libertarian candidates

[shanek]

Some of the things there seem to be inconsistent with my understanding of Libertarian viewpoints. First of all, he is against free trade (or, at least, all of the free trade agreements listed including NAFTA and the WTO). I thought Libertarians were in favour of free trade.

We are. NAFTA and the WTO are NOT free trade agreements. Neither is the FTAA. They purport to be, but the reality is quite different.

For evidence, look at how long they are. A real free trade agreement only needs to be one sentence long: "There shall be no restrictions on trade between the US and _________." These are really money giveaways, governmental welfare if you will.

Second, he suppots this: "k) Support legislation that would protect manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms from civil lawsuits by crime victims."
Why?

Because the misuse of these weapons is not the fault of the gun manufacturers. Notice that he said "crime victims," so this would not include, say, someone who got harmed when a faulty gun misfired.

If such lawsuits are frivoulous, they will be struck down as such.

Oh, if only that were true. The fact of the matter is, the law is constructed to allow this frivolity. Look at the gun manufacturer that successfully got sued for advertising that the finish on their guns was "resistant to fingerprints." They successfully argued that they were deliberately making it easier for ciminals to get away with crimes, instead of being what it really was: a comment about the resilience of the finish that is made about everything from printer paper to furniture polish.

In order for it to be judged as frivolous, there has to be a law specifying that. And that is what Badnarik is proposing.

Why the corporate welfare? If they can't take it, maybe they shouldn't make guns.

That statement is so nonsensical that I don't even know how to respond. Why should a company only exist if it has the means to fight off numerous meaningless lawsuits by people with political agendas?

Third, he answers "Yes" to this:"d) Should the U.S. hold foreign states accountable for terrorists who operate in their country?" Huh? How is this in line with the personal responsibility schtick espoused by the Libertarians?

Because a legitimate function of government is the enforcement of the law. If terrorists were operating in the US, we should absolutely arrest them and turn them over to whatever system they've caused harm in. So why should we expect any less from others?

So, if a couple of terrorists from Saudi Arabia fly some planes into some tall buildings, we should invade Saudi Arabia?

No, but we should be able to get Saudi Arabia to turn the terrorists over to us for trial.

Finally, I find some of his stuff to just be a bit scary. For example, dismantling the FDA.

There are literally millions of dead bodies piled up as a direct result of the FDA. They have made it so difficult for medicines WHICH ARE KNOWN TO BE SAFE from being sold that people die waiting for them to be approved. Often these are medicines that have been used in Europe and elsewhere for years; if someone goes over there to get them, customs takes the medicine from them when they come back into the country. It's a horrible, tyrannical system that costs lives and drives the price of pharmaceuticals through the roof. There are much, much better ways of doing this.

Dismantling the FDA is not scary. Keeping it is.

Also, he wants to "Greatly decrease funding" on "Intelligence operations". Awesome. That will really help prevent terrorist attacks.

You mean intelligence operations, such as the FBI wiretapping a brothel in New Orleans at the very moment terrorists were flying planes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon? Maybe if they weren't grossly overfunded, they'd pick their battles more wisely and we'd end up with better intel.

Or are you saying that it's always better to just throw more money at a problem?

 

[Thanz]

We are. NAFTA and the WTO are NOT free trade agreements. Neither is the FTAA. They purport to be, but the reality is quite different.

For evidence, look at how long they are. A real free trade agreement only needs to be one sentence long: "There shall be no restrictions on trade between the US and _________." These are really money giveaways, governmental welfare if you will.

A one line FTA between nations is hopelessly naive. At the very leaset, you need an enforcemnet mechanism in place for the inevitable disputes. Plus, the Libertarians can't go for the one liner as they would rely on tariffs for revenue, which would certainly violate the one liner you propose.

Because the misuse of these weapons is not the fault of the gun manufacturers. Notice that he said "crime victims," so this would not include, say, someone who got harmed when a faulty gun misfired.

