• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can the Libertarian party or policies ever work?

Should/Can libertarianism work?

  • Yes of course but first we need to become more known.

    Votes: 18 31.6%

  • Yes but we will never get elected.

    Votes: 5 8.8%

  • No and I'm damn glad of it.

    Votes: 27 47.4%

  • No because we will never get well known/enough votes.

    Votes: 7 12.3%
  • Total voters
    57
phattonez said:
I'm fine with "We the People", but we the people are supposed to follow the Constitution. ;)
Click to expand...

The Constitution, like the Bible, is subject to interpretation. By the rule of law under the Constitution, the courts make that determination by deciding what is, and what is not, constitutional.
 
Catawba said:
The way I read it, the majority is what ended Jim Crow and what is likely to end the recent laws against gays in Uganda.
Click to expand...

No, the Supreme Court dismantled most of it (elected members of Congress voted for it and LBJ signed legislation), and many in Uganda support their new law The Mob isn't always friendly to the minority.

Catawba said:
Yep, not perfect, but a pretty good system.
Click to expand...

We've moved pretty far away from the Founder's vision.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
The Constitution, like the Bible, is subject to interpretation. By the rule of law under the Constitution, the courts make that determination by deciding what is, and what is not, constitutional.
Click to expand...

The intent of the constitution is made fairly clear with straightforward language and the writings of the Founders. Go read the Federalist Papers. If we can interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want, it's meaningless.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
If we can interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want, it's meaningless.
Click to expand...

That's what they want. As I have said previously, contemporary liberalism is totally at odds with the Constitution and the principles our Founders espoused, namely, limited government and economic liberty. Because of this, they (liberals) need to render the document meaningless so they can grow government and implement their marxist redistribution policies.
 
y'all seem to forget that the founders also effected a blance of powers to keep the government in check
do you not recognize that the supreme court gets an opportunity to determine the Constitutionality of laws which might skirt the intent of the Constitution
 
justabubba said:
y'all seem to forget that the founders also effected a blance of powers to keep the government in check
do you not recognize that the supreme court gets an opportunity to determine the Constitutionality of laws which might skirt the intent of the Constitution
Click to expand...

Which is why we're supposed to appoint judges that do the job, not just appoint judges that like the laws that we like.
 
phattonez said:
Which is why we're supposed to appoint judges that do the job, not just appoint judges that like the laws that we like.
Click to expand...

which judges would that be and what was the criterion for so classifying them?
 
justabubba said:
which judges would that be and what was the criterion for so classifying them?
Click to expand...

Do we vote for judges based on the way they uphold the constitution or do we vote for them based on past decisions and whether we like them or not? It's clearly not the former. We only want "conservative" or "liberal" judges, there are no true judges.
 
phattonez said:
Do we vote for judges based on the way they uphold the constitution or do we vote for them based on past decisions and whether we like them or not? It's clearly not the former. We only want "conservative" or "liberal" judges, there are no true judges.
Click to expand...

do you not find that the past is prelude, such that the judges' decision history would be a preferred indicator of future decisions?
 
justabubba said:
do you not find that the past is prelude, such that the judges' decision history would be a preferred indicator of future decisions?
Click to expand...

But they judge based on what they like, instead of what the law says.
 
phattonez said:
But they judge based on what they like, instead of what the law says.
Click to expand...

would that not then be obvious from their history of decisions
your assertion is without foundation
 
justabubba said:
would that not then be obvious from their history of decisions
your assertion is without foundation
Click to expand...

Supreme Court nominations are as political as any other selection for political leaders
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Supreme Court nominations are as political as any other selection for political leaders
Click to expand...

but you missed the point
it was presented that judges are not adhering to the Constitution in their decisions
my observation is that judges have a history of decisions, which provides an excellent barometer of their inclination to rule in ways that depart from Constitutional provisions
if that inclination is found to have been present, then the probability of that judge making it to the supreme court is quite low
 
justabubba said:
but you missed the point
it was presented that judges are not adhering to the Constitution in their decisions
my observation is that judges have a history of decisions, which provides an excellent barometer of their inclination to rule in ways that depart from Constitutional provisions
if that inclination is found to have been present, then the probability of that judge making it to the supreme court is quite low
Click to expand...

Well...

Plessey vs Ferguson
Slaughterhouse Cases
United States vs Schenck
Roe vs Wade (say what you will about abortion, but I don't see it in the Constitution)

to name a few. Supreme Court justices make bad decisions all the time, just like other office holders.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Well...

Plessey vs Ferguson
Slaughterhouse Cases
United States vs Schenck
Roe vs Wade (say what you will about abortion, but I don't see it in the Constitution)

to name a few. Supreme Court justices make bad decisions all the time, just like other office holders.
Click to expand...

finally
any decisions with which you disagree have to have been unConstitutional
thanks for sharing
 
justabubba said:
finally
any decisions with which you disagree have to have been unConstitutional
thanks for sharing
Click to expand...

Plessey vs Ferguson and Slaughterhouse

"Separate but Equal" wasn't unconstitutional?

United States vs Schenk

The Alien and Sedition Act which criminalized criticism of the government or America's involvement WWI wasn't unconstitutional?

Roe vs Wade

How was this at all in the Supreme Court's jurisdiction?
 
Separate but equal is constitutional. The only problem was the equal part wasn't being lived out.
 
phattonez said:
Separate but equal is constitutional. The only problem was the equal part wasn't being lived out.
Click to expand...

"Separate but equal" was applied to public services such as schools and public transportation in direct defiance to the 14th Amendment.
 
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Why does this exclude separate but equal?

Not that I'm arguing that separate but equal is a good thing. It isn't, since it naturally deprives us of liberty. But still, it's allowed in the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Why does this exclude separate but equal?
Click to expand...

The government had no right to deny equal access to public services.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
The government had no right to deny equal access to public services.
Click to expand...

They were equal access, just separate (in theory). Look at Brown v. Board of Education. They didn't strike it down because it was unconstitutional, they struck it down because the equal part never came to fruition. The argument in favor was that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." If you could pull off separate but equal then you have no problem according to the constitution, but it was never done.
 
As for a case where the Supreme Court was definitely wrong: Euclid v. Ambler.
 
Ok so do Libertarians actually have policies?

I thought their policy is "no policies."
 
I wonder if over time the left-right dichotomy will evolve into statist/ libertarian groups. Do any of you libertarians see the Republican party or the right slowly adopting more libertarian ideals like that of Ron Paul( i guess he is a libertarian), and the left trying to coalesce and turn into a large consolidation of socialists and people who adopt more leftist ideologies?

That should be where the debate is to be honest. There is a large amount of agreement on a lot of social issues, with economics becoming more and more of the main area of contention, especially now a days in the recession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom