Obama Says He Wants to Debate Civil Liberties With Romney LOL!!!!!

[Valandui]

Okay. So you're saying Romney is a liar whose positions have changed for the worse. No disagreement here.



That seems unnecessarily grandiose. In the book 1984 everyone has a TV in their house with a camera on it that watches them constantly. The abuses of civil liberties in this country troubles me greatly but I think it's important to keep some perspective on these matters and recognize just how truly free this country is. That's not an excuse not to agitate, and to fight every abuse. But still, let's keep our brains inside our heads.



So you recognize that Obama's positions are at least somewhat (or marginally, or however you want to phrase it) better, but just don't believe there will be any follow through. Is that a fair summary?

If so, why trust the libertarian party or any party candidate? What reason do you have to believe they would do any different? Or is it simply a vote registered in protest of the status quo and for a certain ideology?

I'm saying he's a liar who's positions haven't changed at all.

[TheWalrus]

Voting records and actions usually means a ton. That's why I would never vote for Obama or Romney. My vote is going to Johnson this year. IMO both these candidates won't hesitate to take our freedoms away and will have no regard for the constitution at all. That's the fact. Now we could agrue tactics and who's less tyrannical but at the end of the day we have less freedoms and more government no matter who wins. A better analogy would be with or without lube because make no mistake we're taking it in the a$$ when it comes to liberties in this country. With Romney it's expected but with Obama shouldn't you expect more from a constitutional lawyer???

Well, then you're actually a good person to ask about this. Johnson has stated he would only appoint originalists to the Supreme Court. However, most originalists agree that an explicit right to privacy -- which I assume you believe in, as a champion of civil liberties -- does not exist within the Constitution. Where do you stand on this?

[Dolphins9954]

Well, then you're actually a good person to ask about this. Johnson has stated he would only appoint originalists to the Supreme Court. However, most originalists agree that an explicit right to privacy -- which I assume you believe in, as a champion of civil liberties -- does not exist within the Constitution. Where do you stand on this?

I think the 4th amendment gives us some form of privacy. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". I do know he's against things like the patriot act and warrantless searches because they do violate our 4th amendment rights.

[TheWalrus]

I think the 4th amendment gives us some form of privacy. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". I do know he's against things like the patriot act and warrantless searches because they do violate our 4th amendment rights.

You might think that, but it's not legal doctrine. Only by inference can one make the leap that the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments taken as a whole guarantee a right to privacy. Originalists or texualists or whatever the prevailing term is believe that since the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy, none exists. Without the inference that those amendments refer to a general "zone" of privacy, there is no legal basis to uphold abortion rights, nor is there basis to overturn a ban on contraceptives for married couples (as Griswold v. Connecticut did), or to overturn a ban on sodomy as in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas (over the dissents of Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas -- the three originalists on the court at that time).

Were Johnson to be elected (which obviously isn't going to happen, but since you're voting for him is a reasonable way of looking at it), more originalists would pack the court, enough perhaps to overturn some of these decisions. Perhaps even over his own policy preferences, if I'm reading his Wikipedia page correctly. But that's why judicial theory matters. Romney posses a similar preference for justices, and they're both, for my money, on the wrong side of it.

[Dolphins9954]

You might think that, but it's not legal doctrine. Only by inference can one make the leap that the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments taken as a whole guarantee a right to privacy. Originalists or texualists or whatever the prevailing term is believe that since the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy, none exists. Without the inference that those amendments refer to a general "zone" of privacy, there is no legal basis to uphold abortion rights, nor is there basis to overturn a ban on contraceptives for married couples (as Griswold v. Connecticut did), or to overturn a ban on sodomy as in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas (over the dissents of Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas -- the three originalists on the court at that time).

Were Johnson to be elected (which obviously isn't going to happen, but since you're voting for him is a reasonable way of looking at it), more originalists would pack the court, enough perhaps to overturn some of these decisions. Perhaps even over his own policy preferences, if I'm reading his Wikipedia page correctly. But that's why judicial theory matters. Romney posses a similar preference for justices, and they're both, for my money, on the wrong side of it.

You really think Johnson and Romney would nominate the same justices?

[TheWalrus]

You really think Johnson and Romney would nominate the same justices?

Gary Johnson: “I would appoint Supreme Court justices based on their commitment to interpreting the constitution on the basis of original intent,” he explains. “That needs to be the fundamental criterion for a Supreme Court justice. Though I would not ask them their opinion on Roe v. Wade [the 1973 Supreme Court ruling which declared abortion a constitutional right], it is my understanding that, based on that criterion, that Supreme Court justices would in fact overturn it,” thereby rendering abortion a subject for each individual state to legislate on."


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Romney, as usual, is vague on this issue, but here's what his Web site says: "There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated. At other points, the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history." And also, "The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles."


