Do you know any parents that implant microchips in their children or assign them barcodes? Me neither. So if parents don't feel it necessary to track their children the way farmers track their cattle, why should a school? And how can a school get away with tracking grade-school children by radio frequency without getting the parents' permission first? These are just a couple of questions people in Sutter, California are currently wondering about.

See, if Mom and/or Dad were watching, it never would come to this.

More protection for us though, right? I mean, what the heck, why not just give all of our money and freedoms to the gov't for the sake of security? (Sarcasm heaby here)

I am afraid to ask but, what is next?

Be well,

Sponge

Unless the voters have somehow lost the right of referendum, we need to stop acting like liberals on this sort of thing. There is a process to address this. If enough parents are concerned about this to write a friendly letter to their superintendent explaining "Stop this or you're out," the kids will not have been damaged by being tracked for a semester or so.

If the parents don't feel this way, well, that's democracy. We should allow the will of the people just every so often...for a change of pace.

Perhaps I should clarify myself here: "acting liberal" is insisting on substantive due process---and thus lend a type of credence to the Dredd Scott decision and Griswold vs. Connicticut, among others.

Republican form of government works this way: we elect officials to make decisions--i.e. e-tagging kids (which I think is a responsible decision, to some degree). If we don't like their decisisons, we do not stage "die in"s or spontaneous street productions of 1984 outside the school, we vote---which does not preclude writing letters forcasting our vote.

This is a local matter that should be left to the school board and parents. Sea King was on target here with his democracy thing, although I don't think we need to theorize about Supreme Court cases (maybe i'm wrong, but wasn't Griswold the one about homosexuality, condoms, or pornography or something of that sort, and violating a person's "right to privacy"?).

If the parents want their children to be tracked during school hours, then let them be tracked. THEY CAN EAT CAKE! But just wait until one of their little darlings gets caught smoking pot in the bathroom or tries to score a touchdown with some cheerleader in the gym locker room. Knowing how crazy parents are these days, they'll blame the system and sue the school district.

Prognosis: this will not last long.

Chris,

Griswold decided that, through a right to privacy, the people of a state could not prohibit what the public sale of what someone wanted to use privately, i.e. condoms. Really, really stupid, if you ask me.

I brought the Supreme Court cases into it, not because I want discuss how a court might rule rule on it--but because I don't want any court to rule on it.

I see a contagion spreading from what might be an envy of the success on the left. It weakens the right's trust (or at least tolerance) of due process to have a kind of liberalesque conservative-alarmism, as if we must prowl around like the ACLU making sure that every nook of the US embodies our reading of constitutional rights.

Now there is a decent case for devil's advocate type of argument. And it is quite amusing to watch the left squirm out of accepting liberal-themed arguments from the right. For the most part, I think they argue that we should shut up until our record is as good as theirs (in meeting up to their standards).

Sometimes frustration in an argument bleeds over and can entrench us in a position that we don't hold. We can really lose sight of that once the emotion spills over. I've been caught in this trap, myself. I find myself arguing for something that is inconsistent with other more dearly held principles.

I used to have no argument against libertarians as long as I continued to argue in the liberal-libertarian axis. So I calmly affirm of the difference. As I am much less that a nihilist, I have to reject the essential nihilism at the base of both political philosophies: Some people do know what is best for me. There are times when I don't. One thing we know that is good for me is that I have freedom to decide for myself. What is so off-putting about moralism on the left is that it is essentially levelling moralism that will in the end determine that noone can really tell what is better for another person--and, you've been told!

Sea King,

Your comments are sharply put. Yes, sometimes some people may know what's best for me. There are very little absolute truths, in my opinion. A wise man has the discernment to know what is best for him and what is not. And if he does not know, then he seeks the council of someone who does know. SOMEONE WHO HE CHOOSES.

So again, it does come down to personal choice. No one can tell me how to believe, think, act, feel, unless I let them. They can talk all they want, but it's up to me to decide what I believe and what I do not.

The left's moralism (or lack thereof) is simply saying, do what you want, and be the judge of your own actions. Unfortunately, we do have laws. Some of them, they may not agree with, but we must live in the system and abide by the rules, or work to change them. The reality is, that when the left cannot change the rules as they would like, they simply ignore them, arguing that it's a stupid law, or oppresses them and their right to choose, or bring in some obnoxious, feminist argument that no one wants to hear..."How could you know, you're not a woman...how you could you possibly understand me" (I'm crying at this very moment, while playing my violin).

The beauty of Libertarianism (although i'm not convinced of it's ability to always work), it to let people's decisions dictate their lives, and then let them live with those consequences as they may be. If you mess up, it's your fault, deal with it. It's similar to the free market mentality that the invisible hand will govern. As it is beneficial for me to conduct good business with others to protect my name, it is also good for me to make wise decisions regarding myself, in order to protect my livelihood. Of course, we live in a society of ignorant and stupid people, to this philosophy usually does not work. Our systems are in place, basically, to protect people from themselves (The Founders realized this, and set it up that way).

Sea King: You are way off the mark. This is a 4th Amendment issue, not a substantive due process issue. Nice try though.

Chris,

I agree with what you say about Libertarianism---that it might not work is a good reason to consider it as bad of an idea as "timeclock" progressivism ("It's the 1980's! It's the 1990's! It's the 21st century!") I have a deal of sympathy for the cause of liberals. I'm quasi-socialist (expressly anti-Marxian, though), believer in communities--a communitarian, if you will. If I shared the same belief that I can ride a hummer over the opinions of people and cast aspersions at their character where I will, I'd be just as busy in "improving the world" as the liberals.

I dislike the element of libertarianism that says "I have no responsibility to my community." I acknowlege a theme of Adam-Smithian libertarians who invoke a freedom to benefit one's community how one chooses. But you can't say that you don't as well have the element that I mentioned that the other branch of libertarianism lacks the force to repudiate. When you doubt that libertarianism would work, I think you fear, as I do, the "not my problem" ethic.

See here is where liberalism has to fail, in my mind. They reject the basis of Christian theology which would try to give an individual as much freedom as possible, but not trusting men as a rule. Liberals do the not trusting right to a degree. But their structure is a mess, no one could possibly tell what right they are entitled to at what time with liberal political philosophy. Liberalism allows Joe Biden to challenge Robert Bork as a "child of God(!)" when he smells Bork's intellectual challenge--but may yet ban the Declaration from our schools because it says "Creator". Biden to thwart a nomination, feels it necessary to invoke (and shout) "God", but his party whose interest he represented feels no need to invoke "God" and really want to see less of him invoked, anyway.

I align with Rush Limbaugh and Dan in WTLHA, liberals mean well (which Dan eptly divides from "leftist"s). But as Rush says "words mean things", if we really think that some of the goods of liberalism have value, we should not march in the other direction just because it is purer in offering freedom---anarchism is purer yet. And as all sides allow slippery slope to a degree, embracing libertarianism invites anarchism in the door as "purer still".

Anyway, to put it back on topic: Power to Communities! Besides it appears that the ACLU will level this soon. So it's not like we have to fear relief from liberal orthodoxy soon.

Reader,

You are correct about which amendment this concerns, but you are way off otherwise. Substantive due process is the issue in applying the 4th amendment to this matter. It is through the precedent of substantive due process that they will disable the people to allow their kids to be e-tagged if the people of that community so choose.

I mentioned SDP only because I didn't think pinpointing the particular amendment was that important---it's a no-brainer to peg that the ACLU was going to invoke the 4th. Sorry that I didn't spell that one out.

