The Right to Earn a Living

Learn about the case of Nebbia v. New York and the rational basis test - and why they have taken away your liberty. Nebbia is a fascinating case that gave the government total power over everything.



From the description: "Sandefur discusses the "four big Progressive ideas" that came about during the New Deal-era Supreme Court in the 1930's. They include: 1) Rather than being inherent, rights are permissions given to individuals by the state; 2) Government exists to "improve" society, not to protect individual rights; 3) A reading of judicial restraint that means when government violates your rights, the courts should do nothing about it; and 4) Belief in a "living Constitution," that will be radically reinterpreted in various contexts. "

en.wikipedia.org...

Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined whether the state of New York could regulate [control and set] the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Following the hearings, in 1933, the state of New York established a Milk Control Board that was empowered to set maximum and minimum retail prices. The Board set the price of a quart of milk at nine cents. This price reflected the then-current market price, and the purpose of this order was to prevent price-cutting.[2] Nevertheless, the public suspected that the Board’s intent was to benefit the dairy dealers instead of farmers because the minimum prices for the two sides were not the same. Tensions ran so high that violent milk strikes took place throughout the state, resulting in two deaths and a great deal of property damage.[3] Every public hearing of the Milk Control Board resulted in a "tumultuous, popular assemblage" and its every action was "Statewide news."[4]

If you want some serious history, listen to Profs. Murray Rothbard's lectures for free here:

mises.org...
(listen from the bottom of the list to the top)

They will leave your jaw on the floor. This is everything your history teacher didn't want you to hear.

Okay, why do I keep reading your damn threads, they just piss me off.

Must be why I have no license and do not submit to the regulatory economic authority of my government. Because they are just a bunch of thieves.

You should send Janky a U2U and ask her what she thinks of this one.

Oh the government as our protector and benefactor.

Arrghhhh!

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Yeah, I would post happy things, like when a law gets repealed, but they never happen.

sorry.

hahaha.

Dr. Walter Block expands on the market effects of interventionist price controls and market manipulation by the government.

Dr. Block is one of my favorite all time Austrian economists. His work includes market defenses of drug dealers, pimps, prostitutes, and bookies. Absolutely stunning philosophical work.

Dr. Ron Paul comments on the question:

"A reporter at the press conference today tried to ask the President if the government could maintain this level of market intervention.

The President was not taking questions.

Would you care to address that?"

Originally posted by mnemeth1
From the description: "Sandefur discusses the "four big Progressive ideas" that came about during the New Deal-era Supreme Court in the 1930's. They include: 1) Rather than being inherent, rights are permissions given to individuals by the state; 2) Government exists to "improve" society, not to protect individual rights; 3) A reading of judicial restraint that means when government violates your rights, the courts should do nothing about it; and 4) Belief in a "living Constitution," that will be radically reinterpreted in various contexts.

So maybe I could see a problem with 3, but what's wrong with 1, 2 and 4?

The right to this and the right to that.

There no rights.

What about starving people have the right to eat? No.

The right to work when jobs are few? No.

No rights.

reply to post by links234


whats wrong with 1 is we dont get our rights from the state
whats wrong with 2 is the government DOES NOT EXIST to improve nothing

whats wrong with 4 the constitution can not be interpreted in any way other that what it says the constitution is the constitution its set in stone and should not be messed with at least in my opinion

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by links234

 

whats wrong with 1 is we dont get our rights from the state
whats wrong with 2 is the government DOES NOT EXIST to improve nothing

whats wrong with 4 the constitution can not be interpreted in any way other that what it says the constitution is the constitution its set in stone and should not be messed with at least in my opinion

Yes, we get some of our rights from our states. Certain states have different laws.

The government does exist to improve the station. "does not exist to improve nothing" great grammer .

