tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post4805627964567329301..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: I'm seeing all kinds of posts saying that Rand Paul is filibustering to defend the Constitution..Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-19130049154479099042013-03-07T04:00:55.273-05:002013-03-07T04:00:55.273-05:00AH -
I think you're taking the case a little t...AH -<br />I think you're taking the case a little too far. There's a big difference between saying that you think there's nothing constitutionally suspect about a position you hold and saying the there is not a constitutional issue.<br /><br />If a Senator and all sorts of lawyers are making a constitutional argument then there is a constitutional issue worth discussing.<br /><br />You're just confident you're right about that issue.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-47552653377060725802013-03-07T03:55:47.941-05:002013-03-07T03:55:47.941-05:00re: "Are you claiming that there are only pol...re: "Are you claiming that there are only policy issues on the table and no interesting constitutional issues involved in the recent declarations/acts related to Executive power/authority?"<br /><br />No, of course not.<br /><br />I'm claiming that we're faced with a set of disagreements over these issues and not with a Congressional dynasty that is here to bring the light of the Constitution to the unwashed non-libertarian masses.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-91916572603781093012013-03-07T03:54:04.738-05:002013-03-07T03:54:04.738-05:00Hume can you at least one time come on here and sh...Hume can you at least one time come on here and share an argument rather than prancing around and telling everyone they're wrong and that you're smarter than them when it comes to anything in the neighborhood of political philosophy?<br /><br />Give me an argument, please.<br /><br />What are YOUR thoughts on general welfare.<br /><br />I may not be philosophy student at U Penn but I'm a pretty sharp guy and I think I can actually talk through arguments.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-66257078084204495152013-03-06T22:03:26.700-05:002013-03-06T22:03:26.700-05:00Hume, I read your bio and you are really really du...Hume, I read your bio and you are really really dull. <br /><br />No wonder you got out of the law; obviously, you lack the ability to even fix a traffic ticket and have no idea what the Constitution means and so forth. Sitting at home taking distance classes in Philosophy. What a hoot.<br /><br />Take killing people. Lincoln ordered people shot, with no trial. Confederate POWs who were drawn by lot and shot, just in retaliation for Confederate murders of Union soldiers. <br /><br />As I already wrote, Grant shelled Vicksburg. Same happened thousands of times all over the South.<br /><br />I can easily see circumstances were the Military might deploy a drone and kill people. If you lack the capacity to understand the facts and circumstances under which such could happen, then you are a dull. <br /><br />If you are so smart, why not write useful a draft of a law, like the CIA Charter, that foresees all possible situations? Tell us what circumstances that you can foresee, for the exceptions you write.<br /><br />What if two people are among 1000 people at high school basketball game and are about to exchange the code to a nuclear bomb and the gov't doesn't know the identity of the participants? Can the President kill 1000 to save 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904132869021579763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-60417891495933357602013-03-06T21:41:33.538-05:002013-03-06T21:41:33.538-05:00The Obama administration has decided that it can k...The Obama administration has decided that it can kill people if it has decided that those people meet certain criteria. The Obama administration is also under the impression that its decision to kill people is not judicially reviewable. "kill-at-will" is pretty good shorthand for what is actually going on. Even if a more accurate description would be: "kill when we decide secretely and unreviewably that somebody meets those criteria."PrometheeFeuhttp://prometheefeu.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-51370729244946310472013-03-06T21:11:49.691-05:002013-03-06T21:11:49.691-05:00Wait, you're being serious? That's amusin...Wait, you're being serious? That's amusing. Humehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471731654454581518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-65635043152707112402013-03-06T21:02:47.445-05:002013-03-06T21:02:47.445-05:00John
