"David Allen" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> > After all that's what all this liberal vs
> >conservative
> > bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
> > conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state. Either
> > extreme is terrible, of course.
> >
>
> I disagree. In theory, the liberal / conservative thing is mostly about
the
> role and scope of the federal government.
That may have been true 200 years ago when Alexander Hamilton was
arguing for a strong central bank, but it's not true today. And I doubt
it really ever was.
Today, BOTH sides have the EXACT same position on the role and scope of
the Federal Government. In short, as long as the Feds are doing what I
want,
then by gum expand, expand, expand!! But the second the Feds start doing
what I don't like - then shrink, shrink, shrink!!
> In most of these morality cases
> the issue centers around whether state or local legislatures can pass such
> laws. Liberals tend to look for ways the federal government can expand
it's
> jurisdiction on such morality issues.
Until the Feds start blocking something like Death With Dignity or Medical
Marijuana,
which the Liberals like, and then all the sudden it's Up With States Rights
> Conservatives tend to view the
> federal government as being constitutionally limited, unable to impose
> itself on local jurisdictions.
>
Only until the States start pushing something like Death With Dignity or
Medical Marijuana,
which the Conservatives don't like, and then all the sudden it's Up With The
Federal Government.
> >
> > From a historical perspective, the US Supreme Court has hardly ever
> > been at the forefront of expanding personal freedoms. The conservatives
> > like to tell people that they are, just because of Roe vs Wade. But
don't
> > ever forget that the US Supreme Court never freed the slaves, the
> > executive branch of the government did that. By contrast, the Court
> > helped to _strengthen_ the legal teeth of slavery. If you view the Roe
vs
> > Wade decision in the historical context, you will quickly see that the
few
> > liberal years of the court then were an aberration.
> >
>
> What you have to remember is that it's not the job of the Court to "expand
> personal freedoms"
Didn't I just say that?
The Conservatives like to tell people that the Court is at the forefront of
expanding
personal freedoms, as a crude scare tactic. But as I have shown, and you
have
just agreed, the Court doesen't do this.
> (read expand federal jurisdiction over local
> jurisdiction). As repugnant as slavery is, the court found no
consitutional
> powers granted to the federal government to prohibit states from allowing
> it. It was left to the legislature and the states to amend the
constitution
> giving the courts the ability to rule in slavery cases. Of course, we all
> know it almost tore the union apart. One might argue that it would have
> been better for the courts to "find" a prohibition against slavery in the
> constitution and spare us the result of Dred Scott but, assuming the court
> was technically correct in it's ruling, it set the stage for a
constitional
> amendment prohibiting slavery leaving no question as to it's
> constitutionality.
>
The court didn't set the stage for a constitutional amendment prohibiting
slavery, that stage was set by the original Founding Fathers during the
constitutional convention. If you study the papers at the time you will
find that during the original Convention, they talked about putting a ban
on slavery right into the Constitution, but the Southern colonies basically
said that they would walk out of the process if that was done. So they left
it alone for the "future" to fix. All the court did was rule consistently
with
what the Founding Fathers had directed - ie: that the Slavery question
was "undone constitutional business" and would have to be handled
legislatively.
Of course, Lincoln said to Hell with it, and simply issued
an executive order freeing the slaves.
> In Roe v. Wade, the courts "found" an implied right that states could not
> violate (right to privacy) and thus expanded it's jurisdiction over states
> without legislation.
This is a clever restatement of the issue. The Roe vs Wade decision didn't
strip the States from the ability to outlaw abortion in the first 2
trimesters,
because the states never had such ability to outlaw abortion in the first
place.
They merely assumed that they had that right, and the court set them
straight.
And it most definitely didn't "usurp" the power of the States in this matter
because it ALSO didn't permit the Federal Government the right to outlaw
abortion EITHER int he first 2 trimesters. Thus the Feds were not given any
expansion of power over the states because the Feds, like the States, cannot
exercise any rights with regard to abortion in the first 2 trimesters
either.
> This leaves one to wonder what other things can be
> "found" in the constitution allowing the federal government to usurp power
> from the local jurisdictions.
Well, the Conservatives are headed in this direction with regards to
education.
It appears to me that education is supposed to be the province of the
States,
but with the School voucher program that the Conservatives are pushing, it
appears they want to be able to force all States to institute a voucher
program
against their will.
>You might think of Roe v. Wade as "expanding"
> your personal freedom because the ruling went in your direction,
This is a facinating statement from you. First you have no idea of my
personal
views on Roe vs Wade so you don't know if it really did go my direction or
not. You are assuming that it did because you know from my posts that
I am in favor of expanded personal freedom - and here's the kicker -
by this statement you are stating that it is a fact that Roe vs Wade DID
expand personal freedoms. (because that is why you assume that I like it)
The facinating thing here is that most true conservatives argue with Roe
vs Wade that it was NOT about expanding personal freedoms at all!!
Instead they say that Roe vs Wade curtailed the rights of the fetus to
enjoy life, liberty, etc. in short, it curtails greatly the personal freedom
of
the fetus.
What you sound like is a Democrat who is trying to play devils advocate and
argue like a Republican. Please, take my advice, your not doing a good
job of it.
> but the
> true impact is a Judicial branch that can impose law based on popular /
> political views rather than interpret law based on a technical analysis of
> the law.
>
Sort of when the Judicial Branch imposed it's law on the vote counting of
the 2000 Federal Election, when they told the State of Florida that the
State
could not have the power to determine the Electors of the State. Of course,
those "popular political views" were the political views of the US Supreme
Court justices, not of the actual popular vote.
Yes, your right, this IS a serious problem!!!
Ted
