Santorum is a lunatic, Part 10,568

[HockeyDude]

What's so sad about the religious wing of this country is that it's not enough for them to have full freedom to practice their faith in their personal lives.  The entire structure of society has to be molded and shaped in a way that suits their own interpretation of their religion.  

And I'M the fascist.  What a crock of sh*t.  

[HockeyDude]

To theocrats, "religious liberty" = religious law

The freedom to ban legal activities on Sunday

The freedom to accept government funds and discriminate

The freedom to arbitrarily defund programs (sex education, birth control) and organizations (Planned Parenthood) they don't agree with

The freedom to refuse to dispense birth control/contraceptives as a pharmacist because it "violates their conscience"

The freedom to cut off your infant son's foreskin

The freedom to ban gays and lesbians from serving in the military, adopting, and getting married

The freedom to force women to give birth

The "freedom" to live under God's law

Repugnant authoritarians

I was going to respond to Kenobi... but this will do just fine.  

Hey Kenobi... the Bible says to kill your neighbor if he works on Sunday.  We will not allow that.  Are we infringing on your religious freedom by saying you may not go stone your neighbor to death?  

Your (and the Catholic Church's) "freedom" to impose your morals and standards on others is not protected, or implied, or morally just.  

You clearly know nothing about the Catholic Church or Christianity in general.

I know the Ten Commandments.  It's the same principle.

Which is what the issue is about.  Does the Catholic Church have protection against being forced to provide contraception, which it is against, under the First Amendment?  NOT WHEN IT IS RUNNING A SECULAR INSTITUTION SUCH AS A HOSPITAL.

What the hell does it matter that I know anything about Catholicism?  

[Politico]

To theocrats, "religious liberty" = religious law

The freedom to ban legal activities on Sunday

The freedom to accept government funds and discriminate

The freedom to arbitrarily defund programs (sex education, birth control) and organizations (Planned Parenthood) they don't agree with

The freedom to refuse to dispense birth control/contraceptives as a pharmacist because it "violates their conscience"

The freedom to cut off your infant son's foreskin

The freedom to ban gays and lesbians from serving in the military, adopting, and getting married

The freedom to force women to give birth

The "freedom" to live under God's law

Repugnant authoritarians

I was going to respond to Kenobi... but this will do just fine.  

Hey Kenobi... the Bible says to kill your neighbor if he works on Sunday.  We will not allow that.  Are we infringing on your religious freedom by saying you may not go stone your neighbor to death?  

Your (and the Catholic Church's) "freedom" to impose your morals and standards on others is not protected, or implied, or morally just.  

You clearly know nothing about the Catholic Church or Christianity in general.

I know the Ten Commandments.  It's the same principle.

Which is what the issue is about.  Does the Catholic Church have protection against being forced to provide contraception, which it is against, under the First Amendment?  NOT WHEN IT IS RUNNING A SECULAR INSTITUTION SUCH AS A HOSPITAL.

What the hell does it matter that I know anything about Catholicism?  

Sorry, but the government does not decide what is a secular institution and what is not. If the Catholic Church owns and operates a hospital, it is by definition a religious institution. And you know what? A lot of these Catholic hospitals do some pretty charitable things. They are certainly free to choose NOT to render services that are NOT medically necessary. The pill falls under this category except for those who need to take the pill for non-contraceptive reasons. The Catholic Church fills those prescriptions. People who simply want the pill for contraception can go get it from another health service provider. Or better yet, if they're not married or at least in a committed relationship they should probably force their partner to wear a condom to help prevent the spread of STDs...

America is about freedom, not force. Or at least it used to be.

Maybe if Obama was not so disappointing (Hope? Throw that out of the window...Yes We Can What? Bankrupt the country? Promise the moon but explode at lift-off?), if he had not over-promised, they would not need to try to manufacture these "culture war" topics. For me, it has nothing to do with social issues, really. I believe in contraception. And I believe in allowing other people to have others beliefs and not trying to force my beliefs upon them. I certainly do NOT believe in the government trying to force people to follow ridiculous orders that go way beyond the line in the sand.

This is not about the "culture wars." This is really about whether you prefer America being free, whether you prefer America being the best in the world, OR whether you want to transform America into something else, perhaps something more like Europe: Stagnating and in decline.

