The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Why engage in thoughtful discussion when you can simply label the opposing viewpoint as un-American and move on?

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides of a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none." --Ray Bradbury, "Fahrenheit 451"

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Maybe this is semantics, but isn't the government's #1 duty to provide public goods that the private sector nearly as good or even at all?

I think the government's #1 and only duty is whatever we tell them it is. Maybe that changes from year to year. Government shouldn't have a will or a purpose outside that of the governed.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I think the government's #1 and only duty is whatever we tell them it is. Maybe that changes from year to year. Government shouldn't have a will or a purpose outside that of the governed.

And they still have that. The question of today is who constitutes the "governed".

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

And they still have that. The question of today is who constitutes the "governed".

The Koch brothers, George Soros, and couple other dudes.
wait, no. I meant We the People.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I think the government's #1 and only duty is whatever we tell them it is. Maybe that changes from year to year. Government shouldn't have a will or a purpose outside that of the governed.

Government has no "will." The question has always been, whose will was government executing? The system was designed for that to be the voters' collective will, but more and more it's been corrupted into a significantly smaller group of large donors. That's the present threat to the Republic. We've even managed to keep the theocrats in check, but the plutocrats have run amok.

We've fought them back twice before, in 1913 and 1932. 2008 was the time to fight them back this time, and we blew it. Maybe it will take another terrible disaster; hopefully not.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Government has no "will." The question has always been, whose will was government executing? The system was designed for that to be the voters' collective will, but more and more it's been corrupted into a significantly smaller group of large donors. That's the present threat to the Republic. We've even managed to keep the theocrats in check, but the plutocrats have run amok.

We've fought them back twice before, in 1913 and 1932. 2008 was the time to fight them back this time, and we blew it. Maybe it will take another terrible disaster; hopefully not.

No, we blew it in 1913, with the amendment for the income tax, and the Federal Reserve. The country is in MUCH worse shape. Heck, you could add 1971 to the list of "blown it"s, when we were taken off the gold standard. Inflation has run rampant.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Inflation has run rampant.

The inflation rate has been low for more than 20 years.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I think the government's #1 and only duty is whatever we tell them it is. Maybe that changes from year to year. Government shouldn't have a will or a purpose outside that of the governed.

Is that true? Isn't our government really just doing what the founding fathers told them to do? And the fathers told them to deliver us specific public goods...oh and respect us. How does the government do it? That's where I think 'we the people' or the Koch Bros is supposed to come in.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Government has no "will." The question has always been, whose will was government executing? The system was designed for that to be the voters' collective will, but more and more it's been corrupted into a significantly smaller group of large donors. That's the present threat to the Republic. We've even managed to keep the theocrats in check, but the plutocrats have run amok.

We've fought them back twice before, in 1913 and 1932. 2008 was the time to fight them back this time, and we blew it. Maybe it will take another terrible disaster; hopefully not.

I was more or less agreeing with you with the Koch brothers crack, but to the original question, insofar as the #1 duty of government can be defined ("protect the poor", "enrich the senators", etc.) I feel it should be defined as doing the will of the governed... not just the rich ones, or the smart ones, or the white ones, etc.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Is that true? Isn't our government really just doing what the founding fathers told them to do?

Yes to the second, but hopefully to the broader purpose of "public service" far above "institutional preservation/enrichment."

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I was more or less agreeing with you with the Koch brothers crack, but to the original question, insofar as the #1 duty of government can be defined ("protect the poor", "enrich the senators", etc.) I feel it should be defined as doing the will of the governed... not just the rich ones, or the smart ones, or the white ones, etc.

Yes, the sine qua non of democratic government is that it does the will of the people. There are times when the immediate will is superseded by the long-term will, as when the Court tells the government that it can't shoot Muslims on sight even if 98% of the country wants to do that. The Court is there becomes sometimes The People are temporarily drunk, stupid and/or insane. But if they remain that way long enough to elect presidents who nominate judges who support those measures, they eventually happen. The Founders would have thought freeing the slaves was a pipe dream, crazy or even morally wrong. They were wise enough to design a system that would bury their obsolete choices with them. That took quite a bit of genius and courage, and even more modesty.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

The inflation rate has been low for more than 20 years.

