Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A Liberal Rebuts Conservatism

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
To all those that think the government should pay for everything needed to fix our problems let me espouse and old addage thats recently been reviewed..."When was the last time you got a job from a poor person"? ?
With the government paying for everything do you think our economy will prosper with the exorbatant taxes needed to finance these programs. Theres going to be more poor than rich to tax. Corporations are not going to stay here(they are already leaving) and sustain our economy! Political affiliations won't matter once this happens!

Zindo




posted on May, 17 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   
This discussion has certainly been an interesting read with references to historical definitions to both Liberal and Conservative parties, but I feel that it has been more in defense of Liberal ideology than a real rebuttal on Conservatism. Theres nothing wrong with that because that is how discussions go. However some of what I find to be a problem with the modern Conservatives involve issues that I have not seen addressed.

Before I go into that, I would also like to express that I also have Liberal ideas. I believe in the Liberal rights granted to us by the founding fathers and believe the Constitution is what we should all adhere to. I feel that we do need a government that provides a safety net for the unfortunate. I agree that many took advantage of this program, but let's not forget that Welfare was reformed in the 90's under a democratic administration. For the argument of that everyone has the opportunity to prosper is in reality a half truth. The wealthy pass on their experience and knowledge to gain wealth to their siblings, but you will not find this knowledge taught to everyone in public schools, so to speak. Part of the welfare problem is the environmental condition in which people are raised.

I think both parties have problems. The Democratic Party has moved further toward Socialism while the Republican Party has moved toward Fascism. I agree with an earlier poster that Liberalism is not on the same axis as Socialism, but the two have somehow merged and I feel true Liberalism is being hijacked so to speak. I'm sure many conservatives feel the same way with their party where recently it has been hijacked with Fascists.

It is these extremes that are the real threat to the American way of life, and each of us should overcome our desire to support ones own party and acknowledge this problem.

Fascism is the ideology where the nation state has higher priority than the individual. It gives more economic freedom to businesses and deprives them from the individual. This ideology is ideal for corporations and is the direction that our country is heading, because it is the corporations that have through campaign contributions and lobbying have gained control over our government, where it is no longer "for the people and by the people".

Granted, it is the corporations that provide a livelihood for the people and without it, we would have never emerged from the dark ages. Capitalism has been beneficial economically because it fosters competition. With competition come technological innovation and advancement. This results in a better product as well as lower costs for the consumer and thus a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, this same competition has forced corporations to do less than scrupulous things to continue to appease the shareholders, regardless of the consequences. Have we reached the nexus that Karl Marx predicted that capitalism will devour itself?

We have seen fascist patterns from Conservatives where questioning our government is considered treason. I have noticed the bully type fear tactics used to force their ideology, instead of appealing to the good nature side of all of us. We have had individual right restricted in the form of the Patriot act with the government is given the ability to wire tap e-mail and phone lines, which is nothing short of illegal search and seizure. This is the direction that needs to be changed.

There are pros and cons with both Liberal and Conservative ideologies and I think we have reached a crossroads that will define the future of our country. The only way to continue is to follow the constitution and not let extremist take over.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
post by Donwhite
 


The Writ of Habeas corpus.
Also known as "The Great Writ," is a summons addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court together with proof of the authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person, or if not, the person should be released from custody.

The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subjects. The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary," "common law," or "prerogative writs," historically issued by courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom.

The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner (prisoner).

Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305 during the reign of King Edward I. However other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century.

The procedure for the issuing of writs of habeas corpus was first codified by the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. A habeas corpus petition could be made by the prisoner himself or by a third party on his behalf.

On April 27 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland and parts of mid-western states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. In the early 1870s, President Ulysses S. Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.latimes.com...

The Constitutional basis
for Disputing the Bush Administration’s actions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

(The Constitutional reference is taken out of order).
Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Article I, Section 8. Clause: Congress shall have power to . . .
9.To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:
10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:
12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. 3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

The writers have already covered crimes committed outside the boundaries of the United States, in 1787. We have refused to follow their instructions.


Article III. Section 3, Clause 1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No PERSON shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Clause 2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason . .

I think the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay would fall under this provision of the 1787 Constitution. Observe that this provision applies to PERSON which would include all the human inhabitants of the planet Earth.


I Amendment. “ . . the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances . .

The writers of this Amendment choose the word people where they could as well have used the more restrictive term citizen but the broad and all inclusive term people. Everyone on our shores has this fundamental right.