[Link]

Contraception is a want, not a need.

Your support of this nonsense makes you a Big Government stooge who implicitly believes the state owns you and I.

I don't think doctor's recommendations are "nonsense."  No offense but I would listen to them before I listened to you.

By "nonsense" I was obviously referring to your belief in having the government force religious institutions to do things that are against their beliefs (i.e., forcing Catholic hospitals to give contraceptives on demand for the sole purpose of contraception).

Politico you made the statement, "Contraception is a want, not a need."  You have been shown to be completely 100% wrong.  You don't have a fundamental understanding of the basic subject matter so you really shouldn't be going around trying to dictate government policy.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Hey Kenobi... the Bible says to kill your neighbor if he works on Sunday.  We will not allow that.  Are we infringing on your religious freedom by saying you may not go stone your neighbor to death?

Already explained why not.

Your (and the Catholic Church's) "freedom" to impose your morals and standards on others is not protected, or implied, or morally just.

First amendment to the constitution - the right to free exercise of religion shall not be infringed. Requiring people to buy contraception contradicts free exercise.   

[Ebowed]

Where is the Catholic outrage over taxpayer funded executions?

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church doesn't have quite the same level of moral opposition to the death penalty as abortion, which I understand though don't necessarily agree with completely. It's generally a scale issue, though; there are millions more abortions than executions in the US.

I understand that, but the broader point is that all of us have to pay for things that we don't necessarily agree with, some of which result in massive losses in human life.  Iraq war, anyone?

[Politico]

The real content of this thread is Politico is a Lunatic, Part 2732.

I'm not the one ignoring serious health issues and falling for political ploys while simultaneously being a Big Government stooge. The only lunatics are those, both those on the left and the right, who think the government should control more and more areas of our lives. And it is pretty reckless, if not crazy, for some people to ignore the serious health threats out there.

[Politico]

Contraception is a want, not a need.

Your support of this nonsense makes you a Big Government stooge who implicitly believes the state owns you and I.

I don't think doctor's recommendations are "nonsense."  No offense but I would listen to them before I listened to you.

By "nonsense" I was obviously referring to your belief in having the government force religious institutions to do things that are against their beliefs (i.e., forcing Catholic hospitals to give contraceptives on demand for the sole purpose of contraception).

Politico you made the statement, "Contraception is a want, not a need."  You have been shown to be completely 100% wrong.  You don't have a fundamental understanding of the basic subject matter so you really shouldn't be going around trying to dictate government policy.

You wouldn't understand a nuanced position if it hit you over your head. Again, show me religious institutions that are denying treatment for medical issues. Wanting the pill solely for contraceptive purposes is a want, not a need. And there is a better contraceptive out there, condoms, that can be bought for far less, requires no prescription, and actually helps prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

To theocrats, "religious liberty" = religious law

The freedom to ban legal activities on Sunday

The freedom to accept government funds and discriminate

The freedom to arbitrarily defund programs (sex education, birth control) and organizations (Planned Parenthood) they don't agree with

The freedom to refuse to dispense birth control/contraceptives as a pharmacist because it "violates their conscience"

The freedom to cut off your infant son's foreskin

The freedom to ban gays and lesbians from serving in the military, adopting, and getting married

The freedom to force women to give birth

The "freedom" to live under God's law

Repugnant authoritarians

I was going to respond to Kenobi... but this will do just fine.  

Hey Kenobi... the Bible says to kill your neighbor if he works on Sunday.  We will not allow that.  Are we infringing on your religious freedom by saying you may not go stone your neighbor to death?  

Your (and the Catholic Church's) "freedom" to impose your morals and standards on others is not protected, or implied, or morally just.  

"Freedom" doesn't actually mean  "freedom" to perhaps most people.  Ask an Iraqi tribesman what freedom means. 

[True Federalist]

Sorry, but the government does not decide what is a secular institution and what is not. If the Catholic Church owns and operates a hospital, it is by definition a religious institution.

Even if I were to agree with you that a Catholic hospital is a religious instituion, copious Supreme Court precedent says that it doesn't matter.

Most pertinently:

"It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I understand that, but the broader point is that all of us have to pay for things that we don't necessarily agree with, some of which result in massive losses in human life.  Iraq war, anyone?

