G.E. calls me a statist.

Pardon me while I laugh.

He then reverts to namecalling, in his usual modus operandi, calling me “a flaming moron.”

Pardon me while I chuckle.

He then seems to think that I think that “constitutional rights” are rights granted by the constitution, when I never said any such thing. Anybody who has read my posts on here knows perfectly well that I think humans have rights by their very existence, by the very state of being human. “Constitutional rights”, then, are those ENUMERATED (EE-NOOM-UR-A-TED for G.E.) in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, versus the non-enumerated rights that are accounted for in the Ninth Amendment. If G.E. understood the Constitution then he would understand this concept.

He then makes the laughable claim that the Constitution was created to limit federal authority. Thomas addresses that one quite well, and I’ll only add that the Constitution was designed to give the federal government the necessary powers it needed to be effective, unlike the more limiting and ineffective Articles it replaced.

He also seems to decry that the Constitution and the underlying statutes protect our rights. I take it then that he is in direct opposition to 18 USC 242-244, which does exactly that. I guess G.E. likes the states ignoring rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution and running roughshod over us. That to me sounds like a statist.

He then goes into the old “14th Amendment never properly ratified” argument which is an irrelevant red herring and only detracts from his credibility beyond his rant. It is accepted law that it is ratified whether G.E. likes it or not.

He then goes on to suggest that I “say and wish” that the federal government was “all powerful from its inception”, words I never said or wished, except inside his own head. If he knew his history he would know that the real power grabs by the federal government coincided with the Civil War and 1913 Worst Three (16th and 17th Amendments and Federal Reserve Act). Not the 14th Amendment.

He then concludes his rant with more namecalling.

Pardon me while I smile. When he falls to that level, he is lost and everybody knows it.

This has been been a public seervice mesage brought to you by Team Seebeck, who encourages you to support your local third party with a clear mind and calm demeanor.

I’ll now jump back into the set and we return you to your regularly scheduled deporgramming…

Thomas, you rock!
We no

You write:

“The Constitution was created to limit federal authority.”

So much for originalism. The Constitution was specifically and explicitly created to EXPAND federal authority beyond the authority allowed it under the Articles of Confederation.

Let’s see just how originalist you are: What do you think the framers meant by the term “Republican Form of Government?” And what do you think their intention was in enumerating a specific power/obligation of the federal government, in Article IV, Section 4, to guarantee such a form of government to each of the states?

Rights are not granted by the Constitution. Rights are inherent. But you are a STATIST so you can only see rights as being granted by the state, and protected by the state.

The Constitution was created to limit federal authority. To say that it was intended at the time of its adoption to allow the federal government to protect the individual rights of the citizens of the sovereign states is just as inaccurate as saying Hitler was an African-American (not even German) who did not gas Jews, but instead, played euchre with Zoroastrians.

You are a flaming moron, and I don’t know why I bother. There is literally NO historical basis for your comments. The 14th amendment was “ratified” at gunpoint in order to grant the federal government the powers you say it reserved for itself at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. Why the need for this power grab if the federal government was, as you say and wish, all powerful from its inception?

You are a liberal statist, and like most of your ilk, you bend history to fit your hideously mangled ideology. You are either an idiot or as deluded as Robert Milnes. Either way, you’re a waste of my time.

I’m not confusing libertarianism with constitutionalism. Chuck Baldwin is a constitutionalist, but he’s also (presumably, based on his party’s platform) a protectionist. Protectionism is consistent with the Constitution. Aggressive wars, if declared by Congress, are consistent with the Constitution. And yes, constitutionalists can be statists, quite literally, at the State level.

But for a “libertarian” to assert individual rights that should be “protected” and “enforced” by a central government, a particularly central government that has been the greatest violator of individual rights in the history of humankind, and to cede it the necessary power to do so is literally the stupidest thing I can imagine, and completely inconsistent with libertarianism.

It’s very simple. Should the federal government have more or less power? You say more.

States retain limited sovereignty. See Article I. et seq.

States cannot infringe on constitutional rights. If they could then the Constitution really IS “just a G-D piece of paper”.

The feds cannot infringe on state powers. See Am. 10.

Two different spheres of influence, each occupying its own space in our system of governance, all encompassed by the rights of the People, who gave consent to those spheres, the People whose rights which no government may infringe.

I’m sorry you can’t seem to understand that concept so simply laid out in our Founding documents.

You write:

“You make the mistake of assuming that the United States was intended to have a nationalist government. The STATES were to retain sovereignty. Anything else is an anti-libertarian proposition.”

You’re confusing libertarianism with (your mangled version of) constitutional original intentism. They aren’t the same thing.

(it appears many of these crazed, goddamned fool abortion prohibitionists are/were big supporters of crazed, goddamned fool drug prohibition, etceterot ad nauseam…)

...perhaps you goddamned fool abortion prohibitionists, Con. Party busybodies, etc. assorted creeps, can restrain your fool selves to administering what’s at the end of YOUR umbilical cord in YOUR womb and allow others the same choice!..

(hint: do you suppose these republicrat creeps would turn in their own daughter/son for committing abortion ‘murder?’) ;o)

LOL! ..and it appears many of the loudest ‘pro-life’ peckerheads are big fans of the stinking ‘war on terror’ which has resulted in the real murder of tens of thousands!

!STFU, republicrats!.. ;o)

You make the mistake of assuming that the United States was intended to have a nationalist government. The STATES were to retain sovereignty. Anything else is an anti-libertarian proposition.

The federal government’s job is NOT to protect you, except from foreign invasion. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, not Supreme Court interpretations thereof, and certainly not the Declaration of Independence.

You think state government’s are comparatively weak when compared to the federal government. You are not living in reality.

Giving any power to the federal government is anti-libertarian, period. It is so obvious that it’s ridiculous it needs to be said.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” (emphasis added)

People institute governments by consent to secure the rights of the People. When those rights aren’t being secured, the People alter the government to do so. They did exactly that with the 14th Amendment. It doesn’t matter whether that securing is from infirngement by foreign governments or parts of our own, or by other people. What part of Mr. Jefferson’s words do you not understand?

Part of the federal government’s job is to protect the rights of the People from all oppressors, including the state governments. That’s what Equal Protection of the Laws in the 14th Amendment is all about. It’s what Establishing Justice as stated in the Preamble is all about.

G.E., you make the mistake of asking if I equate national sovereignty and international sovereignty. I do not, and few libertarians do. The United States has no jurisdiction over China, nor the U.N. any over us. You brought it up in a large jump to a completely erroneous conclusion by asking those questions, when neither of those have anything at all to do with it!

And I don’t consider state governments to be comparatively weak. Any pet owner can and will tell you otherwise as we fight the property rights war against the ARistas like HSUS and PETA as well as overbearing ACOs. Parents are having the same problems with CPS nationwide. ESPECIALLY NOW, with the recent (April 23) Virginia v. Moore ruling that basically made very state a police state with every citizen able to be detained for nothing at the whim of the cops!

Nope, no liberla invention there, just the rotts of the nation and a reflection on modern times.

Yes, states should not violate the individual rights of their citizens. But do you want the U.N. invading your town and acting on your behalf? Would you like our government to invade China to defend the individual rights of the oppressed Chinese? It is a question of jurisdiction, and the federal government has none. If we only had to worry about our comparatively weak state governments as oppressors, with the freedom to flee one state for a freer one, trust me, we’d be home free.