Rand Paul

weso1 said:
1) It's either that or the EPA. If you think federal law is better than you choose EPA. Some think lawsuits are a better way to deal with the problem due to EPA abuse and economic reasons as well. It's not like the problem of prevention goes away just because you make lawsuits less necessary and instead invoke federal rules. And even with federal involvement the need for lawsuits don't just go away. Of course the system of lawsuits are abused as well, so maybe this is a good question for sturg to answer since he's the most vocal board libertarian. Why support lawsuits over federal rules when the power of lawsuit is abused as well.

2) Is this really a problem though? I mean do humans need perfect air and water? So long as it doesn't cause bodily harm then I think that's a fair enough standard.

3) That's true, but it works both ways. Sometimes the court will be in my favor, but sometimes it will be in your favor. It's not a perfect system. Nobody has come up with a perfect system.

2)
Click to expand...

(1) I think the problem with simple contract law governing things is that it concentrates almost solely on the private elements of contract without considering the social contract as a whole. An unminded network of private contracts could easily lead to oligopolies and monopolies, which inherently undermine free enterprise.

(2) I suppose that depends on which side of the river upon which two states border you live on. If the state on one side of the river decides to have lax standards, the people on the other side are forced to live with the consequences of that decision. I think there can be legitimate gripes against the EPA, but in the absence of a federal authority to set minimum standards and mediate disputes that arise between states, the system becomes "beggar thy neighbor" writ large. Lawsuits against a state would have to go to federal court, because a state wouldn't have standing in another state's courts. In the absence of some national standards, no state would have a peg to hang a case upon.

(3) We agree here, but the goal should be to keep things out of the judicial system.
 
weso1 said:
Some think lawsuits are a better way to deal with the problem due to EPA abuse and economic reasons as well.
Click to expand...

As someone who worked in the environmental remediation field for a few years, I can attest that the EPA has many problems. Many, many problems. But 'abuse' is very low on the list; some much more obvious problems are (1) the sheer number of contaminated locations in the us far outstrips the federal and state resources allocated to manage them, (2) the inherent slowness and obstinance inherent in bureaucracy, (3) the methods for locating potential responsible parties, etc.. There are plenty of problems (many of them interrelated), and most of them are very clearly way ahead of "abuse."

Honestly, only someone with no grasp of actual facts and practices could honestly claim that it would be better to eliminate the environmental protections we have and leave it all up to individual lawsuits. That would be INSANE; I cannot comprehend how that could possibly be better. Most of those lawsuits are based on the EPA protections as it is. Without those protections and rules, it would be very difficult to prove harm in a legal setting. Completely unworkable. There are clear opportunities for real, useful reform: focus your energies there, if you want to make a difference.

weso1 said:
(2) Groundwater and air aren't penned up by each state, so living in a state with stricter standards doesn't ensure that the natural resources are appreciably better than in a state with lower standards.



2) Is this really a problem though? I mean do humans need perfect air and water? So long as it doesn't cause bodily harm then I think that's a fair enough standard.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the purpose of current standards: to prevent harm. The standards aren't arbitrary (well, statisticians might argue about the methods used in the calculations, or whether the standards are too stringent, but the aim is not arbitrary).
 
Metaphysicist said:
I asked you to explain why you think the commerce clause + the elastic clause do not give Congress this power. That means, go look at the Constitution and let's talk about how it works. You did not do that at all, but instead gave me a history lesson, and some unbacked assertions. I wasn't asking about the history, I was asking about the text.

I think my criticisms were pretty direct and relevant. Is there a specific one you are confused about?

EDIT: To make them more direct:

1) Why are you ignoring the necessary and proper clause? (especially since was part of the original question)

2) What parts of the Constitution do you think are being contradicted by the Supreme Courts interpretation?

3) Do you have any evidence to support your claim about the early court determining that the Commerce clause was limited solely to State governments make laws about other states?

These are all fundamental problems I have with what you wrote. If you can't address them, then you have not met your "end of the bargain."
Click to expand...

crickets-humping.gif
 
Sorry buddy - I had really forgotten all about this thread and what had been asked and what hasn't... I'll answer you commerce question on last time when I have more time tonight.
 
As the clock runs down.... and... META WINS. YAY META.

sturg is hereby barred from ever talking about the about something being "unconstitutional" ever again.
 
Wish we could keep the Rand Paul talk to the Rand Paul thread.

Claims of corruption? I need proof before I claim those sorts of things.
 
Since I knew you were going to say this, I've already pre-empted this claim in the very words you quoted below this. You should at least address what I said, rather than reflexively typing "not explicit!", as if that made any sense for a document with an elastic clause.

EDIT: Just to be perfectly clear: I want you explain to how your statement of "it has to be explicit" gels with the existence of the necessary and proper clause, which states that there are implied powers.

The founders themselves argued against the elastic clause, saying that it would grant limitless power to the federal government. However, it was passed because the founders who supported it made the argument that it is simply there to allow the execution of granted powers in the Constitution. That is the argument that prevailed for its inclusion.

And looking at the elastic clause, I certainly don't see anything that implies other powers:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I have no idea what this means. What parts of the constitution are being contradicted? You can't just assert this; that is basically the definition of "begging the question."

