See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Why some people are terrified of CHUCK BALDWIN
Source:
LibertyPost
URL Source: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=234674&Disp=9#C9
Published: Aug 16, 2008
Author: thangdatrang
Post Date: 2008-08-16 21:56:43 by Rotara
Keywords: None
Views: 1783
Comments: 171
Because Chuck Baldwin says: I PUT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY FIRST, NOT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY Poster Comment: Come, anti-Christians, and spew your bile here you sorry mixed bag of LOSERS! ;-)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 66.
#1. To: Rotara (#0)
I can vote for this man. It is him or Bob Barr. Barr voted for the Patriot act without reading it. Is Barr for NAFTA and GATT too?
It is him or Bob Barr. Barr voted for the Patriot act without reading it. Is Barr for NAFTA and GATT too? I can vote for Chuck too. He is the best man running (and I would say that even if his "competition" were a whole lot better than McCain and Obama--to say that he is better than them is no great compliment). I would have loved to have seen a ticket with Ron and Chuck, that would have been as good as we could have wanted or hoped for.
I'll prolly end up voting for Baldwin, he seems to be only candidate left that actually has a soul. I guess that's what bothers me about Barr, he always seemed up for grabs.
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
Baldwin supports The Defense Of Marriage Act and and a national abortion ban. But, he (says he) believes that medical marijuana is a state issue and the feds shouldn't get involved. Do you believe in a federal DOMA and abortion ban? Will an abortion ban stop abortions or create a black market and a new class of "criminals and border jumpers" just as Prohibition did and federal drug laws have done? As a Christian pastor it would be incumbent upon him as president to punish anyone who went to Canada for an abortion just as our govt would punish someone who goes there for marijuana now. Do you support codifying his morality into law and enforcing it with criminal penalties? Why is that preferable to Bush's? There are millions of cops and other "drug warriors" (hooked on asset forfeiture) who'd rather keep marijuana illegal and (forced to choose) keep legal abortion. To hear them tell it, marijuana is deadly and dangerous because that's what their "religion" teaches. Shouldn't all who'd use the power of the state to enforce their personal beliefs get out of our bodies and out of our lives? Why is one group of hypocritical kooks preferable to another?
If someone believes, as does Pastor Baldwin, that abortion is murder he would be untrue to his conscience to do otherwise than to oppose it. I disagree with state intervention on it, but do find abortion to be tantamount to infanticide, and I do not share his particular religious beliefs. Obviously you feel otherwise about abortion and thus wish to see your views codified. Abortion is one of those issues that causes strong emotion because for those who oppose it they are opposing what they view as murder, and while you may disagree with that conclusion - given that viewpoint that the anti-abortion movement people have you must admire their commitment to their beliefs. All governments are founded upon moral beliefs and codes. It is simply a matter of determining which one promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.
The problem with your broad brush understanding is, you could not file an intelligent legal brief to oppose an unconstitutional power grab because you don't understand the legal principle at stake. For instance, when the federal govt passed a "gun free zone" around schools based on the interstate commerce clause it was overturned. Do you know why? When you can successfully argue that then you'll be skilled enough for a discussion of this type. No offense but, you're just brow beating me with religious principles and they were not the first priority of those who drafted the constitution. In fact, you can do great harm without realizing it by reaching into the dark while puffed up with a sense of moral outrage and superiority. There is no federal statute that outlaws murder. (except on federal reservations or in the commission of terrorism, etc, and other jurisdictional questions that make it a federal crime. Now if murder is REEL BAD and REEL IMMORAL then why isn't any murder automatically a federal crime? Think about it. The Branch Davidians were murdered and the feds told us they were child abusers. There were no federal child abuse laws that justified the machine gun/immolation murders of those people! They were murdered under the guise of serving a search warrant for an item that would have required a two hundred dollar tax to be paid in order to be in compliance with the law. Believe me, the govt ain't in the business of saving children. they are the number one threat to them, and if you advocate putting their safety in federal hands then you really need to study up some more. Once unborn children become wards of the federal govt then people like Bush will force mothers to take experimental vaccines that enrich drug companies and endanger children's lives. And all because you find abortion so morally reprehensible that you'll grab at any proposed solution including a deal with the demon himself to end it.
