4 ms·

This assertion is counter to the core principles of the nation's founding — that one's rights are innate, and the constitution simply places limits on the gover

by mijkal 6y ago

This assertion is counter to the core principles of the nation's founding — that one's rights are innate, and the constitution simply places limits on the government regarding what can be regulated and to what extent. That means we recognize that every person of any nationality has the right to free speech, fair and speedy trials, no torture, etc. If you mean other nations don't recognize the same rights, then I grant you that, but the constitution doesn't limit this recognition to US citizens.

tsimionescu 6y ago
That's your interpretation, but the same text has been considered perfectly compatible with chattle slavery for more than a hundred years, starting immediately as it was written. So I don't think it's as clear cut as the text might make you think.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  If the plain text as written ought to have forbidden slavery but the people including the people that wrote it acted as if it didn't for a century their failure to act doesn't and shouldn't constrain others from interpreting the plain text different from the framers or even its author.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    You can also say "if the writers of the constitution considered slavery to be acceptable, the the intent was for the constitution to allow it, so we should consider that it does, current meanings of the words notwithstanding". Of course, the conclusion to draw from this is that a new constitution is needed, one that does actually, at the time of writing, explicitly intend to disallow slavery and other offenses against human rights. Why should a document that has been shown to be compatible with slavery (and anti-gay sentiment, and segregation, and extra-judicial killings, and internment camps for the japanese and so on) be considered to carry any weight?
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      A fine sentiment but for practical purposes advancement by the path of constitutional amendment is nearly impossible at this point. Should we forever forgo meaningful change even when well supported by the plain text of the law in order to cleave to what we believe someone meant 200 years ago?
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        If you don't accept that, then what can stop a court from interpreting a law that says "the penalty for jaywalking is 100$" to mean "the penalty for walking around somewhere the locals don't want you is 100$"? If the courts are free to interpret the letter of the law without thinking about the intention of the framers, and the meaning that was given before, what is the difference between courts and lawmakers? Note: I'm talking entirely philosophically here. In practice, I'm extremely happy that the Supreme Court doesn't allow slavery and that they consider gay marriage to be a human right, that elective abortion is also a human right etc. But, as happy as I am that these are accepted as fundamental human rights, as I think they should be, I don't understand what the point of the constitution really is in this place.

by mijkal 6y ago

tsimionescu 6y ago

That's your interpretation, but the same text has been considered perfectly compatible with chattle slavery for more than a hundred years, starting immediately as it was written. So I don't think it's as clear cut as the text might make you think.

michaelmrose 6y ago
If the plain text as written ought to have forbidden slavery but the people including the people that wrote it acted as if it didn't for a century their failure to act doesn't and shouldn't constrain others from interpreting the plain text different from the framers or even its author.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  You can also say "if the writers of the constitution considered slavery to be acceptable, the the intent was for the constitution to allow it, so we should consider that it does, current meanings of the words notwithstanding". Of course, the conclusion to draw from this is that a new constitution is needed, one that does actually, at the time of writing, explicitly intend to disallow slavery and other offenses against human rights. Why should a document that has been shown to be compatible with slavery (and anti-gay sentiment, and segregation, and extra-judicial killings, and internment camps for the japanese and so on) be considered to carry any weight?
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    A fine sentiment but for practical purposes advancement by the path of constitutional amendment is nearly impossible at this point. Should we forever forgo meaningful change even when well supported by the plain text of the law in order to cleave to what we believe someone meant 200 years ago?
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      If you don't accept that, then what can stop a court from interpreting a law that says "the penalty for jaywalking is 100$" to mean "the penalty for walking around somewhere the locals don't want you is 100$"? If the courts are free to interpret the letter of the law without thinking about the intention of the framers, and the meaning that was given before, what is the difference between courts and lawmakers? Note: I'm talking entirely philosophically here. In practice, I'm extremely happy that the Supreme Court doesn't allow slavery and that they consider gay marriage to be a human right, that elective abortion is also a human right etc. But, as happy as I am that these are accepted as fundamental human rights, as I think they should be, I don't understand what the point of the constitution really is in this place.