As for "what the founders meant," this is a meaningless statement. The Founders didn't even agree on what these things meant! Or whether they were even good ideas! That why we have a Bill of Rights! That why we have the Federalist papers! That there was a struggle to get the states to ratify! That's why we had Federalists and anti-Federalists! That's why it only took us until president #2 to have the most bitterly divided political parties imaginable! And those guys were the founders! Do you think Alexander Hamilton would tell you the same thing about the Commerce clause as Patrick Henry? Please...

I already addressed this earlier. And regardless if the founders agreed or not, it's irrelevant. The Constitution is the Constitution. And you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the rest of the Constitution (aside from the commerce clause) clearly favors federal authority on any issue other than the obvious (like military). I'm not saying the commerce clause is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution, I'm saying the court's and liberal interpretation of it are inconsistent with the rest of it. Simply put, it's the clause that everyone points to when they want to expand federal power. But I'd call you an idiot if you believed the founders were in favor of limitless government.

1) Why are you ignoring the necessary and proper clause? (especially since was part of the original question)

2) What parts of the Constitution do you think are being contradicted by the Supreme Courts interpretation?

3) Do you have any evidence to support your claim about the early court determining that the Commerce clause was limited solely to State governments make laws about other states?

1. I'm not ignoring it

2. Just about all of it

3. What is the point in answering? I provided you examples of history where the courts didn't feel as they do today, but you just said you didn't feel like fact checking it. So I don't really feel like finding more examples.
 
Surprised no one brought up the topic of Rand Paul the plagiarizer and whether they think this is it for his career.

Between having a racist on his immediate staff and this --- I'd say libertarians and other nullification advocates will have to hitch their wagon to another "team"
Those are my words. Except "team" which I credit to my friend. Un prompted
 
Question for the board - should people be allowed to be friends with racists?

Because frankly, as long as Rand (or whomever) is not a racist, why should I care if a member of his staff is?
 
Say good night to their shallow act. Ron advocated nullification and out and out sedition over the week end. And Little Rand-y got bounced from the Washington Times for plagiarism.
Then followed that up by complaining his job is too hard and he cant keep up. In an interview with NY Times no less where he was trying to prove Presidential

It is amazing how given just a little rope ...
 
57Brave said:
Say good night to their shallow act. Ron advocated nullification and out and out sedition over the week end. And Little Rand-y got bounced from the Washington Times for plagiarism.
Then followed that up by complaining his job is too hard and he cant keep up. In an interview with NY Times no less where he was trying to prove Presidential

It is amazing how given just a little rope ...
Click to expand...

I have a sneaky feeling that Rand's political career isn't over...

I mean, if Barack Obama can worship Rev. Wright and pal around with Bill Ayers, what can't Presidential candidates do?
 
sturg33 said:
Question for the board - should people be allowed to be friends with racists?

Because frankly, as long as Rand (or whomever) is not a racist, why should I care if a member of his staff is?
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily think being friends with a racist is a bad thing. I mean I have black friends who aren't so fond of white folks at times, and vice versa. It usually makes for political discussion every now and then, but it doesn't interfere with 99% of the activities we do.

The question is, do you (Rand Paul) want to associate yourself professionally with a racist, where there are conflicts of interest the farther up you go up the chain.

If I play tennis with a racist person or basketball, we aren't talking about race it's just competition. There might be some racial trashtalk in the heat of the moment, but at the end of the day there is mutual respect.
 
KeithLockhart said:
I don't necessarily think being friends with a racist is a bad thing. I mean I have black friends who aren't so fond of white folks at times, and vice versa. It usually makes for political discussion every now and then, but it doesn't interfere with 99% of the activities we do.

The question is, do you (Rand Paul) want to associate yourself professionally with a racist, where there are conflicts of interest the farther up you go up the chain.

If I play tennis with a racist person or basketball, we aren't talking about race it's just competition. There might be some racial trashtalk in the heat of the moment, but at the end of the day there is mutual respect.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm just saying "being friends with racists" or "having a racist on your staff" shouldn't automatically disqualify someone from public office.

Look Obama's former pastor.
 
By the way, if plagiarism allegations is the best they can dig up on Rand, I think he's in pretty decent shape (not properly footnoting something? Who the hell cares??)
 
It implies he is lazy - unimaginative - a thief of intellectual property. Further it reinforces his media bio as that of a flake.
All neo-confederacy attachments aside
 
sturg33 said:
By the way, if plagiarism allegations is the best they can dig up on Rand, I think he's in pretty decent shape (not properly footnoting something? Who the hell cares??)
Click to expand...

Washington Times cares .... I mean The Washington phucking Times
 
in politics there are two overwhelming concepts. Never complain Never Explain
Sen Paul has done both in the past few days further confirming my (and many) suspicions that he is nothing more than a niche politician with a niche following from a state that takes far more than it contributes.

In all honesty I think Bill Monroe is a treasure
 
sturg33 said:
By the way, if plagiarism allegations is the best they can dig up on Rand, I think he's in pretty decent shape (not properly footnoting something? Who the hell cares??)
Click to expand...

Also cutting and pasting from someone else's column, without attribution. Not that he "wrote" them, in any case. I guess he just runs a shoddy shop. I suppose he and his father have that in common.

Not doing much to dissuade me that he's a lightweight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top