Couple things here. National defense is a constitutional obligation of the government. Providing contraception? No. The government does have the power to fund the military that does not exist for many. many other things that the government does. Again, going back to the constitution.

[Progressive Realist]

I understand that, but the broader point is that all of us have to pay for things that we don't necessarily agree with, some of which result in massive losses in human life.  Iraq war, anyone?

Couple things here. National defense is a constitutional obligation of the government. Providing contraception? No. The government does have the power to fund the military that does not exist for many. many other things that the government does. Again, going back to the constitution.

Why must we follow the strict constructionist view of the Constitution?

[Link]

I'm not the one ignoring serious health issues ...

Objective evidence would seem to indicate otherwise.

Contraception is a want, not a need.

You wouldn't understand a nuanced position if it hit you over your head.

How in the world is this "nuanced..."

Contraception is a want, not a need.

That sounds like a pretty broad absolute statement.  That is 100% wrong in many cases.

[Politico]

I'm not the one ignoring serious health issues ...

Objective evidence would seem to indicate otherwise.

Do you engage in AIDS denialism, or do you simply believe HIV is now "sex diabetes"?

That sounds like a pretty broad absolute statement.  That is 100% wrong in many cases.

Needing a medication to live, or enjoy a healthy state of mind/body, is a need. Wanting something for the SOLE purpose of preventing pregnancy and enabling sex without procreation is a want, not a medical need. And this want is easily fulfilled via purchases of condoms at your local 7/11. No prescription required even!

Put another way, water is a need. Wine is a want. Medicine to live is a need. Contraception solely to help prevent pregnancy is a want.

Yes, the world is gray and the government is not your mother, or your big brother.

[Link]

I'm not the one ignoring serious health issues ...

Objective evidence would seem to indicate otherwise.

Contraception is a want, not a need.

Do you engage in AIDS denialism, or do you simply believe HIV is now "sex diabetes"?

Wha...

That is the most impressive strawman I've seen in quite some time.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Why must we follow the strict constructionist view of the Constitution?

Because it's logical? Arguing that the constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean renders the constitution meaningless.

[pbrower2a]

Why must we follow the strict constructionist view of the Constitution?

Because it's logical? Arguing that the constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean renders the constitution meaningless.

The Constitution is deliberately vague on some things (like what constitutes "general welfare" or "commerce between the states" ... and unambiguous on what is prohibited to some extent.  Summary executions are obviously prohibited. There will be conservative interpretations and liberal interpretations. I suppose that if we ever had a fascist or Commie regime there would be fascist or Commie interpretations.

What has been done in the past and has not been shown unconstitutional by a ruling of the Supreme Court can be assumed Constitutional until prohibited. Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, Section 8 housing, and other big programs can only be abolished through specific legislation in the absence of a USSC ruling.

Even the clause of "building post roads" gives authority for Federal involvement in building highways that will surely be used for purposes other than delivering the mails. 

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

What has been done in the past and has not been shown unconstitutional by a ruling of the Supreme Court can be assumed Constitutional until prohibited. Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, Section 8 housing, and other big programs can only be abolished through specific legislation in the absence of a USSC ruling.

Nonsense. Unconstitutional legislation is just as unconstitutional the day it was issued as the day it is struck down.

[Progressive Realist]

Why must we follow the strict constructionist view of the Constitution?

Because it's logical? Arguing that the constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean renders the constitution meaningless.

Do you honestly think that the "Founding Fathers" were able to account for the issues that would come up 200+ years after they wrote it?

[Badger]

So, I see the thread title and it's grown into 12 pages.

"Oh boy. How bad of a flame war has Phil got himself into this time?"

<Reads threads>  Really? Plenty of stupid, of course, but none of it his.

Congratulations Phil!

[pbrower2a]

What has been done in the past and has not been shown unconstitutional by a ruling of the Supreme Court can be assumed Constitutional until prohibited. Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, Section 8 housing, and other big programs can only be abolished through specific legislation in the absence of a USSC ruling.

Nonsense. Unconstitutional legislation is just as unconstitutional the day it was issued as the day it is struck down.

