6 ms·

> Privilege is not a false concept just because you don't like it. I didn't say it was a false concept _in general_. For a kid to get an allowance is a privile

by javert 14y ago

> Privilege is not a false concept just because you don't like it. I didn't say it was a false concept _in general_. For a kid to get an allowance is a privilege. What I should implied (and should have have said explicitly) is: the relationship between people and their government should not be governed by a notion of privilege. > Whether or not you agree with the policy, you can't just ignore the existence of Supreme Court jurisprudence because the SC is the arbiter of these questions per the Constitution itself. No, morality is the arbiter of these questions, and the government either acts in line with morality, or it does not. In this particular case, the Constitution has taken the right moral stand, and the rest of the government has ignored the Constitution. > Your claim that a constitutional violation invalidates the entire existence of government is just not anchored in reality. I don't know why you keep talking about this. I explicitly stated that I don't support rebellion. I think we should try to work within the legal framework we have to change things. So we have no practical disagreement. I just think that a government that does not follow the rules of the Constitution is not a _legal_ US government, because it's acting _illegally_, in the same way that China taking over the US by force would not be legal under the US constitution, and would also therefore be illegitimate. This is not the same thing as severability. Severability comes into play when part of a law is deemed illegal. In this case, the law (constitution) is illegal, and one of the parties to the law is breaking it. > Please, read the whole constitution Your presumption that I haven't read it is ridiculous.

