Question for Libertarians and Libertarian leaning people; Which of the following three approaches do you prefer?
Alien Ramone
2012/08/26 01:10:18
|
|
|||||
|
20 votes
|
|
35% | |||
|
16 votes
|
|
28% | |||
|
11 votes
|
|
19% | |||
|
10 votes
|
|
18% | |||
1) A hard line Constitutional approach where all legislation and programs that you view as unconstitutional are eliminated as soon as possible.
2) A fairly strict Constitutional approach where exceptions are made to allow for fairness and transitions such as Social Security being continued, because people have paid into it and many are dependent on it, but with an opt out being provided for people under a certain age, allowing the program to slowly phase out over many decades.
3) A pragmatic approach where a candidate follows the Constitution fairly strictly on most things, but supports legislation the candidate believes in or believes would work the best. For example, Gary Johnson supporting federal legislation allowing abortion up until viability, supporting the EPA, and wanting to reform, but keep programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
2) A fairly strict Constitutional approach where exceptions are made to allow for fairness and transitions such as Social Security being continued, because people have paid into it and many are dependent on it, but with an opt out being provided for people under a certain age, allowing the program to slowly phase out over many decades.
3) A pragmatic approach where a candidate follows the Constitution fairly strictly on most things, but supports legislation the candidate believes in or believes would work the best. For example, Gary Johnson supporting federal legislation allowing abortion up until viability, supporting the EPA, and wanting to reform, but keep programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Top Opinion
-
kir 2012/08/26 01:14:311) Hard Line Constitutional Approach
+8This is the only one that makes sense to me. The constitution is the basis on which our entire government was founded. If we ignore the constitution then we ignore the validity of our government as a whole. If there is an issue with the constitution we can simply amend it.
So I'll go with 2, and hope for the best. I think we passed the demographical 'sweet spot' for democracy back in the 60's, and a 'fair but firm' approach may be what we need with the new (non-assimilating) "melting pot" we face today.
I have where I stand on the issues on my website: www.VictorForSenate.com
A document can enshrine and enumerate freedoms, but the danger in having such a document is that it leads many people to think they *receive* their rights from said document, instead of enjoying inalienable rights, simply by virtue of their humanity.
The bulk of Federal actions are taking place within Article 1-Section 8-last two paragraphs and Article II-Section III-first paragraph. Of Article 1 clauses, please read very carefully and slowly the first sentence of each (up to the fifth comma of the first and the first comma of the second). Of the Article II-Section III, please study after the first (;). Please also not that you are reading legalese as written at the time and pay close attention to the proper nouns (first letter capitalized, but does not lead the sentence).
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article II-Section III-first paragraph:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shal...
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article II-Section III-first paragraph:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
......................
I couldn't find the 5 commas you were talking about in Article 1. Maybe quoting those would be the best way to point them out.
......................
I'm not sure how what you were referring to shows "how all the stuff we perceive as unconstitutional really in fact is totally legit." A long time ago someone told me that the following quote from Article IV, Section 3 allows Congress to make pretty much any law it wants respecting the United States and its property:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
I see what the guy you;re referring to is talking about with Article IV-Section III.
I know how this works, but trying to explain it to most folk is worse than pulling teeth without Novocaine.
I've got an .iso I wish I could share that does a fantastic job.
http://freestateforwyoming.co...
#2 on the above link. 47 min long.
Well we now have nuclear weapons. We need debate on where the line is to be drawn.
and so on.
Why would anyone ever wish to pull the trigger if it was already going to be pulled? I'm a registered Republican, by the way (although I am a Libertarian).
The bottom two are just individuals that have done horrible things whereas the other two result in large groups of individuals doing horrible things.
I am not for killing people with these guns or nuclear weapons but would I turn a gun on the government should they turn their weapons on me or fellow Americans? In a heartbeat.
I do think the government needs to do less than what the Constitution permits and nothing more though...
if no one takes a pragmatic approach to lead this country then you are only just holding the country farther back from successful development and growth
So much so a lot of hard line authoritarian Libertarians seem to hate me.
As to SS, thost have paid into it deserve to receive their guaranteed payments, just as if they had bought a private retirement policy although the federal government had no power to establish it to begin with, and those young enough to purchase private retirement policies should be allowed to opt out.
The federal government has no power to spend tax payers money on objects of benevolence.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794
“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.” James Madison
http://no-ruler.net/new-const...
Much easier than writing it all again.