I tend to agree with you on the specific issue - but, that is something for the court to decide. The cases should not be pre-judged by Badnarik or anyone else.

Oh, if only that were true. The fact of the matter is, the law is constructed to allow this frivolity. Look at the gun manufacturer that successfully got sued for advertising that the finish on their guns was "resistant to fingerprints." They successfully argued that they were deliberately making it easier for ciminals to get away with crimes, instead of being what it really was: a comment about the resilience of the finish that is made about everything from printer paper to furniture polish.

The law is set up to allow people their day in court. If they lose, there should be costs sanctions. But I don't find your example as compelling as you mean it to be. What kind of an idiot gun manufacturer advertises it as resistant to fingerprints? I also feel there may be more to the story than can be summarized in a paragraph. Even the McDonald's coffee case has more to it than it seems.

In order for it to be judged as frivolous, there has to be a law specifying that. And that is what Badnarik is proposing.

This is just false. Mechanisms already exist for judges to throw out cases as frivolous. It is a part of the common law. If they don't have an action, they can't win. You do not need a piece of legislation detailing all of the frivolous claims. I could start a claim against you for continually confusing my perception of Charlie Brown by your use of an avatar. You could successfully argue that such a lawsuit is frivolous, even though there is no piece of legislation protecting avatars.

That statement is so nonsensical that I don't even know how to respond. Why should a company only exist if it has the means to fight off numerous meaningless lawsuits by people with political agendas?

It's a market force like any other. They deal with it or they lose.

Because a legitimate function of government is the enforcement of the law. If terrorists were operating in the US, we should absolutely arrest them and turn them over to whatever system they've caused harm in. So why should we expect any less from others?

Extradition of criminals is a different matter altogether. Expecting a nation to extradict terrorists would in no way "hold foreign states accountable" it would just facilitate holding the individual accountable. See the difference?

There are literally millions of dead bodies piled up as a direct result of the FDA. They have made it so difficult for medicines WHICH ARE KNOWN TO BE SAFE from being sold that people die waiting for them to be approved. Often these are medicines that have been used in Europe and elsewhere for years; if someone goes over there to get them, customs takes the medicine from them when they come back into the country. It's a horrible, tyrannical system that costs lives and drives the price of pharmaceuticals through the roof. There are much, much better ways of doing this.

We've been round and round the FDA bush on other threads before, and I don't really want to do it again. Let's just agree to disagree on this one, shall we?

[/B][/QUOTE]You mean intelligence operations, such as the FBI wiretapping a brothel in New Orleans at the very moment terrorists were flying planes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon? Maybe if they weren't grossly overfunded, they'd pick their battles more wisely and we'd end up with better intel.

Or are you saying that it's always better to just throw more money at a problem? [/B][/QUOTE]No. But you could spend the money more wisely without cutting it. there is a lot to know, and clearly the US did not know enough to prevent 9/11. Further, I don't see any evidence to suggest that with less money the FBI would not still want to listen to the brothel.

 

[shanek]

A one line FTA between nations is hopelessly naive. At the very leaset, you need an enforcemnet mechanism in place for the inevitable disputes.

Okay, I'll grant you that. But that's still nothing like NAFTA and the others.

I tend to agree with you on the specific issue - but, that is something for the court to decide. The cases should not be pre-judged by Badnarik or anyone else.

Then why ask him if he would support the legislation in the first place?

The law is set up to allow people their day in court. If they lose, there should be costs sanctions.

Should be, yes. But as it is, there aren't.

But I don't find your example as compelling as you mean it to be. What kind of an idiot gun manufacturer advertises it as resistant to fingerprints?

Here are a bunch of "idiots" who claim their product is resistant to fingerprints:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q="resistant+to+fingerprints"&btnG=Google+Search

So "what kind of an idiot gun manufacturer advertises it as resistant to fingerprints"? The kind that has a superior finish that doesn't wear off as bad over time as it's handled, a big concern to gun collectors.

So why should they have been forced out of business by these insane lawsuits as they were?

I also feel there may be more to the story than can be summarized in a paragraph.