IV Amendment. The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The writers choose carefully their words. Note how the term PEOPLE covers a larger class than the term CITIZENS just as the later use of PERSONS includes more than CITIZENS.


V Amendment. No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

It is clear that the writers meant to include MORE than just CITIZENS when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. They made it broader in its scope and said these privileges belong to anyone in the class of person.


VI Amendment. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL for his defense.

Any PERSON regardless of his place of origin or of his alleged offense against the Constitution of the United States is entitled to the protections laid out therein. This is not for his benefit, it is for OUR BENEFIT!


XIV Amendment, Section 1. All PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The writers knew well the difference between a PERSON and a CITIZEN.


XV Amendment, Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Again, you can see the appropriate use of the term CITIZEN on the matter of voting.

XIX Amendment. Section 1. The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

And yet another example of the use of the term CITIZEN to illustrate how the terms CITIZEN and PERSON differ in their application.


XXIV Amendment. Section 1. The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged . . ”

A further example of the proper use of CITIZEN as opposed to the use of PERSON.


XXVI Amendment. The right of CITIZENS of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States . .

Yet another example of the proper use of CITIZEN as opposed to the use of PERSON.

www.yale.edu...

[edit on 6/12/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Interesting piece.

"I think the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay would fall under this provision of the 1787 Constitution. Observe that this provision applies to PERSON which would include all the human inhabitants of the planet Earth. "

I think the word "PERSON" that you find so interesting refers to people that have migrated to this country and have serious intentions of becoming citizens, NOT a battle field combatant who is intent on destroying the USA and her Constitution.

Roper



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Roper
I think the word "PERSON" that you find so interesting refers to people that have migrated to this country and have serious intentions of becoming citizens, NOT a battle field combatant who is intent on destroying the USA and her Constitution.





You have already tried and convicted them, haven't you Roper?

With out a fair trial how is it possible to determine if they were enemy combatants or sheep herders caught up in a battlefield situation.

Never mind....get a rope.../sarcasm



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Or, it could also be a person who's taking advantage of kindness from people like you

Do you think they're going tos ay "YEAHHHHH im a terrorist and i want to kill INFIDELS!!!"

It's like disciplining children with "time out"
PFFT! Where was that when i was a kid?
Stick me in a corner and "THINK about what i've done"

ohhh yeah, im thinking about it.........
pfewwwww i'll never do that one again!




But hey - this decision will prove its self to be a bad thing.

You wait and see.

If the consitution extends to all soil, home and abroad
i guess we better never go to war again, with anyone

Would the consititution allow an F-16 to fly over new york and bomb a building it knows Osama Bin Laden to be hiding in?

no. It wouldnt.


guess we better lift that trade embargo with Cuba


This is another liberal v.s. bush decision.
I dont support Bush 100%

But they're calling this a "defeat for the bush admin"

if it really were a triumph for the american consitution, then it would be called a "Triumph for the American consititution"

instead, its just another political attack, at the expense of our safety.

Democrats get to be 'right', and soon enough, the bad guys will exploit that weakness.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by Roper






You have already tried and convicted them, haven't you Roper?

With out a fair trial how is it possible to determine if they were enemy combatants or sheep herders caught up in a battlefield situation.

Never mind....get a rope.../sarcasm


What type of fair trial will they give you?

Ask Nick Berg.

Roper



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Roper
 



I think the word "PERSON" that you find so interesting refers to people that have migrated to this country and have serious intentions of becoming citizens, NOT a battle field combatant who is intent on destroying the USA and her Constitution.


I suggest you have missed the greater issue. Our constitution was not written for their benefit, it was written for OUR benefit. It is our conduct that we are ashamed of. Not theirs. It is our system that is threatened, not theirs. It is only us who can reform our own conduct. Not them. We do right because it is right, not because it makes our enemy feel good. One of the first things I learned that I have never forgotten was what it meant to be called magnanimous. It means helping another who cannot return the favor.

I say it [respecting other's human rights on your own] is analogous to the issue of torture. Assuming for a minute the victim survives - as very many have - it is the perpetrator who loses his honor, his self-esteem and not the victim. When the torture ends, the victim -assuming he is still intact - still has all his pride and honor. The perpetrator has neither.

Let us DO right because it is THE right thing to do.



posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Don, there is a nuclear weapon hidden somewhere in Jacksonville.

The US Government has the man who planted the device, there is not enough time to evacuate the population of Jacksonville, maybe enough time to disarm the device IF we can get him to talk.

How would you get the information that will save your family?

Roper

I pray this never happens! It could.






top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join