My point is that the people do have redress. It is something that was considered due process before Taney came along with substantive due process. It is called the right of referendum.

I'd have much more privacy if we just instructed police officers to notice nothing illegal that I am carrying. If I'm walking down the street, smoking a joint, and the police cannot make reference to any illegal act I make without a warrant. Then I have increased my ability to control my personal space. The thing is not what can we define it to mean, the thing is what does it mean.

Nobody is being searched. It is just as if I follow you around while you are at school. It would be the same thing as if the school created a 1-1 student-to-safety ratio on the playground. It is the same think as if a cop happened by at the moment a kid lit up a joint. And that's only were a kid get busted for breaking school rules.

Let's look at school rules shall we? Do they have a right to confine you to a ground? I mean what if pursuing happiness means that I pursue it out of the schoolyard? My "constitutional right" has been violated by the school because it wants to keep me on grounds---"I'm not a prisoner!!!" (Imagine vast amounts of mock shock and grief and moral sermonizing that I just don't have the energy for.) So, they really want to enforce something that, if we wanted to argue it that way, they have no right to enforce in person.

And if you buy this, you're part of the problem.

The parents energized by the "leave me alone" credo and the ACLU will likely not accept this. The ACLU itself talks about "expanding" liberties, which basically means that they will find new ways to interpret the constitution to stop choices of referendum--and all through (ready for this?) substantive due process.

Do you really think the ACLU cares whether they have a number. If they need a number, they will always pick one that they've expanded in the past. Otherwise, they like to invoke their "right of privacy" (Hey, number-man, which one is that?). This is precisely the reason that they have pushed this right, so they have an endlessly manipulable "constitutional" principle to cite. Do you really think whether or not it is written in the Cons. matters to some people?

You can cite but can you think?

Sea King:

You are either a really smart 5th grader or a really stupid 30-year-old. I'm not sure which.

You are wrong to write that the 4th Amendment is invoked through the Due Process Clause. They are separate causes of action. Any even casual observer of American law would know that.

The 4th Amendment is what would control in this case. The issue is whether it is reasonable for Sutter to search its elementary school students by inserting microchips into the children. There is a whole line of United States Supreme Court Cases examining when bodily searches are constitutional under the 4th Amendment. The judge's decision in this case would be based on that precedent. The Sutter policy would not pass constitutional muster. There has been no showing that the students intended to plant a bomb, or that they are in league with Al Qaeda. Absent such a compelling reason for the search, the bodily search is unreasonable and unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment and Sutter may not track its students.

That is the legal issue. But you seem to be skeptical of the law. As you see it, people in town should vote on issues like this one. Referendums should be held to determine whether various policies should be authorized.

There is a problem with this. It is called tyranny of the majority. Sometimes a group of citizens will want one thing that is not in accordance with American principles as articulated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Doubtless, there are some Southern towns where it would be easy to get a majority of citizens to vote that all blacks in the town should be executed. To use another example, I bet a majority of the readers on this message board would vote that all American Muslims (towel heads, as you all call them) should be sentenced to hard labor or death.

Fortunately, we have a legal system in place to protect citizens against those who would injure them or deprive them of basic rights. People like you may not like the legal system, because it prevents you from torturing or abusing people you despise. But there are many more people like me who appreciate the American legal system because it generally prevents tyrannical behavior, deters police officers from breaking into citizen's homes arbitrarily, bars detention without due process, gives citizens the freedom to write and articulate ideas openly, etc. These are cardinal reasons why I choose to live here and why millions of people all over the world desire American citizenship.

Back to your post. You write a couple of examples. I will try to respond to those examples, but, to be honest, I have no idea what you are getting at when you use the examples, so pardon me if my post does not address the issue you were trying to raise. In the example of a school restraining someone, yes, that would be constitutional if the school knew that the student intended to do harm to other children, or was planning an attack, or whatnot. Under such circumstances, of course the school could restrain the student and keep the student after school.

As for the ACLU example, I do not know what you are getting at there. You do not like the ACLU because it is aggressive in litigating civil liberties cases? That's nice, I guess, but it is the American Civil Liberties Union after all, and their stated purpose is to litigate civil liberties cases. So what's your beef with them? Where do you think they run afoul? Are you saying that they should not be allowed to bring constitutional claims before courts? Do you wish to muzzle them? If so, and you are a government actor, well, then we have a 1st Amendment issue on our hands (please note: the 1st Amendment is different from the Due Process Clause).

One last point in closing. There are many conservatives who rail against Hollywood actors talking about politics. These conservatives say that Hollywood actors don't know anything about politics, and should generally shut up because they don't even understand what they are talking about.

Yet conservatives feel free to talk about things they do not understand. For example, you expostulate about constitutional law as if you are some authority, but you did not even know that a Due Process Claim is different from a 4th Amendment Claim.

My advice: either get some schooling (the American universities are not as bad as you all make them out to be), or else write about something you understand. Write about gay S+M flicks, plunging toilets, harvesting boogers, self-massaging, or whatever it is you know something about.

Don't bother writing about legal issues you do not understand.

Sea King,

I understand your thought process in this. Socialism, like Libertarianism, is unrealistic. They are both ideals that can only be attained in a perfect world.

Libertarianism won't work because there are always going to be screw-ups in society that can't take care of themselves, and even though I believe in the power of private charity in our country, economic slumps like the great depression prove that SOMETIMES the government needs to cut off the invisible hand, and puts its fingers in the cookie jar to save lives.

Socialism won't work, because man is inherently selfish, and is incapable of holding everything in common. Your thoughts about modern liberalism are right on target here. Because they lack the moral clarity, they are incapable of seeing the depravity of man, and have a false sense of compassion.

So that leaves me somewhere between Conservatism and Libertarianism, with a bunch of other issues floating in the abyss that don't allign with my voting tendencies. This is why I absolutely hate being labeled a Republican, even though I often vote that way. Neither Pat Robertson, nor Rudy Gialani represent me. And everyone in between is just fighting for power.

Finally, i've never heard of a communitarian, but it sounds like a code word for a collectivist. What community do you live in that would enable you to live the way you really want, and raise your children without having to worry about what newly hired college grad is shoving socialist propaganda down your kid's throat in school?

Reader,

I think I can probably speak for anyone reading this blog when I say.....WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

First, if Sea King is making an error in his interpretation of the Constitution, and you believe that you have legitimate authority on this subject, tactfully correct him, as docmzq did to me when discussing Judicial Review. Some of us blog here to learn, as well as to debate. Perhaps someday you will make an error on a subject that you think you know a great deal about, but in reality, you may not. I hope the person correcting you has a little more respect than what you showed Sea King.

Second of all, I strongly disagree with your notion that a majority of bloggers on this site would want Muslims to die or do "hard labor". Come on man, what are you thinking here? Do you insult the intelligence of every white man you come across, or just those who happen to blog on this site?

Yes, some laws are put in place to protect men from themselves, right? But I think we can safely assume that in this day of age, a majority of white, southerners, would not enact a law to execute blacks. This is just absurd.

I'm interested in your background, and your ethnicity. Because you seem to have some hostility inside of you. I for one, have made tremendous efforts to not stereo type those around me who are different ethnicities and faiths. As a Christian, I believe that we should treat every human with respect, because they have a God-given dignity, regardless of their religious beliefs.

People such as yourself seem to only tolerate their own kind, but WASP's like me MUST tolerate you, or we're bigots, racists, or white trash?