"whats wrong with 4 the constitution can not be interpreted in any way other that what it says the constitution is the constitution its set in stone and should not be messed with at least in my opinion"


Haha then what do you think the point i having judges is? That's like saying what the bible says is exactly what it is. It's not set in stone that's why they added the bill of rights etc.

reply to post by Ignorance_Defier


if you have problems with what i say its because i am product of liberal media,tv,news,films they made me this way and take it up with them.

actually the creator gave us rights not the states

NO government doesnt why the hell do you think this country is so messed up now eh....


and NO again constitution is not meant to be interpreted what it says is what it says only people who want the power of the creator mess with the constituion and last time i check NOT one congressman or judge is GOD!

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Ignorance_Defier

 

if you have problems with what i say its because i am product of liberal media,tv,news,films they made me this way and take it up with them.

actually the creator gave us rights not the states

NO government doesnt why the hell do you think this country is so messed up now eh....


and NO again constitution is not meant to be interpreted what it says is what it says only people who want the power of the creator mess with the constituion and last time i check NOT one congressman or judge is GOD!

Liberal media huh? That is a conspiracy theory.

Who is this creator you speak of? Your mother gave you rights??

Hmm I'm pretty sure this country has had a government since it was founded.

Okay you can believe that the constitution is not meant to be interpreted.

I am starting to see where you get a lot of your beliefs from.

reply to post by Ignorance_Defier


conspiracy theory thats hilarious

creator guess you never heard the word god before

im pretty sure that the powers of the government has was given to it by the people not the other way around and the creator gave us those rights in essence the by creator/god did


and i believe that you can have your beliefs as i can have my own.



sorry gotta bounce its 4 am laters

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by links234

 

whats wrong with 1 is we dont get our rights from the state

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

That's from the declaration of independence (1776), the ONLY rights that you're afforded by your 'creator' are the three listed; the bill of rights (1789) are those afforded to you by the government.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

That's from the preamble of the bill of rights, rights proposed and ratified by the government, not by your 'creator'.

whats wrong with 2 is the government DOES NOT EXIST to improve nothing

It does if the people, duely represented by congress, say it does.

whats wrong with 4 the constitution can not be interpreted in any way other that what it says the constitution...

It can and is, everyday the supreme court is in session, the nine judges determine in what way the constitution is interpreted. They have the constitutional power to do so as article three grants them that.

...is the constitution its set in stone and should not be messed with at least in my opinion

By your opinion then; the constitution (the seven articles written in 1787) should stay as is and every amendment to it (changes one through 27, beginning in 1789) should be abolished. Correct?

Sources

reply to post by links234


Hey links, when he said set in stone, you know that the amendment process is written in the Constitution right?

Or is that your debate tactic, to dissemble?

Why do people find it necessary to lie, when they put words in other's mouths?

reply to post by links234


Hey, it is a living Constitution person.

Your rights were endowed by your very existence if you do not like the God reference.

So, you attempt to equate the amendment process for where our rights come from, nice pile of dog doo doo there.

As for the people telling congress to pass something, sorry, this is not a socialist democracy, no matter how much you want it to be. Democracies are tyrannical in nature. Representative Constitutional Republics on the other hand, the sheep have guns.

So, when the Republic of Wisconsin said they would not return runaway slaves, I guess you be on the side of the Supreme Court justices when they said the runaway slave laws were legal huh? So you think that the justices are kings right? That is your position correct?

If you are going to use the Constitution as your excuse for instituting certain things, should you not actually use the amendment process? Or do you, like the elitist, think we people are Homer Simpson? Too stupid to make the right choice? Maybe you should think about your elitist mentality and leave the rest of us alone.

Originally posted by links234
That's from the declaration of independence (1776), the ONLY rights that you're afforded by your 'creator' are the three listed; the bill of rights (1789) are those afforded to you by the government.

Actually, the paragraph, which you quoted, says plainly "among these rights" it does not say "only these rights." Thus, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not the only three rights granted by the Creator. Those three are merely the three most important ones the authors of that document sought to highlight. Also, the declaration of Independence was a Declaration of intent, not a legally binding document.

That's from the preamble of the bill of rights, rights proposed and ratified by the government, not by your 'creator'.

Actually, the paragraph you quoted immediately prior to your statement above only referenced ARTICLES, not RIGHTS. Rights are not proposed and ratified by the government. Also, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states the purpose of those first ten amendments:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

The articles that are being proposed, the first ten amendments, are designed, according to James Madison and others, to further define and limit the powers and scope of the government.

