The Constitution -- Notes from Zarahemla Political Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:33:20 08/01/06 Tue
Author: Chuck in ND
Subject: The Constitution
In reply to: Kellen Nebelski 's message, "Good questions" on 18:56:37 08/01/06 Tue

guarantees "every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Art IV, Sec 4). A republic is a government in which the soverign holds authority granted by the people and rules according to law. (Declaration of Independence) This implies a Constitution because without a written Constitution there can be no delegation of power, no deliniation of powers and checks, no "contract" between the people and the state.

Here is a site with all the individual state Constitutions: http://www.usconstitution.net/stateconst.html

Whether or not a state decides issues of marriage, drug use, etc depends on whether the people have delegated that power to the state. If not, the power to decide does indeed remain with the people.

In some of these cases the best "decider" (to use a GWB word) is indeed the individual. However if the people have delegated that power to the states, the question is moot--at least until we alter that state's Constitution, right?

Personally I think it's wrong for states to have any say in marriage--no marriage licenses, no authorizing ministers or judges to perform marriages. Many in the CP
would agree, though I don't know if it's the majority or not.

You must be a newcomer to the LP to not know Harry Browne--he was a cornerstone of the LP for years.

Neo-libertarians form a significant part of the current LP, so I do think they merit attention. It is the neo's that support decriminalizing pornography and prostitution and lifting all restrictions on abortion and gambling. The theory is that these activities harm no one and so should not come onto the government radar.

Granted, if an activity truly harms no one, then the gov has no place proscribing it. However the premise is wrong. There ARE innocent victims of pornography and prostitution--the faithful spouse and dependent children, for starters. There is a proper role for government to warrant contracts and marriage being a contract, there is a proper role for government to ensure injured parties in that contract have recourse. That requires laws governing pornography and prostitution.

Too much of today's pornographic images are obtained without the consent of the person in the image. And we haven't even touched the victims of child pornography. Protecting these innocents requires some government power over pornography.

The first obligation of government is to protect innocent life. There can be no more innocent life than that of the unborn. Government certainly has a proper role in protecting the unborn.

I am in agreement with all the LP stands for, except on the issues of what the LP calls "victimless crimes"--mostly because most of those really aren't victimless. And the foundation for the LP's postitions are (IMVHO) flawed--the source of sovereignty, the purpose of government, etc.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Where I fit in -- Kellen Nebelski, 23:16:33 08/01/06 Tue
- Oops... -- TTB, 23:19:35 08/01/06 Tue
- "Only" 20, huh? -- Chuck in ND, 09:03:34 08/04/06 Fri
  - Talkabout -- Kellen Nebelski, 10:27:07 08/05/06 Sat