4 ms·

Do 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 terrify

Do 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 ago
Obamacare 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 ago
    Well, 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 ago
      Stare 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.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        Are there any governments that require the legislature to address ambiguities or other issues with laws raised by the courts, in a sort of common/civil law hybrid? Having a significant chunk of a country's laws based on obscure court precedents rather than deliberately worded legislation seems harmful to the goal of a legally accountable and educated populace.
- swalkergibson 13y ago
  > As those expansions were used primarily to take away from the citizenry, they subsequently eroded civil liberties. Perhaps I have a different definition of civil liberties than you. I subscribe to the following definition, as proposed in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties) > Civil liberties are civil rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights. Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from slavery and forced labor, freedom from torture and death, the right to liberty and security, freedom of conscience, religion, expression, press, assembly and association, speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment and due process and the right to a fair trial, as well as the right to life. Other civil liberties may also include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. What do you consider your civil liberties to be?
harold 13y ago
2nd Amendment.

bmelton 13y ago

Obamacare 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 ago
  Well, 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 ago
    Stare 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.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      Are there any governments that require the legislature to address ambiguities or other issues with laws raised by the courts, in a sort of common/civil law hybrid? Having a significant chunk of a country's laws based on obscure court precedents rather than deliberately worded legislation seems harmful to the goal of a legally accountable and educated populace.
swalkergibson 13y ago
> As those expansions were used primarily to take away from the citizenry, they subsequently eroded civil liberties. Perhaps I have a different definition of civil liberties than you. I subscribe to the following definition, as proposed in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties) > Civil liberties are civil rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights. Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from slavery and forced labor, freedom from torture and death, the right to liberty and security, freedom of conscience, religion, expression, press, assembly and association, speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment and due process and the right to a fair trial, as well as the right to life. Other civil liberties may also include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. What do you consider your civil liberties to be?

harold 13y ago

2nd Amendment.