anigbrowl 14y ago
No, morality is the arbiter of these questions, and the government either acts in line with morality, or it does not. In this particular case, the Constitution has taken the right moral stand, and the rest of the government has ignored the Constitution. That's literally nonsense. Morality is an abstraction of what constitutes proper behavior. An arbiter is a particular body that judges disputes. In the United States, that judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, per article III of the Constitution. Your concept of the Constitution as a moral agent, ignored by the rest of the government (including the Supreme Court) is just irrational. I just think that a government that does not follow the rules of the Constitution is not a _legal_ US government, because it's acting _illegally_ Would you say that a person who breaks the law is not a legal person, or that a citizen who breaks the law ceases to be citizen? Nobody subscribes to this concept of legitimacy; the Constitution explicitly contemplates the possibility of disputes between the United States and other parties, and the possibility of being a party to a dispute necessarily involves the possibility that the United States will lose such a dispute by being out of step with the Constitution. That doesn't make the entire government illegitimate. Your presumption that I haven't read it is ridiculous. If you have read it you have certainly not understood it. Your arguments border upon the delusional. I'm not saying that to insult you. I'm saying that because you're making these bizarre claims out of the air, whereas I'm citing to the Constitution's own text. Unlike the concept of privilege, there's no mention of 'morality' anywhere in the constitution, and you're using the term in a way that is not consistent with normal English usage.
- javert 14y ago
  > That's literally nonsense. Morality is an abstraction of what constitutes proper behavior. An arbiter is a particular body that judges disputes. In the United States, that judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, per article III of the Constitution. Your concept of the Constitution as a moral agent, ignored by the rest of the government (including the Supreme Court) is just irrational. In this paragraph, you called my position "nonsense" and "irrational," yet you gave no reason for those claims whatsoever. I agree with the other stuff you said, modulo I'm not sure how you define "moral agent." The point is, morality DOES exist, irrespective of what any person or government does or says. This is the normal English use of "morality." Government action can either be in line with that, or contradict it. I'm not saying that the Constitution is the source or morality or an arbiter of morality. It's just that the 4th amendment _is_ in accordance with morality, along with the rest of the Constitution, broadly speaking. > That doesn't make the entire government illegitimate. So, what's the line? Clearly if the government didn't respect articles I, II, and III of the constitution whatsoever, and just appointed a dictator, it would not be legitimate. On the other hand, if it makes a minor (but illegal) clerical error, it is clearly still legitimate. _My_ answer to this is that there is no set threshold; it's just a strategic question, a matter of rhetoric. So I don't think there is anything weighing on this topic. What do you think the threshold is? > If you have read it you have certainly not understood it. Your arguments border upon the delusional. That's just ridiculous. You keep saying this, but you haven't made a convincing argument that I'm wrong about anything, much less _delusional_, which is an entirely different beast altogether. I'm not sure if you understand that there is a potential difference between what is right and wrong, and what is actually written into law.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    In this paragraph, you called my position "nonsense" and "irrational," yet you gave no reason for those claims whatsoever. Javert, my reasons are given in the third and fourth sentences, where I define the term 'arbiter' and then observe that the constitution assigns the judicial power of the country to the Supreme Court. You have denied that the SC is the arbiter of constitutional questions on things like rights and privileges. I find your position nonsensical and irrational because it is in conflict with the plain language of the Constitution and with the fact that the Supreme Court has been functioning in this role ever since the its inception. When you talk about the legitimacy of the government, you're making a legal assertion. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion of what you consider to be moral, but when you make legal assertions on the basis of your personal moral code in complete disregard of how the governance of the US is constitutionally organized, then I view those assertions as fundamentally flawed. DannyBee has cited specific case law elsewhere in the thread that shows the error in your position. If you are simply going to dismiss anything you disagree with as being morally deficient that's up to you, but your moral opinions are wholly subjective. The objective reality here is what the judicial branch holds to be the meaning of the constitution, regardless of how your or I feel about the morality or quality or their jurisprudence. I have nothing further to say on this topic, and I think you know perfectly well what I meant in the first place.
tptacek 14y ago
Your conception of the Constitution's place in moral arguments is unfounded. The Constitution largely avoids moral concerns --- or, more precisely, values and substantive rights. What the Constitution cares about are the "constitutive" issues: the procedural rights that ensure that all citizens have access to the political process and to the same dispute resolution mechanisms, and that attempt to ensure (as best any constitution can) that the majority cannot impinge on the minority without sharing in the downside of those actions. As you know, the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional rights is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is 9 unelected humans with lifetime tenure. We are not a nation governed by philosopher kings. The Constitution is not just not a source for our morality and values; it is deliberately designed to avoid those questions. The framers and every court since Marshall's recognized that the legislative branch was uniquely positioned to represent the largest number of people and equipped with the best fact-finding capabilities. So it falls to Congress to judge the morality and value of the country. SCOTUS is there as a "ref", to make sure the routinely terrible decisions of any collection of West African Plains Apes don't violate the integrity of the Constitution's process --- and that's (mostly) all they do. Highly recommended: _Democracy and Distrust_, John Hart Ely.
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  I'm sorry but you are just making sh*t up and while usually it is best just to ignore such posts; this is too important to let stand unopposed. The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are firmly founded and derive from natural law. How can you say the Constitution largely avoids moral concerns when slavery and its role was foundational to the document's very existence? If there had been no agreement regarding humans as property in the US Constitution there would have been no republic. Period. Revisionist nonsense is just revisionist nonsense. The Supreme Court is also not the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional rights, that is reserved to the people to elect officials that either comport with the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS or not. An "unconstitutional law" is still the law of the land until it is duly repealed by Congress. The concept of judicial review does not even exist in the Constitution nor was it even debated by the founders. It was entirely a power grab in the aftermath of Marbury v Madison. Whether its establishment as a pro forma power was for the better of the country is debatable. The history of the SCOTUS is long and tangled. SCOTUS has zero power to enforce any of its decisions other than budgetary control of the federal courts. It is a political institution just like any other but with a unique set of tribal rules. It offers its opinions, and if it offers too many contrary to public opinion it becomes irrelevant to political life.

by javert 14y ago

anigbrowl 14y ago

No, morality is the arbiter of these questions, and the government either acts in line with morality, or it does not. In this particular case, the Constitution has taken the right moral stand, and the rest of the government has ignored the Constitution. That's literally nonsense. Morality is an abstraction of what constitutes proper behavior. An arbiter is a particular body that judges disputes. In the United States, that judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, per article III of the Constitution. Your concept of the Constitution as a moral agent, ignored by the rest of the government (including the Supreme Court) is just irrational. I just think that a government that does not follow the rules of the Constitution is not a _legal_ US government, because it's acting _illegally_ Would you say that a person who breaks the law is not a legal person, or that a citizen who breaks the law ceases to be citizen? Nobody subscribes to this concept of legitimacy; the Constitution explicitly contemplates the possibility of disputes between the United States and other parties, and the possibility of being a party to a dispute necessarily involves the possibility that the United States will lose such a dispute by being out of step with the Constitution. That doesn't make the entire government illegitimate. Your presumption that I haven't read it is ridiculous. If you have read it you have certainly not understood it. Your arguments border upon the delusional. I'm not saying that to insult you. I'm saying that because you're making these bizarre claims out of the air, whereas I'm citing to the Constitution's own text. Unlike the concept of privilege, there's no mention of 'morality' anywhere in the constitution, and you're using the term in a way that is not consistent with normal English usage.

