Compensation for members of the Gov’t is written into the Constitution. This section deals exclusively with the Legislature.
Which is basically what I just said.
Your statement sure as hell reads like a blanket condemnation of equality because you consider it impossible. My point reads as intended, in that while perfect equity is indeed impossible the intent should still be a primary motivator in spending decisions.
Is this just a one-liner or did you have a point? The government is buying up equity because a lot of people think that’s the best way to aid the “general welfare” at present. You may disagree, and that is reasonable, but there’s still a pretty firm basis for the act that isn’t running contrary to the Constitution.
This is what is known as a pun or play on words. I do, however, fully stand by my objection to the government taking ownership interests in private entities. There is plenty of evidence that this creates moral hazards (cf: Russia, esp. Gazprom and Yukos), distortions in the market (cf: China), and inefficient use of resources (cf: Mexico esp. Pemex). Furthermore, as the Constitution does not specifically grant the Federal gov’t the power to purchase private companies, I don’t see how you could possibly intuit that they do in fact have said right. Check for yourself:
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Why can’t follow people like Rawls and suggest that what is needed (and perhaps intended) is equity in terms of fairness rather than material equity. In other words, when we consider the general good, that doesn’t mean everyone gets the exact same benefits but that the goal is to produce equality of opportunity for all involved (opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness?). This will often result in unequal payouts, as far as individuals are concerned, but the overall distribution will be seeking to balance out nature’s lottery (again, using Rawls here).
First, replace “government” with “voters.” Laws don’t appear out of thin air. If the public is upset with something, in general, they’re perfectly able to vote against it and change things all they want. Second, I’m not sure what you’re asking - there’s not a dial called “more or less government” I can turn with my vote. Some areas I want more involvement, some areas I want less.
I think constitutional law is a little more rigorous than this.
Do you think that a modicum of material equality to start people out (with no expectation that everyone will get equal payouts in the end) is necessary to achieve equality of opportunity?
I also think the whole “government is taking over our lives” thing is largely crap, too. If you’re strongly opposed to something (or many things) that government is doing, take a stand. Lobby. Work with your Senators and Representatives. It seems to me that the truth is that most of us want to sit around and complain, rather than really working to make things better (and I include myself in that group on many issues).
Democratic government requires an involved population. We instead have an apathetic population.
No they’re not because government control becomes entrenched and it’s very hard to dislodge it no matter how many people don’t want it anymore. This is proved over and over again with those “omg there’s a law against holding hands with a person of a different race law in our state still!” stories.
I think constitutional law is a little more rigorous than this.
There are no Constitution in Exile “guys”. There’s like one guy. This was debunked a week ago. :P
We have this newfangled invention called a ballot around here. Stop me if you’ve heard of it, because I sure don’t live in one of the more progressive states, but we can actually say, on this here ballot, who we want to represent us for a set period of time. They even occassionally appear to TV to explain to us why they want us to say, on the ballot, why they want our vote or why the other guy is a commie that will melt down our guns, raise your taxes, and give the darkies the White House.
Spoofy has a point. Things were so much more free back in the day when they had Alien Sedition Acts (in which it’s illegal to write or say bad things about the government, passed in 1798)
Right, there’s no official movement that calls itself by that phrase, but there’s a set of legal scholars on the right who agree with everything covered by the phrase. This guy is one of them.
I like Napolitano… He did a speech for Reason a while ago where he wtfpwned bush and in particular the patriot act. You can see it here: http://www.reason.tv/video/show/178.html
I like him, too. I just think it’s absurd that anyone is claiming he’s not “one of the constitution in exile guys” when he wrote a book called Constitution In Exile. Needless to say, McCullough considers that the lowest slur (tied with “Randian”, maybe), but it’s certainly an accurate description of Napolitano (“CiE guy”, not “Randian”).
Isn’t it true that most Americans oppose the death penalty, and yet states still have it? Wouldn’t the majority of Americans make English the official language?
Spoofy is just talking about legal precedent here, and he’s right that our legal system depends on it to a great degree. This makes it difficult to overturn bad laws. We were all rightly terrified when Bush and his masters were trying to change laws. The Patriot Act hasn’t been shot down just because most Americans know it’s crap. Why, now that we are talking about a liberal, are we not worried about precedent?
From Wikipedia (but the key thing here is the survey)
An ABC News survey in July 2006 found 65 percent in favour of capital punishment, consistent with other polling since 2000.[38]
That was nationwide. There is still considerable support for the death penalty in this country.
There is a lot of business resistance to the idea of English being the official language. So when the LPGA for example tried to institute a policy like that, State Farm quietly told them to ‘take another look at that policy decision’. Being that State Farm is a major sponsor of the LPGA, that policy was quickly rescinded.
Right, but most of them don’t care very much about it; only a very small and disorganized set of people care. Most Republicans, to their credit, have mostly stayed away for it because while it’s a short-term winning issue by itself they think the backlash from the hispanic community and the like would outweigh any benefits. There’s a lot of room around the margins where things that are niche issues or only mildly net positive don’t get passed. In general, though, there’s very few issues with huge disagreement between situation as-is and public opinion.
Spoofy is just talking about legal precedent here, and he’s right that our legal system depends on it to a great degree. This makes it difficult to overturn bad laws. We were all rightly terrified when Bush and his masters were trying to change laws. The Patriot Act hasn’t been shot down just because most Americans know it’s crap. Why, now that we are talking about a liberal, are we not worried about precedent?
The Patriot Act is an odd case. I can’t find more recent numbers, but it looks like back in 2005 59% approved. The numbers are probably lower, and I think Democrats could get away with repealing it, but every time they’ve tried something like this previously they’ve gotten kicked in the head by the Republicans on national security. So they’re pretty leery.
Parts of the Patriot Act were ruled unconstitutional.
Sorry. I got it reversed. Anyway, it doesn’t matter because the point was that there are states doing the opposite of what the majority of people want. It doesn’t matter which side is IN the majority in order to make my point. So thanks for the correction. I actually got the stat from watching David Gale. Sometimes when I hear stats in movies I don’t remember them correctly. I usually get it when I read it though, so now I know!
