Here are some of the highlights of Barr-Root coverage from the past 24 hours (links on the jump page):
Newsweek Online: Cracking the Barr Code
Christian Science Monitor: Bob Barr Is New Piece In Electoral Puzzle
Atlanta Journal-Constitution blog: Gingrich: Barr will make Obama’s job ‘marginally easier’
Atlanta Journal-Constitution blog: Barr Rips Bush Administration On Privacy Issues
Savannah Morning News: Experts: Barr could help Obama win Ga.
SportsDirect: Libertarians Love Online Gambling
The Nation blog: Which Bob Barr is Running for President?
MetroWest Daily News (Massachusetts): Editorial: Libertarians choose a candidate
Scripps Howard: Libertarians and other lost causes
You need to google Wayne A. Root and follow the links. I assure you it will enlighten you…
What are you 12? Go away and stop posting the same goddamn post. There is no single website for both the candidates!
Where is the Libertarian Campaigns officail website? Ive looked everywhere and cannot find it. Ive looked at http://www.BarrRoot08.com http://www.BarrRoot.com My vote is up for grab becuase I am not happy with either McCain or Obama. I like what ive seen of Bob Barr but dont know much about Wayne root and would like to know more about him if he is going to be Barrs veep vp Can someone direct me to the official campaign site of BarrRoot2008 Ive went every where. Ive even went to http://WWW.BarrRoot2008.com and there is nothing there. I did stumble on a pretty good anti McCain site called
http://WWW.McCanes.com it suggests that mccain is too old to be president and has lots of funny videos of “Old man McCain moments.” Please if anyone can direct me to the officail libertarian campaign ticket website let me know, My friend has not been able to find it either. If the Libertarians expect to do well they should get on the ball with the internet comapaigning. They should have these sites up all ready.
Hamilton was a villain, but his logic is nonetheless correct. Sure, he feared the BoR would diminish his ability to violate the Constitution, but in the long run, I think it has been a blessing to Hamiltonianism and allowed way more government than would be allowed without it.
“If the government can only do what it’s authorized, why is there a need for an amendment saying it cannot abridge free speech?”
Hamilton made exactly that argument in the Federalist Papers, which it’s often forgotten were written as an argument in favor of ratifying the Constitution without a BoR. Though coming from the inventor of the concept of “implied powers”, it wasn’t a very reassuring argument.
darolew – I disagree. I think the BoR has led to the assumption that it is the only limit on the government. If the government can only do what it’s authorized, why is there a need for an amendment saying it cannot abridge free speech? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say it CAN abridge free speech! It is redundant. Take Social Security: Nowhere is the government authorized to have a social security system. But yet there is no amendment saying the people have the right to not be forced into such a system…
If you want to argue that the government can do whatever it wants so long as it doesn’t violate the BoR, then you want a much bigger federal government than I, or the founders, were interested in.
Oops…this article:
http://www.ajc.com/meetro/content/news/stories/2008/05/28/barr_privacy.html
This AJC article says Barr is going to be on the Colbert Report next week. I wonder if he’s ready for Colbert.
“‘unalienable’ doesn’t mean ‘inviolate’. It means that those rights can’t be “alienated†from the individual- that they are inseparable from the individual. That’s the point Jefferson was actually making.”
And to separate them from a person isn’t to violate them?
To say that there isn’t a balance means in reference to the above quote the government doesn’t need to fight terrorism. But that is one of its few constitutionally-given authorities and the “balance” simply means there are limits of what it can do.
It’s an 80-20 balance, sure. To say that there is no balance underscores a far more liberal interpretation than Barr’s. The BoR was included through the wisdom of the Antifederalists, who knew that if it wasn’t specifically in writing, that government would go against it. We have thousands of “unalienable rights” actually- no, millions for everything. It’d be insane to write them all down, of course, but that is apparently the only way to keep gov’t from taking them away. I mean, you’ve seen how they’ve assaulted the rights that are currently protected. Honestly…
“unalienable” doesn’t mean “inviolate”. It means that those rights can’t be “alienated” from the individual- that they are inseparable from the individual. That’s the point Jefferson was actually making.
/pet peeve
In reality, the government cannot do anything it isn’t expressly authorized to do, and the Bill of Rights is redundant.
Okay, let’s abolish the BoR tomorrow and see what happens.
Sure, the gov’t cannot do anything it isn’t expressly authorized to do, but IN REALITY, it does whatever the hell it wants. If it weren’t for people cleaving to the BoR, our protections would be damn near non existent.
Reality really bites, doesn’t it?
There is no balance. Rights are unalienable.
And trying to argue that point (which I agree with, BTW) is purely an academic exercise when speaking to a group like the Rotary Club.
Barr was making a succinct and immediately understood point that your average Joe Blow can filter through his mind. If you want votes and support for liberty, you have to get Joe Blow to understand just what the heck you’re talking about. Once you accomplish that, then you can hit ’em with the philosophical stuff…but they’ll only listen if they want. Most people have lives and don’t want to “waste” it on academic pursuits, such as the meaning and origin of rights. They have bills to pay, kids to take care of and a basketball playoff series that want to watch with their buddies.
“In reality, the government cannot do anything it isn’t expressly authorized to do, and the Bill of Rights is redundant.”
In reality, without the Bill of Rights the government would have violated far more rights. The Anti-Federalists did us a favor by forcing the BoR on the Federalists.
Bah.
There is no intent for a “balance.”
Barr’s response underscores his liberal understanding of the Constitution — that the Bill of Rights places specific limits on government. In reality, the government cannot do anything it isn’t expressly authorized to do, and the Bill of Rights is redundant.
There is no balance. Rights are unalienable.
I love his quote from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Barr was asked during the program whether there is a way to balance the rights of private citizens and the need for the government to fight terrorism. This, after Barr accused the president and defense agencies of essentially duping Congress into granting them broad new powers to listen to Americans’ private conversations without establishing a link to terrorism.
Barr said the balance already exists.
“The balance is the Bill of Rights,” Barr said.
Now THAT is the kind of message I like to see.