Economic Freedom is the Only Kind That Matters

[DanH]

and we just lost it...
Five Years from Now...
Since the print media is dying, Congress decides that every person must buy a subscription to the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, and Mother Jones. The Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily were originally included on the Required Subscription List, but were removed after publishing editorials criticizing the president. Think the press is still free?
So many things become required purchases that everyone has to work two jobs, if they can find them. No one has time to speak in public, protest anything, get together with anyone, or even pray. We also don't have any spare money to donate to politicians we might support, or a church, but we don't have time to attend anyway. We can't even afford to hire a lawyer to sue for redress of grievances. So much for the rest of the first amendment.
Don't worry about the lawyers, though. Since no one but the government could afford to hire one, the government hired them all. Now the State Department is suing the Justice Department to enforce international law, the EPA is suing the Energy Department to shut down nuclear and coal power plants, and the Labor Department is suing the Education Department to hire more union teachers. Call it the circular firing squad.
And as for the Second Amendment we love so much? It still exists. However, every gun owner has to buy $50 million in liability insurance in case they ever actually fire their gun. Of course no one can afford to fire their gun, because every round of ammunition is subject to a $50 Federal Excise Tax, from the Make Todd Green Cry Act of 2013.
Enjoy your new world.

[Jay Cunningham]

the Make Todd Green Cry Act of 2013

This legislation has my full backing.

[fuse]

This legislation has my full backing.

We must act now and immediately pass this important bipartisan cause of freedom and justice.

[jetfire]

Today on the internet: Everyone is a ConLaw scholar!

[BaiHu]

and we just lost it...
Five Years from Now...

REDACTED FOR EASE OF READING

Of course no one can afford to fire their gun, because every round of ammunition is subject to a $50 Federal Excise Tax, from the Make Todd Green Cry Act of 2013.
Enjoy your new world.


This legislation has my full backing.

Well said DanH, sadly :(

As for the final nail in the coffin, I'm not with Jay-the MTGCA of 2013 would make me cry too :(

[BaiHu]

We must act now and immediately pass this important bipartisan cause of freedom and justice.

Totally! You didn't get your conlaw degree for the low, low price of $399 and a weekend long course? They send you the certificate right away and use the honor code to make sure you do the work-it's SWEET!! :cool:

[DanH]

Today on the internet: Everyone is a ConLaw scholar!

pft that's everyday ;p

[bdcheung]

Sure is a lot of FUD going on today.

It's really easy to look at the SCOTUS and say, "They found in favor of this law which opens a slippery slope for increasingly worsening laws! Damn SCOTUS!"

It's tough to look at ourselves and say, "We haven't done enough to facilitate open discourse among the electorate, leading to a situation where people elect a government without holding them accountable; where people are not educated enough to make an informed decision about there vote; where people misconstrue the power of the Executive and Legislative branches."

When was the last time you walked up to an individual who you knew had opposing views on a subject and said, "Let's have a rational discussion about <<INSERT_ISSUE>>. I am open to having my mind changed and will actively listen to reasonable arguments"?

I work with a bunch of Democrats and rarely, if ever, do that. Which is wrong of me, because I'm disallowing myself the value of a well-rounded perspective on a number of issues.

SCOTUS isn't the problem.

POTUS isn't the problem.

WE are the problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DocGKR]

WE the (self-centered, uneducated, dishonorable) PEOPLE are indeed the problem.

[JFK]

Well said DanH, sadly :(

As for the final nail in the coffin, I'm not with Jay-the MTGCA of 2013 would make me cry too :(

We will just have to put an amendment allowing selected groups the ability to get a waiver. That way it is only fair.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Today on the internet: Everyone is a ConLaw scholar!

Wikipedia University School of Law is just pumping out those degrees...

Ya know, you've actually hit on something that pisses me off.

I was listening to AM talk radio yesterday, and everyone was saying "I just don't understand how they could have done this?" Read. The. Decision.

In fact, stop facebooking, log onto Amazon, and buy yourself a used Conn Law text book for $2 (+ $6 shipping) and read the dam thing.

You might get a clue. Everyone has their little pocket copy of the constitution...that was great back in the 1790's.

You know...before 200 years of cases were ruled on, and constitutional provisions were interpreted. Rightly or wrongly...

