Proof Positive, New Jersey is run by idiots

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Please support this by quoting any relevant portions of the US or any state's constitution.

I had my government class read this thread and comment on it...while they mostly think it is stupid to even consider this type of legislation, they were able to find parts of the Constitution of the United States that would argue that creating this legislation would be acceptable.

The Preamble mentions "general welfare." Safety may fall under general welfare clause.

Article I, Section 8 mentions "...all laws necessary and proper..." This may well be used to argue for allowing this type of legislation.

Not bad for a bunch of emotionally disturbed, learning disabled children!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

The Preamble mentions "general welfare." Article I, Section 8 mentions "...all laws necessary and proper..."

True enough, but the Bible also gives us this command, "Thou shalt ... kill". You just have to ignore the context.

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dakota

True enough, but the Bible also gives us this command, "Thou shalt ... kill". You just have to ignore the context.

I shared your comment with them just now...and they took rather heated offense, as if you were insulting them. I informed them that you were NOT trying to insult them; rather, it is just in your nature to be rude . They are currently preparing a rebuttal on why it is WOULD be in context of the constitution (and as an extension, case law decisions) for this type of law to be made.

The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do." Then again, this guy has more experience with the legal system than many practicing lawyers!

Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours.

It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!

HAVE A GREAT DAY!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

I shared your comment with them just now...and they took rather heated offense, as if you were insulting them. I informed them that you were NOT trying to insult them; rather, it is just in your nature to be rude .

The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do."

You are completely misunderstanding my position here, so with you as the conduit, it is no doubt so are your little darlings.

I have no doubt that case law and court precedence would uphold such a law. But that is because courts in the 20th century have done great violence to the constitution with the reading of the commerce clause to mean, basically, "any darn thing that congress wants to regulate." We are at a position in this country where there are no surviving limits on federal power left in the constitution because neither the congress nor the executive nor the people have the guts to stand up for THEIR rights under the constitution and instead allow the courts to be the final arbitor of all things. Hell, we even have recent Supreme Court rulings based on European law, fer cryin' out loud!

If you want to have a meaningful debate, make it about the constitutional concept of limited federal powers. Start with what the founders actually wrote, and debate how much of that is left intact at the beginning of the 21st century.

Besides, this OP is about New Jersey, not the federal government. The constitution grants far more powers to the states than it does to the feds (as if that even matters anymore).

Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours.

No, but I will blow your opinion off, since, ...

It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!

...it is even sadder when an instructor in government does not even recognize (or worse, refuses to recognize; or pretends to not recognize) when a debate is about strict constructionism vs. living document schools of constitutional rulings.

HAVE A GREAT DAY!

You, too.

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You are completely misunderstanding my position here, so with you as the conduit, it is no doubt so are your little darlings.

I have no doubt that case law and court precedence would uphold such a law. But that is because courts in the 20th century have done great violence to the constitution with the reading of the commerce clause to mean, basically, "any darn thing that congress wants to regulate." We are at a position in this country where there are no surviving limits on federal power left in the constitution because neither the congress nor the executive nor the people have the guts to stand up for THEIR rights under the constitution and instead allow the courts to be the final arbitor of all things. Hell, we even have recent Supreme Court rulings based on European law, fer cryin' out loud!

If you want to have a meaningful debate, make it about the constitutional concept of limited federal powers. Start with what the founders actually wrote, and debate how much of that is left intact at the beginning of the 21st century.

Besides, this OP is about New Jersey, not the federal government. The constitution grants far more powers to the states than it does to the feds (as if that even matters anymore).

No, but I will blow your opinion off, since, ...
...it is even sadder when an instructor in government does not even recognize (or worse, refuses to recognize; or pretends to not recognize) when a debate is about strict constructionism vs. living document schools of constitutional rulings.

You, too.

I cannot respond for my class, although I know how they're going to respond.