It does if the people, duely represented by congress, say it does.

This is a true statement.

It can and is, everyday the supreme court is in session, the nine judges determine in what way the constitution is interpreted. They have the constitutional power to do so as article three grants them that.

The Judiciary is understood to be the power of the court to review and interpret the law. The general understanding has been that the laws would be reviewed in light of their Constitutionality. Note that judicial power was not intended to interpret the Constitution. If it is the case that the Judiciary is empowered to interpret the Constitution, the foundation upon which all U. S. laws are supposed to stand, then what is to stop them from interpreting the Constitution in such a way that the other two branches are marginalized, resulting in an effective nine-person oligarchy?

By your opinion then; the constitution (the seven articles written in 1787) should stay as is and every amendment to it (changes one through 27, beginning in 1789) should be abolished. Correct?

Straw man. The Constitution itself contains a mechanism for amending it as the People see fit. Article V should be listed wherever you were sourcing your other quotes from. As long as the Amendments meet the criteria set out in the Amendment process, they wouldn't need to be abolished.

Originally posted by kreinhard
Actually, the paragraph, which you quoted, says plainly "among these rights" it does not say "only these rights." Thus, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not the only three rights granted by the Creator. Those three are merely the three most important ones the authors of that document sought to highlight. Also, the declaration of Independence was a Declaration of intent, not a legally binding document.

Exactly. You've said it better than I ever could, the declaration lists rights endowed by the creator, while not being a legally binding document.

Equating the first ten amendments of the constitution as being endowed by your creator is close to calling the constitution the bible and calling Thomas Jefferson the second coming of Jesus. Now, some of you may not agree with my opinions on this particular thought process, it is how I view people that equate the words of the declaration with the words of the bill of rights.

Actually, the paragraph you quoted immediately prior to your statement above only referenced ARTICLES, not RIGHTS. Rights are not proposed and ratified by the government. Also, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states the purpose of those first ten amendments

The articles that are being proposed, the first ten amendments, are designed, according to James Madison and others, to further define and limit the powers and scope of the government.

I suppose if you want to argue semantics between what is a 'right' and what is an 'article' or 'amendment', we can do that. However, amendments 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, specifically refer to 'the rights of the people'...why I'm even arguing that the bill of rights aren't necessarily amendments at all but rights afforded to you by the government astounds me.

I have no problem whatsoever with anything that the three documents have in them, at all. I have a problem with people believing that the rights laid out in the first ten amendments are equal to the rights endowed by their creator as listed in the declaration.

The founding fathers, men, not GODS, created the bill of rights. Consequently ratified them in such fashion as the constitution permits, thereby making them rights endowed by the government and not God. The government may have interpreted them as being endowed by God...but they had to follow their own legal process to state such.

The Judiciary is understood to be the power of the court to review and interpret the law. The general understanding has been that the laws would be reviewed in light of their Constitutionality. Note that judicial power was not intended to interpret the Constitution. If it is the case that the Judiciary is empowered to interpret the Constitution, the foundation upon which all U. S. laws are supposed to stand, then what is to stop them from interpreting the Constitution in such a way that the other two branches are marginalized, resulting in an effective nine-person oligarchy?

What's stopping them is their inability to call into question laws that the legislative branch creates. The supreme court can't convene and call into question the constitutionality of, say, healthcare reform unless it's brought forth by some seperate parties. The state attorney general's, for example.

Straw man. The Constitution itself contains a mechanism for amending it as the People see fit. Article V should be listed wherever you were sourcing your other quotes from. As long as the Amendments meet the criteria set out in the Amendment process, they wouldn't need to be abolished.

That is exactly my point. When someone tells me that the constitution is NOT a living document and can never be changed they are absolutely, 100% wrong. If, by chance, 98% of the population and 80% of congress decided that we should just repeal the second amendment then that's fine, we can do that. Some people don't understand that. The right to bear arms is a right endowed not by your creator, but by government. If your government believes you have the right to something, it doesn't mean your creator believes you have the right to it.