Fine. Check it out yourself (and I'll select some stories from the gun control side so you won't be able to accuse them of bias, at least not in my direction):

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=325
http://feinstein.senate.gov/releases00/supreme_court_assault_ban.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/461691.stm
http://www.gunlawsuits.org/immunity/court.php

Here's the bullet point from that last source, since it's kind of buried:

Navegar, Inc., a gun manufacturer which sold the notorious TEC-9 assault weapon used in the Columbine and other massacres. Navegar intentionally promoted its guns to attract criminals by advertising models which it boasted were "resistant to fingerprints."

That was their argument: the fingerprint resistance was, allegedly, specifically to sell their product to criminals. Yeah, and having a cartoon camel as your mascot means you're selling cigarettes to kids. Of course, it's a lot of the same people making both claims...

So, is Lemon Pledge catering to furniture thieves?

This is just false. Mechanisms already exist for judges to throw out cases as frivolous. It is a part of the common law. If they don't have an action, they can't win.

That obviously didn't happen in the case I'm describing. They used the fingerprint thing as their main argument, and won. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.

It's a market force like any other. They deal with it or they lose.

It's only a market force when actual harm has been brought by the person you're suing. Here, they were suing a completely differerent group of people. And why? Because it was nice and politically charged, and the pockets were deeper. It was frivolous by any measure, AND YET IT HAPPENED ANYWAY.

Extradition of criminals is a different matter altogether. Expecting a nation to extradict terrorists would in no way "hold foreign states accountable" it would just facilitate holding the individual accountable. See the difference?

Not really. They have to account for all of the criminals in their jurisdiction, and turn them over to the authorities over those they have harmed.

If Badnarik were reading the question the way you apparently are, then why was he against us attacking Afghanistan?

We've been round and round the FDA bush on other threads before, and I don't really want to do it again. Let's just agree to disagree on this one, shall we?

You brought it up...

But you could spend the money more wisely without cutting it.[/b]

If you have a teenager that's not spending money wisely, the best way to make him change his ways is to cut his allowance and make him spend his money wisely. Government is just like that. If you give them the huge budgets, they will waste it.

there is a lot to know, and clearly the US did not know enough to prevent 9/11.

As the recent evidence shows, that just isn't true. There were many people in the FBI who were warning the higher-ups about terrorist plans to fly planes into the WTC. They just though that prostitution was a better thing to be acting against.

Further, I don't see any evidence to suggest that with less money the FBI would not still want to listen to the brothel.

Want to is one thing. Be able to is another.

 

[shanek]

[duplicate]

 

[Rouser2]

"And here we have a JREF lesson in how a poster respondent has found the correct, intended definition of a word, as doesn't even know it. "Blow up the UN bldg." Nukes for all, and "We begin the bombing in 5 minutes" -- Humorless people just haven't got a clue"

Impressive...so every time you are caught fabricating facts, quotes, definitions, and outright lying, you will just fall back on 'I was just testing to see if anyone caught the humor?'

Of course that still leaves the small matter of why people on this board are laughing AT you, instead of with you...

And you still haven't done anything to repair the harm that *you* have caused to your alleged party, by making them indistinguishable form the other looneys like LaRouche.

Nice work, how much is Nader paying you?

Like I said, utterly humorless.

-- Rouser

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

From his blog:

When Michael moved to Texas he discovered that Texas required him to provide his social security number to obtain a drivers license. This he refuses to do.

So he allowed his driver s license to expire. He continued to drive. He received a ticket for driving on an expired license. He asked for a court date. Through a clerical error (which may have been an error on the part of the court) the he missed the court date and was picked up by the local police. He did not deliberately miss the court date - he had prepared a Constitutional argument that he was eager to present!

