Former Sen. Fred Thompson may run

[Eleven Mike]

Of course it would be easier (in the short term) not to enforce various laws.  It would be easier for a kosher Jew to eat ham sandwiches and cheeseburgers and just quit being so picky.  But such considerations are not the only standard by which to establish rules. 

[HankB]

It'd be a lot easier to change the law to make people legal than to enforce the unworkable system we have today.  But you knew that already.

Doing the right thing is usually harder than taking the easy way out, and invariably gives better results in the long term. But I suspect a rabbi would know that . . .

[The Rabbi]

And these responses from the same crowd that wants to legalize drugs because present laws obviously aren't working.  Talk about double standards....

[Matthew Carberry]

Don't forget that Fred Thompson (if I remember right, only really watched for Ms. Proctor) portrayed a very statesmanlike conservative Senatorial opponent to Martin Sheen's President on "West Wing" and a balanced conservative DA to Sam Waterson's ADA on "Law and Order".

He would have a positive recognition factor from that and the movies among the "not totally liberal nut jobs" Volvo and latte set.  The undecideds that are turned off by extremism that we need to win.

If he can present his conservative-smallish gov. ideas half as well as Reagan, as common-sensical and phrased/presented properly, he isn't necessarily going uphill.

[Matthew Carberry]

And these responses from the same crowd that wants to legalize drugs because present laws obviously aren't working.  Talk about double standards....

False analogy.

Drug laws as currently written and enforced arguably violate Constitutional restrictions on Federal power and have led to egregious violations of rights to property and security from searches and a host of others.

Existing immigration laws are Constitutional and in fact are a necessary part of national sovereignty. 

Apples and oranges.

[Eleven Mike]

And these responses from the same crowd that wants to legalize drugs because present laws obviously aren't working.  Talk about double standards....

I guess you're not talking about me.  I'm not in the drug-legalizing "crowd."  If I ever join, it will have much more to do with the druggie's right to destroy himself than the efficacy of the laws in question.  Try as I might, I can't locate a basic human right to enter a foreign country.  Tell me if you find one.

[auschip]

And these responses from the same crowd that wants to legalize drugs because present laws obviously aren't working.  Talk about double standards....

False analogy.

Drug laws as currently written and enforced arguably violate Constitutional restrictions on Federal power and have led to egregious violations of rights to property and security from searches and a host of others.

Existing immigration laws are Constitutional and in fact are a necessary part of national sovereignty. 

Apples and oranges.

Just to be a bit of a Devil's Advocate, but where in the Constitution does it talk about citizenship and immigration?  The 14th amendment says anyone born inside the US is a citizen, and Title 8 of the US code fills those details in further.  However, it doesn't specifically mention more then that.  Heck, the act of asking for proof of citizenship could be said to "violate Constitutional restrictions on Federal power" and could lead "to egregious violations of rights to property and security from searches and a host of others".

Edited to add, I am interested in hearing more about Sen. Thompson, since I haven't seen one current candidate that I like.   

[Matthew Carberry]

No, you've got it. 

Other than mandating that "anyone born in the US is a citizen" there is no Constitutional restriction on the Fed. or states from determining entrance or citizenship requirements.

Non-citizens have the same rights of citizens (and only the same rights) under the law except the right to stay in the country without permission. 

As far as other such things go, if it is legal for them to, say, buy and own property as illegals without committing fraud or another disqualifying crime, then that property cannot be seized other than within Constitutional guidelines, but they can be deported for violating Constitutional entry requirements and thus be required to manage it long-distance.

Further the Fed or states controlling the movement of non-citizens over the borders is inherently part of providing for the common defense.

[The Rabbi]

And these responses from the same crowd that wants to legalize drugs because present laws obviously aren't working.  Talk about double standards....

False analogy.

Drug laws as currently written and enforced arguably violate Constitutional restrictions on Federal power and have led to egregious violations of rights to property and security from searches and a host of others.

Existing immigration laws are Constitutional and in fact are a necessary part of national sovereignty. 

Apples and oranges.

That's a nonsensical argument.  No court has held that existing drug laws in toto are unconstitutional.  You're saying so don't make it so.
As for a human right, how about "pursuit of happiness" as one of the basic inalienable rights of man?

[Eleven Mike]

As for a human right, how about "pursuit of happiness" as one of the basic inalienable rights of man?

Please explain how the right to pursuit of happiness guarantees specific things like working or living in the nation of one's choice. 

