I’m as pro-choice as anyone can get and find nothing wrong with the courts decision on that matter at all.
I understand the fear that some of these pro-lifers are nut cases and will not share information with or out and out deceive some women if they ask for information about abortion services, but that fear alone is not enough to force people to put up information they don’t want to.
It’s just a shame that some pro-lifers are nut cases like that.
Well, as a free man, with a free mind, I do not embrace that characterization. The negative limits are on the Government, not me. My Forefathers and I have only agreed to the societal/government limits of the Constitution, and not a spit more. Beyond that compact, we are positively free.
I want the Gov tightly limited, and I want nothing from them other than national defense and maintenance of reasonable civil order, both of which they increasingly fail to provide.
The negative limits on Gov reach are positive for me. As soon as the Gov starts providing crap for me, they put strings on it; no thanks. An old friend was bragging about how he got the Gov to pay for N% of his new pasture fence. He then went on to describe what % of the posts had to be wood, and some metal, and put in a new well, and stay M feet from some unnavigable waterway…
That-there is some “free” fence that I am sure cost my children some money, and my friend a bunch of his freedom.
FDR’s (a four letter word) garbage was just abuse of Gov power to steal from one man to prop up another. There is nothing positive about this.
What limits I am free of are positive to me. (I know that is convoluted, try reading it slowly…) Calling them negative liberties unmasks the bias of looking at things from the Governments point of view.
Now dammit you are going a stealing my terse posting space that I carved out long ago.
I decided to go all wordy with Mags.
Yeah. But lets do it this year.
This seems…related.
Ok, thanks for explaining it.
Freaking law school. Taught me love it lol
You’re a lawyer?
Yep
10 chars
Ugh.
It’s exhauting.
Well that’s not violent at all.
Good thing your side is so calm and rational or else things could get ugly.
That was a mistake.
… Now we’ll all want free legal advice.
.>>>>
There’s nothing convoluted about any of that. But it seems like you’re quibbling over the term needlessly. The “negative” in negative liberty doesn’t imply deficient or “bad” liberty, anymore than calling the value -7 (negative 7) is a “bad” number or defining something by negation is defining something badly. The word is being used descriptively and technically in a specific context, not as some general pejorative.
You write: The negative limits are on the Government, not me.
Exactly. That’s why they’re called that. Look at the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law
shall not be infringed
No person shall be held
That is, these rights are (mostly, not entirely) defined largely by what the government cannot do.
We might agree that some instances of positive liberties in the US have been necessary (e.g., certain forms of federal civil rights legislation).
and that is true at a higher level above the individual…to the absurd degree. Public schools and their football coaches are considered extensions of Congress, subject to the establishment clause. It’s that absurd.
I guarantee you that if libs prevail, those who receive public housing will be required to remove any religious article from the premise. (if course it will only be enforced against Christians)
This is according to plan. Whenever the federal government can get involved with any benefit whatsoever, there will be freedom-limiting strings attached.
Libs often conflate the desire to limit federal government’s authority with a desire to limit all government’s role… state and local. Libs don’t really understand the importance of the distinction. So, for example, their heads started ticking when Republicans opposed Obamacare because libs saw that it was similar to Romneycare at the state level. They could not comprehend the difference. Whether one opposes extensive state and local government is a matter of individual choice that can be the subject of state and local referendums, I believe. But the writers of the constitution clearly were more concerned with stopping the overreach of the federal government.
That’s cool. What kind of law?
Well said Margaret
I’m impressed that you are able to hide it so well. One would think you are a decent human being.
Nope,I am a rat bastard. lol
What would it matter. This is becoming a banana republic anyway. Whoever gets in control can just drop it down to 2 or 3, boot all the judges we don’t like and bring in a bunch that we do.
Seriously. ■■■■ Mitch McConnell and everyone that supports what that piece of ■■■■ did. Republicans are working hard to leave a ■■■■ world for kids just like the ones in your avatar. And if not them, then their kids are going to curse everyone of them for it.
Have you ever been to a banana republic?
