Why I will support Joe Republic for President

[ilikeverin]

(not about the unconstitutionality, but about what that statement truly means)

If you are implying that I support slavery, or that I think it was acceptable, then I would apologize for any misunderstanding, but assert that nothing could be further from my views.

But it would have been constitutional

Anyway, I see now that you merely oppose all things unconstitutional (not necessarily support all things constitutional), but, still.  This makes me uneasy.

[Joe Republic]

Wow, I am deeply flattered and grateful to you for your support, Peter.  I understand that this was a difficult decision, and I appreciate your kind words as well.  I really am proud to consider you a supporter.

I won't weigh in too heavily into the Constitutional debate in this thread.  I'm afraid to say that my knowledge of American Constitutional Law is not as detailed, and my vocabulary not as rich as my opponent's.  But I will echo Htmldon's view here that if any law that improves the lives of Atlasian citizens is struck down because of Article X, Section Y, Paragraph Z of the Constitution, then it's the Constitution that ought to be changed, not the law.

I will also point out that I support most social legislation to be dealt with at the regional level, and not the federal level.  However, I will support any law - be it federal or regional - as long as it improves the lives of ordinary Atlasians.

[Emsworth]

Anyway, I see now that you merely oppose all things unconstitutional...  This makes me uneasy.

Might I ask why? With all due respect, what is the point of going through all the trouble of calling a Constitutional Convention, drafting the Constitution, and calling votes in each region to ratify the Constitution, if the government is not going to follow it?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

But I will echo Htmldon's view here that if any law that improves the lives of Atlasian citizens is struck down because of Article X, Section Y, Paragraph Z of the Constitution, then it's the Constitution that ought to be changed, not the law.

Exactly.

[Jake]

But, it was constitutional Verin

[ilikeverin]

Anyway, I see now that you merely oppose all things unconstitutional...  This makes me uneasy.

Might I ask why? With all due respect, what is the point of going through all the trouble of calling a Constitutional Convention, drafting the Constitution, and calling votes in each region to ratify the Constitution, if the government is not going to follow it?

Let's say an amendment passed that said all citizens named Emsworth must be shot.  Would you gladly take yourself to be shot?

[Emsworth]

Let's say an amendment passed that said all citizens named Emsworth must be shot.  Would you gladly take yourself to be shot?

Like I said, I don't support all things that are constitutional. Slavery was at one time constitutional, yet I would not support it. A 100% income tax is constitutional, yet I would not support it. I am not particularly inclined, similarly, to support this amendment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Joe Republic is definitely more of a Democrat than Emsworth.

[Gabu]

Anyway, I see now that you merely oppose all things unconstitutional...  This makes me uneasy.

Might I ask why? With all due respect, what is the point of going through all the trouble of calling a Constitutional Convention, drafting the Constitution, and calling votes in each region to ratify the Constitution, if the government is not going to follow it?

It seems to me that his view is simply that the Constitution is not perfect, and that when a law is deemed unconstitutional, it should be examined whether this means that the law was a bad one or that the Constitution does not cover something that it should.

[Joe Republic]

Joe Republic is definitely more of a Democrat than Emsworth.

You take that back.  I don't take insults very well.

[Joe Republic]

Let's say an amendment passed that said all citizens named Emsworth must be shot.  Would you gladly take yourself to be shot?

Like I said, I don't support all things that are constitutional. Slavery was at one time constitutional, yet I would not support it. A 100% income tax is constitutional, yet I would not support it. I am not particularly inclined, similarly, to support this amendment.

With respect, that's not really what Verin was saying.  I could understand you not supporting his hypothetical amendment, but would you actually allow it to be carried out?

[The Duke]

Sounds like Emsworth wants the presidency to be a figurehead position.

What it sounds like is that he opposes minimum wages, but realizes he can't win if he believes that, so he's hiding behind caselaw and evasive language.  Opposing the minimum wage is a perfectly legitimate position, but if my interpretation is accurate, Emsworth should be more open about it.

