more perfect union
This seems like an interesting, rather ambiguous phrase. Per Wiki:
The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation.[71] In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states.[72] Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.[73] The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law,[74] dissolution of the Union,[75] or secession from it,[76] are not contemplated by the Constitution.
Of course both nullification (1830) and secession (1860-61) were attempted by various states anyhow. And as we know, some Americans continue to regard secession as a viable option In case the federal government becomes too "tyrannical" (see Rick Perry.)
On a side note- do you guys remember the speech Senator Barack Obama gave during his campaign for President about Jeremiah Wright and race in general? IMO, this speech remains the finest of his entire career. That title of that speech was "A More Perfect Union". An excerpt:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't necessarily disagree. But consider: the guys who wrote this are long dead. Slavery, in this country, is also long dead. Yet the document and the ideals it embraces, no matter how hypocritical they might have seen at the time, remain.
Now let's compare. The United States of America was not the only country in the western hemisphere that was created out of a former European colony or colonies. The same is true for every one of the nations that now make up central and South America. And virtually all of them, upon gaining their independence, wrote a constitution promising this and that : free elections, freedom of the press, etc. etc. And almost none of those constitutions lasted more than a decade before they were ousted by new revolutions, followed by dictatorships, followed by coups, followed by dictatorships, etc. etc. in a pattern that continues even today. Yet our Constitution, for all of it's hypocrisy, has remained intact and inviolate.
It is not really fair to judge people on today's values. Their experiment advanced individual freedoms substaintially from where it was.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Let's also keep in mind some states did declare all free and making a stand then & there for all would mean no country at all. Ultimately two generations later these words would lead to freedom for all.
G
General Tso
Guest
You're right - just expressing a bit of emotion that came up. I don't want to derail the conversation either. This is going to be the elephant in the room at every step of the way, and it will be tricky as to when and where it's appropriate to delve into that aspect. For now, I'll just post a link to a good article that touches upon the subject of slavery and the founding fathers. It appears, at least, that most of the drafters of the Constitution had their hearts and minds in the right place... http://christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
That isn't normally how contracts work.
timschochet
Footballguy
You're not bound by it. However, so long as you live in the United States you are subject to the laws of the United States. Those laws are bound and limited by the Constitution.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You are bound by it but every contract has a cause and a means. Forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity are causes, the means restrict how you accomplish that cause.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Great Moses, Tim, please please please look at something else besides wiki. I love Faust's work in TSP but copying the RW analysis doesn't tell us anything after the basic event being reported.timschochet said:
And dude if you ring in anything involving Rev. Jerry Wright in with the Founders then basically you should also wrap in a discussion of the Nairobi Trio when discussing the best of Mozart and Beethoven. This has to be phishing at its finest/sloppiest.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I wasn't referencing Wright there, I was referencing Obama's speech about Wright, mainly because of the title of the speech and the implication that Obama's concept of a "more perfect union" would include a greater amount of racial tolerance than we currently enjoy. That in turns leads to the question as to whether or not we should interpret this phrase as a call for us to use government as a means to achieve egalitarian goals- and THAT, IMO, makes for an interesting discussion.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You're going to take Obama's version of Hillary's "Stand By My Man" in comparison to the Preamble of the US Constitution, is that correct?
Basically a tinny political, self-serving, skin-saving tapdance and denial of a deep yet embarrassing relationship going back 20 years vs one of the greatest passages in world intellectual and political thought. Yeah.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
i wasn't making a comparison. I noted the title of the speech. But I do think it's his best speech ever.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Oh ok the title of the speech "A More Perfect Union" is the only thing from that speech in common with this topic.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Similar threads