Finally, what do the politics of Hollywood actors have anything to do with what you were talking about? You're argument (more like venting) exclaims that conservatives (in the general sense) talk about things they don't know about (so you are assuming Sea King is a conservative), as well as labeling a whole ideology.

NEWS FLASH: The only reason why WHITE CONSERVATIVES LIKE ME get irritated at Hollywood actor's spitting their political nonsense, is because I don't care about their politics. They are singers, dancers, and actors. Most of them aren't educated historians or political scholars, and have no business using their national spotlight for political reasons. Just as if I were a well-known politician, using my political identity to promote a rock band.

So go back to your intellectual bubble, study the Constitution (in the hopes that you can tear down someone else making an error tommorrow), and stop insulting people. No one needs your arrogance.

Reader,

Wow, can you get more wrong? You can be for such things as civil liberties and against such things as a legal organization that calls itself by that name. If I wrap myself in the flag, presumably you can still tell me apart from the flag.

Is the "American Way" only what the "People for the American Way" say it is because they named themselves that.

I am not a lawyer--and don't really care to be one. So I don't know about the incremental cases in this matter. I don't really care to know them though. We have a precedence of a Twinkie Defense for murder. I don't really care to know this fact. If you are standing before a judge and you argue the Twinkie Defense---I don't care what kind of history it has in courts. It's stupid.

What you have told me is that "implanting" a chip in someone (which I would never allow the school to do to my child) is "search". We're getting stupid here. If a kid has a note that he wants to kill another kid in his pocket when you implant him, nothing in the implantation process, or the electrical monitoring process will *find* anything on the child.

I presumably can get a freakin' shot at the doctor's without being frisked. If you do not understand this, you are a moron. I really don't care what legalese you want to use to back up your moronic misunderstanding of the fundamental difference between implanting and monitoring whereabouts and search and seizure. I am secure in my personal effects, as long as somebody does not go rifling through them. Putting a bracelet on me--or worse, injecting my knuckle does not disturb what I have concealed in my pockets.

So don't go patronizing me when your text contains this type of non-sequitur (and if it follows only in law---there is where we have our problem of letting lawyers slide definitions around) "Absent such a compelling reason for the search, the bodily search is unreasonable and unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment and Sutter may not track its students."

Your sentence tracking students == bodily search. My wife worked at a school where they had a kid that was so violent they had a full-time aide follow the kid around (and was still able to reach around her to occasionally bash a kids head into the wall)---the aide still wasn't searching him. She was following him around. She was (cue Ominous Chord) tracking him. My guess was that he wasn't affiliated with Al Queda--so you get the ACLU on that right away will you?

Now I was willing to listen to your argument, but I got tired of waiting for one. What you've proven is my point, that, if this should ever be the will of the people, people like you really want to make sure that nobody in the US violates what you argue applies under the Bill of Rights.

You still don't understand what the role I think SDP would play in this. And I'm while I could clarify it, I'm not going to go over it.

I observe it what you wrote that SDP is the unobserved ground that the ACLU has tread over and over again so often that you no longer realize notice it---of course they are going to cite amendments, I didn't deny that they were going to apply their reading of the nth ademendment. You're talking about the rationale of the case, and I am talking about the syndrome of arguing in this fashion.

But you invoke the specialist's privilege. As well as arguing everything that doesn't "sound like" the FF wanted on amendments, think about whether or not democracy---whether representational or other---does not at least invoke the layman's point of view as an adjuster to the plans of specialists.

The public does not need to understand how eating a Twinkie could reasonably lead to murder, we need to get rid of those people who would present a society where just a thing is argued to be reasonable.

Here's a portion that you admit you do not understand: "Do [schools] have a right to confine you to a ground? I mean what if pursuing happiness means that I pursue it out of the schoolyard?" And yet, you start talking about "physically restraining" which, by the way I didn't mention. So on one hand I can see where you might get the idea that "embedding a chip" equals "search" if you misunderstand something about a schoolyard for physical restraint. But misunderstanding words has never been that great of an argument for equivalence---as long as I remember. I used the worlds "confine" "ground" and "schoolyard". Perhaps you missed that.

We can confine criminals to their yards. This is something that we cannot do to adults without the process of a particular action in court on that case (SDP). Somehow, kids have the exact same rights in school, but are subject to authorities restricting them to the grounds (this does not contain any tackling or tazering, just in case you were getting distracted.) One could argue that the FF never intended people to be confined to a piece of ground, and thus rule that school's closed campus rule violates the Cons. Also, if there are kids who are skipping school who hang just off the edge of the schoolyard, and the kid wants to cross it to associate with those kids, that rule violates his ability to "freely associate". (Did you notice, physical restraint wasn't really brought into this?)

I have this funny idea that we should restrict ourselves to the letter of the laws and its sensible interpretations. I have this peculiar idea that this is what the people agreed to at the time of its passing.

But I have a problem talking to someone who is confused by the ACLU having "CL" in it's name. Just call me Constitutional Joe, and then if you disagree with me, I can spit back, "You gotta' problem with the Constitution, pal!! I'm Constitutional Joe!!"

Now let me submit the list of things you are wrong about (where you feel the need to venture despite your ignorance): First of all, I'm neither a 5th-grader or a 30-year old, and I am not aware of any principle by which I must belong to one or other of the groups.

"But you seem to be skeptical of the law."

Ehhhhntt! Wrong again. I am skeptical of what lawyers say is the law when they go so far outside of what the law actually says. Mainly because I value the social contract which embodies the original law. Yes, interpretations can be problematic, but that is no reason for legal sophistry.

It's really kind of close to the other problem: civil liberties are what the ACLU says they are, and that law is what the lawyers say it is. If you have a problem with the ACLU, you have a problem with civil liberties. If you have a problem with the law as the interpretation of lawyers, you have a problem with the law.

There is a reason why I mentioned liberal orthodoxy. And painting me as a fascist because I question liberal orthodoxy---well just let's say I've never heard that one before!

Do you use ad hominem in your legal arguments? Because outside the court, we kind of consider it a fallacy. Also, about half the time that they are not using it, people consider slippery slope a fallacy. So just because there can be a totalitarianism of the majority doesn't mean there is as long as we can't find a legal thread of argument to trump the issue with. We need to use our brains on these things. It's not a slam dunk, but then again nothing is.

Also, I really cannot see any case that would be only about SDP. It would always be about a denial of a guaranteed liberty without SDP--but I could be wrong in this.

Btw, if you want to engage me in a discussion on whether or not I represented myself as a constitutional authority, I'll lay you to waste. We're not talking about legal arguments, but words on this page---and I wouldn't guess that words are your strong suit.

Christopher:

Thanks for putting me in my place. I suppose there was a little too much bile in my last post. I wrote quickly and posted. Now, after re-reading my post, I can see that I do sound a bit arrogant. Sorry for being so over-the-top.

Now, to respond to your points. I hate religious prejudice. It is something that has always disturbed me. Accordingly, I was miffed a few weeks back when someone posted as "rag H8er" and called Muslims "towel heads." That's bigotry plain and simple.

You're right, it is wrong for me to generalize about posters on the site based on that post, but much of what I read from the Right nowadays expresses the same general sentiments. Everywhere I turn there are articles from the leading lights of the Right questioning whether Islam is a nation of peace, writing that all Islamic countries need to be christianized, etc. I'm sure at least some, if not a majority, of the posters on this site share those sentiments. And I wonder just how far the people who share these sentiments would take things with Muslims if they had a chance.