[The Rabbi]

Please explain how the right to life guarantees that you're going to live until tomorrow, or how the right to liberty guarantees anything.
There are no guarantees.  But people should be free to pursue their own betterment, and laws restricting immigration hamper that pursuit.  Just as a law that mandated union membership would.  And note that the Founders held that "all men" had that right.
And on that idea, there is no enumerated power to regulate immigration mentioned in the constitution and therefore any laws pursuant to that are unconstitutional.

[Lee]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I guess I missed the "We the people of the world" part

[Eleven Mike]

Please explain how the right to life guarantees that you're going to live until tomorrow, or how the right to liberty guarantees anything.

So you understand my point that "the right to the purfuit of happineff" isn't much of an argument for anything.  But you keep trying to use it.  See below.

But people should be free to pursue their own betterment, and laws restricting immigration hamper that pursuit. 

   

Again, the fact that immigration laws are an inconvenience for some people, does not make them bad policy.  See below.

But people should be free to pursue their own betterment, and laws restricting drugs hamper that pursuit. 

[The Rabbi]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I guess I missed the "We the people of the world" part

No, you quoted the wrong document.

[Matthew Carberry]

And these responses from the same crowd that wants to legalize drugs because present laws obviously aren't working.  Talk about double standards....

False analogy.

Drug laws as currently written and enforced arguably violate Constitutional restrictions on Federal power and have led to egregious violations of rights to property and security from searches and a host of others.

Existing immigration laws are Constitutional and in fact are a necessary part of national sovereignty. 

Apples and oranges.

That's a nonsensical argument.  No court has held that existing drug laws in toto are unconstitutional.  You're saying so don't make it so.
As for a human right, how about "pursuit of happiness" as one of the basic inalienable rights of man?

Just skip over "arguably"?  You seem awful imprecise lately, which isn't like you.

There is much dissension in over whether the particulars of various drug laws are Constitutional.  That's not my baseless assertion, it's an opinion vocally and publically shared, to a range of degrees, by various attorneys, sitting judges, politicians, ordinary voters and Supreme Court justices around the country.

That the laws have not been found to be unConstitutional at this point is not only irrelevant to whether they arguably are but is also not definitive as to whether they actually are.  Since  unConstitutional legislation is hardly unknown and its Constitutionality can only be determined over time by the number and types of legal challenges that have been made and refuted.

The "pursuit of happiness (property)" does not, by definition, include the right to pursue that happiness (property) while treading on the rights of others.  Violating the law, if the law is Constitutional, to seize happiness (property) can both directly and indirectly impinge on the rights of others to do the same within the law.

Immigrants are free to immigrate and "pursue" by following the laws and procedures set down to accomplish that status legally.  There's no right to break an arguably Constitutional law and not accept the consequences, in this case deportation.  If you want to say the Fed can't regulate immigration, fine, since states are free to regulate their own borders except in the case of the free travel of actual citizens.

[auschip]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I guess I missed the "We the people of the world" part

Big difference between "We the People of the United States", and "We the citizens of the United States".  Then again, it would be an interesting argument to consider that the AmerInd possibly wasn't considered a part of the "people" of the United States.

[The Rabbi]

And these responses from the same crowd that wants to legalize drugs because present laws obviously aren't working.  Talk about double standards....

False analogy.

Drug laws as currently written and enforced arguably violate Constitutional restrictions on Federal power and have led to egregious violations of rights to property and security from searches and a host of others.

Existing immigration laws are Constitutional and in fact are a necessary part of national sovereignty. 

Apples and oranges.

That's a nonsensical argument.  No court has held that existing drug laws in toto are unconstitutional.  You're saying so don't make it so.
As for a human right, how about "pursuit of happiness" as one of the basic inalienable rights of man?

Just skip over "arguably"?  You seem awful imprecise lately, which isn't like you.

There is much dissension in over whether the particulars of various drug laws are Constitutional.  That's not my baseless assertion, it's an opinion vocally and publically shared, to a range of degrees, by various attorneys, sitting judges, politicians, ordinary voters and Supreme Court justices around the country.

That the laws have not been found to be unConstitutional at this point is not only irrelevant to whether they arguably are but is also not definitive as to whether they actually are.  Since  unConstitutional legislation is hardly unknown and its Constitutionality can only be determined over time by the number and types of legal challenges that have been made and refuted.

The "pursuit of happiness (property)" does not, by definition, include the right to pursue that happiness (property) while treading on the rights of others.  Violating the law, if the law is Constitutional, to seize happiness (property) can both directly and indirectly impinge on the rights of others to do the same within the law.

