Today Allison Bricker of The Smoking Argus and Jack Hunter “The Southern Avenger” had their debate on Liberty Pulse. If you missed it don’t worry, you can listen below. Make sure you vote for the winner as well and make your comments below as well.
http://libertypulse.com/blog/2010/03/16/bricker-vs-hunter-wh...
  |
|
★
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
I agree
Jack is right so often...but wrong on this one.
P & I Clause is about negative rights.
Allison did not do a great job explaining her position but at the end of the day she is (more) correct.
WoW
Great stuff, Great thread
I had to listen three times and do some further reading besides.
I came down on the side of Jack Hunter, using basic libertarian tenents. The fact that others, in a truly free society, may choose a course other than my own is not enough reason to cede power to a federal entity.
I am not surprised that the voting is so close.
If an idea has merit, it will win eventually.
Allow the freedom for that to happen.
The other option is always force.
Negative Rights
I am a huge fan of Jack Hunter. My facebook profile picture is of Jack and myself at CPAC (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000474027443).
This however is one issue where I disagree with him. And while I agree with Allison Brinker, I don't think she had a very good argument in the debate.
Jack Hunter showed in the debate that he doesn't have an understanding of the difference between negative and positive rights. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights)
Article 1 Section 8, enumerated powers, says what the federal government can do. Whereas the bill of rights list negative powers that the federal government cannot do.
The 14th amendment applies these negative powers to the states and says that the states cannot do these things.
In Jack's example that the federal government decided that health care was a right. As a negative right the federal government could overturn a state law that prevented someone from purchasing health care.
The federal government wouldn't be able to require someone to purchase or provide healthcare because that is a positive right.
The 14th amendment only allows the federal government to enforce the negative rights listed in the bill of rights upon the states.
Jack's example of the federal government using the commerce clause to regulate drugs is not a relivant argument because the commerce clause is an enumerated power which is a positive right and this case is about the application of the 14th amendment which only applies to the negative rights listed in the bill of rights.
For more about Negative and Positive Rights visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
This is not to say that there are not checks and balances between the federal and state governments. But it is to say that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And whether is it the state or the federal government violating the constitution. Each should stand up to each other and protect rule of law. That is the states should nullify federal laws that are unconstitutional and the federal government through the courts should be able to rule state laws unconstitutional.
The negative rights listed in the bill of rights do apply to the states through the 14th amendment, and the 14th amendment doesn't give the federal government any new positive rights or enumerated powers.
Michael Mikkelsen
http://twitter.com/mmikkelsen
Commerce clause
Do you believe that the drug laws are Constitutional under the commerce clause?
Mobile-Friendly U.S. Constitution
Negative and positive rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
The Constitution...
is a fiction for we have been under martial law rule since the War for Southern Independence. Lincoln's War Powers Act has never been rescinded since that time by executive orders by succeeding presidents. There has been no organic law ever since. United States are not the same as States united under organic law. The United States are a corporate body with the Yellow Fringe Flag to prove my point. The American Flag does not have a fringe around the border of it. Our once free Republic has been destroyed and continues to be eroded away as each day passes. We are owned by Wall Street. Enough said...-whzh-
He who sells what isn't his'n, buys it back, or goes to prison!!!...-whzh-
And the Winner Is....
As much as I like Jack Hunter's commentaries, I think Allison Bricker won this debate. Mr. Hunter's arguments seem based on pragmatism. This is the same "lesser of two evils" thought process that has gotten the country into its current political situation. Ms. Bricker's arguments were based on principle.
I still have not gotten an answer to how the Supremacy Clause (Article 6) of the Constitution fits into this argument. My question from the other Hunter/Bricker debate thread was....
What does the supremacy clause mean? Article Six of the Constitution states that federal law trumps state law if the federal law is Constitutional. The Second Amendment is obviously Constitutional. The States ratified it and in doing so relinquished their right to regulate arms.
That said, the Courts have obfuscated the issue by not using this argument in their decisions. The use of the "incorporation doctorine" is a way for the federal courts to overrule state legislation while at the same time reserving some federal power to "infringe" on our Second Amendment rights. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand? Why are people so willing to revoke the rights of others to protect themselves from some theoretical future event?
Does anyone have some light to shed on this?