Unless, of course, you equate government with your creator...then it that case, I'd be wrong. Star for you, kreinhard.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by links234

 

Hey, it is a living Constitution person.

*waves*

Your rights were endowed by your very existence if you do not like the God reference.

Thanks for the clarification, that's generally how I interpret those particular words.

So, you attempt to equate the amendment process for where our rights come from, nice pile of dog doo doo there.

How so? The constitution, let alone the bill of rights, says nothing about being endowed by the creator but states that it's from the government of the congress and the states.

As for the people telling congress to pass something, sorry, this is not a socialist democracy, no matter how much you want it to be. Democracies are tyrannical in nature. Representative Constitutional Republics on the other hand, the sheep have guns.

So...I take it you never write to your congressman on issues and how you think they should vote on a particular bill?

As for the people not telling congress to pass something; is congress not representative of the people? I thought this was a republic, in which the people have representatives in their government. Representatives elected democratically, yes...but very little socialism in how they're elected or what laws the present and pass.

So, when the Republic of Wisconsin said they would not return runaway slaves, I guess you be on the side of the Supreme Court justices when they said the runaway slave laws were legal huh?

As sad a fact as it is, they were legal. Up until the 1860's when the constitution was changed and slavery abolished.

So you think that the justices are kings right? That is your position correct?

No, their children do no inherit their positions...so this would be an incorrect assumption.

If you are going to use the Constitution as your excuse for instituting certain things, should you not actually use the amendment process?

For certain things, sure. However, if you create a law within the scope of the constitution, there's no need to create an additional amendment.

Or do you, like the elitist, think we people are Homer Simpson? Too stupid to make the right choice?

There are stupid people in the world, there are also very ignorant people in the world.

Maybe you should think about your elitist mentality and leave the rest of us alone.

I'd prefer the rest of you leaving the rest of us alone, but we're all still citizens of the same country.

Which leads to the very two different view points in regards to 'rights'. In as such the philosophical musing of where rights derive from.

One one side, some say that such basic rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were being recognized as predating any government. That those alone serve the foundation unto which the framers of the Constitution and later on the Bill of Rights set forth to clarify the limitation upon Government.

The other side believing that those rights only exist because they have been coined and phrased upon a piece of paper. That without those words written, those rights would not be ever granted nor thought of.

Further reading into both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers helps gain a better understanding on what exactly the framers of the Constitution were attempting to create.

First though we examine that it was clear to persons such as James Madison (who authored a majority of the Bill of Rights) that the Bill of Rights was not needed. He argued and pointed out that in a Republican form of Government, such rights derive from the People and not the Government. That the mere act of consent to be governed is indication that such rights are not bestowed by the Government, but rather lay within the hands of free peoples.

...that they [a bill of rights] are unnecessary articles of a republican government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say that this objection lies against such provisions under the state governments as well as under the general government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper.

He continued to argue the following:

It has been said that in the federal government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government.

As such, it was known the the Constitution was a document written and ratified by free people and thus what ever was not enumerated was still held by the free peoples.

In his speech, which can be found here source he continues on in excellent debate the pros and cons of a bill of rights.

The use of words such as 'secure', in the context given shows that at this time it was accepted that the rights come from the people, not the government.

Point being is understanding that liberty was considered instrumental and that the people holding liberty close and guarding it at all cost. such a bill of rights would not be needed. Following a line of logic as such, we can see how rights do not derive from Government or even the Constitution.

The colonies of the Americas declare freedom, thus showing they will be and forever more will be a free people. One that consents to be governed. Through such consent, the free peoples drafted and adopted a constitution, to give structure to government and place limits on its ability to control the people. The very act that the constitution came from a free people, shows that the rights do not derive from Government but rather forcing it to insure the security of closely held rights.

It is one of the main arguments for the 9th and 10th amendments. For fear of listing protections to such a small number of rights held by the people would exclude all such other rights and the Government being able to take them away or legislate against them. It is in those two amendments we have seen the greatest perversion against the states and the people.