BTW, exactly how dull is someone who doesn&#...John<br /><br />BTW, exactly how dull is someone who doesn't understand how this questions were answered thousands of times during the Civil War?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904132869021579763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-83979387602798738852013-03-06T21:01:30.625-05:002013-03-06T21:01:30.625-05:00"A decade from now this allegedly valiant Con..."A decade from now this allegedly valiant Constitutional stand will look stupid and we'll just be arguing about the important stuff "<br /><br />Would it were so!Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-73858175651188536112013-03-06T20:38:57.851-05:002013-03-06T20:38:57.851-05:00Daniel,
Watching Paul a moment ago was hilarious....Daniel,<br /><br />Watching Paul a moment ago was hilarious.<br /><br />He said that there was a liberty or right of privacy and then realized how duplicitous that made him on the right of parents to decide whether to have children or not and stopped, mid sentence.<br /><br />So much for any liberty being the premise of this high farce.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904132869021579763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-16142878436420702792013-03-06T20:35:53.692-05:002013-03-06T20:35:53.692-05:00With drones do we need to change minds?With drones do we need to change minds?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904132869021579763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-29786687024257692122013-03-06T20:34:36.025-05:002013-03-06T20:34:36.025-05:00Gene, thought after we pointed out that I was bett...Gene, thought after we pointed out that I was better read in economics than Mises---I've read Keynes, understood what he wrote, etc., but you lack the comprehension skills and Mises never tried---that you would never show your face again.<br /><br />Paul said earlier this afternoon that he could tell when people were "two faced" or cynical.<br /><br />He should know and I wonder what he would say about you.<br /><br />But to the real point.<br /><br />Do you agree that, appropriately, the Constitution has an escape valve. <br /><br />Obama could drone you at a coffee shop tomorrow and then pardon everyone. Of better yet, and I expect this is what Paul fears, all of his followers who have read Shakespeare could come together to drone you, after which Obama could pardon them.<br /><br />If I were you, I would start burning every copy of Anthony and Cleopatra:<br /><br />MENAS<br /><br /> These three world-sharers, these competitors,<br /> Are in thy vessel: let me cut the cable;<br /> And, when we are put off, fall to their throats[with my drone];<br /> All there is thine.<br /><br />POMPEY<br /><br /> Ah, this thou shouldst have done,<br /> And not have spoke on't! In me 'tis villany;<br /> In thee't had been good service. Thou must know,<br /> 'Tis not my profit that does lead mine honour;<br /> Mine honour, it. Repent that e'er thy tongue<br /> Hath so betray'd thine act: being done unknown,<br /> I should have found it afterwards well done;<br /> But must condemn it now. Desist, and drink.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904132869021579763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-69683475180479249632013-03-06T20:07:07.023-05:002013-03-06T20:07:07.023-05:00Calling someone dull--yeah, that'll change som...Calling someone dull--yeah, that'll change someone's mind.<br /><br />Good persuasion technique.John Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-41367474535184751242013-03-06T19:53:06.459-05:002013-03-06T19:53:06.459-05:00There are no constitutional issues at stake.
Any ...There are no constitutional issues at stake.<br /><br />Any questions were answered when Grant shelled Vicksburg. What is the difference between a drone shell and a cannon ball?<br /><br />You are really really dull.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904132869021579763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-46380363391523678612013-03-06T19:39:43.979-05:002013-03-06T19:39:43.979-05:00"Are you really arguing this?"