Immigrants are free to immigrate and "pursue" by following the laws and procedures set down to accomplish that status legally.  There's no right to break an arguably Constitutional law and not accept the consequences, in this case deportation.  If you want to say the Fed can't regulate immigration, fine, since states are free to regulate their own borders except in the case of the free travel of actual citizens.

So first you posit that drug laws are "arguably" unconstitutional and therefore null and now you want to say it is only an argument so the analogy isnt valid.
Do you actually know what argument you want to make anymore?
Laws are unconstitutional only when they are ruled to be so.  Since no court of law has ruled that all drug laws in toto are unconstitutional they are not.  Just because people argue that Greek and Roman civilizations were invented by the monks in the middle ages, or that the Jews were an African tribe, or any hundreds of nonsensical idiotic theories doesnt make them true.
So, now we have dispelled the idea that drug laws are unconstitutional.  The analogy between drug laws and immigration laws is valid.  If people believe that drug laws are unjust and punishing the wrong people and we need to change them then equally we can argue that immigration laws are unjust and we need to change them.  I so make that argument.
Immigration laws are not inherently holy or inherently good.  They were not handed down to our forefathers and are not a bedrock of civilization and core belief.  They are mutable depending on circumstances.
And the circumstance of today is that the laws are a shambles and unworkable.  Throwing more money and more energy at enforcement is a waste of taxpayer dollars and accomplishes nothing, except to move us closer to a police state.  It is the worst sort of statism to tell people where they may or may not live or whom they may or may not employ.
So by both theory and practice the current system and its enforcement regiment is unworkable and undesirable.  It must be changed.

[Matthew Carberry]

Again, if you'll read with precision, I didn't argue that drug laws were "null and void" for any reason, I argued they should be overturned and removed because they were unConstitutional, which is a very different argument. 

I believe that they are arguably unConstitutional and will be adjudged to be so at some time in the future.  I also believe that that argument is valid and can be cogently made based on available evidence and historical analysis of the Constitutional intent of the founding fathers.  As far as my view goes, drug laws are not only unConstitutional (based on my and others take on existing evidence and history) but they are also, based on examples of current law enforcement and judicial efforts, poorly written and impossible to effectively enforce without further Constitutional violations.  Those are two very separate arguments against them with different evidence and supports.  One on Constitutional grounds and one on practical.

Asserting that there is a valid argument with demonstrably valid evidence for or against something is utterly different from making a baseless assertion such as

Greek and Roman civilizations were invented by the monks in the middle ages, or that the Jews were an African tribe, or any hundreds of nonsensical idiotic theories

.  You can disagree with me and all the other folks who believe an argument is cogent and valid, but you cheapen your own credibility and character by resorting to such idiotic and childish analogies and straw man assertions based on actual misreading of your opponents statements, or, in this case, statements they never in fact made nor implied.

At least adhere to common principles of logic and debate so we can talk like grown-ups.

As far as immigration laws go, I believe, again in concert with other credible intellectual and legal minds both professional and amateur, that there is sufficient evidence to support an assertion that they, unlike drug laws, are in fact Constitutional and will be adjudged so when challenged, or, at least, are appropriate and allowable under the Constitution for the several states to enact on their own.  I also believe, based on the successes of several state and local level efforts, that such laws are, in fact, not "unworkable" if properly enforced.  Again, two very different basis for my position, one of Constitutionality and one of practicality.  There is more than enough difference and nuance in the reasoning I use for both arguments (drug and immigration) that they are patently not contradictory in any way, regardless of your sophisticated "yes they ARE!" counter. 

Again, you may disagree with my position an any number of things, but the mere fact you disagree does not make my argument either logically invalid or intellectually untenable regardless if it is actually correct or not.

You can be objectively wrong and still have a valid, internally consistant and supportable argument, that's Logic 101.

[Perd Hapley]

It is the worst sort of statism to tell people where they may or may not live or whom they may or may not employ.

That's good for a laugh, but really, how can you claim that immigrants and their employers have the right to do that which is illegal, when you have repeatedly asserted that rights are dependent on law?  Are you now saying that rights transcend law? 

[The Rabbi]

Again, if you'll read with precision, I didn't argue that drug laws were "null and void" for any reason, I argued they should be overturned and removed because they were unConstitutional, which is a very different argument. 

I believe that they are arguably unConstitutional and will be adjudged to be so at some time in the future.  I also believe that that argument is valid and can be cogently made based on available evidence and historical analysis of the Constitutional intent of the founding fathers.  As far as my view goes, drug laws are not only unConstitutional (based on my and others take on existing evidence and history) but they are also, based on examples of current law enforcement and judicial efforts, poorly written and impossible to effectively enforce without further Constitutional violations.  Those are two very separate arguments against them with different evidence and supports.  One on Constitutional grounds and one on practical.

