4 ms·

The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political

The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political discourse. It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman, in service of whatever opinion one has. Ultimately meaningless. So the question stands. If one is to legislate morals, whose will win? This is the real question of the last 4 decades of American politics (at least).

RhysU 4y ago
> the spirit of the document What do you mean by this? > It’s a shibboleth It is known by all. What definition are you using for "shibboleth"? > It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman... There's not a need to refer to the rules in any game unless one participant thinks that the rules have been broken.
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  If the rules can be reinterpreted depending on the disposition of the player with more power at a given time, then there are no rules, it’s just a bog standard power game. The drift in disposition of the Supreme Court itself is plain proof of this. And as for shibboleth: > The term can also be used pejoratively, suggesting that the original meaning of a symbol has in effect been lost and that the symbol now serves merely to identify allegiance, being described as "nothing more than a shibboleth". In 1956, Nobel Prize-laureate economist Paul Samuelson applied the term "shibboleth" in works including Foundations of Economic Analysis to an idea for which "the means becomes the end, and the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit."[14] Samuelson admitted that "shibboleth" is an imperfect term for this phenomenon.[15] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth
the_biot 4y ago
It's not a shibboleth when some considerable portion of the population, including judges, regard it as an inviolate document of absolute truth.
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  What? The interpretation of the document by the highest court in the land changes according to the political affiliation of whoever happens to be on the court at the time. The very fact that it has to be interpreted means subjectivity is there from the beginning.
- chillacy 4y ago
  The justices on the Supreme Court all have pretty different* interpetations of this absolute truth, so I do kind of get OP’s point. * different enough that it matters to people who care about modern day politics

RhysU 4y ago

> the spirit of the document What do you mean by this? > It’s a shibboleth It is known by all. What definition are you using for "shibboleth"? > It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman... There's not a need to refer to the rules in any game unless one participant thinks that the rules have been broken.

femiagbabiaka 4y ago
If the rules can be reinterpreted depending on the disposition of the player with more power at a given time, then there are no rules, it’s just a bog standard power game. The drift in disposition of the Supreme Court itself is plain proof of this. And as for shibboleth: > The term can also be used pejoratively, suggesting that the original meaning of a symbol has in effect been lost and that the symbol now serves merely to identify allegiance, being described as "nothing more than a shibboleth". In 1956, Nobel Prize-laureate economist Paul Samuelson applied the term "shibboleth" in works including Foundations of Economic Analysis to an idea for which "the means becomes the end, and the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit."[14] Samuelson admitted that "shibboleth" is an imperfect term for this phenomenon.[15] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

the_biot 4y ago

It's not a shibboleth when some considerable portion of the population, including judges, regard it as an inviolate document of absolute truth.

femiagbabiaka 4y ago
What? The interpretation of the document by the highest court in the land changes according to the political affiliation of whoever happens to be on the court at the time. The very fact that it has to be interpreted means subjectivity is there from the beginning.
chillacy 4y ago
The justices on the Supreme Court all have pretty different* interpetations of this absolute truth, so I do kind of get OP’s point. * different enough that it matters to people who care about modern day politics