Of cours..."Are you really arguing this?"<br /><br />Of course he is, because that is really what is fucking happening.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-23137351649406675152013-03-06T19:36:57.553-05:002013-03-06T19:36:57.553-05:00"As was so often the case with your daddy, I ..."As was so often the case with your daddy, I don't need you to defend my Constitution or tell me what it says, Mr. Paul. I can read it just fine myself."<br /><br />What an utterly stupid remark. So if ANYONE ANYWHERE ever says "X is unconstitutional," everyone's proper response is "I don't need you to defend my Constitution."<br /><br />Wow.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-10552771076788193502013-03-06T19:26:49.104-05:002013-03-06T19:26:49.104-05:00Also, your repeated off-hand references in your bl...Also, your repeated off-hand references in your blog to a "General Welfare" federal power illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the complexities of the issue. Perhaps some humility is called for when making assertions in domains very far outside of your expertise. Humehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471731654454581518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-10918938871711697512013-03-06T19:14:14.700-05:002013-03-06T19:14:14.700-05:00Daniel,
Are you claiming that there are only poli...Daniel,<br /><br />Are you claiming that there are only policy issues on the table and no interesting constitutional issues involved in the recent declarations/acts related to Executive power/authority? If so, are you a "critical" theorist who believes that *all* (or almost all) "constitutional" questions are really disguised policy questions? And there are no "objective" right answers regarding legal interpretation?<br /><br />If you are not, your claims are implausible. For example, you write "I can read [the Constitution] just fine myself." That may be the case, but you will be quick to notice that the power to "Declare War" rests with Congress, and such a declaration (arguably) has not been made since WWII. So right off the bat there is an interesting constitutional issue regarding the constitutionality of anything in the realm of "war" taking place at present, as well as the questions relating to the initiation and maintenance of military actions in general, and this leads to many other constitutional problems in this domain. Thus, if only Congress can declare war, then only Congress has the power to declare the identities of "enemies in war." Perhaps the Executive has commander-in-chief authority to identify and repel imminent threats against the U.S., but that is just what is disturbing about Obama's White Papers: not only is he declaring the power to identify and kill imminent threats, he also has greatly relaxed the definition of "imminent." According to the White Papers, imminence “does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future" (this is how it can wait almost a year in carrying out an assasination). So WP basically does away with any real requirement of imminence. But then, where does the Executive find such powers in the Cosntitution?<br /><br />Related to the issue of declaring individuals military enemies is a second constitutional issue: the complete lack of procedural protections in the White Papers. All that is required is that “an informed, high level official has determined..." And this procedural element is provided through a simple “balancing” test, taken from Mathews v. Eldridge (a case where Social Security benefits were being terminated, deciding whether had to receive a pre-termination hearing).<br /><br />To say that there are no constitutional issues at stake and only policy considerations in all of this is implausible.Humehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471731654454581518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-90668452979676123242013-03-06T18:39:01.759-05:002013-03-06T18:39:01.759-05:00PrometheeFeu,
Quit trying to attack Daniel's ...PrometheeFeu,<br /><br />Quit trying to attack Daniel's framing device. It is unfair I tell you! Unfair! :PThe Libertarian Standard Bearerhttp://www.thestandardisthestandard.isthestandard.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-91890642863542216992013-03-06T18:29:33.118-05:002013-03-06T18:29:33.118-05:00"I don't need you to defend my Constituti..."I don't need you to defend my Constitution or tell me what it says, Mr. Paul. I can read it just fine myself."<br /><br />Maybe you can read it just fine, but he can do stuff like filibuster. So I for one like very much the idea that he is attempting to defend the Constitution. He is "objecting to a war policy implemented by the commander in chief" on the grounds that this war policy violates the Constitution. It's quite silly of you to try to make it sound as though "objecting to a war policy implemented by the commander in chief" is somehow necessarily distinct from "defend[ing] the Constitution."<br /><br />"People freaked out about airplanes when they were developed for war too. A decade from now this allegedly valiant Constitutional stand will look stupid and we'll just be arguing about the important stuff - good and bad uses of a very lethal tool."<br /><br />Because Obama's extra-judicial killing program has been carried out primarily (or perhaps just more visibly) using drone strikes, many people refer to the extra-judicial killing program as the "drone strikes". If you read much of what has been written about the "drone strikes", (like this one just for fun http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan1.pdf ) you will see that much of the objections have to the with the extra-judicial killing part of things.