3 ms·

Yet, the logical construction of the constitution is such that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the people through the constitut

Yet, the logical construction of the constitution is such that any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the people through the constitution are retained to the states and the people. This was the Federalist argument in favor of the constitution and the Federalist argument that a bill of rights was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalist papers argued that the Federalists were a bunch of delusional idealists, and insisted on a Bill of Rights. George Mason was what we would call in modern terms, the sponsor of the bill in the 1st congress. He was the first congressman to hold the seat for the 1st district of Virginia. His bill was eventually split into 12 amendments. 11 passed the house, and 10 were quickly ratified by the states. The 11th eventually was ratified as the 27th amendment in 1992. The idea that powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the constitution are retained by the states and the people is honored more in the breach, I admit.

SwellJoe 10y ago
I find arguments that always begin and end with "the Constitution says" to be a lot like Christians making an argument based on the Bible. Like the Bible, it's got some nice bits in. But, if you're treating it like a religion, I'm not interested in even having the conversation. Doing so assumes we were finished evolving, as an ethical and civil society, over 200 years ago. Doing so assumes that a small group of men, all of them white land owners, many of whom owned slaves, most of whom believed women should never have the vote, most of whom believed black and brown folks should never have equal rights, got everything right. Yes, many of them were brilliant; hell, I still greatly admire many of them, despite their many flaws. They did a fine job, given what was known and understood at the time. But, frankly, I find arguments that leave no room for change, as is the case with religious discussions, to be boring (also incorrect, but, mostly boring). I've "been there, done that"...I had my constitutional libertarian phase a couple decades ago.
- dbcurtis 10y ago
  I can't tell if you agree or disagree with anything that I said, because you don't address any of my points in any meaningful way. I would like to point out, however, that clearly the authors of the constitution did not think they had written a final document once-and-for-all, as evidenced by two things: 1) including three different means of amending the document, and 2) the very authors of the document proposed a package of 12 amendments as one of their first priorities during the first congress. I would argue that there are only two ways to view the constitution: 1) it means what it says and if you don't like that, do what the authors did, amend it, or 2) make shit up as we go along. I'm for #1.
  - diggernet 10y ago
    Thank you. I was having trouble understanding how arguments that the Constitution allows us to impose changes on the government "leave no room for change". :)
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    "I would argue that there are only two ways to view the constitution: 1) it means what it says and if you don't like that, do what the authors did, amend it, or 2) make shit up as we go along. I'm for #1." And, that's what I'm saying is wrong. You're presenting a false dichotomy. "But, muh Constitution!" It's boring, and doesn't acknowledge the things that went wrong in all these years of the American experiment.
    - dbcurtis 10y ago
      It's not a false dichotomy at all. Give the words a plain reading. If you don't like the plain reading, amend it. There are, after all, three different ways to get it amended, it has beed done many times in the past, notably by the main authors before the ink was barely dry. The only other option is to appoint some small pool of people to try to get us all to collectively pretend that the words mean something other than what they plainly say. That is the path to the rule of man, and I for one prefer the rule of law. There is no middle ground, give or take clarifications. And for clarifications, the burden of proof must be on the government, or the system fails.
      - SwellJoe 10y ago
        "Give the words a plain reading." Spoken like a true fundamentalist. I've heard that exact phrase from evangelical street preachers.
        diggernet 10y ago
        No doubt your street preachers always follow it up with "If you don't like the plain reading, amend it", too.

SwellJoe 10y ago

I find arguments that always begin and end with "the Constitution says" to be a lot like Christians making an argument based on the Bible. Like the Bible, it's got some nice bits in. But, if you're treating it like a religion, I'm not interested in even having the conversation. Doing so assumes we were finished evolving, as an ethical and civil society, over 200 years ago. Doing so assumes that a small group of men, all of them white land owners, many of whom owned slaves, most of whom believed women should never have the vote, most of whom believed black and brown folks should never have equal rights, got everything right. Yes, many of them were brilliant; hell, I still greatly admire many of them, despite their many flaws. They did a fine job, given what was known and understood at the time. But, frankly, I find arguments that leave no room for change, as is the case with religious discussions, to be boring (also incorrect, but, mostly boring). I've "been there, done that"...I had my constitutional libertarian phase a couple decades ago.

dbcurtis 10y ago
I can't tell if you agree or disagree with anything that I said, because you don't address any of my points in any meaningful way. I would like to point out, however, that clearly the authors of the constitution did not think they had written a final document once-and-for-all, as evidenced by two things: 1) including three different means of amending the document, and 2) the very authors of the document proposed a package of 12 amendments as one of their first priorities during the first congress. I would argue that there are only two ways to view the constitution: 1) it means what it says and if you don't like that, do what the authors did, amend it, or 2) make shit up as we go along. I'm for #1.
- diggernet 10y ago
  Thank you. I was having trouble understanding how arguments that the Constitution allows us to impose changes on the government "leave no room for change". :)
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  "I would argue that there are only two ways to view the constitution: 1) it means what it says and if you don't like that, do what the authors did, amend it, or 2) make shit up as we go along. I'm for #1." And, that's what I'm saying is wrong. You're presenting a false dichotomy. "But, muh Constitution!" It's boring, and doesn't acknowledge the things that went wrong in all these years of the American experiment.
  - dbcurtis 10y ago
    It's not a false dichotomy at all. Give the words a plain reading. If you don't like the plain reading, amend it. There are, after all, three different ways to get it amended, it has beed done many times in the past, notably by the main authors before the ink was barely dry. The only other option is to appoint some small pool of people to try to get us all to collectively pretend that the words mean something other than what they plainly say. That is the path to the rule of man, and I for one prefer the rule of law. There is no middle ground, give or take clarifications. And for clarifications, the burden of proof must be on the government, or the system fails.
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      "Give the words a plain reading." Spoken like a true fundamentalist. I've heard that exact phrase from evangelical street preachers.
      - diggernet 10y ago
        No doubt your street preachers always follow it up with "If you don't like the plain reading, amend it", too.