When he finally got his day in court, the judge dismissed the both ticket, and the citation for missing the original court date. The LAST thing a local judge in a small Texas town wanted to do was rule on a Constitutional argument as presented by Michael Badnarik!
[my emphasis]

Texas 3rd Court of Appeals

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00687-CR
NO. 03-01-00688-CR
NO. 03-01-00689-CR
NO. 03-01-00690-CR

Michael Badnarik, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NOS. 578370, 578371, 578372 & 578373

HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

On appeal by trial de novo, the county court at law found appellant Michael Badnarik guilty of operating a passenger car on a public highway without a valid registration insignia, (1) operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license, (2) failing to furnish evidence of financial responsibility, (3) and operating a motor vehicle without a valid inspection certificate. (4) The court fined appellant $200 in each case.

Appellant represents himself on appeal, as he did at trial. His brief on appeal was originally due February 25, 2002. On appellant's motion, the time for filing was extended to April 11, 2002. When no brief was filed and no further extension of time was requested, these appeals were set for submission on July 8, 2002. Appellant was notified of the date of submission and told that he could file a brief at any time before that date. No brief has been tendered for filing. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4) (consideration of appeal without briefs).

We have examined the records and find no fundamental error or other matter that should be considered in the interest of justice. The judgments of conviction in Travis County cause numbers 578370 (our cause number 03-01-687-CR), 578372 (our cause number 03-01-689-CR) and 578373 (our cause number 03-01-688-CR) are affirmed. The judgment of conviction in Travis County cause number 578371 (our cause number 03-01-690-CR) erroneously recites that appellant was convicted of "no Texas registration." The judgment in that cause is modified to reflect a conviction for operating a motor vehicle without a valid inspection certificate and is affirmed as modified.

Apparently he wasn't too eager to show his "Constitutional argument" to the Appeals court.

 

[varwoche]

From his blog:

Texas 3rd Court of Appeals
Apparently he wasn't too eager to show his "Constitutional argument" to the Appeals court.

Bravo, excellent!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Bravo, excellent!

So he's a clown, a loony, and now, it seems, a liar. Sad. And the LP wants to be taken seriously.

 

[DavidJames]

So he's a clown, a loony, and now, it seems, a liar. Sad. And the LP wants to be taken seriously.

I can't wait to watch Shane spin this, I will barely be able to sleep tonight

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I can't wait to watch Shane spin this, I will barely be able to sleep tonight

Yep. And he wants to be taken seriously.

 

[Kerberos]

He wouldn't be repealing them; he would just be refusing to execute them, in accordance with his oath of office.

OK, wrong word but it comes down to the same thing

Why do you think the President is given the power to grant reprieves and pardons?

I don't know but the power to grant pardon is IIRC traditionally given to the executive branch and more importantly it is explicitly given to the President by the Constitution. The power to interpret constitutions traditionally fall under the judicial branch and is explicitly given to this branch by the Constitution.

Don't miss the word "faithfully." He has to execute them under the bounds of his oath of office. If he executes a law with the beleif that the law is unconstitutional, he is not executing it faithfully.

I didn't miss the word; I simply don't think you have any basis for interpreting it that way. Faithfully clearly refers to the law rather than the Constitution, it means that he cannot implement it in a "creative" fashion or chose not to implement it. He obviously doesn't have to implement unconstitutional laws, but the decision of whether it is unconstitutional isn't his.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, all three branches have their own methods of deciding whether something is unconstitutional and their own way of stopping the implementation of unconstitional laws.

Are you saying, for example, that Congress does not have the power to repeal laws that the Supreme Court has found to be constitutional?

Congress has legislative powers, they can repeal any law they chose whether it's unconstitutional or not. If the founders meant the president to have such power why didn't they state so clearly? The Supreme Court is given this power in absolutely unambiguous terms, which just isn't the case with the President. Also have the founders anywhere in their writings clearly stated that the president can veto any law he chooses (except for his regular veto of course)? How often, if ever has this power been used? The Supreme Court has ruled laws unconstitutional, but I can't think of any cases where a president has. Nixon fx has tried to invoke executive privilege, but he was overruled by the Supreme court. You will no doubt be able to find cases where the Supreme Court has upheld such an argument, but can you find any vases where the Supreme court has said that the President has a right to declare a law unconstitutional, regardless of the Supreme Courts opinion in the matter? Edited to add: Or where the president has made the claim that the Supreme Court isn't allowed to reverse his decision. I remember reading that Nixon considered refusing the obey the courts in Woodward's, and Bernstein's books, but I think that was more based on desperation that any Constitutional argument. Further edited: And I think he was going to resign at the same time.