The Supreme Court does not review legislation for Constitutionality until that legislation appears in a case before it. Such a review is not among the enumerated powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court exists largely to counteract egregious violations of the Constitution -- like denial of human rights or unwarranted sequestration of private property. It is up to Congress to establish the wisdom of such laws as it enacts and to the People to elect appropriate legislators.

It may be your view that the common man is rightly the thrall of cartels, trusts, and landed magnates in the name of the sacredness of entrepreneurial and hereditary power. For such to become the norm you and your friends must convince the general public that it is wise to give people complete and irrevocable trust in economic elites. But until then the Constitution can generally serve an aristocratic elite or a Scandinavian-style welfare state. What it does not support is a mad executive or a legislature running amok -- not Ivan the Terrible and not Robespierre.   

The Supreme Court can establish corrective remedies. 

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Do you honestly think that the "Founding Fathers" were able to account for the issues that would come up 200+ years after they wrote it?

Do you believe that human nature has changed significantly in 200 years? They put checks and balances there for a reason.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

The Supreme Court does not review legislation for Constitutionality until that legislation appears in a case before it. Such a review is not among the enumerated powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court exists largely to counteract egregious violations of the Constitution -- like denial of human rights or unwarranted sequestration of private property. It is up to Congress to establish the wisdom of such laws as it enacts and to the People to elect appropriate legislators.

Absolutely - which is why I go back to it, an unconstitutional law is just that, unconstitutional. Any violation gets wound back to when the law was issued.

It may be your view that the common man is rightly the thrall of cartels, trusts, and landed magnates in the name of the sacredness of entrepreneurial and hereditary power. For such to become the norm you and your friends must convince the general public that it is wise to give people complete and irrevocable trust in economic elites. But until then the Constitution can generally serve an aristocratic elite or a Scandinavian-style welfare state. What it does not support is a mad executive or a legislature running amok -- not Ivan the Terrible and not Robespierre.   

I'm not sure why you regard me as a 'friend' of the 'economic elites'. I just happen to observe that these elites tend not to like things that constrain them, like the constitution.

[pbrower2a]

The Supreme Court does not review legislation for Constitutionality until that legislation appears in a case before it. Such a review is not among the enumerated powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court exists largely to counteract egregious violations of the Constitution -- like denial of human rights or unwarranted sequestration of private property. It is up to Congress to establish the wisdom of such laws as it enacts and to the People to elect appropriate legislators.

Absolutely - which is why I go back to it, an unconstitutional law is just that, unconstitutional. Any violation gets wound back to when the law was issued.

Trivialities slip by. A severe non-triviality -- like a law that imposes higher taxes on people due to race or religion -- would get swift attention. Unconstitutionality is a severe blow to the validity of any part of a law, but it is generally not a mass opinion or partisan claim of unconstitutionality  of a law that makes the act unconstitutional.

I would have never given the majority ruling on Kelo or Citizens United.

It may be your view that the common man is rightly the thrall of cartels, trusts, and landed magnates in the name of the sacredness of entrepreneurial and hereditary power. For such to become the norm you and your friends must convince the general public that it is wise to give people complete and irrevocable trust in economic elites. But until then the Constitution can generally serve an aristocratic elite or a Scandinavian-style welfare state. What it does not support is a mad executive or a legislature running amok -- not Ivan the Terrible and not Robespierre.   

I'm not sure why you regard me as a 'friend' of the 'economic elites'. I just happen to observe that these elites tend not to like things that constrain them, like the constitution.

OK. Those who lean Right in America now largely endorse the power of entrenched economic elites over employers and consumers. At the extreme, fascists (as opposed to mere 'conservative authoritarians') deny any constraints to the merger of corporate and State power.  The libertarians are not the dominant force on the Right.

[TheGlobalizer]

Why must we follow the strict constructionist view of the Constitution?

Because it's logical? Arguing that the constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean renders the constitution meaningless.

Do you honestly think that the "Founding Fathers" were able to account for the issues that would come up 200+ years after they wrote it?

This; that said, that's why there's a provision for amending the Constitution.  We don't do it enough, IMO.

Strict constructionists focus too much on a minarchist intent, and that's simply not what the Constitution was designed to do, it's there to espouse broad principles.  (And I'm a minarchist saying this.)