6 ms·
The 'monster' of our government is probably not a partisan issue in this particular case, but the growth in government size and power, and the erosion of indivi
by bmelton 13y ago
The 'monster' of our government is probably not a partisan issue in this particular case, but the growth in government size and power, and the erosion of individual civil liberties have always been done via large steps done by, predominately, liberals (most notably FDR, in my opinion).
That isn't to say that the Republicans aren't culpable, but in implementing the tools used to carve out more power for the government (abuse of the commerce clause, general welfare clause, contracts clause, etc.), you can almost exclusively look to the liberals for blame.
I should also point out that while I'll pile equal amounts of blame (but for different reasons) to both liberals and conservatives, I lay the blame at the feet of the citizenry pretty squarely, for not knowing what they're voting for, not bothering to check on who they're voting in, and for routinely voting in the better looking candidate, or believing rhetoric without comparing to voting records, and for continually violating Tytler's dilemma, which suggests that a democracy can only last so long as the citizenry doesn't realize it can vote itself favors from the public largesse.
- swalkergibson 13y agoDo you have a specific example of liberal policy eroding civil liberties? Your final point is dead on. The populace needs to wake up and realize what a terrifying course we are currently on and do something to change it.
- bmelton 13y agoObamacare is an easy one, as the government is leveraging the tax code to mandate that citizens obtain health insurance. Exacerbated somewhat by the idea that the health insurance is now a government-supplied good, and that they will have an effect on controlling its prices and such. This was enabled by a couple of Supreme Cases under FDR - which, while I'm usually wary of attributing SCOTUS actions to the president of the time, FDR was responsible for the appointment of EIGHT Supreme Court Justices, stacking the deck - Wickard v. Filburn eroded all libertarian meaning of the Commerce Clause. Helvering v. Davis eroded the concept of personal economic liberty, in that since its interpretation, the government is allowed to take money from you and give it to others, as part of the New Deal push for Social Security. These two cases are also considered, generally, to be some of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court, and both of which led to vast expansion in government powers. As those expansions were used primarily to take away from the citizenry, they subsequently eroded civil liberties. The commerce clause is now what is used to allow the federal government to arrest California medical marijuana proprietors, even though it is perfectly legal in the state of California, which means that the impact of the clause has effectively eliminated the idea of states' rights. If the states have no sovereign rights from the federal government, then you can rest assured that the people don't either.
- aaronbrethorst 13y ago> These two cases are also considered, generally, to be some of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court Funny, I would think that some of the worst decisions are generally considered to be Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Bush vs. Gore (the last of which a former SCOTUS Justice has even said they regret granting certiorari to the case).
- bmelton 13y ago> some of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court whose impact is still being felt. There, I've fixed it. The cases you referenced have clearly been course corrected by amendments to the Constitution and subsequent cases. It would be foolish to suggest now that black people can't exercise judicial standing, or have access to the same water fountains as white people. It would be equally foolish now to suggest that the government doesn't have the right to take your money and give it to someone else, though that was the case before the New Deal appointments to SCOTUS. As for Bush v Gore, I understand that O'Connor has regretted granting cert, but not the decision on the whole. Beyond that, I haven't studied the case so I can't speak for its merits (or lack thereof), but either way, my citation of very bad Supreme Court cases is obviously a very incomplete list, but I thought the cases I referenced were particularly appropriate given the question asked.
- anigbrowl 13y agoWell, I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I'm a good bit more liberal than bmelton and I think Wickard v. Filburn is an absolutely awful decision, as are a lot of the decisions than rest on it. I'm baffled that it hasn't been overturned since, though perhaps that's the hubris of someone who enjoys making up con law arguments without having to submit them to an actual court for examination.
- bmelton 13y agoStare Decisis is a bitch, and the Supreme Court's broad regard for it, and especially their unwillingness to overturn it except where absolutely fucking necessary in order to render judgement, effectively turns bad precedent into law. The difficulty with which to find a case to directly challenge it on the merits you want it to be challenged, and have that case escalated to SCOTUS, and have that case be heard, and then receive a ruling clearly in your favor without some other myriad legal issues clouding it from the main point? The odds are infinitesimal.
- harold 13y ago2nd Amendment.
- lukifer 13y agoLiberals may vote for favors, but mainstream so-called conservatives vote for "security" on the public credit card, as well as unfunded tax cuts for the very wealthy. (Look at the debt explosion under Reagan and Bush II.) Making this about parties misses the point: they're playing for the same team and serving the same masters. All else is theater.
- bmelton 13y agoI don't exempt Republicans from my scorn, but the quoted text seemed to be an excuse to let the liberals off the hook in the name of non-partisanship. I could cite plenty of examples in which the Republicans eroded our civil liberties and grew the military machine as well, but that didn't seem to be what the grand-parent was objecting to.