Also edited to add: If there's any basis for this interpretation why doesn't the presidents appoint judges who share this interpretation, after all it's hardly in their interest to limit their own power.

And how can he do that [following the Constitution] while he's executing an unconstitutional law?

By following the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Nobody has the right to violate the law, but that means that they can't violate the law as interpreted by the courts, not as interpreted by themselves. You're basically giving the president the power to vote any legislation he doesn't like. He has to claim that he thinks it's unconstitutional, but that power would be vide open to abuse. Since he can't, according to you, be overruled by the Supreme Court it basically doesn't matter, how incredibly lame his argument is he can refuse to implement any law he chooses. You mentioned IIRC that the Constitution allows income taxes but that Badnarik opposes this. What is to keep him from declaring those unconstitutional?

The Constitution is based on English Common Law. You would do well to familiarize yourself with it if you want to discuss Constitutional Law.

Here's some info for this particular issue:

http://www.c-span.org/questions/week119.htm


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"High crimes and misdemeanors" entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment -- treason and bribery -- were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered, and suggested adding the word "maladministration." Madison argued that term was too vague, so Mason then proposed "high crimes and misdemeanors," a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a "misdemeanor" meant "mis-demeanor,"or bad behavior (neglect of duty and corruption were given as examples), while "high crimes" was roughly equivalent to "great offenses."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It still seems to cover pretty broadly, "great offences" is a very non-specific term. I don't disagree that the impeachment of Clinton was laughable, though I think the perjury could fall under "great offences" if the matter he lied about had been of greater consequence. Impeachment is obviously mainly meant for offences related to the presidency, but serious non-political crimes seems to be covered too. I can't imagine fx that a president could get away with murder.

 

[shanek]

[Yes, I'm ignoring the bogus "scandal." Come on, people, driving without a license????]

I don't know but the power to grant pardon is IIRC traditionally given to the executive branch

As is the decision whether or not the application of certain laws is justified, again according to English Common Law.

The power to interpret constitutions traditionally fall under the judicial branch and is explicitly given to this branch by the Constitution.

"Traditionally"??? Ours was the FIRST Constitution to have such separation of powers! What "traditionally" are you talking about???

I didn't miss the word; I simply don't think you have any basis for interpreting it that way. Faithfully clearly refers to the law rather than the Constitution,

Uh, the Constitution IS the law. It is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. That's in Article VI. The Constitution is the law, superior to, and thererfore trumping, any other law.

He obviously doesn't have to implement unconstitutional laws, but the decision of whether it is unconstitutional isn't his.

You don't see that as a massive contradiction? How can he choose not to implement unconstitutional laws without being able to determine if it's unconstitutional or not?

If you're saying he has to wait for the Supreme Court to decide, that's just bogus, since he can't enforce a law that the Supreme Court overturns anyway.

Congress has legislative powers, they can repeal any law they chose whether it's unconstitutional or not. If the founders meant the president to have such power why didn't they state so clearly?

They DID. I QUOTED it. SEVERAL times.

The Supreme Court is given this power in absolutely unambiguous terms, which just isn't the case with the President.

FYI, the word "interpret" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

From Article III Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Where does it give the Supreme Court "in absolutely unabiguous terms" the sole power to decide the Constitutionality of laws? Article III only gives them the power to do so in court cases, when there's some kind of dispute about it.

Also have the founders anywhere in their writings clearly stated that the president can veto any law he chooses (except for his regular veto of course)?

Um, that sentence makes no sense.