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The same exact judges? Probably not. But it's the same judicial philosophy: originalism/textualism. Neither contain an express right to privacy. Only a living constitutionalist (ie liberal) judge believes in such "emanations".

[Dolphins9954]

Gary Johnson: “I would appoint Supreme Court justices based on their commitment to interpreting the constitution on the basis of original intent,” he explains. “That needs to be the fundamental criterion for a Supreme Court justice. Though I would not ask them their opinion on Roe v. Wade [the 1973 Supreme Court ruling which declared abortion a constitutional right], it is my understanding that, based on that criterion, that Supreme Court justices would in fact overturn it,” thereby rendering abortion a subject for each individual state to legislate on."


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Romney, as usual, is vague on this issue, but here's what his Web site says: "There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated. At other points, the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history." And also, "The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles."


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The same exact judges? Probably not. But it's the same judicial philosophy: originalism/textualism. Neither contain an express right to privacy. Only a living constitutionalist (ie liberal) judge believes in such "emanations".

Johnson is pro-choice. I'm pretty sure without a doubt that a candidate who's positions on civil liberties, which are the total polar opposite of Romney's, would nominate totally different justices. Hell even the ACLU is a fan.....

GOVERNOR GARY JOHNSON TOPS OBAMA, PAUL ON ACLU CONSTITUTIONAL REPORT CARD


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheWalrus]

Johnson is pro-choice. I'm pretty sure without a doubt that a candidate who's positions on civil liberties, which are the total polar opposite of Romney's, would nominate totally different justices. Hell even the ACLU is a fan.....

GOVERNOR GARY JOHNSON TOPS OBAMA, PAUL ON ACLU CONSTITUTIONAL REPORT CARD


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Johnson is personally pro-choice, and his policies reflect a libertarian viewpoint, but his philosophy regarding judges would -- even by his own estimation -- eventually ensure that Roe, and many other decisions based on an inferred "privacy" guarantee, would be overturned.

I think that's what you're sort of ignoring here, the implications of having a Supreme Court full of Constitutional originalists of the kind Johnson says he would nominate. Here's the country's most prominent originalist on the subject:



Originalism is not compatible with a generalized belief in the right to privacy. Now, they're more likely to broadly define the right to bear arms, which is something I agree with. But privacy to me is the bigger issue. If that wall is breached, then all of your worst bogey men might truly become reality.

[Dolphins9954]

Johnson is personally pro-choice, and his policies reflect a libertarian viewpoint, but his philosophy regarding judges would -- even by his own estimation -- eventually ensure that Roe, and many other decisions based on an inferred "privacy" guarantee, would be overturned.

I think that's what you're sort of ignoring here, the implications of having a Supreme Court full of Constitutional originalists of the kind Johnson says he would nominate. Here's the country's most prominent originalist on the subject:



Originalism is not compatible with a generalized belief in the right to privacy. Now, they're more likely to broadly define the right to bear arms, which is something I agree with. But privacy to me is the bigger issue. If that wall is breached, then all of your worst bogey men might truly become reality.

Hasn't that wall already been breached with things like the patriot act, warrantless searches, TSA and the drug war? You say "liberals" believe in privacy but yet Obama is a living and prime example of that not being the case. Obama/Bush/Romney don't give 2 sh!ts about our privacy and have no problem trappling on it. For me I would rather take my chances on civil liberties and privacy with a candidate that actually values them and doesn't support policies and laws that infringe on those rights. Fact is Obama has proven to be just as bad as Bush or even worse like the ACLU has stated.

The ACLU on Obama and core liberties


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheWalrus]

Hasn't that wall already been breached with things like the patriot act, warrantless searches, TSA and the drug war? You say "liberals" believe in privacy but yet Obama is a living and prime example of that not being the case. Obama/Bush/Romney don't give 2 sh!ts about our privacy and have no problem trappling on it. For me I would rather take my chances on civil liberties and privacy with a candidate that actually values them and doesn't support policies and laws that infringe on those rights. Fact is Obama has proven to be just as bad as Bush or even worse like the ACLU has stated.

The ACLU on Obama and core liberties


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Obama. It just seems inconsistent to me that you would vote for Gary Johnson when the kind of judges he would appoint wouldn't uphold the right to privacy.

It's a key issue with libertarianism generally, in my view. Gary Johnson can feel very strongly on a personal level about these issues, but his philosophy on government would by it's very nature prevent him from imposing himself on the system and his judicial philosophy would ensure that the right to privacy didn't exist in the Supreme Court. Perhaps he would be dismayed by the results, but he's a small government guy. What's he going to do about it? You can only "protect" civil liberties as President if you have an expansive enough view of the role of the federal government to regulate those areas.

It reminds me of the situation James Buchanan faced in the 1850s. He felt succession was deeply wrong, yet he decided he had no legal standing to prevent it. As a result, he did nothing, with very nearly calamitous results.