Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Captain Nate

Regulars
  • Content Count

    273
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain Nate

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/21/1985

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.gammabase.com
  • ICQ
    0
  1. Moose, you're misreading Lawrence. It was not decided on search & seizure grounds, rather, it was decided that substantive due process (the due process clause of the 14th amendment) protects private, consensual sexual acts.
  2. What had ALWAYS been done -- leave it up to the states to decide. I think that's a peculiar interpretation of the so-calle "right of privacy." I don't see how privacy rights would necesarilly be construed to extend to things that often occur in the public sphere, such as business exchanges. Now, the right to your own money, or free business exchanges, would be protected in the "right to contract", which the Supreme Court upheld in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment during the Lockner Era (roughly the late 1800s to the New Deal), and was used to strike down onerous business re
  3. You have to make your decision based on the Constitution, which you are sworn to uphold. It's the objective law of the land, and rewriting it with your own opinions is wrong and disasterous. Plus, your authority to adjudicate cases exists only because the Constitution grants it to you; if you pervert what the Constitution says, you're creating a contradiction because your perverting your own authority you're using justify your action.
  4. I carried out my own experiment in re-writing the Constitution a while ago, which I posted here: http://www.hulknews.com/constitution/Const...n-reworked.html
  5. They have the last word on the interpretation of the Constitution, not the discretion to eliminate parts of it not to their liking. The court gets their authority from the Constitution, they have an obligation to uphold it, by holding that they can strike the passages they dislike is a philosophical contradiction because their destroying their own legitimacy (from the perspective of philosophy of law). If both branches decide not to carry out their roles as dilineated in the Constitution then we truly have lost the rule of law and objective government. But it's no worse if Congress does i
  6. I'm shocked by the lack of rationality approaching Constitutional interpretation here. First off, the Court cannot, Constitutionally speaking, rule an amendment unconstitutional. There are no classes of constitutionality and an amendment is as much a part of the Constitution as the one written in 1787. To grant the Supreme Court the authority to overturn the Constitution is far scarier to me than allowing a bad amendment to pass; a bad amendment could be repealed, but giving ultimate power of governance to 9 individuals who can make law based on personal and abritrary whim is so far from true
  7. If officers have a reasonable suspision that announcing would either a) endanger themselves or result in the destruction of evidence, they may enter without announcing themselves.
  8. As a big fan of comic book heroes, this is something I've thought about often, and have posted on here in the past. I think these threads would be of interest to you: On Spider-Man 2 - http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1556 On Batman Begins - http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ic=3803&hl=Hulk On the Hulk - http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=3785& Comics in General - http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ic=3091&hl=Hulk
  9. Nope, it was fully operational last week. Part of EPCOT is a celebration of technology and innovation. Part of it is celebration of many different cultures. And some of it is sickening Earth-day nonsense. With the deal to buy Pixar, the managers of Pixar actually gained significant control over Disney (Jobs is now the largest Disney shareholder) and they exert a lot of creative control, rather than the other way around. There have been numerous stories of Pixar folks killing Disney projects, not the other way around.
  10. In my recent trip to Disney World, I encountered this: Walt Disney World's EPCOT has a world showcase featuring nations around the world, including one on America. Inside one of the building featuring a show on America, the walls have several quotes and I was shocked to see at the front of the room, above the Declaration of Independence, was a quote by Ayn Rand.
  11. You seem to have confused the functions of government with the structure of government. Broadly speaking, government has 3 functions/roles: police, military & courts. Its structure can take different forms. The police would not exist as an independent entity, they might be answerable to the executive branch as they are now. The U.S. government as it is structured now, in regards to its division of powers, could be used as a structure for an Objectivist LFC government if it limited its actions to the proper government functions. Objectivism itself lays out very few, if any, demands o
  12. Not quite. What you've identified are the 3 proper roles of the government - the police, the military and the courts. That does not mean the government is divided into, and consists of, only those things akin to the current "division of powers." The United States, as it is structured, can be an "Objectivist government" if it refined and limited its powers according to the principles Rand gave. These are my questions: Whichever person, or group of persons, the constitution gives this power to, idealy a civilian. Legislators are a distinct class from judges, at least in Americ
  13. My biggest problem with most athiests is that they don't have a good moral philosophy to fall back on, as many do turn out to be leftist moonbats who get off on attacking people of faith yet offer nothing substantive in return. I'd take a person who is rational in most aspect of their lives, yet believes in god, over a "godless socialist." My group of friends are a pretty diverse lot, some are conservative and some "libertarian"(for lack of a better term), some athiest, some Jewish, some catholic and some protestant. But we all respect each other, because despite our personal faiths (or lac
  14. Ah, but if they were communists, why would the UN attack them?
  15. I was compelled to watch this film (at least some of it, it's supposed to be nearly 3 hours long) in a philosophy class yesterday and my mind is still trying to recover from the mental pillaging the evil in this movie performed on it. The entire premise of the film is that Corporations, as legal persons (the movie never draws the distinctions between corporate "persons" and real persons, so the audience assumes they share all the same legal rights) are psychotic violators of law and decency and pretty much evil towards their workers, the environment and the consumers. It's selective use
×
×
  • Create New...