Two things wrong with this. 1, it’s changing the rules in the middle of the game, so all else being equal it’s to be avoided (for instance, in the form of a surprise ballooning of the deficit caused by the tax giveaways of the 2000s.) Whereas if the inventor knew he was going to be hit with this tax it would have been foreseeable.
2, your example is a wealth tax, which is pretty rare and even when implemented is never close to even 2%.
The prior Roe and progeny jurisprudence binds people like Kennedy and in the past O’Connor (maybe) because their view is that long and repeatedly confirmed views are binding law. Had it been an issue of first impression before the Supreme Court it is highly unlikely they would have found a privacy right in that area.
As to the death penalty, I was not there addressing whether the decision was good or bad, etc. Nor was I addressing individual cases. My recollection is that the USSC was absolutely disgusted with the way the death penalty was being applied. Perhaps their decision should have been narrower. I am against the death penalty in all instances (including Hitler! do I lose the thread?), but it is clearly constitutional (in my opinion and the way I look at the law) if due process applies and it isn’t applied haphazardly. That doesn’t mean it is a good idea. But the constitution doesn’t prevent bad ideas from becoming law, or requiring good things to happen.
I do think that the USSC started deferring to the states on death penalty. But they will still stop its application in an individual case if a majority thinks it is warranted. I don’t practice in this area, but I am aware that a significant minority of justices do not believe that “factual innocence” renders the death penalty in violation of the constitution. I think that is taking their “strict construction” doctrine way too far. (I’ve criticized “strict construction” for other reasons elsewhere.)
Which just means you end up with things like Jim Crow.
It took a decision at the federal level to officially outlaw slavery. Are you sure you want to rest your argument on the states rights platform?
No. In fact you win it, on account of the fact that the death penalty is irredeemably wrong, always and everywhere.
Well, you would if that was what the thread was nominally about…
Smiling, you know I wouldn’t be impolite to you intentionally. But can you not see the irony of your own statements describing the difference in Liberals and Conservatives. I really think that Liberals are far more likely to leave individual choice up to the person. Of course there are exceptions. It just depends on how you look at it:
Which party is against “regulations?” Most would say Republicans…until it comes to regulations on gay marriage or some second term abortions. Then generally, they’re for regulations. This is just an example of how the perspective changes.
Dave42, you’re right in that we could all do better in our compassion. No single party has a lock on it.
And there’s the part of conservatism I do not like. In fact its contrary to their goal of “small government” since no small government can enforce the huge pile of laws republicans want enforcing our personal morals.
“Compassionate Conservative” was an election ploy, not a political ideology, as far as I observed.
I live in a majority republican state. I know a lot of them. I know some who are tight-fisted and mean, but I also know plenty who are in fact compassionate and many who support private charity.
I met a temporarily homeless guy, stranded while travelling, recently. I put him up for the night. Certain charities would have bought him a bus ticket if he could’ve proved where his home is, and he couldn’t, so they didn’t. The man who got in his car and drove the guy 800 miles home on his own dime was a conservative republican.
This is pretty much Godwin’s law-obviously states cannot violate fundamental liberties but at the same time states do have power to determine their own policy in reasonable areas as the US is a federal republic.
Oh, please; “state’s rights” is mainly about the desire to violate civil rights. It’s not taken seriously by the vast majority of its proponents as anything else; the moment they want to take away freedoms or hurt people and they have the muscle at the federal level to do so, their interest in so-called state’s rights vanishes.
So what issues do states have the right to decide? :dubious:
Whatever the Federal government doesn’t care about. In my view the state governments are largely an awkward archaism. They’re too big to be responsive to local issues, and small enough for it to be easy for special interests to corrupt them while staying under the radar of national attention; the worst of both worlds. Most “big government” tasks would be better off in the care of the federal government, since it has better economy of scale than they do and draws revenue from the whole country. “Small government” jobs would on the other hand be better handled at the city or country level, since those institutions are full of people familiar with local issues; a state government is just as remote as the federal government.
You certainly do have the wrong understanding. Liberalism is not a homogeneous movement with a set of doctrines every liberal must agree to.
Virtually all liberals think corporate CEOs should be held responsible for their behavior, when they promote corporate policies like polluting, maintaining dangerous work environments, selling unsafe products, and so on.
There are some liberals who make excuses for poor criminals, especially if they are black. Since the 1960s, however, that attitude has become less fashionable.
Most liberals would like more of a government safety net for victims of the caprices of twenty-first century casino capitalism. That is not the same as thinking that unemployable crack addicts should have be able to have an unlimited number of illegitimate children, and demand child support from the tax payers.
Citation please.
Citation please.
You’re asking him for a citation to an expression of opinion that he qualifies with “in my view”? Seriously?
:rolleyes: Don’t listen to the above. The Ogdamned Revisionist has been spouting that line ever since we pulled his card.
For once, “my post is my cite” is a perfectly valid response. 
I took it as stating a fact that the government has all the power it wants and then explaining that it was his opinion that the states are archaic and non-functional. But if Der Trihs is willing to say it’s only his opinion that the federal government has all the power it wants, I’m fine with that.
No, I wouldn’t seriously demand a cite for an opinion. But clairfy whether a) he believes this as a matter of law or b) it’s only what he thinks they ought to have, yes, when its not clear.
What? I didn’t say anything about how much power the federal government wants. I said that (barring them being outright abolished) states should only have the power that the federal government doesn’t want; if that turns out to be “none”, so be it. I don’t think that the state governments are a good idea, for the reasons I already stated; they are a holdover from colonial times. As I said above, I’d transfer most or all state functions either to the federal government, or to the cities & counties.
EDIT: Well, of course it isn’t a matter of law. If it was, states wouldn’t exist in any meaningful sense.
It’s the same thing, “the federal governmanet has all the powers it wants,” and “the states can only have powers the federal government doesn’t want.” Or at least I meant it to be.