Testy testy. I'll sidestep the barbs and strawmen to simply stay with the issue as it is an important philosophic point. Which religious principles did I browbeat you with? I simply pointed out that the basis of philosophic understanding of the Founders were based to no small degree upon their religious views and that is supported copiously in their writings. Yes, they had other influences and understandings, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Aristotle, Plato, etc., .... By today's standards they were very learned men. Religion, taking it in the generic and avoiding specific dogma, is at its base an understanding, or an attempt to understand what we, "man", are. From that basis flows an understanding what we mean by rights and responsibilities. Religion, within its province, addresses those interrelationships of understanding the nature of man and thus from that what is moral, ethical, and just. Natural law is just such a realm and its basis is what is regarded as man's basic nature and rights and that springs again from the realm of religion. Many of these standards, ethical sensibilities, can be found in more than one of the great religions. Whether Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism it is regarded as wrong to steal, to lie, to cheat, and to commit murder (not that people belonging to such religions do not do these things but that they are recognized as criminal). These are all fundamental principles which comprise what we call a just society and they are all issues explored within the realm of religion and ethical precepts supporting them and are the basis upon which codified law is generated. To seperate religion from law and from government is to suggest that amoral relativism should be the standard upon which we govern. The horrors that such a society would visit upon the innocent is not a pleasant thought. Because you personally have a "bug" on religion does not change history, nor, thankfully, society.
Your understanding of the classics still doesn't prepare you to defeat the constitution and the limits under which it was intended to serve. Do you understand why "gun free school zones" was not a legitimate federal issue? Do you know why the only means the feds have to enforce federally mandated speed limits is the withholding of funds? Why are there no national criminal sanctions or fines for violators of the federal speed limit? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS A DOCUMENT OF LIMITED POWERS, and better scholars than you and I have tried to defeat that for their own reasons? (The diff is, I know why they failed and why your argument is retreading over losing ground) Until you do, you're just making smoke to hide your "constitution deficit". And, high sounding references to the classics do not justify exceeding the limits under which the federal govt was intended to operate. It wouldn't matter if the issue was cannibalism of the unborn. IT IS SIMPLY NOT A FEDERAL QUESTION, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
Sigh. First the Constitution is not a document of "Limited Powers" but a document of ENUMERATED POWERS which means not that it is merely limited but has no power, legally, beyond those powers specifically allowed it. However, that was not my point which you are steadfastly missing or ignoring i.e., what influences and standards guided the Founding Fathers in constructing that document? Hint: The prohibition against "establishments of religion" was not set up to guard the state against religion but the church against the state. Well at least you were half right. Under the existing Constitution it is not a Federal issue, but I think your over the top example is simply begging the question since the phrase "nor should it be" is your personal value judgement. The kind of thing the Founding Fathers took into consideration in writing the Constitution - value judgements and the Constitution was not written in a vacuum devoid of understanding of the preceding thousands of years of history, and religion, for good and ill, was very much a part of that history. Further the Founding Fathers were largely a religious group and schooled in religion and that schooling had no small influence in their final product i.e., the Constitution.
#67. To: Original_Intent (#66)
And the Bill of Rights was not meant to establish the rights of men but was the "Ten Commandments" of the Constitution, the "thou shalt nots" aimed at the government. These are God given rights and "thou shalt not" touch them!
OI, you are by far the ass-kickin'est.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: Old Friend (#1)
I can vote for this man.
#8. To: James Deffenbach (#7)
#9. To: Dakmar (#8)
#13. To: James Deffenbach (#9)
The way I see it Baldwin is the very best running and I hope he makes it on the ballot where I live. If he doesn't there won't be much use in wasting the gas to go to the polls. I sure won't vote for McCain or Obama.
#21. To: HOUNDDAWG (#13)
Shouldn't all who'd use the power of the state to enforce their personal beliefs get out of our bodies and out of our lives?
#46. To: Original_Intent (#21)
(Edited)
All governments are founded upon moral beliefs and codes. It is simply a matter of determining which one promotes the greatest good for the greatest number.
#59. To: HOUNDDAWG (#46)
(Edited)
No offense but, you're just brow beating me with religious principles and they were not the first priority of those who drafted the constitution. In fact, you can do great harm without realizing it by reaching into the dark while puffed up with a sense of moral outrage and superiority.
#63. To: Original_Intent (#59)
#66. To: HOUNDDAWG (#63)
(Edited)
It wouldn't matter if the issue was cannibalism of the unborn. IT IS SIMPLY NOT A FEDERAL QUESTION, NOR SHOULD IT BE.
Replies to Comment # 66. First the Constitution is not a document of "Limited Powers" but a document of ENUMERATED POWERS which means not that it is merely limited but has no power, legally, beyond those powers specifically allowed it.
#71. To: Original_Intent (#66)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 66.