|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/12/2017 3:08:13 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
You can make whatever assumptions you want, Vincent. Obviously, I want a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution, and government to be limited to the powers and authorities consistent with a conservative interpretation.
Can you define the limits of the "General Welfare?"
You're lowering yourself to that of another %X poster. You know (and I know you know it) that a limited government is a subjective idea that changes with the needs of the situation. For example, in times of peace and prosperity, the size of government does not need to be as large as it needs to be in times of war and/or chaos.
It seems to me that we spoke about this recently. At that time we were discussing the original intent of the framers versus changes that have occurred in society and in technology over the past 250 years. It was my contention then that opinions from the high court served the purpose of modifying the original Constitution. As I recall I was okay with that and you found that to be a problem. Now you seem to be taking the opposite position, suggesting that there are areas in the Constitution that don’t have limits. In fact from what I can read, and please tell me if I’m wrong, you are approving a very Keynesian approach to the Constitution. That is exactly what I read when you make a statement like you did above that a limited government is a subjective idea that changes with the needs of the situation. I would agree with that.
You're still trying to pigeonhole me. It's not going to work.
One of the authorities granted to the Federal Government is to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 9). How many of these Tribunals were necessary in 1787? 1920? 1970? 2017? What is a properly sized government, as it pertains to these Tribunals, is quite different today than it was in 1787. And, a clear demonstration that there is no exact definition of the size of government while it still can fall under the vague descriptor of "limited."
quote:
I never said that I knew what the limits were on applying the general welfare clause.
And I never said you did. I asked if you could.
quote:
quote:
Once again, you're misrepresenting Trump's "Travel Ban." Trump's travel ban is a temporary - 90 days - ban from 7 nations (reduced to 6 after Iraq was taken off that list) and 120 days for refugees (unless they were from Syria, in which case there is no time limit to the ban), to give immigration officials time to make the vetting process more robust. That's it. The 7 countries were also identified as countries of concern and/or state sponsors of terrorism by the Obama Administration (Source) as part of the DHS and Administration's Visa Waiver Program.
I do not recall representing trumps immigration delay in the first place let alone misrepresenting it again or once again. Trump ran afoul of the courts and learned quickly that his powers as president were not unlimited. That’s really all I have to say about trump. Well, in addition I have to say once again that there was little rhyme or reason to trump's blocking of travel from nations that never did us any harm. I understand that the Obama State Department had a hand in this as well and I would say the same thing for them. There was never any suspicion even that we were importing dangerous people from those countries. Almost all of our alleged terrorists were homegrown or at least radicalized while they were living here. It is kind of weird for Australia to take away passport validity from people that are going to this country or that country when there is no reason to suspect them of a crime. I lay emphasis on the word crime because that’s what we investigate in a democracy. Now a conspiracy would be considered a crime. So, if you wish to invalidate passports for a close knit group of people then that might be another case, but when you’re singling out individuals on the basis of their being suspected for some unidentified crime that I think, as was suggested by the Dizzy Chick you are no longer in a democracy but you’re in a totalitarianism.
When you wrote: "It is similar to president trumps desire to block immigration from seven specific countries none of which has ever raised a harmful hand against the United States," you misrepresented Trump's travel ban.
quote:
quote:
No response to the hypothetical, then, eh? Why am I not surprised?
the hypothetical that you suggested is too ambiguous so no I can’t respond to it. If a man walks into a bank with a gun he has already committed a crime to the best of my knowledge, so where is the hypothetical?
quote:
According to what you've just posted, the FBI does not do anything to prevent attacks. I think we both know that simply isn't true.
Well sure, the FBI seeks out conspiracies to commit attacks against the nation. A conspiracy as I’ve said above is a crime so the FBI does investigate conspiracies. They do not however investigate a single person for the idea that he may be planning to commit a crime. That’s my understanding of it. If you can show me where I’m wrong I will be happy to concede.
If there is one person looking to commit a crime against the US, wouldn't the FBI investigate a single person? If one person is part of a group, wouldn't a "single person" be investigated as part of that group?
quote:
quote:
You can (and I'm sure you will) continue to attempt to pigeonhole me with your limited vision of Libertarianism.
I fear you are being paranoid, DS. I’m not trying to trap you into anything or to pigeonhole you into anything. All I am trying to do is understand what you’re talking about.
Bullshit.
quote:
quote:
Do you oppose preventive police work?
Should the police solely respond after a crime has taken place?
by all means if the police suspect that the crime is about to be committed they should intercede. I said that before
But, you oppose the police doing what it needs to do to be able to know if a crime is about to be committed.
|
|
|
|
