Forum Replies Created
March 6, 2016 at 8:06 pm in reply to: Is Ted Cruz a "natural born" citizen? #20995
Thanks for the answer, but how does that square with the Blackstone quote, “But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”February 12, 2016 at 5:45 pm in reply to: Is Ted Cruz a "natural born" citizen? #20993
Thanks for the reply. I sympathize with your puzzlement over the paragraph I cited, since I am still puzzled as well. You make a good point that it would be absurd to think being natural-born extends to future generations indefinitely.
I’m just left puzzled over the original meaning of “natural born” citizen and whether Cruz truly is one or not. There are areas of the constitution that cannot be settled even by recourse to historical context and our study of the original intent. Perhaps this is one of those areas that is unsettled.
I don’t know! I’m hoping Tom, Brion, or Kevin will leave a comment at some point to clear things up.February 11, 2016 at 7:06 pm in reply to: Is Ted Cruz a "natural born" citizen? #20991
I’m not sure if that quote applies or not since it does not refer to the phrase in question: “natural born” but rather just “citizens”. And I’m mostly puzzled about how the Blackstone reference is supposed to clearly settle the issue in favor of Cruz NOT being natural born.February 12, 2014 at 7:43 pm in reply to: Ron Paul on Banning Contraceptives #20815
If the Incorporations doctrine is accepted (which Professors here do not accept, for good reason), then the 4th amendment could apply. Otherwise, it does not.
The commerce clause question is a little more difficult. At first, my instinct is to say that where no trade exists (due to a state ban) no regulation could exist. So, therefore, the clause would not give the Feds the right to coerce one state into buying/selling a good it chose to ban. But I am not so sure.
Hopefully the professors can weigh in!February 9, 2014 at 1:06 pm in reply to: business v sebelius #20809
And if the gov’t can set up a mandate to buy health insurance with a “tax” or “penalty resulting from not doing what they say, is there any principle preventing them from setting up mandates for other things?
It would seem consistent with this decision that Americans could be mandated to by other things.December 6, 2013 at 6:43 pm in reply to: Ratifying States' Interpretation of the Constitution #20752
To say it is a “compact fact” assumes a valid contract and ratification, the very thing Kevin is saying may not have been the case under ordinary contract law. But I am with you that if there was ANY valid ratification, it was a compact among the several states.November 29, 2013 at 9:18 am in reply to: Understanding "a priori" #18122
You may want to ask this question of Professor Casey who is a professional philosopher.
Just some thoughts from a someone (me) who is not an economist or a philosopher:
1. I think it is wrong-headed to think that a priori knowledge is “unrelated to experience”. Rather, you should consider a priori knowledge as that which is independent of experience. That is, such knowledge does not depend for its own verification on any particular observations.
2. Mathematical truths fit this category. The fact that it is always the case that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10 mathematics is not something we conclude after a long string of observations in which we never catch those quantities behaving otherwise.
3. All logical deductions from true premises are known <i>a priori</i>. That is, the rules of inference guarantee the truth of a properly deduced conclusion, which is thus true independent of experiential verification or falsification.
4. Many people would argue that ethical judgments are known <i>a priori</i>.November 28, 2013 at 9:39 am in reply to: Pope Francis #20131
1. I just read a bit more of the exhortation and paragraphs 202-208 are also pertinent with respect to market issues. I admit that several statements of his are difficult to harmonize with a pro-market belief. Nonetheless, it can’t be ignored that the “common good” of which he speaks is better promoted through an unhampered market than any other market. So, a Catholic can heed the Pope’s words regarding the general principles of helping the poor, reaching out to them effectively, and promoting their dignity, while at the same time rejecting the idea that gov’t controlled welfare state and market is the best way to achieve those ends.
2. For example, take the statement he makes at the beginning of paragraph 203, “The dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good are concerns which ought to shape all economic policies.” A pro-market Catholic (like Dr. Woods) can say Amen to that in one breath, and in the next breath say let’s abolish the minimum wage. The question of WHICH POLICIES are best suited to achieve those ends is not a subject of the Pope’s expertise. Moreover, the more you read you will notice that he avoids making any specific policy recommendations, even in the controversial sentence you quoted, “It is vital that government leaders and financial leaders take heed and broaden their horizons, working to ensure that all citizens have dignified work, education and healthcare.”
3. One needs to be careful in trying to infer what policies the Pope has in mind throughout his general discussion, since his statements often conflate pro-market and anti-market mentalities. For example, paragraph 204 begins like this:
We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality.
Let’s examine some of the explicit and implicit premises in this remark:
(1) We can no longer trust the unseen forces of the market (in themselves) to achieve growth in justice.
(2) Growth in justice requires more than economic growth.
(3) Growth in justice presupposes economic growth.
(4) Growth in justice requires things that bring about a better distribution of income.
(5) Growth in justice requires the creation of sources of employment.
(6) Growth in justice requires an integral promotion of the poor.
(7) Growth of justice goes beyond a simple welfare mentality.
In context, (1) is not as anti-market as it sounds. It is tied to the Pope’s desire for a greater justice throughout society, which includes love for, concern for, and the dignity of all persons. Obviously, impersonal market forces are not sufficient to produce those ends, but that is a trivial criticism of an unhampered market. (2) is not a statement about markets. (3) is where people like Dr. Woods can agree and argue that markets produce the most growth for all. (4) is ambiguous, since it is not clear what the Pope has in mind regarding a “better distribution” of income. If he wants a situation in which everyone’s real wages rise, then we can jump in and argue that the market provides this. (5) is like (3) where pro-market people can jump in and argue that markets provide more employment and better employment. (6) might appear to support a welfare mentality but in the context of (7) it is clear that is not the case.