The Price is Right would say otherwise.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

That's the first piece by David Brooks in the last decade that wasn't tripe.

Of his parade of horribles, only one may come to pass -- removal of tax exemption for religious organizations -- and if it does they'll only have themselves to blame. When religious institutions were about building a community of faith and charitable giving, the tax exemption made sense. As they have become more and more just castles from which to launch blistering polemical partisan attacks, all the while amassing fortunes, the tax exemption makes no sense at all.

It amazes me, however, that in a country that is 70% Christian some Christians feel under siege. Trying being part of a 10% minority sometime, folks. I can't help thinking that what's really going on is that many Christians assumed that despite the First Amendment and America's long tradition of honoring religious tolerance, at least in the abstract, that these things were somehow noblesse oblige and it would be the Christian faithful who decided exactly where and when to distribute rights.

True separation of church and state doesn't work that way. Christians are going to learn the hard lesson that Jews, Muslims, atheists etc... have always known: equality means what it says. Anything lost in that transition wasn't a "liberty," it was privilege.

I was hoping for more than partisan tripe from you on this one.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

That's the first piece by David Brooks in the last decade that wasn't tripe.

Of his parade of horribles, only one may come to pass -- removal of tax exemption for religious organizations -- and if it does they'll only have themselves to blame. When religious institutions were about building a community of faith and charitable giving, the tax exemption made sense. As they have become more and more just castles from which to launch blistering polemical partisan attacks, all the while amassing fortunes, the tax exemption makes no sense at all.

It amazes me, however, that in a country that is 70% Christian some Christians feel under siege. Trying being part of a 10% minority sometime, folks. I can't help thinking that what's really going on is that many Christians assumed that despite the First Amendment and America's long tradition of honoring religious tolerance, at least in the abstract, that these things were somehow noblesse oblige and it would be the Christian faithful who decided exactly where and when to distribute rights.

True separation of church and state doesn't work that way. Christians are going to learn the hard lesson that Jews, Muslims, atheists etc... have always known: equality means what it says. Anything lost in that transition wasn't a "liberty," it was privilege.

Your 1st paragraph sounds like Henry VIII.

I was taught that separation of Church & State was that there would never be an "official" state religion in the USA. All would be free to practice their beliefs without government coercion.

Without the Church in the public square, you're missing a counterbalance to run amok secularization.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Your 1st paragraph sounds like Henry VIII.

I was taught that separation of Church & State was that there would never be an "official" state religion in the USA. All would be free to practice their beliefs without government coercion.

Without the Church in the public square, you're missing a counterbalance to run amok secularization.

One man's secularization "run amok" is another man's "policy based on reason rather than superstition." But even conceding the point for argument's sake, nothing that's happened has changed anybody's religious freedom to do anything but violate civil rights, and you don't have a religious liberty to violate civil rights.

So now that we've exchanged slogans, we can talk about individual cases and where the parties' rights begin and end. The case of a government official who doesn't want to follow the law and grant marriage licenses is in my mind cut and dried. They can't do that -- following the law is part of the job description. The case of the wedding cake maker is more complicated, and I defer to unofan or somebody else who knows what the shape of the laws are there. The case of the Catholic priest who doesn't want to marry a couple in his church and has the Church's blessing to deny them is all the way on the other side to me -- he can discriminate with impunity. If the church gets federal funds, that makes it different, but I don't think churches typically get federal funds.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I was hoping for more than partisan tripe from you on this one.

I'll just have to live with disappointing you.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

You can't be serious.
Can you? ... "because the government said we could"? Do you know what a representative government is?
What he said.

I am serious, and I do know what representative government is.