I can reply for me: I've been one of the best government teachers in the state for years...teachers ask ME how to debate items...I know pretty much every side of every issue...for you to judge me based on what you read here is, well, ignorant. Are you sure you're not from New Jersey? (please understand this is a little humor...very little) Like many people, you fail to the reality of the situation, and you (at least via your posts) apply only what you want to apply to the situation. But what else can I expect? Like every American who ever attended school, you know better than any teacher, right? (Lots of sarcasm here)

I'm having a great day, how about you?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

I cannot respond for my class, although I know how they're going to respond.

I can reply for me: I've been one of the best government teachers in the state for years...teachers ask ME how to debate items...I know pretty much every side of every issue...for you to judge me based on what you read here is, well, ignorant. Are you sure you're not from New Jersey? (please understand this is a little humor...very little) Like many people, you fail to the reality of the situation, and you (at least via your posts) apply only what you want to apply to the situation. But what else can I expect? Like every American who ever attended school, you know better than any teacher, right? (Lots of sarcasm here)

I'm having a great day, how about you?

You haven't addressed the issue at all; only hurled insults, declared self-proclaimed expertise, and revealed yourself to be, apparently, only able to demean instead of debate. Apparently you are used to intimidating people. Good luck with that.

You are the one who declares things about me based on a shallow reading of what I am saying. If you are such a great government teacher, why is it you have still not addressed the issue of limited powers of the federal government?

So, oh great government teacher, what DO you think about enumerated powers? Does the concept have any meaning left? Do you think that is a good thing?

Can you debate an issue without belittling? Are you used to indoctrinating or teaching? Do you allow contrary views in your class, or do you intimidate, ridicule, and insult and call that debate?

Bottom line: I don't care what you "think" since it seems you have forgotten how.

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You haven't addressed the issue at all; only hurled insults, declared self-proclaimed expertise, and revealed yourself to be, apparently, only able to demean instead of debate. Apparently you are used to intimidating people. Good luck with that.

You are the one who declares things about me based on a shallow reading of what I am saying. If you are such a great government teacher, why is it you have still not addressed the issue of limited powers of the federal government?

So, oh great government teacher, what DO you think about enumerated powers? Does the concept have any meaning left? Do you think that is a good thing?

Can you debate an issue without belittling? Are you used to indoctrinating or teaching? Do you allow contrary views in your class, or do you intimidate, ridicule, and insult and call that debate?

Bottom line: I don't care what you "think" since it seems you have forgotten how.

I believe it was you who hurled the first insult by dismissing what my students said. I currently see 4 insults in your reply. Look in the mirror before you speak to me anymore.

I'd be glad to discuss all the issues in a true debate setting: Not the word twisting I see here.

[Dakota]

You believe wrong, but, hey, I'm just a poor slob who has the temerity to challenge a school teacher. (OK, increase your insult count by one. I thought I should tell you that since you seem incapable of recognizing the real insults. Now increase it by another one.)

Let's see, in my first reply to you, all I said was your recounting of what your darlings said was out of context. It was. Just because they are of the mentality that they took this "as if" I was insulting them does not mean I was. But, street thugs probably have a different definition of being insulted. Then, you then said, among other things,

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

...it is just in your nature to be rude . ... Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours. ... It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!

I generally (but not completely) ignored these digs, and instead focused on this comment...

The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do."

Which told me you (and therefore, they) did not understand my point. I was expressing a political opinion on the proper interpretation of the consitution, not stating what I think our current legislatures can do or what the courts would find legal.

I did, indeed, respond in kind to your IQ of 60 dig. But, you started it.

You still have not addressed the issue of enumerated powers. Do you not understand the issue, or do you just not wish to address it?

[Skahtboi]

I have oft read, and marvelled at the wisdom of Mr. Jefferson. Here is a quote that really seems to fit this original post:

"Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves."

[FUBLUE]

Justification does not lead to vindication.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

Justification does not lead to vindication.

Neither do short, meaningless, quips.

So, what about enumerated powers?

[Dakota]

I voted for #3! Send 'em all here... they'll go running, screaming into the night!

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I voted for #3! Send 'em all here... they'll go running, screaming into the night!

Probably the one statement you have made in this thread that won't bring an argument.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

I had my government class read this thread and comment on it...while they mostly think it is stupid to even consider this type of legislation, they were able to find parts of the Constitution of the United States that would argue that creating this legislation would be acceptable.

The Preamble mentions "general welfare." Safety may fall under general welfare clause.

Article I, Section 8 mentions "...all laws necessary and proper..." This may well be used to argue for allowing this type of legislation.

Not bad for a bunch of emotionally disturbed, learning disabled children!

Now define "general welfare" and "necessary and proper".

There is a reason that only titanium bats have been banned based on the alloy used. It is the only alloy that could be proven to increase the speed of the ball. No other alloy or composite carries that distinction in the world of softball. IOW, there is absolutely no proof that the bat itself causes a dangerous environment. IOW, this law cannot be proven as a remedy, so how would this law be to the benefit of the general welfare, or necessary or proper to enact?

In my mind, it would be "necessary and proper" to return to the whipping post as a means of punishment for convicted criminals because it benefits the "general welfare" of the community. And I have an argument to accompany this. Would a criminal (dealer, user, thief, etc.) knowingly commit a crime in your community where the punishment would be 30 lashes and 5 years or go down down the road where the punishment would be 5-7 years? Granted, many criminals are not that smart and think doing the time is easy, but they know pain.

I'm sure some in your class would be repulsed by the idea of a whipping post. Then ask them, if they had to commit a crime to survive, and had an option of a jurisdiction with flogging as opposed to one without, where would they commit the crime

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Now define "general welfare" and "necessary and proper".

There is a reason that only titanium bats have been banned based on the alloy used. It is the only alloy that could be proven to increase the speed of the ball. No other alloy or composite carries that distinction in the world of softball. IOW, there is absolutely no proof that the bat itself causes a dangerous environment. IOW, this law cannot be proven as a remedy, so how would this law be to the benefit of the general welfare, or necessary or proper to enact?

In my mind, it would be "necessary and proper" to return to the whipping post as a means of punishment for convicted criminals because it benefits the "general welfare" of the community. And I have an argument to accompany this. Would a criminal (dealer, user, thief, etc.) knowingly commit a crime in your community where the punishment would be 30 lashes and 5 years or go down down the road where the punishment would be 5-7 years? Granted, many criminals are not that smart and think doing the time is easy, but they know pain.

I'm sure some in your class would be repulsed by the idea of a whipping post. Then ask them, if they had to commit a crime to survive, and had an option of a jurisdiction with flogging as opposed to one without, where would they commit the crime

I think this is a great response, Mike. You bring up points already debated in class. Can you give supporting documentation (and, further, enough public support) to return the whipping post? Can you document that it would actually deter crime? Or, would it cause criminals to, as you put it, go to one without it? This is the MEANINGFUL conversation that happens in a good debate!

I do not have the document in front of me, but I will look for it, so you know I'm not making this up. A study done several years ago showed that punishments do not deter most crimes. The study was about the death penalty (the ultimate punishment in the minds of some). It showed that most murders will openly admit that they did not care what the penalty was; they were going to commit the murder. Having talked to several muderers (as their teacher) they honestly did not care what the penalty was...they were going to do it.

Crimes of necessity? A great topic for debate! Having already debated this, my class decided that there should still be a penalty, but (again, from their experiences) it was still worth it to commit the crime (i.e. stealing money for food or rent or whatever they deemed necessary).

They only way to truly and accurately define necessary and proper is to ask the person who wrote it...and they've been gone for 200 years, so it's up to our ELECTED officials to determine the meaning of necessary and proper.

Then again, with enough public support, any rule can be changed (see ASA men's FP pitching rule over the last 10 years)!