You have to visit the website of the Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik. I actaully like this guy. I don’t totally agree with him, but on the whole I think he “gets it.” With statements like:
“”Marriage partners, not government, should define the terms and spiritual orientation of their union in accordance with our nation’s guarantee of religious freedom.”
-and-
“First, allow me to dispel a myth. People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.
-and most importantly-
“The erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11 does not represent a new phenomenon. It represents an acceleration of long-existing trends. As president, my goal will be to to reverse those trends and to restore, respect and enforce the Bill of Rights…[G]overnment does not grant rights-it acknowledges them. They exist independently of government. They’re part of who and what we are. And, as Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, the only legitimate function of government is to secure them.’
Plus, he is endorsed by The Pink Pistols, “a national organization dedicated to educating the alternative sexual community on the need for armed self-defense.” That is a group that I’d love to see in a parade.
But seriously, I would urge everyone, especially those who don’t live in swing states, to vote for this guy (frankly, I think people in swing states should also, but many aren’t comfortable with that). The power of the Democratic and the Republican parties need to be broken. The only way to do that is money and votes. With Federal rules the way they are, a party needs to have a certain amount of support to get convention grants and at least $100,000 to get matching funds. I actually donated to his campaign 1) since I think he would be far better than either of the other two jackasses and 2) the only way to make the major parties not run jackasses is to create a threat to them. He will certainly be getting my vote.
The third parties need to be given a chance to attack the institutions without needing someone like Ross Perot backing them. Since the laws are unlikely to change, people need to start fighting back on their own.
September 21st, 2004 at 5:09 PM
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
http://www.2ampd.net/Meaning%20of%20the%20phrase%20well-regulated.htm
September 21st, 2004 at 5:47 PM
Doug:
Hello, pot: You’re black. You state that “And just like a lawyer, because you and your side belief it is wrong, he must be or I must be. Opinions are not fact. I give creedence to levinson’s opinion - did not state it as a fact but as one mere reference to the use of language and it’s application.” Check again. I did not say Levinson was wrong. I said that other people have offered substantiated arguments that Levinson was wrong. I stated that my opinion is that the clauses of the Constitution have to be read in context (although I acknowledge that there can be disagreement with what the proper context is). I then went on to argue that enough questions have been raised about Levinson and his historiography that disagreement with Levinson/you does not mean that Sujal or any one else fails to “understand[] history,” or that the contrary argument “is one of the most feeble arguments most people who try to control the argument make” or is a “foible.” Yes, these are all opinions (although some opinions have more historical/logical underpinnings, i.e. Levinson, Henigan, than others, i.e. Badnarik - and yes, that is one opinion I will absolutely stick by for the reasons stated up-thread). PRECISELY!
Which brings me back to my original point in all of this: Where the hell do you get off calling Sujal or anyone ignorant of history (especially with no explanation, no substantiation, nothing to back it up), or making any of the other dismissive, condescending statements you’ve made in this thread (as well as in other threads), just because he disagrees with what you surely have to admit is not a rock-solid, irrefutable argument (historical or otherwise)?! And yes, my frustration is showing. But, frankly, I’ve found the tone of a sizable minority of your posts to be infuriating. I’ve kept quiet until this thread, because I don’t know you, have no idea who you are, and have no idea where you’re coming from. But as I stated up-thread, the comment that your opponents fail to understand history is what prompted me to play devil’s advocate in the first place, in order to show you that arguments on the other side are as well-grounded in history as the arguments that you’re putting forth. Believe it or not, it takes quite a bit these days to get me riled up enough to engage in a sustained debate with someone I disagree with (although, as Sujal can testify, that wasn’t always the case). But your post the other day put me over the top.
And I know you’ve called for peace, Sujal. But I had to get this out there, and felt I needed to be more explicit about it than I was in previous posts.
Finally, as to your citation of the various state constitutions: Massachusetts is not *my* state constitution.
September 22nd, 2004 at 3:13 PM
Speaking of hypocrisy, “ex”, you started out in this discussion by saying that Badnarik had “even less of a clue about history and legal scholarship”, without anything to back up that statement, even knowing that he teaches an eight-hour Constitution class. So now calling out Doug on the same type of statement truely illustrates that you’re playing the role of the Kettle in the last post. Hopefully my fairly long list of quotations shows that Badnarik’s position is well within the realm of historical fact. The revisionism of the kind you’re trying to portray is simply not within the context of the framing of our founding document.
September 22nd, 2004 at 3:41 PM
I’ve looked at Badnarick’s statements on his website and reviewed excerpts from his “constitutional law class.” I stated above some of my reasons for rejecting his statements about the Second Amendment, and pointed out a few of the many logical and historical fallacies contained in his statements. (Feel free to Google for the rest - I’ve read plenty of detailed refutations of most of his views.) I posted my reasons and evidence for that conclusion *at the same time* and *in the same post* as the comment you’re quoting. I stand by my statement. Anyone can “teach” a “constitutional law class” - especially one that is self-produced an not affiliated with any reputable school like Badnarik’s “class.” And again, he has *no* training in law or history. NONE. His education is in CHEMISTRY, and he worked for many years as a computer programmer.
September 22nd, 2004 at 4:12 PM
I have a lot more faith in the reasoning capability of a chemist / computer scientist than I do in a lawyer.
September 22nd, 2004 at 8:46 PM
Damn. If only I had completed my chemistry degree…