[Emsworth]

With respect, that's not really what Verin was saying.  I could understand you not supporting his hypothetical amendment, but would you actually allow it to be carried out?

Naturally, I would not support such a position, although my view would hardly matter in practice.

I believe (to paraphrase that illustrious document, the Declaration of Independence) that all persons have the natural rights to life, liberty, and property; that governments are instituted to secure these rights; that whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it. If a government becomes so tyrannical as to pass a bill of attainder, so injurious to the natural rights of the People as to disregard the right to life, so prone to usurpations as to presume mandate murder, then it is no longer legitimate.

[Gabu]

With respect, that's not really what Verin was saying.  I could understand you not supporting his hypothetical amendment, but would you actually allow it to be carried out?

Naturally, I would not support such a position, although my view would hardly matter in practice.

I believe (to paraphrase that illustrious document, the Declaration of Independence) that all persons have the natural rights to life, liberty, and property; that governments are instituted to secure these rights; that whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it. If a government becomes so tyrannical as to pass a bill of attainder, so injurious to the natural rights of the People as to disregard the right to life, so prone to usurpations as to presume mandate murder, then it is no longer legitimate.

So what's the difference between that injustice and the injustice of slavery?  I presume that you wouldn't call America before the thirteenth amendment "illegitimate".

[Emsworth]

So what's the difference between that injustice and the injustice of slavery?

There isn't any, except that slavery was much more unjust, affecting many people. The governments of several states during that era certainly were morally illegitimate, in the sense that they condoned slavery.

[CheeseWhiz]

I just want to say that I understand you, Emsworth!

You have my second preference, I wish I could give you my first, my brother just picked a bad time to run, (should have done it when I didn't like any of the candidates.)

I also wanted to say that I oppose a minimum wage, it just doesn't seem right for the Feds to interfere with private businesses.

[Ebowed]

Joe Republic is definitely more of a Democrat than Emsworth.

Seeing as Joe Republic claims his ideology to be centrist and dislikes the concept of parties in the first place, I'm not sure how you could draw that conclusion.

[Peter]

He has repudiated the minimum wage...

The Supreme Court has stated that the minimum wage is unconstitutional. It has declared that labor is not an "article of commerce" that can be regulated by the federal government. Accordingly, I don't think it unreasonable to hold the view that minimum wages ought to be left up to the regions.

I suspect that he would repudiate much needed regulation to protect the environment and other interests that usually do not fare that well under total free market conditions.

If there is a constitutional clause authorizing federal protection of the environment is pointed out to me, then I should like it to be pointed out. There is no interstate commerce clause. There is no protection of the environment clause. How, then, shall federal environmental legislation stand up to legal scrutiny?

I will not hesitate to say that, if the Constitution does not authorize some legislation (however good it may be, however much I like it), I will not support it. Call me pedantic, if you like. But my respect for that fundamental and supreme law transcends my ideological positions: I will, if elected, follow my oath to preserve and defend the Constitution.

You assume that I would state these should be mandated by the federal government where I make no such statement.

You have stated in the past your ideological opposition to the minimum wage have you not? Your willingness to defer to the Constitution is admirable without doubt, but beyond that I need a President who I believe will uphold some basic and fundamental ideological values, regardless of whether he would be able to implement them or not. I consider that at least the notion of ideological support of the minimum wage to be among these.

[Everett]

Joe Republic is definitely more of a Democrat than Emsworth.

Seeing as Joe Republic claims his ideology to be centrist and dislikes the concept of parties in the first place, I'm not sure how you could draw that conclusion.

He's insulting Joe, Ebowed.

[WiseGuy]

I couldn't decide whether to reply to this thread, as I  hate hijacking threads.  However I think I should explain  my position on these issues, since they're obviously important to many voters.  Like Emsworth, I believe that the federal government's power is limited in the areas of regulating pollution and setting a minimum wage.  But I differ with his view that it is completely inhibited.