I do not know if you live in the South, but you sound a bit naive. Race relations are strained in many Southern cities. Do you remember the atrocity that occurred in Jasper, Texas? It would be easy to find at least a FEW TOWNS in the South where a majority of citizens would vote to execute the blacks in the town if that question were put on a ballot. It really surprises me that you even question that hypothetical.

The politics of Hollywood actors have everything to do with what we are talking about. You think that liberal singers and dancers are not qualified to talk about politics because they do not hold specialized political degrees. But, paradoxically, you think that Sea King is qualified to write about constitutional law even if he does not hold a law degree. Why do Hollywood actors need a specialized degree before they can legitimately register an opinion whereas Sea King does not need a specialized degree to register his opinion?

As an aside, I'd rather hear Gwyneth Paltrow's opinions about politics than Sea King's. First of all, Paltrow is at least as smart as Sea King. Second, Paltrow would hold my attention better when she is speaking, because in my opinion she is a more dynamic figure and is nicer to look at. You go listen to Sea King's lecture on constitutional law. I'll listen to Ms. Paltrow discuss politics.

In regards to the Constitution, it is fine for you to make fun of me for being interested in it. But it is actually a document Americans should at least consider studying. I've noticed that many people like Sea King accuse liberals of perverting the Constitution, yet it is clear that most of these attackers do not have the foggiest idea (a) what the Constitution says; (b) how the Constitution has been interpreted by courts. Who was it that said that ignorance is the height of stupidity?

But, I'm turning arrogant again. And I don't want to offend anybody. Back to my intellectual bubble, godspeed...

Chris: "Socialism won't work, because man is inherently selfish, and is incapable of holding everything in common."

Actually that sounds more like communism, as I understand it.

To me, socialism is embodied in the credo "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Marx was a little sexist, wasn't he? ;))

One of the caveats I would make here is that if state control of capital thwarts each one to contribute according to their ability (and there is a good case it has problems) then a society with that credo needs to embrace individual ownership at least in part.

In the main, I am staunchly anti-Marxian (though not a purist). The idea is not to allocate blame among three types of people and decide what ought to be done in retribution to one. I don't want to decide which economy is "unfair" and the like.

My view is essentially more permitting of the redistribution of income. But stresses mercy as opposed to redress for previous theft (ie. property) or entitlement. The old system does not have to be condemned to embrace a better one. (If it is indeed better.)

I dislike current liberal redistribution because it denies mercy and the nature of the social contract--and it is my opinion that liberals spread money to increase their popularity in elections. (Not that conservatives are immune.) By not stressing responsibility to society they can skate on other issues of personal responsibility, which they, in general, dislike.

So instead they invoke the "unfairness" of the old order and make the payout a redress of an unfair distribution. If they need to they will stretch and compartmentalize civic responsibility to the area to popularize it and restrict spillover to social concerns.

Sea King:

I like Christopher better. He is funnier and friendlier. I will respond to your post anyway.

1. I still don't understand your criticism of the ACLU. Enlighten me.

2. It's still considered a search. Call me stupid for referring to it that way, but just note that your heroes Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia would also refer to it as a search. They might say it is a constitutional search, but they'd still concede that it is a search.

3. Yes, a doctor's shot is not a frisk. You're learning. Very good.

4. I missed the non sequitur you were imagining.

5. It's fine for a public school to monitor a troubled student. The first mission of any public school is the safety of the students. If one student is troubled and requires constant attention, a public school may monitor that student to prevent violence from occurring. No constitutional violation there. Why? Do you see one?

6. In the post you are referring to, my intention was to tell you how a court would resolve the dispute. I suppose I did make a bit of an argument as well. But I had an explanatory intent.

7. Still confused by your schoolyard example.

8. I agree we should interpret the Constitution sensibly. But is not understanding the difference between the 4th Amendment and the Due Process Clause sensible?

9. Just an observation: you seem to believe in a legal conspiracy theory. As you see it, lawyers are not following what the law actually says, but are instead pursuing legal sophistry and are creating make-believe laws. Good point. Say, where do you think the U.S. Government is hiding all its UFO files?

10. The ACLU does not define the scope of civil liberties in the United States. Rather, the ACLU argues civil liberties cases, and the courts apply the law to determine if the litigant's right has really been infringed. The ACLU does not determine much of anything besides what cases it will litigate. The ACLU seems to be a bugbear of yours, which is fine, but in reality the organization has much less power and influence than you seem to arrogate to it.

12. The referendum idea is good in general, but the courts sometimes have to step in to make sure that laws are constitutional. Why does this scare you so much? It's just a check to make sure that no one's rights are violated.

13. Oh, I'm no constitutional authority either. I like to read about constitutional law, and I think it's interesting, yet I'm no expert.

14. You'll have to "lay [me] to waste" some other time Sea King. I'm going to bed. Sweet dreams!

One additional comment to (mis)reader.

Your cynicism is misplaced. How were the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution decided? Do they represent the will of the people or its representatives or not? Was the fourteenth amendment passed by popular consent? To argue that some non-representative agency must be always vigilant about the will of the people that totalitarianism should ensue, denies the value of the process by which we have these words.

Does the will of the people, expressed in the Cons. smack of totalitarianism? And yet it is the will of the people. You may argue that the hoi polloi did not draft the Cons. You're right, but no elected-for-life aristocracy did either. Elected representatives of the people did. They didn't get a cabal to interpret Locke and make sure that the will of the people as expressed in the Social contract did not deviate from Locke.

If you can argue that the ACLU has a good basis to argue for civil liberties from, how can you then doubt that it has been repeatedly, with some exceptions, the will of the people to expand liberty? We have these words by a popular process even the Constitution of a Constitutional democracy is there by consent of the governed and referendum.

Will the people sometimes get it wrong? Sure. Will the ACLU?? ---much less than a representative bunch, I might add. Where they and judges get it wrong, they are not representative--and even add it to the possible elitist motivations of the future by setting a bad precedent. The people have a more legitimate right to get the process wrong than judges. The people had the right to vote in the 18th amendment, and the right to vote it out. The 14th amendment, agreed to by the states, has the power to restrict the states to anything a super-majority of states agreed on.

But I really don't expect you to be reasonable. Not when I didn't call anybody "towelheads" and you can make a pronouncement about this site that lies in opposition to the facts. It really seems to be a carryover from a conversation you were having with other conservatives. Such injections do not recommend you as a reasonable anything.

Reader,

I did not confuse clauses---I made no mention of which clause was which. You are responsible for your own reading.

You said that schools had no authority to track students. I mentioned a case where a school was tracking a student, but still (as far as I know) not searching him.

Besides other events---closer to searches---take place on school grounds: "What's that in your mouth?!" to a student who is chewing gum is actually asking the student to disclose what he has secured in his person--in his mouth--or that he has anything in his mouth. I think the kid's parents should ask for a warrant in this case. Also the child is required to hand over "what he has in his hand" in some instances. That is usually accompanied by a search and siezure.

If my "heroes" did not understand that asking for a note from the student is more akin to search and siezure than requiring the kid to wear an electronic tag (which again is unintrusive to whatever the person is otherwise carrying or concealing) after I calmly explained this to them---then I really don't care.

That we restrict a student to a spot of ground during the day and not an adult (without due process), then somebody could put the case that the kid has forfeited his "equal protection under law" of his "privileges and immunities".

"Still confused by your schoolyard example."

Well, that should recommend your intellect, then. I am chastened by your repeated confusion on how being confined to a schoolyard limits a person's liberty.

