quote:

There is no hard and fast rule as to where the line is drawn. If there was, I'd have already presented it.

quote:


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/world/australia/australia-terrorism-isis-hostage-killing.html

While the Australian government might not be directly in conflict with ISIS, there may be reasons behind the government wanting to limit Australian's contact with terrorists.

quote:

Suspicion is the first basis for any investigation. Anyone under suspicion will be under greater scrutiny.

Under your interpretation, if a guy walks into a bank with a gun in hand, the cops/security shouldn't approach him or question him until he uses the gun or threatens to rob the bank.

Do you oppose preventive police work? Should the police solely respond after a crime has taken place?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

There is no hard and fast rule as to where the line is drawn. If there was, I'd have already presented it.

Given that, then may I assume that limited government is not a doctrine but a convenient tool of propaganda? Here's a big circle, just color inside the lines wherever it suits your purpose. If you cannot define the limits of your doctrine, it seems to me, that your doctrine is just simply dogma. We should expect some intellectual honesty in presenting your collection of ideas, as you did with each post that you made. I should think then that you either define limited government or remove it as part of your doctrine.

quote:

quote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/world/australia/australia-terrorism-isis-hostage-killing.html
While the Australian government might not be directly in conflict with ISIS, there may be reasons behind the government wanting to limit Australian's contact with terrorists.

On the other hand, Isis often lays claim to destructive activities as a part of its recruitment tactics. In a democracy it seems to me that the government ought to be forthcoming about its motives for taking away people’s travel documents. There’s just too much secrecy involved in this situation. 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. So one has to wonder if there are really any motivations involved on the part of the Australian government or on the part of president Trump other than whatever motivates them to maintain their power status in the nation. Nope, I don’t buy it, not in a democracy.

quote:

quote:

Suspicion is the first basis for any investigation. Anyone under suspicion will be under greater scrutiny.
Under your interpretation, if a guy walks into a bank with a gun in hand, the cops/security shouldn't approach him or question him until he uses the gun or threatens to rob the bank.
Do you oppose preventive police work? Should the police solely respond after a crime has taken place?

I can’t even give you a “nice try” on that one DS. In all probability there are laws against carrying a loaded weapon into a bank so right there a felony has been committed. I don’t know that there are such laws for certain but I would be damn well surprised if you came up with anything showing that such laws do not exist. So the analogy is really way beyond stretching for some parallel.

quote:

Now let’s go back to the other claim you made that suspicion is the first basis for an investigation. That’s true, but with one rather large caveat. From what all I’ve been hearing about the special council's investigations in particular and FBI investigations in general, investigations are begun by the suspicion of a CRIME, not suspicion of an individual. Again this is a question of liberty that I would think was so fundamental to your philosophy. An individual is above suspicion in a free country unless I misunderstood the Bill of Rights somewhere along the line. No, no there must be a suspicion of a crime in order to begin an investigation. And in the case of the Australian warriors going off to do battle MAYBE, that is not sufficient reason to begin an investigation. But not only is that not sufficient reason to begin an investigation it is certainly not sufficient reason to take action such as taking away their passports. So, no I don’t see where you made the case and I am damn well surprised that you would make such a case in the face of your libertarian philosophy.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

FR
So now we have "future crime"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
No, suspicion is just that, a belief that you were involved in a crime that was committed. In order for them to pick you up on suspicion, there has to have been a crime committed that they suspect you of having been involved with. Or at least that is how it is supposed to work, but apparently not any more.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Do you oppose preventive police work?

quote:

Should the police solely respond after a crime has taken place?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Do you oppose preventive police work?

No, but arresting or punishing people who have not committed a crime is not preventative police work, it is totalitarianism.

quote:

quote:

Should the police solely respond after a crime has taken place?

Well, if no law has been broken, then why the fuck would the police have any business being involved?

quote:

Your problem is that you simply do not see where this leads. But hey, you're a Yank, and so we don't really expect you to understand anything more complex than ordering a Whopper.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

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.

quote:

No response to the hypothetical, then, eh? Why am I not surprised?

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.

quote:

You can (and I'm sure you will) continue to attempt to pigeonhole me with your limited vision of Libertarianism.

quote:

Do you oppose preventive police work?
Should the police solely respond after a crime has taken place?

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.

quote:

I never said that I knew what the limits were on applying the general welfare clause.

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.

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.

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.

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

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)