This is why I will do everything possible to provide such things as tax breaks to companies who try to lower their pollution emissions or pay decent wages to employees, and set an energy policy which promotes clean energy sources, like nuclear power.

And when I have done everything within my power as President, I will ask the Governors to take  appropriate action within the Regional Governments.  This  is my promise to the Citizens of Atlasia:  I will limit  the government to protect your freedom, but I will also do use my authority to address important problems facing our great Nation.

I am not a radical libertarian, nor a far right wing nut.  I am a moderate conservative, who strongly believes, in those famous words of the Declaration of Independence, that governments are instituted among men to protect their unalienable rights, and among these are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!"

This is why I so strongly support Dubya.  He is a Conservative with compassion.  He is sympathetic with the needs of struggling Atlasian families, but yet he understands that government must be limited in order to protect the liberty that we hold dear.  Our team also realizes that we must have a strong moral foundation in order to tackle the challenges of inter-generational poverty and the cycle of violence and crime in our communities.  This has nothing to do with interfering with individual liberty, and everything to do with promoting the importance of the family unit and the need for stable two-parent households.

If we work hard enough, there isn't anthing that we can't accomplish as Atlasians.  We cannot cower in fear or come up with ideological mumbo-jumbo to lead us astray from tackling the challenges that Atlasian families face.

Thank you, htmldon.  I like to think of myself that way and I’m glad to know that this the impression I’m giving to others.

[Emsworth]

You assume that I would state these should be mandated by the federal government where I make no such statement.

But should not the campaign be primarily about actual issues, rather than hypothetical ones? I personally feel that if the minimum wage is not constitutional, then debating it during the campaign is not particularly productive, although you are naturally free to disagree.

I will add that I am not so arrogant as to think that my ideology is absolutely correct, and that the whole nation must always abide by it. I am willing to work out reasonable compromises with those whose views are different. It is not as if, if I become President, I will impose my views, and my views alone, on the country. I have no intention of being intolerant or dictatorial in my policy; I am perfectly willing to work with others, and to take differing views into account.

[ilikeverin]

I am not a radical libertarian, nor a far right wing nut.

I think abolishing every single federal agency besides the military qualifies you for one of those titles

[WiseGuy]

I am not a radical libertarian, nor a far right wing nut.

I think abolishing every single federal agency besides the military qualifies you for one of those titles

1) I never said I wanted to abolish all of them.  I said transfer them to the Regional level and in a very few cases, abolish them.  I want to eliminate the pork that is running amok in Nyman.  And furthermore, the military wasn't the only thing I wanted to retain at the federal level.

2) I said I was “neither a radical libertarian nor a far right wing nut."  I am a libertarian-leaning conservative who favors a smaller Federal Government.

3) If that's the best stuff you can come up with, when the candidate you're supporting is a far left wing radical, I've got no worries in this campaign.

[ilikeverin]

I am not a radical libertarian, nor a far right wing nut.

I think abolishing every single federal agency besides the military qualifies you for one of those titles

1) I never said I wanted to abolish all of them.  I said transfer them to the Regional level and in a very few cases, abolish them.  I want to eliminate the pork that is running amok in Nyman.  And furthermore, the military wasn't the only thing I wanted to retain at the federal level.

You know that moving them to regions is equivalent to abolishment in Atlasia

Besides, why is pork in Nyman worse than pork in Belle Fourche? (not that we'd have any )

And what pork is there, anyway?  As far as I know the Senate is relatively porkless

Fourth, don't you think dividing all the billions of dollars of spending we have into five and massively unloading it on the regions would be a bit much hassle?  We're having enough troubles figuring out our budget right now, let alone adding however much more you'd give to us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but I think basically abolishing the federal government gives you one of those titles.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see how the candidate I am supporting makes a difference.

[WiseGuy]

I fail to see how the candidate I am supporting makes a difference.

I was half-way joking, hence the