You're mixing up what I said and what you said. You are the one that implied that if I don't like the ACLU then I probably find something wrong with "Civil Liberties(tm)". I wsas commenting on what appears to be your buy-in to liberal brand names.

Who gives a 10-foot steaming pile whose style you prefer? Chris was friendlier maybe, but note that neither friendly Chris our dour me accused you of desiring to torture or enslave anybody. Where do you recommend yourself as any authority in polite conversation when you had to wake up the fascist argument to spray it around at everybody on this blog.

You may actually think that since I want to enslave and torture, that I wouldn't think these are personal attacks. But you're forgetting what part you contributed to the picture.

Wait, you wager that people of a different political persuasion want to enslave or execute or every one of some group and you're accusing me of holding a far-fetched view?

Somehow, a select group of lawyers could mean us no harm and innocently be arguing according to the law, and to say otherwise is just Bugaboo. But it is no stretch of the imagination that people are priming the torches and shapening the pitchforks that they will carry when they enslave, torture and execute everybody who is not of their type?

I've got a bugbear in my closet? What about the zombie hoard in yours?

Your latest post, as usual, is short on substance and long on rhetoric. I will try to respond to this latest harangue.

First, I am no big ACLU supporter. So you have that wrong. I am just confused about why you hate the organization so much. The ACLU works through the legal system to try to prevent the civil liberties of individuals from being infringed. What's so bad about that? There are thousands of other groups that similarly use the legal system to advance their own interests and agendas. You make it seem like the ACLU is an 800-pound gorilla, enforcing its will on the courts, determining what is and what is not constitutional. In real life, the ACLU is a marginal player legally. It possesses lots of resources, so it is able to do a good job with many of the cases it takes on, but the same can be said for thousands of other organizations. I find it curious that you are so critical of this particular organization. Why are you singling it out?

You seem to be drifting off into the clouds when you go on about Locke, the "will of the people" and so forth. What we are discussing is a legal issue. If you'd like to debate political philosophy, I'm fine with that too, but don't take abstract ideas and try to inject them into a discussion about whether a school district has the right to inject a tracking device into its students.

Your federalism point I actually agree with for the most part. Of course people should be able to vote on issues. I'm not arguing that with you. My point is that it is good to have judges available to make sure that laws do not violate the constitution. You disagree with me there. Apparently, you want a society free of judges where the majority is always right, even if the majority proposes something clearly against American constitutional principles--such as slavery, torture, etc. If you're willing to bite that bullet, fine. As for me, I think it is wise to have judges on hand to review laws to make sure the laws do not violate American constitutional principles. That is the structure of the legal system we have now, and it is the envy of the world.

Back to the school example. The law is much more subtle than you make it out to be. There are hardly ever absolutes. It is constitutional for a public school to do many things, but it depends on what the circumstances are.

You frame the issue as if the big, bad ACLU has undermined the ability of schools to bust renegade students. Evidently you are not caught up on modern case law (too much time spent reading Locke, an English philosopher who died 250 years ago, not enough time reading cases decided within the last 5 years). For example, the Supreme Court has recently held that public schools may allow drug-sniffing dogs into schools to sniff for drugs and contraband. If a dog alerts police to a particular student or locker, that student or locker may be searched constitutionally. Any drugs or contraband on the student may be seized and the seized items are admissible in court.

Another example involves drug testing. Under a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, public schools may randomly drug test student athletes. And, you might ask, if student athletes may be tested, why can't cheerleaders be tested, or members of the math team or chess club? Basically, the ruling opens the door for public schools to drug test any and all students randomly.

These are just two examples. There are many others. The point is that public schools have more power to search students than you presume.

On to your specific examples. Teachers may constitutionally ask students to remove gum from their (the students') mouths, and may also ask students if they have anything in their mouths. Teachers are responsible for the safety of children, and may ask about anything they see (or even think they see) in a student's hand, in a student's desk or in a student's mouth. As you point out, this is technically a search. But under the law it is a legal search because it is "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment. An example of an unreasonable search under the 4th Amendment would be prying around in student bookbags and lockers without cause while the students are out at recess.

Asking for a note from a student probably is a seizure if the note is taken against the student's will. Bodily intrusions--inserting a chip into a student for example--is another type of search. Note that the issue of whether something is a search is only a threshold issue. After it is determined that there has been a search or seizure, then the issue becomes whether that particular search or seizure is constitutional.

Apparently you are upset with the broad way that the words "search" and "seizure" have been interpreted by the courts. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion. Further, you are entitled to believe that you are right about everything and that you are smarter than all judges and attorneys. Just don't be offended when I laugh at you.

I stick by my preference for Chris. His prose style is better, he thinks more logically and he comes across as being more genial. As you point out, the world may not care too much about my preference for Chris. But, then again, the world certainly doesn't care very much about your views regarding the legal system.

Have a nice day!

"First, I am no big ACLU supporter. So you have that wrong."

That would explain: "You do not like the ACLU because it is aggressive in litigating civil liberties cases?"

So what do you give lukewarm support? "Civil liberties" or their aggressive litigation?

"Apparently, you want a society free of judges where the majority is always right"

Yeah, that's what I said. You do understand that that would make me a radical don't you? I'm really not interested in pushing my will on anybody apart from that somebody is convinced of its logic. I agree with convincing people, not circumventing the process--and I'm not sure that I have ever voiced the idea that we should get rid of judges.

Do you understand that that there is a distance between two poles?

"but don't take abstract ideas and try to inject them into a discussion about whether a school district has the right to inject a tracking device into its students."

And this makes sense in your world? What is a "right" but an abstract idea? Actually I'm sure that a tracking device has a precise algorithm which you are lumping into the abstract term "tracking device" and that you are also subsuming under the misnomer "search". And maybe the concrete circumstances in Sutter, California don't permit a generic reading of the Cons. to fly, in this particular instance. But you might be right on alternate Tuesdays.

"Note that the issue of whether something is a search is only a threshold issue."

But somehow you'd still rather overrule the will of the people on a fringe (threshold) issue. Can my meaning of liberal orthodoxy get any clearer? "Well, it's a search because we define it as a search--it doesn't allow me to find anything more about the child than I could find out following him around and taking attendance---but it must be stopped because we can argue that it is a borderline case."

Now this, if it is a possible mischaracterization of your stance, is still much closer than your blatant misreadings of my positions.

And somehow this comes from a ideology which wonders who can decide what is right for everybody, but if they can jam a version of search through the courts that fits their definition, they will make sure that nobody hangs badges around schoolchildren--because they think they can interpret the constitution to disqualify it.

But here is how badly you reason. Here's what I had said on due process, up to the point that you had posted your first argument that I had confused the two: "Perhaps I should clarify myself here: 'acting liberal' is insisting on substantive due process---and thus lend a type of credence to the Dredd Scott decision and Griswold vs. Connicticut, among others."

Then you did not follow with this: "Sea King: You are way off the mark. This is a 4th Amendment issue, not a substantive due process issue."

But note, I did not say it was a due process issue, as if it can be subsumed under substantive due process. I said we (as conservatives) should not insist (all the time) on substantive due process, when the right of referendum can clear this up as well. There could be not confusion of clauses because substantive due process is not a clause, it is an interpretation, which most sources cite as first appearing in Justice Taney's majority opinion--that the state of Illinois had deprived Scott's owner of his property, Scott, in passing a law that did not respect the owner's property.