Overall, a lot of the statements regarding markets are open to interpretation and as the remain detached from policy recommendations they should not weigh down the conscience of any Catholic who believes the unhampered market is the best scenario for all men.
John D.November 27, 2013 at 6:52 pm in reply to: Pope Francis #20129
Here are a couple of thoughts.
1. The Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation is a document written to provide principles of promoting the Joy of the Gospel. It is not intended to endorse any specific public policies regarding economics. In paragraphs 53-60 of the document, to which most of the comments come from that you are hearing, the Pope expresses concerns that the poor and disadvantaged become excluded. In these paragraphs, some general criticism of the “current markets as the sole solution” mentality is criticized, but one can hardly interpret this as an overall distaste for the market economy. In fact, it seems more logical and contextual that the Pope is criticizing the mentality that the rich and the faithful don’t need to step in, because the market by itself can handle everything. Such indifference would be in blatant contradiction to a Catholic’s obligation toward his fellow man.
2. If the Pope did have specific policy in mind, such as raising the minimum wage of all workers to $15, this is judgment based on economic principles wherein the Pope is not purported to have special insight or expertise. Dr. Woods brings this point out in many articles and explains how economic science is a value-neutral enterprise and the Church possesses no special ability to rule on economic law. (See Dr. Woods article here: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods25.html)
3. Consider any argument made by a Churchman of the form: “If X is implemented, then Y will happen. Catholics are obliged to support Y. Therefore, Catholics are obliged to endorse X.” Any Catholic can, in good conscience, deny the conclusion by denying the statement that “X implies Y”. Notice, he is not dissenting from moral teaching to deny “X implies Y” since that statement is essentially value-neutral.
Just some thoughts based on what I have read in the past form Dr. Woods.
John D.November 22, 2013 at 6:03 pm in reply to: Ratifying States' Interpretation of the Constitution #20750
Kevin, thanks for the reply and clearing up the issue. For the record, I was just trying to step into the Nationalist’s shoes and make an argument against the compact theory.
You are right to make the point that an invalid compact does not imply a National government.
In fact, using what you have said above, a conservative could argue the if there is ANY legitimate union at all, then it is one that is one formed by a compact among the several states. But if there is not THAT TYPE of union, then the Feds don’t have any legitimate power since there is NO UNION AT ALL. Good stuff, thanks for the interaction.November 13, 2013 at 7:16 pm in reply to: Presuppositional Apologetics #19137
[T]o say that the laws of logic are either immaterial or material is to create a false dichotomy. So, the laws of logic are immaterial? Fine then, please tell me what they are.
That is not a false dichotomy; that is a dichotomy. To say the laws of logic are material or immaterial is merely to state that (A) the laws of logic are material or (B) it is not the case that the laws of logic are material. Second, as to what they are, that is not a question universally agreed upon even by those who defend the Christian faith “presuppositionally”. One view is that they are necessary propositions which have their existence in the mind of God. Folks like Bahnsen would be quick to point out that while the Christian can make sense of their immaterial existence, the non-Christian cannot give an account of such universal, invariant, immaterial laws of thought.
You also said:
[T]o say that the laws of logic “exist” is to commit the fallacy of reification. The laws of logic do not exist “out there”, but the objects the laws of logic refer to certainly do. It seems to me that those who argue TAG would rather focus on the concept rather than the referent.
I have a feeling you have trouble affirming the laws of logic exist because you are limiting existence to that which is material. This is evidenced by your comment that they do not exist “out there” since places such as “here” or “there” are appropriate to material objects. Moreover, the meaning of “existence” and what is allowed to “exist” will depend on one’s prior worldview commitments.
Even putting aside existence, Bahsen’s main point still goes through. The laws of logic cannot obtain in this world in the way we all assume they function (i.e. universally and invariantly) unless God exists.
Lastly, what is a Spinozian Deist as opposed to a regular Deist? What brought you to that position? Just curious =)November 10, 2013 at 7:56 pm in reply to: Federalist vs Anti-federalist thought correlated to worldview? #20787
Jefferson was definitely not the traditional Christian fellow himself.November 10, 2013 at 7:49 pm in reply to: Ratifying States' Interpretation of the Constitution #20748
So, what you seem to be saying that the Constitution was NEVER LEGITIMATELY RATIFIED? So, forget the compact theory of the union, because there is no legitimate union at all?
Should this impact how we think about nullification, secession, or those other issues? Also, do you think Brion McClanahan or Tom Woods would agree that there was never a legitimate ratification according to ordinary contract law?November 8, 2013 at 12:22 pm in reply to: Ratifying States' Interpretation of the Constitution #20746
Kevin, thanks for the reply. I wanted to respond, but I kept putting off rejoining libertyclassroom. Now, I am back on board.
Are you saying that the Nationalist has a knockdown argument against the compact theory of the union? I suppose the argument could run as follows:
(1) If there was no valid contract among the several states upon ratification, then the compact theory of the union is false.
(2) There was no valid contract among the several states upon ratification, because in the ratification campaign parts of the contract were interpreted in substantially different ways in different states.
(3) Therefore, the compact theory of the union is false.
Granted, this does not prove the “Big blob” Nationalist theory of the union, but it does seem to undermine arguments for nullification based on the compact theory. Perhaps you are not a compact theorist? Is there a a middle position I am not aware of?
I await your reply.September 4, 2013 at 8:24 pm in reply to: Ratifying States' Interpretation of the Constitution #20744
But Kevin, isn’t ordinary contract law the basis for understanding the compact theory of the union?