<br /><br />This isn't people freaking out about drones per say. This is mostly people freaking out about what the administration is doing with these drones (extra-judicial killings) and some much more limited discussion about the drones themselves.PrometheeFeuhttp://prometheefeu.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-33460633874205844432013-03-06T16:43:55.579-05:002013-03-06T16:43:55.579-05:00Also, Daniel, what you fail to see is that if Rand...Also, Daniel, what you fail to see is that if Rand Paul thinks the 'murder Americans without a trial' is a constitutional issue and you think it is not and that Paul is merely objecting to the commander in chief's war policy, then it is at least prima facie incorrect for you to say "Thankfully most of the reporting I've seen is staying objective and presenting this as a disagreement rather than Rand Paul standing up for the Constitution against its usurpers"<br />If most of the reporting presents this as a disagreement rather than as Paul standing up for the constitution, it means that the reporting has taken a side in the debate, namely the same side you take. It doesn't mean that they're being 'objective'. You just think that it is objective because you think that position is the correct one. But similarly then Rand Paul could say that the people who portray him as standing up for the constitution are doing objective reporting. <br /><br />Now of course if Rand Paul's position was just silly and the position you and the reporters take the obviosuly correct one, then yes, you could say the reporting is 'objective', but it would be quite a stretch to say that Paul's point is just silly and doesn;t have anything going for it. It seems to me that at the very least there is room for sensible debate on this matter, that there is something to say for the view that the question as to whether the administration has the right to kill Americans (and non-Americans) on American soil without a trial is a constitutional question, and that trying to speak out against that right would then be a way of defending the constitution. This is obviously not just a silly position that can be dismissed. <br /><br /><br />Also, it seems as if you think that Rand Paul is merely inquiring about drones ("People freaked out about airplanes when they were developed for war too. A decade from now this allegedly valiant Constitutional stand will look stupid and we'll just be arguing about the important stuff - good and bad uses of a very lethal tool.") but that's just not true at all. Just read Paul's actual questions here <br />http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan1.pdf<br />http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan2.pdf<br />http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan3.pdf<br />Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-58032795931384524732013-03-06T16:31:17.032-05:002013-03-06T16:31:17.032-05:00Those Paul's! They're just terrible peopl...Those Paul's! They're just terrible people for selling their brand of politics, etc. with some success! :PThe Libertarian Standard Bearerhttp://www.thestandardisthestandard.isthestandard.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-2460840642602433902013-03-06T16:26:26.399-05:002013-03-06T16:26:26.399-05:00well, I sure am curious as to your rhetorical flou...well, I sure am curious as to your rhetorical flourishes aimed at the Supreme court.Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-72301005362076796882013-03-06T16:23:41.554-05:002013-03-06T16:23:41.554-05:00Yes, I am actually arguing this and holy crap, are...Yes, I am actually arguing this and holy crap, are you actually even questioning that 'at will' is justifiable in a similar manner as 'zombie economics' would be? <br /><br />Also, your second paragraph actually undermines the indignation of your first paragraph. <br /><br />It's too bad we can't aks Orwell ourselves. i would have bet plenty a bitcoin that he would have agreed with me rather than with you.Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-11730712946348524452013-03-06T16:19:02.404-05:002013-03-06T16:19:02.404-05:00Also, it's remarkable how successful Obama and...Also, it's remarkable how successful Obama and his posse have been in getting people to think that all sorts of criminal behavior is justified because that behavior is done in the context of war and Obama is the commander in chief.<br /><br />I mean, if you say that the war on terror will never end, that the whole world is a battlefield, and that you don't have to actually prove that the people you kill actually were up to no good, then yes, any kind of murder would be justified by an appeal to "but it's war and I'm the commander in chief". <br /><br />Koenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14226133743749804429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-65782590201654940792013-03-06T16:17:35.124-05:002013-03-06T16:17:35.124-05:00Holy crap Narrator. Are you really arguing this?
...Holy crap Narrator. Are you really arguing this?<br /><br />"Peace is war" is pretty vivid too but Orwell stood pretty firmly against that distortion of language. Powerful honest prose is one thing. Powerful dishonest prose is another thing entirely.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com