Wasn't this a primary difference between the Slave and Free states? Yet Taney ruled that Illinois had to construct their laws in tolerance with how other states defined property. So it's not a clause that I confused---it's the larger issue.

Here's some of the majority opinion in that case (citing Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

1) No Negroes, not even free Negroes, could ever become citizens of the United States. They were "beings of an inferior order" not included in the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence nor afforded any rights by the Constitution.
2) The exclusion of slavery from a U.S. territory in the Missouri Compromise was an unconstitutional deprivation of property (Negro slaves) without due process (prohibited by the Fifth Amendment).[italics mine]

These were lawyers, and the understanding of 6 of the most prominant lawyers of that day. You know who fixed this, the people, and Sherman's "blitzkrieg" (you seem to enjoy ana-
logies to fascism) destruction which crippled the South. Lawyers didn't fix this inequity, people who were willing to shed blood and put a bullet into somebody else did.

Now, the modern "defenders of civil liberties" want to take Taney's principle and use the language that the people shed blood over with only a cursory treatment of the will of the people. And then, when they can, they and people like you, invoke the "totalitarianism of the majority" whenever somebody asks that the will of the people be considered.

But due process aside, let me recast my statement in terms of what you said was the correct clause: "Perhaps I should clarify myself here: 'acting liberal' is insisting on that constitutional principles of search and seizure be followed---and thus lend a type of credence to the Dredd Scott decision and Griswold vs. Connicticut, among others."

Well, the last part doesn't fit, but it is explainable via my confusion between the "clauses". So what I'm really saying is that acting liberal is insisting that the 4th amendment be followed.

Gee, I didn't know I held that position. That's news to me. I thought that acting liberal is to try to scuttle anything that didn't match one's idea of what society should be like at the current point in time--but I really feel that people should be searched without a warrant!!

I figure I might as well examine your position, since you really weren't having none of that "defending your argument" noise.

If you don't like that, construct for me what I was arguing. Perhaps my substitution was too simple. I'm really having a hard time following what I was arguing (according to you) so give evidence in the way that I said the substantive due process clause [sic] ruled in this case---when I really wasn't asking for a constitutional interpretation to top it all off?

That, or knock down some more strawmen. That's almost a spectator's sport.

Reader,

I do have to admit that at least you're humble enough to know when you've crossed the line, and I respect that.

As far as the hardline NeoCons such as Falwell and Robertson, you might be shocked to find out that many conservative thinkers will say that these men do not represent them, especially those of us who are from Generation X. The previous generation (i.e. my parents) worship the ground these men walk on, because they speak the "truth". Their opinions of religious tolerance, gay rights, and fundamental Christianity are so out of the mainstream, and they know it.

The problem with these traditional conservaties, is that they didn't grow up, go to school, and work with people of different faiths, sexuality, and what have you. This is a totally foreign concept to them, and they are basically speaking out of the fear of the unknown. They believe these lifestyles and different values threaten their way of life and their children, and this is basically because they don't understand anything but themselves. Their politics is based on fear, nothing more.

People like you and I have strong views on many subjects. Views that may be radically different from each other, depending on our political philosophies. Much of what I say probably will not influence you, and vice versa, but it is important to understand WHY we believe the way we believe.

Please do not misconstrue my comments about the Constitution. I will be the first to admit that I am not an authority on many of the Constitutional matters that you may have expertise on (my field is in Political Science and History, not law), however, I do have a working knowledge of our founding document which influences my political ideology.

1) I believe the founders wanted the Federal government to be a small entity, with a strong emphasis on Federalsim.
2) This is evidenced by the small delegation of powers to the Federal government in the Constitution (coinage of money, protection of commerce, defense, and a few others...and no, I do not believe the "neccessary and proper" clause gives the Feds the power to do what they want, this is a common argument by some Libs, and I won't stand for it).
3) Nearly everything else, in my humble opinion, should be left to the States. Things that have been controversial for years, such as Abortion on demand, gay marriage, prostitution, and recreational pot smoking.

Now some may think that I condone these activities, which is false. I am an evangelical Christian, but I believe God has given us free will and a choice to follow afer Him or not (with whatever morality you choose in following Him). The government has no business legislating morality with these issues. It would warm my heart to see Abortion illegal, because it would save millions of babies, but I would feel much more comfortable if the people of the States voted on it.

What separates me from some religious or bigoted conservatives, is that I tolerate other people, and respect their opinions (even though I may not agree with them). Telling a homosexual he is going to hell, or a Muslim that he is damned for all eternity because he doesn't believe in Jesus, will not influence anyone. My prayer, is that my actions would speak louder than my words. That respect and understanding just might change someone's heart. That is the only way for me to witness through my beliefs. Shoving the Bible down someone's throat doesn't work.

Finally, I still think you do not catch my drift with the Hollywood Libs. Their "opinion" is just as good as anyone else's. They have the right to express it. However, using their public persona to do so is wrong. For example, A preacher using his pulpit to advertise automobiles while he preaches God's word is wrong. Artist's and preachers are not in front of thousands of people to give their personal opinions, they are there do either witness and teach (preacher) or enlighten and entertain (artist, singer).

Sea King (and Reader),

Although I probably agree with you more than Reader, ideology wise, your argument style gives me a headache. Reader is right, you have too much rhetoric and not enough substance. I would much prefer you to support yourself more, and keep your opinionated-ana*ysis to a minimum.

If there is one thing i've learned in writing for some high-profile political figures in D.C., is that opinions are like shoes: Everyone has them, everyone has too many of them, and no one is impressed with the someone else's shoes (or opinions).

That being said, Reader and Sea King, neither of you are going to convince each other on this crap. Maybe both of you just need to take it to the ring and go a few rounds...Indulge me, if you will:

Reader: "The 4th Ammendment and the Due Process Clause are different" (right hook, duck, left jab to the sternum)

Sea King: "Yeah, but what about John Locke, he's pretty cool" (left hook to the face, Reader stumbles from laughing)

Reader: "Yeah, well you're just a neocon who likes to use political theory while arguing law" (right, left jab to the face, strong punch to the stomach, Sea King is on the ropes....)

BELL RINGS, END OF ROUND

That being said: Sea King, socialism is a variation of Marxism, which communism was based on, therefore we're almost comparing apples to apples (Glen Beck really likes that game, by the way).

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

So basically, Marx is saying that each person will do what (occupation wise) he is capable of doing, and then we will give each man what he needs. The basic premise here is, WE! The problem with socialism, is not that it's not a good idea (in theory), but rather, any government that's ever attempted to enact its principles has been thorougly corrupt ( this is because of the moral depravity of man...Reader probably doesn't agree with me on this one, considering he's a liberal). Any communist government bases its principles on Marxian socialism. I fail to see the difference you are espousing here.

Sea King:

Your last post was a long one. I'll try to clarify a few things and respond to a few other things.

1. Regarding the ACLU: it is one of many organizations that has an agenda and pursues that agenda in the courts. Other examples, from the other side of the political spectrum, include the Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, the Institute for Justice, Concerned Women for America, Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution and the American Family Association. What do I think of these legal advocacy groups (and others like them)? I actually think that they are generally good. They are usually well-funded, often are staffed with top people, and bring some interesting cases to the federal courts. I think that many of the groups argue constitutionally-shaky positions at times, but their briefs are always written in the name of some version or another of social justice. It's great that our country allows such organizations to exist.

2. a "right" may be an abstract idea. But a constitutional right is something more concrete because it may be evaluated in accordance with the Constitution and case law precedent.