If people are so outraged, they'd do something effective.

Like get educated or involved.

But that wouldn't be as easy as complaining online, now would it?

[ford.304]

Wikipedia University School of Law is just pumping out those degrees...

Ya know, you've actually hit on something that pisses me off.

I was listening to AM talk radio yesterday, and everyone was saying "I just don't understand how they could have done this?" Read. The. Decision.

In fact, stop facebooking, log onto Amazon, and buy yourself a used Conn Law text book for $2 (+ $6 shipping) and read the dam thing.

You might get a clue. Everyone has their little pocket copy of the constitution...that was great back in the 1790's.

You know...before 200 years of cases were ruled on, and constitutional provisions were interpreted. Rightly or wrongly...

If people are so outraged, they'd do something effective.

Like get educated or involved.

But that wouldn't be as easy as complaining online, now would it?

It's actually kind of amazing how far you can get on this stuff with wikipedia and a few law blogs. Once I discovered the Volokh Conspiracy and scotusblog I just stopped reading anything about big legal decisions in mainstream news sources.

[NETim]

Sure is a lot of FUD going on today.

It's really easy to look at the SCOTUS and say, "They found in favor of this law which opens a slippery slope for increasingly worsening laws! Damn SCOTUS!"

It's tough to look at ourselves and say, "We haven't done enough to facilitate open discourse among the electorate, leading to a situation where people elect a government without holding them accountable; where people are not educated enough to make an informed decision about there vote; where people misconstrue the power of the Executive and Legislative branches."

When was the last time you walked up to an individual who you knew had opposing views on a subject and said, "Let's have a rational discussion about <<INSERT_ISSUE>>. I am open to having my mind changed and will actively listen to reasonable arguments"?

I work with a bunch of Democrats and rarely, if ever, do that. Which is wrong of me, because I'm disallowing myself the value of a well-rounded perspective on a number of issues.

SCOTUS isn't the problem.

POTUS isn't the problem.

WE are the problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have tried to reason with die hard Lefties on a number of issues. I find them, for the most part, arrogant and condescending, quite unwilling to listen to my arguments and eager to dismiss me as their inferior in just about any way you'd care to measure.

I believe myself to be an open minded individual but when someone starts yammering about "reasonable" gun control laws and remains vague as to what constitutes "reasonable", my spidey senses start tingling. For example, I can point to the experience of the Swiss, a country loaded with full auto guns and a perennially low crime rate and it's usually waved off as "NRA Fiction."

They don't want to listen.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

It's actually kind of amazing how far you can get on this stuff with wikipedia and a few law blogs. Once I discovered the Volokh Conspiracy and scotusblog I just stopped reading anything about big legal decisions in mainstream news sources.

Wikipedia & blogs are spoon-feeding people the info, but you don't get the full taste of it unless you are familiar with all the background material.

You can go to a "combat shooting class" and learn how to hit people "fast, up close!!" and be able to defend yourself from a mugging...but if you want to be a good shooter and be able to make low probability shots, you need to have a firm base of fundamentals which requires a different investment in time and resources.

I think it's worth having the background in the fundamentals, because without it, you are really dependent on other people telling you what they want you to know.

[Dropkick]

But that wouldn't be as easy as complaining online, now would it?

What?? I can't hear you over how loud I'm complaining!!
;) :p

[JDM]

In fact, stop facebooking, log onto Amazon, and buy yourself a used Conn Law text book for $2 (+ $6 shipping) ...

Link?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=used+constitutional+law+textbooks

[jrm]

Mitchell would a nutshell, horn book or some other type of book be better for the average person? I find many case books tedious to read and hard to really learn from I think some of them would be almost useless with out a classroom component. I had a "course book" for civil procedure and thought it was really helpful but my con law case book "Leading Cases in Constitutional Law" was virtually nothing but cases the notes were simply shorter excerpts from cases. Anyway, if someone is going to invest the time I want to help make it as beneficial as possible. I will confess I am a bit weak in my understanding of the best secondary sources for general knowledge.

[ToddG]

A horn book is far better than a law school Con Law textbook for someone who's planning to learn on their own. The majority of the law school experience revolves around discussing what's in the law school textbooks so the students can learn to understand how to read decisions.