Quote Originally Posted by Latrinsorm View Post
It is really hard. Let's ask the author of the Constitution what his explicit thoughts on implied powers are. "It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter. ... The whole turn of the [necessary and proper clause] indicates, that it was the intent of the Convention, by that clause, to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers."

But Mr. Hamilton, it's a slippery slope!! Oh, you explicitly addressed that too? "To be implied in the nature of the federal government, says he, would beget a doctrine so indefinite as to grasp every power. ... To this objection an answer has been already given. ... The affirming that, as incident to sovereign power, Congress may erect a corporation in relation to the collection of their taxes, is no more to affirm that they may do whatever else they please, than the saying that they have a power to regulate trade, would be to affirm that they have a power to regulate religion."
Is this even...real? Latrin, sorry for asking, but...are you drunk? Typos and misquotes and random interjections aren't your normal bag, I'm a bit concerned, as a friend.

We have only ever enjoyed rights when they are protected by the government.
Source?

The movement you describe wants their rights protected by the government and wants their rights protected by the government, thus there is no conflict.
Here's the issue with your total lack of comprehension. What rights are those, exactly? The right to kill people because they don't fit your definition of what a person is? Look...I'm all for abortion. I get tags every year to hunt deer, because deer aren't smart enough to monitor their own population, and breed indiscriminately. I would like to think that humans are smart enough to do what deer don't, but apparently we aren't. I support abortion from a scientific standpoint, because I'm ultimately a psychopath and don't attach any moral or religious stigma to the taking of a life in and of itself. I also recognize the scientific fact that, if not for outside intervention, a fertilized seed will eventually become a human, barring the relatively slim chances of various natural medical impedance.

The active ingredient is not government involvement, but external interference. When that takes the form of laws, they say "keep your laws off my body". When that takes the form of employer discrimination, they say "vive l'Obamacare".
Except that it's not "keep your laws off my body", it's "make laws about my body that others have to follow because I benefit more from it". I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see the distinction, and follow it to it's logical conclusion.

The only way there would be a conflict of interest is if the pro-abortion movement demanded that the government forced people to have abortions.
Really? You don't think forcing me to pay for someone else's abortion is a conflict of interest?

The phrase is not "we have discovered these truths via syllogism", the phrase is "we hold these truths to be self-evident". The words therefore and thus never occur in the Constitution. You keep using the word logic, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Our government is explicitly based on premises, not conclusions, which is why it is explicitly based on discarding those premises when we deem them inferior.
Indeed...and what truths did they hold to be self-evident?

This is another difference between you and the framers: they were realists when it comes to government power. This is not because they were any smarter than you, it's merely because they happened to live through a limited federal government and the catastrophic failure that immediately resulted.
Wait wait...the English Crown was a limited federal government? Wow, man. I...I must say, Latrin, for the first time ever you've struck me speechless.