3. Who is over-ruling the will of the people? I'm not. What I'm telling you is that the Sutter school's plan to track its students by way of microchips is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment.

4. You say it is "acting liberal" to insist on substantive due process. But you'd quickly find yourself "acting liberal" if the police threw you in prison without cause.

5. You are asking me to make your arguments for you? C'mon, that's absurd! Although I do take it as a compliment, because you seem to be implying that I can argue your position better than you can. However, as much as I'd like to oblige your request, I'm afraid I can't, because I'm not certain what it is you are saying. As I understand it, you believe in some nutty legal conspiracy theory. The basic tenets of the legal conspiracy theory seem to be (1) that the courts are corrupt; (2) that liberals make up law; (3) that the ACLU and other liberal organizations are destroying schools and other American institutions; (4) that judges are riding roughshod over "the will of the people"; (5) that only you and other geniuses who have read Leo Strauss's "History of Political Philosophy" are intelligent enough to understand the ills of our democracy, etc. This is what you are saying, I think.

Christopher:

I am utterly unable to find fault with much of anything you've written in your last few posts. Your posts are well-written, and your comments are well-taken.

I'd only question the accuracy of your statement that the "founders wanted the federal government to be a small entity." You'd probably agree with me that it depends on which "founder" we are talking about. Thomas Jefferson certainly desired the type of federalism you envision, but not so with other founders. To use a counter-example, Alexander Hamilton, the author of most of the Federalist Papers, actually wanted a powerful federal government. He pushed for a national currency, founded the first national bank and wrote that the United States would dissolve into separate warring factions if there were not a powerful federal government.

We could devote an entire thread (or, indeed several books) to arguing whether a plurality of founders favored Jeffersonian federalism or Hamiltonian federalism. But there is no need to have this debate. I take it you can accept my point that "the founders" did not favor any one brand of federalism, but instead that the founders had different and competing visions of federalism. You also probably can agree with me when I say that, in the end, Hamilton's brand of federalism won.

Chris,

Marxism is a whole body of ideas on property, class struggle, dialectical materialism, not to mention the assigning of blame and retribution.

I do not believe that property is theft. I am not a materialist. I am not an atheist. I do not think religion is the opiate of the people. I don't believe we can change the nature of man through "re-education" or "consciouness raising", but I do think we can inspire men to idealism.

But I don't think any of that is needed in order for the state to step in and try to meet basic needs of its weakest community members. I should have also mentioned that the statement is a goal of the society and not a guarantee.

Marx said the the revolutionary is better than the philosopher. That is, the guy who is willing to kill others to advance his idea is better than the guy who argues for change. There are tons of Marx's baggage that I just don't carry. I don't believe in killing "dupes of the power structure" just because they buy into a line that I don't. When Marxist are killing "dupes" which stand in their way, they really are killing proletariat and lower-bourgeois who feel different about the revolution than you do--thus you are justified in killing them because they stand in the way of the greater good called revolution.

Now, regarding my substance: If you are not an authority on the Cons, how can you even be sure that a constitutionally-limited republic will resemble anything so much as libertarians speculate? Don't you just have to defer to the lawyers to decide what the Cons means---however long that takes. And how does that change when Tribe and Co. argue that the Cons. is a "living, breathing document". What if a lawyer tells you, "Well I just talked to the Constitution---he lives up their in 'the village' (and summers in 'The City'), you know--and he just told me that PBS is provided for under his sayso". So, apparently now a constitutionally-limited republic means that we can't even stop funding PBS, because the Cons. said so, just go ask him---except he doesn't speak to neocons.

I mean we've had about 20 years where judges admit that they have been chasing ghosts and shadows to overrule the majority will. "Emanations and penumbrae"---or do I just have to sit docile until I find out what the lawyers define as "emanations and penumbrae" are really a bedrock base.

I do not know what you mean short on substance. Reader started the exchange by saying that I was way off. He provided no substance for his "rebuttal" from my text, such as providing a parallel context in which I would be using the 4th amendment. In my last post, I challenged him to construct the argument that I was making. Because from my perspective something can't be about due process alone. There must be a substance to the denial of due process. Therefore my mentioning due process was not to deny that there was a basis on which the denial of substantive due process would have been denied.

If you can construct a parallel meaning, I would ask you to. If not, you would have to admit that Reader did not make his case--which he everafter chided me about.

So if you prefer his frequent imputations to my motive to my discussion of his text, his frequent polarization of my pov, and his rampant strawmen then well, that's your prerogative.

If you don't think a discussion of Taney's elitism and the people's redress by the bloodiest war America ever fought pertinant to the balance between the people and the judges, then you apparently have an insight that I lack.

And if you think that I even ventured that no form of search (where people are actually trying to find hidden things in lockers and on persons) was carried on at school as opposed to reader's two points of "rebuttal" of a point that (I claim) I never advanced, then I would just ask simple documentation of my error.

Incidently, I feel that neither of you parsed what I said about Locke. I said that the cons. was not created by specialists implementing Locke and testing it for its purity (and I could have included others) but by representatives chosen by the people.

If you miss the difference between promoting Locke and arguing that the Cons. wasn't created in pure application of Locke, then I really can't import more weight to your words than I can agree with as incidentals.

Reader's comments have been repeatedly off the mark, and totally oblivious to the balance of arguing that the unchecked (I say it is unchecked) ACLU has negative effects on democracy and Reader's assertion that we want to kill and enslave all the "towelheads". Which one is more akin to paranoia?

But again, Reader makes the argument that I used the "wrong clause", therefore he must know what argument I should have used the 4th amendment for. I'm asking him to construct for me his take on what argument I would have used the 4th amendment for but goofed and used the substantive due process "clause" in. If he cannot construct this, than he admits that he does not understand the argument I did make. As a result, he should have asked me to clear up confusion, instead of saying that he understood it enough to conclude it was "way off".

I apologize for the lack of substance in this post.

Reader,

One can see that Hamilton's federalism did indeed win out, just by observing our institutions. Those entities such as the Bank and Currency are more of what I would describe as common sense. It makes sense to have a standard currency policy nationwide, as well as banking standards that do not differ from state to state. I don't think many people have any problem with this (at least i've never heard a Libertarian crying "States should control the banks...oh my god...Jefferson is rolling in his grave").

But a quick-witted Libertarian might say, so you do you favor one European currency? In which my response would be: They are socialists, and we are not. Why wouldn't they want one?

And Hamilton's fear of warring factions was right on target. If it weren't for a strong Federal government in the 1860s, the Civil War may have turned out differently.

Overall, it's funny to look at these two figures and compare them to modern day politicians. I would say Jefferson is like Bill Clinton (they both were quite popular with the ladies), and Hamilton is like Newt Gingrich or Steve Forbes (all economically brilliant, yet probably slept with one woman their entire lives).

Whites - as far as Newt is concerned, that 'slept with the same girl' bit is off. He's been married more than once, and the Dems used the details to great effect against the concept of 'family values.' And Hamilton was a bit of a rake himself, nearly blackmailed for an affair; he got out from under by publicly admitting it.

I have a question to consider - Hamilton wanted a powerful central government, and Jefferson a small, limited one. To what extent could they both have their way?

(I have the beginnings of an answer, but I'm not up on my Federalist Papers, so I'm quite interested in what you all say on this.)

Nightfly,

Yes you are correct...Newt doesn't apply here...maybe Forbes though.

I did not know that about Hamilton, I was just throwing a dart and hoping it landed on the map.

