This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Malek ago
Da Fuq you talking about? There is always an exception to every right enumerated to in the Constitution. Additional, there is right that is NOT expressively enumerated in the Constitution. It is considered to be in the Penumbra of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, those tyrants that they are, added a new right to the Constitution, privacy.
Furthermore, all power not given to the Federal Government is retained by the states, not the people. People don't govern anything, elected officials govern.
I go back to why the Jeffersionians lost and the Federalists won. What is your alternative? Do you have a better solution?
[–] antiplebbitor ago (edited ago)
Uh, no, I explicitly stated my point: what the fuck are you talking about?
There is - and can be - no exception to any innate right, by the very definition of the word 'right'.
Secondly, do you understand the difference between negative, unenumerated liberty and positive, enumerated liberties?
From your quip, it doesn't appear as though you do.
Lastly, the Tenth Amendment does reserve all powers not explicitly granted to the national government to the several States, and those which the States themselves have not explicitly embraced are - as per the concept of the Constitution's negative-liberty - absolutely reserved to the People.
Please read the document in question before attempting to toss your proverbial hat into the ring.
[–] Malek ago
Ok. Sorry. I was confused. You are talking about natural law. My mind is firmly grounded in positive law.
I am completely lost here. The Constitution restricts certain actions and gives itself certain powers. All other powers are given to the states. I dont see the people anywhere in the plain language of the Constitution. Are you reading that into the Constitution?
From what I can gather from your negative liberty concept you claim that the Constitution is a negative liberty document. It is. However, States have the remaining powers, which I think makes them a positive liberty concept.
I am thinking the Fourth Amendment against search and seizures is a right. However, in my mind, I am thinking the police have to have a warrant to execute a search of your house. Except if they have exigent circumstances, or they are in pursuit of a felling felon, or they have probable cause and time is a factor.