Asserting that there is a valid argument with demonstrably valid evidence for or against something is utterly different from making a baseless assertion such as

Greek and Roman civilizations were invented by the monks in the middle ages, or that the Jews were an African tribe, or any hundreds of nonsensical idiotic theories

.  You can disagree with me and all the other folks who believe an argument is cogent and valid, but you cheapen your own credibility and character by resorting to such idiotic and childish analogies and straw man assertions based on actual misreading of your opponents statements, or, in this case, statements they never in fact made nor implied.

At least adhere to common principles of logic and debate so we can talk like grown-ups.

As far as immigration laws go, I believe, again in concert with other credible intellectual and legal minds both professional and amateur, that there is sufficient evidence to support an assertion that they, unlike drug laws, are in fact Constitutional and will be adjudged so when challenged, or, at least, are appropriate and allowable under the Constitution for the several states to enact on their own.  I also believe, based on the successes of several state and local level efforts, that such laws are, in fact, not "unworkable" if properly enforced.  Again, two very different basis for my position, one of Constitutionality and one of practicality.  There is more than enough difference and nuance in the reasoning I use for both arguments (drug and immigration) that they are patently not contradictory in any way, regardless of your sophisticated "yes they ARE!" counter. 

Again, you may disagree with my position an any number of things, but the mere fact you disagree does not make my argument either logically invalid or intellectually untenable regardless if it is actually correct or not.

You can be objectively wrong and still have a valid, internally consistant and supportable argument, that's Logic 101.

Excuse me.  You sought to make a distinction between drug laws and immigration laws based on constutionality.  I point out there is nothing unconstitutional about either one, regardless of your opinion in the matter.  Whether some court will declare either one unconstitutional at some point in the future is irrelevant and unknowable.

[Matthew Carberry]

I disagree that it is not possible for a law to actually be unConstitutional and yet not have been found unConstitutional yet, if only because not all laws are challenged at their outset and some decisions on Constitutionality that have been made are based on patently specious reasoning by politicized courts.

[The Rabbi]

I disagree that it is not possible for a law to actually be unConstitutional and yet not have been found unConstitutional yet, if only because not all laws are challenged at their outset and some decisions on Constitutionality that have been made are based on patently specious reasoning by politicized courts.

What objective standard would you use to determine whether a law is unconstitutional if not actual court decisions?
McCain-Feingold is constitutional.  The Supreme Court held as much.  I think the law sucks and should be unconstitutional.  But it doesn't really matter what I think or anyone else thinks.

[Matthew Carberry]

I disagree that it is not possible for a law to actually be unConstitutional and yet not have been found unConstitutional yet, if only because not all laws are challenged at their outset and some decisions on Constitutionality that have been made are based on patently specious reasoning by politicized courts.

What objective standard would you use to determine whether a law is unconstitutional if not actual court decisions?
McCain-Feingold is constitutional.  The Supreme Court held as much.  I think the law sucks and should be unconstitutional.  But it doesn't really matter what I think or anyone else thinks.

True, it will always be subjective until decision, but you can look at the folks who either support it or not, and the facts they use as the basis of their position and determine whether the argument for or against is valid and/or legally and logically persuasive.  That an opinion is subjective and contradicted by a particular court decision does not necessarily mean it is objectively incorrect in truth or matters of fact.  Courts can be wrong and or crooked.

Just today, DC's gun ban which was prima facia "Constitutional" due to never having been successfully challenged, was overturned.  By reading the decision and the arguments on both sides one could make a subjective decision that, in fact, it was unCon. from the start and only biased legal readings and tortuous interpretations of standing law kept it in place so long.

Given the strength of one argument and the weakness of the other I would go sa far as to say that an objective viewer with full information would have decided it unCon. long ago and it was only the contrived prejudice of the prior courts that kept it in place so long.

Ditto, McCain-Feingold and most modern legislation utilizing the modern, "pragmatic" interpretation of the Commerce Clause as justification. 

The opinion of unCon is subjective, but the reasoning and evidence to support it is objectively greater.  Get rid of the oftimes openly stated bias of the Courts deciding the cases and that palpably objective "truth" would become fact and reality.

[MechAg94]

Rabbi, quit now before you dig your hole deeper. 


This is just my opinion and is not claimed explicitly or implicitly to be constitutional nor unconstitutional.

[MechAg94]

Soooo, Thompson may be a candidate worth looking at.  We'll just have to see.  I have been somewhat disappointed with the candidates that have declared so far.