I never said anything about "leasing" property. That was someone else's characterization of my comments. You own your property, to the exclusion of all others. Just not the government, so much.

Consider:

Exhibit A -- From virtually the beginning of the Republic it has been understood, and enforced, that if "the government" (yes, I know, collectively that includes me), decides there is some public benefit to taking your property and seeing that it's put to some other use, the government can do that. The government just has to pay you for it. It is not, and never has been, about "the government", exclusively, possessing and controlling the property. That's why railroads get eminent domain powers. It's why electric cooperatives and utilities get eminent powers. It's why the Keystone pipeline gets eminent domain powers, and I think they're Canadian, aren't they?
If the government can make a reasonable case the public somehow, someway benefits, they're in.

Exhibit B -- If "the government" can just take our property anytime it determines the public will somehow benefit from it, do we really "own" our property to the exclusion of all others, or just all others except the government?

Exhibit C -- They have an army. If they really want my property, they're going to take it.

I just don't understand the shrill whining of the Mrs. Kelo's of the world, reinforced apparently on this board. Again, people, the government has to pay you for the property. Furthermore, you get to go in front of a jury and complain how they threw you out of your childhood home, and that home really had a high value. Trust me, they come out all right on price.

So effectively, all eminent domain consists of is "the government" simply telling us, you can't live in that location, you can't farm in that location, you can't operate your business in that location. We're not out anything. And the government tells us we can't live, farm or do business in certain locations all the time. It's called planning and zoning, and no one seems to care until a porno shop wants to move in next door to you.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I am serious, and I do know what representative government is.

I never said anything about "leasing" property. That was someone else's characterization of my comments. You own your property, to the exclusion of all others. Just not the government, so much.

Consider:

Exhibit A -- From virtually the beginning of the Republic it has been understood, and enforced, that if "the government" (yes, I know, collectively that includes me), decides there is some public benefit to taking your property and seeing that it's put to some other use, the government can do that. The government just has to pay you for it. It is not, and never has been, about "the government", exclusively, possessing and controlling the property. That's why railroads get eminent domain powers. It's why electric cooperatives and utilities get eminent powers. It's why the Keystone pipeline gets eminent domain powers, and I think they're Canadian, aren't they?
If the government can make a reasonable case the public somehow, someway benefits, they're in.

Exhibit B -- If "the government" can just take our property anytime it determines the public will somehow benefit from it, do we really "own" our property to the exclusion of all others, or just all others except the government?

Exhibit C -- They have an army. If they really want my property, they're going to take it.

I just don't understand the shrill whining of the Mrs. Keno's of the world, reinforced apparently on this board. Again, people, the government has to pay you for the property. Furthermore, you get to go in front of a jury and complain how they threw you out of your childhood home, and that home really had a high value. Trust me, they come out all right on price.

So effectively, all eminent domain consists of is "the government" simply telling us, you can't live in that location, you can't farm in that location, you can't operate your business in that location. We're not out anything. And the government tells us we can't live, farm or do business in certain locations all the time. It's called planning and zoning, and no one seems to care until a porno shop wants to move in next door to you.

Exhibit A: Enivronmental policies are an exception, evidently.

Exhibit B: The latter, which could violate the third amendment.

Exhibit C: Don't underestimate the people fighting back. See the Bundy Ranch.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

I'll just have to live with disappointing you.

I post an article about Christians focusing on caring for the poor, etc. You respond with your same clichéd wild misconceptions about Christians. Yup, just another day on USCHO.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Look, people are all hung up on who "owns" the dirt and the grass and the house that sits on the lot. That's not what I'm talking about. The state, usually through its political subdivisions, is the sovereign. And if the sovereign needs your land for some public benefit, candidly, you really don't get to question it nor do the courts. That's the whole deal regarding separation of powers. The courts are just there to make sure the sovereign complies with the constitution and sees that you get paid. Kelo, and many cases like it, are just probes at the concept of public use, public benefit, public purpose, or the myriad ways courts of describe essentially the same thing.