The founders were certainly worried about the government using the law to keep down people who were speaking out against it or openly rebelling against its tyranny. There is case after case after case of the founders writing about the importance of the President to be able to stop tyrannical acts of Congress; in fact, this is one of the things the Federalists and anti-Federalists agreed on!

How often, if ever has this power been used?

I believe it was James Madison who eliminated Jefferson's Embargo Act (which Madison was initially for, but ended up being a dismal failure). Andrew Jackson tried to stem the tide of inflation and the boom/bust banking cycle by ordering that land be purchased with hard money (gold and silver) (that didn't work either, BTW). He also blocked the annexation of Texas since it would add to the number of slaveholding territories. Polk ignored a Congressional Declaration of War in order to get the Oregon territory without fighting with Britain (which he did by offering to extend the Canadian border to the 49th parellel). And one could certainly argue that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was just such an instance, going against both state and Federal laws (although it, by design, was ineffectual).

Good enough?

By following the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court doesn't even come anywhere close to interpreting every single law, and the ones it does takes usually years after the passage of the law. So again, this doesn't pass the bogosity test.

 

[Thanz]

Okay, I'll grant you that. But that's still nothing like NAFTA and the others.

I really don't have the time to delve into NAFTA for a debate with you, so I'll just leave it be. I'm still confused by the apparent conflict between supporting free trade and collecting tariffs to run the gov't, however.

Then why ask him if he would support the legislation in the first place?

I'm confused by your point here. I didn't ask him - it was part of a standard set of questions. I would have thought he would be opposed to laws that specifically restrict what private citizens can do in terms of addressing grievances through the court system.

Should be, yes. But as it is, there aren't.

Then perhaps he should focus on that instead of outlawing specific cases.

Here are a bunch of "idiots" who claim their product is resistant to fingerprints:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q="resistant+to+fingerprints"&btnG=Google+Search

Nice dodge. The next time semi-gloss printer paper is used to kill someone, let me know.

So "what kind of an idiot gun manufacturer advertises it as resistant to fingerprints"? The kind that has a superior finish that doesn't wear off as bad over time as it's handled, a big concern to gun collectors.

I'm sure it is. It is even more of a concern to criminals who don't like leaving evidence that may convict them.

So why should they have been forced out of business by these insane lawsuits as they were?

If they are truly insane, they won't force them out of business.

Fine. Check it out yourself (and I'll select some stories from the gun control side so you won't be able to accuse them of bias, at least not in my direction):

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=325
http://feinstein.senate.gov/releases00/supreme_court_assault_ban.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/461691.stm
http://www.gunlawsuits.org/immunity/court.php

Here's the bullet point from that last source, since it's kind of buried:

That was their argument: the fingerprint resistance was, allegedly, specifically to sell their product to criminals. Yeah, and having a cartoon camel as your mascot means you're selling cigarettes to kids. Of course, it's a lot of the same people making both claims...

So, is Lemon Pledge catering to furniture thieves?

I haven't read these links yet. I'll come back to this issue later - I am not ignoring it.

That obviously didn't happen in the case I'm describing. They used the fingerprint thing as their main argument, and won. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.

Maybe because your idea of frivolous is not the same as other's ideas of frivolous? Because a court, upon hearing all of the evidence, is in the best position to make a decision? That is why we have courts. Legislation of the kind advocated here usurps the function of the courts, and I see that as a bad thing.

It's only a market force when actual harm has been brought by the person you're suing. Here, they were suing a completely differerent group of people. And why? Because it was nice and politically charged, and the pockets were deeper. It was frivolous by any measure, AND YET IT HAPPENED ANYWAY.

See above.

Not really. They have to account for all of the criminals in their jurisdiction, and turn them over to the authorities over those they have harmed.

That is still not holding the NATION responsible. There are no consequences to the nation itself.

If Badnarik were reading the question the way you apparently are, then why was he against us attacking Afghanistan?

I don't know. Why don't you ask him how he interprets the question and what his response means? I acknowledge that when you are giving a response to a specific question and the answers appear to be multiple choice, it is hard to get the real policy thinking through at times.

