I believe a good discussion may start in negative and positive rights. A negative right does not enforce the duty on someone else. Duty is usually thought of as an entitlement. A positive right has an entitlement owed. Everybody has a negative right to engage in commerce or trade. But everyone does not have the positive right to impose a duty or force someone else to engage in commerce with you and trade with you.
This is where most libertarians discuss the benefit of free trade. It must be consensual. People in free trade have a contract. I give you three apples and you give me a rope. To have a positive right, someone must have a duty to fulfill for you. The example most widely discussed is the public defender. If you do not have an attorney, one will be provided for you. This means it imposes a duty on someone else to provide and pay for that attorney. The universal agreement is required for a positive right.
Continue reading “How Should We Feel About The Alabama Abortion Law”
The famous Mr. Checkpoint service was originally created by Sennet Devermont to report the exact location of DUI Checkpoints located in California and later on expanded to report about other types of law enforcement roadblocks such as license and immigration checkpoints. The service is now planning on taking his service to the next level by making a nationwide checkpoint reporting service with a brand-new app for Android and IOS. In order to do so, he must raise $20,000 through his GoFundMe Campaign in order to finish the development of his app.
Continue reading “Mr. Checkpoint Launches Campaign to Fund New DUI App”
By Atilla Sulker | United States
On Saturday, the Senate finally voted on and confirmed Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. The confirmation marks a historic turning point in the decision. The vote had been delayed since the Senate Judiciary Committee initially set September 20th as the date on which its members would vote. President Trump nominated Kavanaugh on July 9th, earlier this year.
The Senate was nearly equally divided on the vote, with 48 senators voting against Kavanaugh and 50 voting in his favor. This is certainly tighter than the 54–45 vote which occurred during Neil Gorsuch’s nomination.
Only one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin, voted for Kavanaugh. Three Democrats joined the Republicans last year in voting for then-Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch’s confirmation. Senator Lisa Murkowski was the only Republican who did not vote in favor of Kavanaugh, instead voting “present”.
Around the beginning of the nomination process, Senator Rand Paul was seen as a possible swing vote among the other senators mentioned. Paul was concerned over Kavanaugh’s views on the Fourth Amendment but had later assured that after meeting with Kavanaugh, he had no more worries.
Trump immediately took to Twitter, stating: “I applaud and congratulate the U.S. Senate for confirming our GREAT NOMINEE, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, to the United States Supreme Court.”
The nomination process exemplifies a polarizing political landscape in America in which both sides no longer debate over ideology, but instead sling mud at each other. Personal attacks have become imminent, gradually undermining productive political discourse.
Get awesome merchandise and help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy by donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
Featured Image Source
Glenn Verasco | Thailand
I do not know who Casey Mattox is, but a June tweet of his popped up in my Twitter feed the other day:
The Supreme Court of the United States is supposed to be the clear third of three branches of the federal government. The Judicial Branch is not supposed to make laws or give orders of any kind. Courts are meant to determine the constitutional legality of disputed actions between individuals and groups. The legislature legislates, the executive executes, and the judiciary judges. It’s not a difficult concept.
Unfortunately, bad-faith reading of the Constitution has resulted in a politicized court system in which many actually make the ridiculous argument that judges should conjecture what the consequences of a law will be, instead of simply reading the law itself, and rule based on those assumptions. SCOTUS Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor do not even try to hide their use of this method when writing decisions from the bench.
As outraged as everyone should be with the state of liberal jurisprudence, Brett Kavanaugh is not my ideal Supreme Court justice either. As Judge Napolitano has eloquently explained
, Kavanaugh’s understanding of the 4th Amendment is wrongheaded and dangerous. If this were the case being made against Kavanaugh, I would be all ears.
Instead of criticizing the processes and actions of the federal government based on constitutionality, philosophy, and the individual human rights the United States of America was founded upon, hazy memories from many decades ago, that have conveniently resurfaced exclusively in their owners’ minds only as Kavanaugh’s illustrious career is set to culminate in the highest court in the land, are being used to railroad his confirmation.
The accusations made against Kavanaugh are unverifiable and uncorroborated within themselves. They are also immaterial to the situation at hand.
As someone who generally disagrees with but respects Ronan Farrow, I am shocked and disappointed that he agreed to publish something as salacious, hazy, and irrelevant as his September 24th story. Its publishing
undermines the credibility of actual sexual assault victims and needlessly politicizes the #MeToo movement which the entire country, albeit to varying degrees, is generally supportive of.
The point of view of the Democrats regarding this matter deserves no consideration from honest and thoughtful people. They decided to vote against Kavanaugh as soon as he was nominated and almost entirely forewent asking relevant questions during his confirmation hearings. Instead, they delayed the process on the basis of arcane technicalities and focused on creating sound bites and video clips
throughout the duration of an agonizing and embarrassing process. They have since done their best to capitalize on allegations against Kavanaugh to delay his confirmation even further, certainly hoping that they can run out the clock through midterm elections or at least keep Kavanaugh from being confirmed before the Supreme Court begins their October session.
GOP Senators now have a choice. They can allow the media and opposing political party to bully and shame them into submission, or they can grow a pair by taking a stand against a ballooning culture of hyperbole and hysteria.
The GOP Senators will set a historical precedent either way. The former choice would make it clear that loosely-characterized sexual assault allegations from decades ago are a political weapon they will not fight back against. This will be the end of the current GOP and likely the end of textualist jurisprudence in the Supreme Court for decades. The latter choice would promote the dignity of the accused and take the wind out of bad-faith political actors’ sails, at least for the time being.
I am not a Republican and have never voted for a Republican. I registered as a Democrat when I first became eligible to vote and will officially become a member of the Libertarian Party in 2019. If GOP Senators cave, they can bet that more and more of their constituents will join me in the LP or simply stay home and laugh as Democrats wipe the floor with them in November.
If you enjoyed this post, please follow me at www.howtocureyourliberalism.com. Also check out my podcast on iTunes and like my Facebook page.
Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!
Featured Image Source
When word filtered out in the news earlier this week that an anonymous letter was submitted to Senator Dianne Feinstein making allegations that a younger Brett Kavanaugh (when he was somewhere around age 17) had committed a rather vile act of sexual assault, I am honestly upset about my first thought on the matter.
I thought, “Well isn’t this convenient.”
I should have never thought that because that is a little more than belittling and demeaning to the accuser. Regardless of some of the extreme lengths we have seen during the Kavanaugh hearings, mostly from what I can tell were people wanting their 15-seconds of “Blue Wave 2018” fame, I should not be so pre-judgmental about a severe allegation.
It takes a lot to say that, in this day and age. People often do not come out and say “I was wrong.” We’ve seen that filter down from multiple politicians, pop culture icons, and even the average person who is convicted and sentenced to prison for a heinous crime.
Granted, I never tweeted that thought out, nor posted it on social media. I try to think twice about the initial response I have to one line of information before doing that anymore. My initial Twitter statement came after Christine Blasey Ford revealed herself to be the anonymous source: