How can the Left accuse the Right of...?

Question

the revocation of the Bill of Rights when in San Fransisco the simple choice of paper or plastic is now not a citizen's to make?
And how can the Right accuse the Left of the same, when the Military Commissions Act passed?
Is it "possible" that BOTH parties are pursuing special interests and slowly destroying the Constitution?
Or is your side justified in protecting the country? Or the environment?

Answer 1

Well, I see your point, but when you see the destruction of checks and balances (Congress not investigating corruption and wrongdoing in the form of illegal wiretaps until the Democrats took power) and the suspension of Habeas Corpus its hard to say that you can compare to the regulation of the use of plastic or paper bags to this. You may disagree with me all you want, but with that said, the Democrats are the protectors of the Constitution

Answer 2

To start with--I don't agree with the SF ordinance--it's dumb.

But there is a real difference. The actions of the right-wing (not legitimate conservatives--there's a world of difference) are clearly unconstitutional--e.g. spying on Americans without warrents, etc.

But this ordinance does not violate the Constitution. The various governments do have the right--clearly established under a body of precedant and clearly stated in the Constitution--toregulate trade in the public interest. Such laws are subject to judiicial review--but are allowed.

There are many such laws-examples include the Clean Air Act, mandated catalytic convertors on cars, banning of CFCs (that deplete the ozone), DDT, lead in gasoline, etc.

Judicial review requires tha tsuch laws meet two standards: first, they must not infringe on "fundamental rights" (freedom of speech, religion, etc.) or they must serve a clear and compelling public purpose that cannot be achieved by lesser intrusion--but the courts are historically very tough to convince on this.

But that doesn't apply to this case--what kind of grocery bag one uses isn't what any reasonable person would call a fundamental right.

As to your general point--with the exception of a right-wing minority within the GOP, neither party (nor the "left" and "right" generally) is trying to erode individual rights. But we--not just the government, but the citizenry--are far too willing to turn to the power of the state to solve every little problem that arises. We are too willing to impose rules, subject ourselves to surveillance, impose behavioral standards. And that IS eroding our freedom. Muuch of it is well-intentioned--but misguided. Here's a more serious example: putting cameras in our schools for "security." Sounds reasonalble--and who wouldn't want to keep children as safe as possible? But--go look at the evidence that those cameras improve safety--and you will find there isn't any. No studies, no statistics, nada. But they are very definately teaching our children to subject themselves to continous surveillance by authority "for their own good." And that is very definately not good for our future as a free people.

Answer 3

Actually, there is a huge difference between giving up the right to be a terrorist, and paper or plastic. And I haven't been able to get a paper bag for some time now in certain stores. Stinks for those cub scout projects, let me tell you.

But thanks for trying to bash both sides equally.

It seems that the only rights Liberals are concerned with is those of law-breakers. The Vice President taking the Executive Privilege? They say it means he's guilty. Ditto with Gonzalez taking the 5th.

Listen, folks, those privileges mean you CANNOT presume guilt if someone takes them. What kind of privilege would they be, otherwise?

Answer 4

Because the left "knows" whats best for you. Ask Al Gore he'll tell you. We conservatives are just shuffling through life destroying the environment, stopping gays from marrying and trying to force women to have children they don't want. We conservatives are Eeyore and the left is Christopher Robin. He's very smart you know.

Answer 5

I see what you are trying to do here, but the implications of paper vs. plastic are much smaller than the Military Commissions Act which destroyed Habeous Corpus as we know it. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Answer 6

Actually, even a LIBERTARIAN could argue in FAVOR OF THE PLASTIC BAG BAN.

As they say, "YOUR RIGHT TO SWING YOUR FIST ENDS AT MY NOSE."

Your right to pollute the environment ends where it harms me. There is plenty of precedent for these kinds of laws, and they are not inconsistent with the enforcement of civil liberties.

Answer 7

Ummm... there's a biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference between telling someone the government doesn't need a warrant in order to spy on any aspect of their life and telling someone they can be fined for using plastic rather than a bio-degradable material.

Answer 8

Where the heck in the Constitution of the United States does it say you have the right to choose between Plastic or Paper???????????????????????????????

Get a Life!

Answer 9

it seems to me that liberals pose more of a threat to freedoms because if you take a look at blue and red states then the blue states have been trying to put all kinds of bans in place. bans on speech, smoking, religious symbols, competition in schools etc.

Answer 10

Paper or plastic as a citizen's choice?!