You brought it up...

I did, as something that I find scary about his platform. And I still do. It's just that I think we have exhausted our debate on this issue before, and I don't see the benefit of debating it again. I am just trying to save us both some aggravation here.

If you have a teenager that's not spending money wisely, the best way to make him change his ways is to cut his allowance and make him spend his money wisely. Government is just like that. If you give them the huge budgets, they will waste it.

I disagree. Underfunding will not necessarily force them to spend it more wisely - but it will give them excuses when things fall through the cracks.

As the recent evidence shows, that just isn't true. There were many people in the FBI who were warning the higher-ups about terrorist plans to fly planes into the WTC. They just though that prostitution was a better thing to be acting against.

For that I blame the people who have the wrong priorities, which would not necessarily be affected by having a smaller budget. Ashcroft is emarking on some stupid "war on porn", which I see as being nothing more than him trying to impose his puritanical morality on the nation and is ill conceived at best. Give him less money and his priorities will still be messed up.

 

[Thanz]

[Yes, I'm ignoring the bogus "scandal." Come on, people, driving without a license????]

You are completely missing the point of MKJ's post. When you read the blog, it looks like the charges were thrown out and it is heavily implied that the Texas Court is afraid of the constitutional arguments of the great Badnarik, which he was apparently eager to present. The case cited and quoted by MKJ shows that neither of these things are true. He was convicted of the charges, and when given the chance to present his great constitutional arguments he filed.... nothing. Not so eager. The court was not afraid of the arguments, or of ruling on them - it in fact granted him as much of an extension as he needed. But he filed nothing.

The "scandal" is not that he was driving without a license. He claims to have a principled reason for doing so. The scandal is in presenting a series of events in his blog that is patently false, and in not actually taking the principled stand in court that he claims to have. He did not put his money where his mouth is. It seems to me htat he was more afraid that his arguement would fall flat, so he just paid the fine. Some constitutional scholar.

 

[Thanz]

Fine. Check it out yourself (and I'll select some stories from the gun control side so you won't be able to accuse them of bias, at least not in my direction):

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=325
http://feinstein.senate.gov/releases00/supreme_court_assault_ban.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/461691.stm
http://www.gunlawsuits.org/immunity/court.php

Okay, I have now looked at those links. In the case in question, the lawsuit was stopped because of the type of law advocated by Badnarik. I assume that when you say the argument succeeded you are referring to the Court of Appeal ruling that was overturned by the California Supreme Court on the basis of the immunity legislation. Clearly the lawsuit did not go ahead. (BTW, I think you are confusing 2 cases in your links. The second link deals with the assault weapons ban, not the TEC9 no fingerprint case. It is the assault ban that the USASC refused to hear, not the fingerprint case.)

To me, this shows clear tinkering with the judicial system that should not be tolerated. The common law is constantly evolving. At one point, not too long ago, you could not sue the manufacturer of a defective product if it was purchased from a third party (typically the retailer) as there was no privity of contract between the person harmed and the manufacturer. Obviously that is not the case anymore, but what if someone legislated the restriction into law?

Why doesn't the Libertarian party trust the courts and juries to decide this kind of case? Don't you like to talk about the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box? What is wrong with trusting the jury box on this issue?

 

[shanek]

Clearly the lawsuit did not go ahead.

No, but the expenses in fighting it did result in the company going out of business.

(BTW, I think you are confusing 2 cases in your links. The second link deals with the assault weapons ban, not the TEC9 no fingerprint case.

But the case is mentioned there, so that's why I included it. I wanted you to see it was the actual argument used by actual gun control advocates.

Why doesn't the Libertarian party trust the courts and juries to decide this kind of case?

It would be different if the courts actually acquiesced to Common Law like you said. However, they have turned almost exclusively to statutory law, and so problems with statutory law must be fought (pretty much by definition) with statutes.

What is wrong with trusting the jury box on this issue?