Sea King...i'm tired of arguing with you about this. You are too long winded and I do not have the time, no offense. Also, I probably don't care or have much interest in your debate with Reader about the 4th Ammendment. I was just making an observation about the argument.

For what I can tell, Reader's prose is much easier to understand, and his argument has more structure. You however, seemingly have little organization to your thoughts (for the most part). Sometimes it seems you just throw random thoughts into paragraphs and then tie it all together. But when I scroll down to the end, I end up not remembering most of what you wrote, and am frustrated.

Nightfly....for this Jefferson/Hamilton querie....I think if we kept to letting the Feds take care of defense, commerce, and currency etc...and let the States take of the rest, we could get there. This is a simple illustration of my thoughts. Federalism should be very important in this structure.

Chris: "Sometimes it seems you just throw random thoughts into paragraphs and then tie it all together. But when I scroll down to the end, I end up not remembering most of what you wrote, and am frustrated."

Chris, thanks for the criticism. I write for free-form in forums then I tend to in other writing. Oddly enough, I do edit myself and my half-page replies, and there is about another half a page that I decided was a dead end or too off-topic, or just needed to be cut.

I'm not a strictly linear thinker. When I follow a logical link from another, I often see reinforcing points that touch on it. Writing is a struggle to put my 3D thought life into a 1-dimensional stream.

My argument style, though honed, is a little hard for people to understand sometimes. I try to grant my opposition everything I can that doesn't directly point out a fundamental difference between worldviews. I structure my arguments "robustly" (I'm a programmer.) so that they don't fail if I am wrong on a single piece of information.

You could check out my blog http://www.christian-philosopher/blogwp and see if I'm not just a little more linear there.

Chris,

I'll try to keep this a little more linear. On the topic of something reader said: Basically, were Reader to have his stated choice, I could not post on any forum he might read on any subject he doesn't think I know about in order for him to be given his druthers.

Somehow I don't suspect Gwenny is going to be posting on this or many other forums in the near future. Why? It's (no offence, Dan) small potatoes. Why post on a blog to make your voice heard when you can just speak into one of the many cameras the media puts into your face.

Reader has shown a number of times that he has little sense of scale. He can belittle my fear of the ACLU gaining power that is out of balance, but the idea that we're all going to hunt him down and enslave him or kill everyone of his ilk---that's reasonable. Even when he was being polite about it, he mentioned that he had to stop his arrogance from boiling over because you didn't realize how pressing the whole genocide threat was from his POV.

What would happen if Gwen were doing what I was doing? Well, two things could happen the media could run a story about it, or people could pass it around my word of mouth, but unless that happened, it would be relatively obscure, "just for friends" type of thing. Seeing that nobody is likely to alert the press or their friends about my post, the two circumstances are just not equal. Gwen doesn't know about politics, but she speaks to many. I "don't know about the Supreme Court law" and I shouldn't even write to the people that read this blog.

I don't think that Rush or anybody is asking that Ms. Paltrow just shut her mouth and post nowhere that anybody can see. So I don't really think the criticisms are nearly equivalent. But ardent defender of rights that Reader is, he wants to complain that I get any voice if people complain that Ms. Paltrow gets a disproportionate one in the mass media--who are ideologically predisposed to this "voice" anyway.

It might strike you as odd, as much arrogance as I have shown in some passages, but I seriously considered many of Reader's points--and this one bugged me until I found a resolution for it. I hope I made that clearer than you have found other posts.

Sea King,

Your points are right on target here. Reader does seemingly contradict himself when he says that he doesn't (nor anyone else) should hear your views on the law, yet affords Paltrow her views (and she is probably less informed on the whole political picture then you are less informed on the whole law picture). For the record (I have already said this), I have a perfunctary knowledge of these issues, as I have never studied constitutional law on more than a high school level.

You can argue on this blog however you want (hey, it's a free country...almost), but I find it easier to read when you construct less straw men, and provide more proof. That's all i'm saying. Otherwise, I find most of what you say agreeable.

Strawmen?

I might have misguessed where Reader was coming from, or what amount of formal education he had in the law if he criticized me for my lack of formal education, but assuming that he was a lawyer didn't assist my defeating his case. It didn't simplify the argument, it's not a strawman.

His first volley on the ACLU was a strawman and an ad hominem, circumstantial If I don't like the ACLU, he concludes---as directly as he possibly can---that I don't then like "civil liberties". This is an extremely simplified argument. That is when I called it "label buyin". But here is the odd part as long as my posts can be, when I use a more immediate phrase, I tend to get accused of oversimplification.

Truth be known, I really do care somewhat about legal arguments. I'm not quite the luddite, I was for economy. But ultimately, I don't. I didn't want to get into the cloud of words, but I do have this to say about "interpretations": the way the ACLU commonly operates these days is that they find a law that they don't like and then they find people to complain about it. It's no secret that they advertise for plaintiffs. But the question to me is why? Why submit something to the court just because it might possibly be a violation of the Cons. in somebody's interpretation? Is it really like we have slack time in the courts to pass everything throught the filter of such semantic ana-lysis? I'm assuming we can tell the difference between a law that executes all the people in a town of a certain color (in a flagrant violation of the States' pact in the 14th amendment--and most likely the State constitution and then after that the charter from the state.) and knowing where kids are on the school playground.

So I do use some brevity--even where I risk sounding like a luddite.

Just a bit more on the 14th, a centrality issue: It's hard to imagine what the 14th amendment protects if it doesn't protect the nightmare scenarios Reader presents. But you can't say the same thing about the Sutter situation.

Reader,

I find you to be a rather convenient thinker. Just because it is convenient to say that I'm asking you to make my case for me, you do. What I asked you to do is construct a reading that is consistant with both what I wrote and confusing the a direct confusion of clauses. And by the way, you don't even carry off your argument that well, so it seems that among your misreadings, you can include that "compliment".

Regardless, perhaps you don't see the ACLU because of your ideological blinders. Californian voters voted Prop 209 into the Californian constitution. On November 6th, the ACLU led the charge to argue that an admendment to the state's constitution violates the 14th amendment.

They got a sympathetic ear in a judge who sat on an ACLU board up until 4 years before. He put an injunction on it, and ruled that it would probably be overturned because it violated the 14th amendment. On later review, the court of appeals unanimously found this argument to be without merit. But had the ACLU had its druthers, the voters of California's 3-to-2 vote would have meant nothing.

This is so easy. All I had to do is google the ACLU, and within 15 minutes, I've got a case of the ACLU doing just exactly what you said they didn't do.

Thirdly, I've never read Strauss and really didn't know anything about him until I read Dan's latest book. But I don't sound a bit like what I read. Besides, I gather that the Straussians are too busy hiding from potential persecution, to ever say anything publicly Straussian. So I guess that you are responding to the ghost of another conservative. You seem to do that a lot.

Fourthly, now you are confusing two things. I never said acting liberal was insisting on due process. Plain due process has been around as long as common law. If they jail me without cause, they have violated my right to plain due process. See, this is how it is done. I show you where you confused to things, not blandly suggest that you did. I'm not even going to tell you you are way off. You best know what you intended to convey---but to me, you look way off.

Hey you know what? If you strand a conservative and a liberal out in the middle of the desert, they will act much the same way to survive. I don't consider it "liberal" simply because a liberal would do that. I don't consider outrage at being unjustly imprisoned either liberal or conservative.

"Acting liberal" is reasonable for liberals, but it is rather inconsistent for conservatives, and I was talking mainly to conservatives.