Saturday, September 29, 2012

Thought of the day.

How can you scream a photo ID to vote must be completely free or its not constitutional yet think a fee of hundreds of dollars for a carry permit is constitutional?


13 comments:

  1. By charging people to vote you marginalize the poor and the young to have a say in the democratic process. If a mother has to choose between getting an ID to vote or feeding her kids, I know what she will choose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. By charging people to vote you marginalize the poor and the young to have a say in the democratic process. If a mother has to choose between getting an ID to vote or feeding her kids, I know what she will choose.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can appreciate your "Thought of the Day", even if it slightly assaults my appreciation of decent, if not proper use of punctuation. It's a good question to raise, but I heard that one should never offer a complaint unless they are also prepared to offer a solution.
    Perhaps the reason you refuse to debate Brian Stevens is because on issues like this, Stevens is offering real solutions while you can only contemplate where to add a comma, only to apparently give it up entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...Stevens is offering real solutions..."

    You mean lowering the unconstitutional tax on 2nd Amendment rights?

    Stevens doesn't get it. He is not striking the root. What would he consider a reasonable fee/tax/permit cost to exercise freedom of speech?

    It is because he doesn't get the constitutional principle that rights cannot be taxed (because then they are merely privileges granted and taken away by the state) that he cannot take a stand on the issue of guns on campus and instead put up a weather vane.
    He is not the only office-seeker or holder who does these things, it just isn't an improvement.

    Liberty comes with inherent risk. Eliminating the liberty does not eliminate the risk. See "gun free zones" or "drunk driving" for example.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eric: You're conflating a fee with a tax. If your argument stands upon the basis of it being an unconstitutional tax and it turns out it is in fact a service fee, then your entire argument splashes right next to Camp's general output of written thought.

    There's a reason Stevens isn't considering "a reasonable fee/tax/permit cost to exercise freedom of speech" and that's because it's a strawman argument. You have WAY more leverage against something ridiculous that doesn't exist than to show how the an exorbitant $115 fee is an unconstitutional tax. You've also neglected to give any substantive examples of Stevens not understanding constitutional principle which don't require you to play a game of grossly misrepresented semantics.

    Now, when you're not drawing absurd comparisons, apparently you can pivot seamlessly (bravo, btw) from the topic at hand right into issues of guns on campus, which is something that's entirely and realistically up for proper debate and discussion, and a subject to which Stevens has been incredibly open.

    So what is it that Stevens doesn't get? Because it sounds to me like he know's what he's talking about, how to address and deal with it and he's in touch with the public.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "So what is it that Stevens doesn't get?"

    Apparently you didn't read my comment.

    "...he doesn't get the constitutional principle that rights cannot be taxed (because then they are merely privileges granted and taken away by the state)..."

    You can play semantics with tax vs. service fee if you want (or the perpetual $50 "renewal fee" for no services), but no matter what you call it, you do not have a right if you are required to pay money to the state and get their permission perpetually to exercise it. The "service" as you want to define it, is unconstitutional at any price and your right is reduced to a privilege granted by the state. Thus, merely lowering the amount of the unconstitutional fee/tax/permit/"service" is not a substantive change or a "real solution".

    "...you can pivot seamlessly (bravo, btw) from the topic at hand..."

    Which was the idiocy of crying foul at requiring a free state photo id to vote while at the same time finding no problem with charging hundreds of dollars to exercise a right that is actually enumerated in the constitution. Somehow YOU went from that to ad hominem attacks on Sen. Campfield and attempts to pump your candidate. I went looking for his "real solutions" and reported what I found. If you would like to return to the subject at hand rather than discuss your candidate and his propensity to tax constitutional rights at reasonable rates, I'd be glad to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd have probably paid just for the pleasure of knowing you could hear me laugh when I read your reply.

      "You can play semantics with tax vs. service fee if you want..."
      lol

      The point I rest with is that you still haven't shown me that the fee is an unconstitutional tax. At the end of the day, that fee is a superfluous expenditure burdened by licensed individuals and it's a problem that Stevens is addressing for what it is: A FEE that he would like to see lowered significantly or eliminated, but for some reason, because he's not calling it a tax, you have a problem with that. That's weird.