Because juries are actively being instructed that they don't have any choice here. Jury nullification is dead in this country.

 

[shanek]

You are completely missing the point of MKJ's post. When you read the blog, it looks like the charges were thrown out and it is heavily implied that the Texas Court is afraid of the constitutional arguments of the great Badnarik, which he was apparently eager to present. The case cited and quoted by MKJ shows that neither of these things are true.

MKJ posted information about a completely different case. If you'll listen to the audio files linked to over at SC, you'll hear him talk about these cases and how he made a mistake with one that resulted in him having been found guilty of the offense. Once again, MKJ is great at pulling up things that appear to be this immense evidence against something, but when examined most of them tend to fall apart. Hence his tactic of post-and-run, without trying to actually present an argument backing it all up. He just posts it, and hopes no one will notice.

This happens very frequently with him. So you'll forgive me if I'm loath to just jump on every little thing he posts and go through it all again. In any case, this is such a non-issue that it boggles the imagination that people are making such a big deal over it.

 

[Thanz]

It would be different if the courts actually acquiesced to Common Law like you said. However, they have turned almost exclusively to statutory law, and so problems with statutory law must be fought (pretty much by definition) with statutes.

I'm not sure you really know what you are talking about here. It is not a matter of courts "acquiesing" to Common Law. They always follow common law unless there is a specific statute in place. This is the perfect exmple. Common law may allow the suit to go ahead, but it is overruled by statutory law. It is not a question of courts turning to statutory law - they have a duty to follow the statutes that are passed. IF there are too many statutes, that is the fault of the legislature, not the courts.

Because juries are actively being instructed that they don't have any choice here. Jury nullification is dead in this country.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with this case. In the absence of the statute protecting the gun makers, the case would proceed on the merits and a jury would decide if the gun maker was liable or not. Nothing to do with nullification at all. It is the law that you are advocating that takes the decision away from jurors.

 

[Thanz]

If you'll listen to the audio files linked to over at SC, you'll hear him talk about these cases and how he made a mistake with one that resulted in him having been found guilty of the offense.

I couldn't find the links. Where are they?

 

[shanek]

I'm not sure you really know what you are talking about here. It is not a matter of courts "acquiesing" to Common Law. They always follow common law unless there is a specific statute in place.

But this is my very point. Article III of the Constitution gives the power of the judicial branch over all cases involving Common Law, the only other exceptions being admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and a whole bunch of cases involving the government directly. Statutory law is not directly given, and therefore is only Constitutional under those limited areas where the Constitution has given Congress the power to pass laws. Common Law is supposed to triumph unless there is a specific statute precenting it. It isn't working that way. You're only supposed to go to statutory law when Common Law doesn't cover the offense, and even then the decision is supposed to be made based on equity.

Common law may allow the suit to go ahead, but it is overruled by statutory law.

Precisely the point! Common Law isn't really being used here. Common Law would state most certainly that if the manufacturer wasn't the one who did the harm, it would be ridiculous to sue them.

IF there are too many statutes, that is the fault of the legislature, not the courts.

Granted, but that still doesn't solve the problem. And since the Constitution doesn't give the government the authority to pass statutes on the issue of gun ownership, we're again left with bad statutes that allow the courts to exercise extraconstitutional jurisdiction. The statute Badnarik is talking about would defend against that.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with this case.

Sure, it does. If a statute said that the manufacturer could be held responsible, then jury nullification would be the only way a jury could vote "not guilty." That option is being taken away from them whenever they have a statute, since they are specifically instructed to the contrary about their nullification rights.

In the absence of the statute protecting the gun makers, the case would proceed on the merits and a jury would decide if the gun maker was liable or not.

But there you still have the problem of people being able to sue without consequence and drive the company out of business.

Nothing to do with nullification at all.

No, nullification is one particular way of offering a disincentive, both to the plaintiffs for bringing the suit and for the judge to allow it to go through. Remember that a judge is honor-bound to dismiss a case if no reasonable jury would convict; that would include nullification if juries had that right.