4 ms·

I don't know. Even the constitution acknowledges the possibility of truths that are 'self-evident'. I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in

I don't know. Even the constitution acknowledges the possibility of truths that are 'self-evident'. I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in the 2000s, how various political actors attempted to say 'Let's not get hot under the collar about this - let's put it on the table and talk it through.' For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, as outlined in 'A Modest Proposal' . I agree with the parent poster that this is one of those cases. EDIT: This was supposed to be a response to the parent comment of the one it got attached to (for some reason).

rmcpherson 6y ago
“We hold these truths to be self evident...” is from the Declaration of Independence. It does not appear in the Constitution.
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    Depends on if you are an originalist or not.
    - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
      Nope. A textualist, maybe, but originalists would very much be looking towards English law for guidance on what the Constitution meant.
      - sjg007 6y ago
        It’s called originalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
lurquer 6y ago
> For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, The authors of the Declaration of Independence would perhaps agree. But, keep in mind that stance — as they will knew — would result in the ‘disagreement’ being resolved by force and war. Consequently, it’s wise to really give some thought to whether an issue is ‘self-evident.’ I personally do not think capital punishment is such an issue; that is, I acknowledge there are good arguments on both sides. (Are there good arguments on both sides regarding whether some people — like King George — are inherently and divinely superior to others by virtue of their lineage? That’s a different matter... I would have fallen into the ‘self-evidently’ absurd camp on that one.)

rmcpherson 6y ago

“We hold these truths to be self evident...” is from the Declaration of Independence. It does not appear in the Constitution.

MisterBastahrd 6y ago
Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.
- sjg007 6y ago
  Depends on if you are an originalist or not.
  - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
    Nope. A textualist, maybe, but originalists would very much be looking towards English law for guidance on what the Constitution meant.
    - sjg007 6y ago
      It’s called originalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

lurquer 6y ago

> For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, The authors of the Declaration of Independence would perhaps agree. But, keep in mind that stance — as they will knew — would result in the ‘disagreement’ being resolved by force and war. Consequently, it’s wise to really give some thought to whether an issue is ‘self-evident.’ I personally do not think capital punishment is such an issue; that is, I acknowledge there are good arguments on both sides. (Are there good arguments on both sides regarding whether some people — like King George — are inherently and divinely superior to others by virtue of their lineage? That’s a different matter... I would have fallen into the ‘self-evidently’ absurd camp on that one.)