      Eric, I'm really disappointed. You missed out on an opportunity to rebut by ignoring the key points I made, choosing instead to bray some more about a fee being a tax and why that's unconstitutional. You drew conclusions from supposition and then accused me of ad hominem without knowing what the word means, never once reporting what you found, as you suggested. And then you displayed a comical attempt to turn my criticism of your post (pivoting on topic) against me which is tantamount to "I know you are but what am I?".

      If your next reply continues this trend, I will consider this discussion unsalvageable due to lack of salient counter-argument and decline to participate for my own sanity.

      Delete
  7. "...decline to participate for my own sanity."

    Appears it may be a little too late for that. Keep moving those goalposts.

    Here it is one last time: "...you do not have a right if you are required to pay money to the state and get their permission perpetually to exercise it."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eric- you and I and Stevens all agree what the problem is. What I find interesting is that since 2004, when Campfield was elected into the Tennessee House of Representatives -and later, the senate, he hasn't done ANYTHING to address, lower or remove the fee to acquire the license/permit. Regardless of what his thoughts are, he hasn't done anything about it.
    Yet when Stevens stepped up and addressed and offered solutions to deal with this very issue and you claimed that it's not good enough, citing that all Stevens wants to do is lower the cost, which, you made clear, you don't believe should exist.

    Would you agree that this an honest and accurate summary of the heart of this discussion?

    If you could agree, then lets put our heads together for a moment and consider what this means. I believe it would mean that we're on the very same side of an issue and we acknowledge that in Stevens, there is a candidate who appears willing to seriously work on the issue in addition to his stated platform. Whether you feel that's "good enough" or not is beside the point; It's actionable attention to the issue. And I'd like to think that you would be willing, like me, to concede that in the end, it would be better for us to work together to the same end.
    I wonder... Are you willing to help?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You cannot dismiss that Democrats had control from 2004 to 2010 and the Draconian control of Boss Hogg Naifeh in your assessment of that window. Stacey has chosen an incrementalist approach that always relies upon the unconstitutional infringement "carry permit" as a prerequisite to afford the "permit" holder ability to exercise their purchased privilege in more places (parks, bars, etc.) or creating special classes of citizens like retired judges, police officers, etc. I give him considerable grief on all these bills and say I could not vote for them because they are unconstitutional - as they require an infringement to keeping and bearing arms in the 2nd Amendment tax known as the "carry permit". However, this incremental method is very hard for liars like Naifeh, who say they support the 2nd Amendment yet ensure they never have to vote on the issue, to offer resistance to.

    Republicans have had two years to do something about that after 150 years of asking for the majority so they could pass something. Certain Team R members don't believe in the constitution or the right to keep and bear arms - at least not as much as maintaining certain corporate intere$t$. Let's face it, nobody but Campfield, with the exception of Eddie Bass (with the incremental NRA bill), has made any attempt at headway on this issue. At least Stacey favors Vermont carry or constitutional carry. I encourage him in that and any other legislator that claims to believe their oath to support/defend the constitution. Otherwise, they need to put forth an amendment to make our current practice legal. "Regulate the wearing" is being used to prohibit the bearing.

    I don't care what letter is behind Stevens' name (if he claims a party). Lowering the fee for the infringement is not an improvement addressing the principle matter, just more incrementalism. Correct me if I'm wrong (I only see the Facebook page) but he hasn't made a stand on guns on campus, just asked for comments. Since most of the work there seems dedicated to anti-Campfield, I can only surmise he wants to draw a distinction on that issue, which would mean he opposes. If he supports the 2nd Amendment (federal) then he has to agree with Campfield on that one. He claims libertarian tendency but these are pretty cut and dry for the libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Constitutional scholar Jon Roland does a good job differentiating between eligibility to vote vs proving identity. Politicans are much too dense to understand this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. When your votes are being overruled by Diebold or John Boehner's teleprompter, it removes a lot of the incentive to bother.

    Roland makes a great point about the notary knowing their neighbors. Heck, imagine actually knowing the person you want to vote for...instead of a fraudulent campaign facade.

    ReplyDelete

Here are the rules for comments. Know them. Live them.

http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2011/04/rules-for-comments.html?m=1