javert 14y ago
> That's literally nonsense. Morality is an abstraction of what constitutes proper behavior. An arbiter is a particular body that judges disputes. In the United States, that judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, per article III of the Constitution. Your concept of the Constitution as a moral agent, ignored by the rest of the government (including the Supreme Court) is just irrational. In this paragraph, you called my position "nonsense" and "irrational," yet you gave no reason for those claims whatsoever. I agree with the other stuff you said, modulo I'm not sure how you define "moral agent." The point is, morality DOES exist, irrespective of what any person or government does or says. This is the normal English use of "morality." Government action can either be in line with that, or contradict it. I'm not saying that the Constitution is the source or morality or an arbiter of morality. It's just that the 4th amendment _is_ in accordance with morality, along with the rest of the Constitution, broadly speaking. > That doesn't make the entire government illegitimate. So, what's the line? Clearly if the government didn't respect articles I, II, and III of the constitution whatsoever, and just appointed a dictator, it would not be legitimate. On the other hand, if it makes a minor (but illegal) clerical error, it is clearly still legitimate. _My_ answer to this is that there is no set threshold; it's just a strategic question, a matter of rhetoric. So I don't think there is anything weighing on this topic. What do you think the threshold is? > If you have read it you have certainly not understood it. Your arguments border upon the delusional. That's just ridiculous. You keep saying this, but you haven't made a convincing argument that I'm wrong about anything, much less _delusional_, which is an entirely different beast altogether. I'm not sure if you understand that there is a potential difference between what is right and wrong, and what is actually written into law.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  In this paragraph, you called my position "nonsense" and "irrational," yet you gave no reason for those claims whatsoever. Javert, my reasons are given in the third and fourth sentences, where I define the term 'arbiter' and then observe that the constitution assigns the judicial power of the country to the Supreme Court. You have denied that the SC is the arbiter of constitutional questions on things like rights and privileges. I find your position nonsensical and irrational because it is in conflict with the plain language of the Constitution and with the fact that the Supreme Court has been functioning in this role ever since the its inception. When you talk about the legitimacy of the government, you're making a legal assertion. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion of what you consider to be moral, but when you make legal assertions on the basis of your personal moral code in complete disregard of how the governance of the US is constitutionally organized, then I view those assertions as fundamentally flawed. DannyBee has cited specific case law elsewhere in the thread that shows the error in your position. If you are simply going to dismiss anything you disagree with as being morally deficient that's up to you, but your moral opinions are wholly subjective. The objective reality here is what the judicial branch holds to be the meaning of the constitution, regardless of how your or I feel about the morality or quality or their jurisprudence. I have nothing further to say on this topic, and I think you know perfectly well what I meant in the first place.

tptacek 14y ago

Your conception of the Constitution's place in moral arguments is unfounded. The Constitution largely avoids moral concerns --- or, more precisely, values and substantive rights. What the Constitution cares about are the "constitutive" issues: the procedural rights that ensure that all citizens have access to the political process and to the same dispute resolution mechanisms, and that attempt to ensure (as best any constitution can) that the majority cannot impinge on the minority without sharing in the downside of those actions. As you know, the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional rights is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is 9 unelected humans with lifetime tenure. We are not a nation governed by philosopher kings. The Constitution is not just not a source for our morality and values; it is deliberately designed to avoid those questions. The framers and every court since Marshall's recognized that the legislative branch was uniquely positioned to represent the largest number of people and equipped with the best fact-finding capabilities. So it falls to Congress to judge the morality and value of the country. SCOTUS is there as a "ref", to make sure the routinely terrible decisions of any collection of West African Plains Apes don't violate the integrity of the Constitution's process --- and that's (mostly) all they do. Highly recommended: _Democracy and Distrust_, John Hart Ely.

shawn-butler 14y ago
I'm sorry but you are just making sh*t up and while usually it is best just to ignore such posts; this is too important to let stand unopposed. The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are firmly founded and derive from natural law. How can you say the Constitution largely avoids moral concerns when slavery and its role was foundational to the document's very existence? If there had been no agreement regarding humans as property in the US Constitution there would have been no republic. Period. Revisionist nonsense is just revisionist nonsense. The Supreme Court is also not the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional rights, that is reserved to the people to elect officials that either comport with the Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS or not. An "unconstitutional law" is still the law of the land until it is duly repealed by Congress. The concept of judicial review does not even exist in the Constitution nor was it even debated by the founders. It was entirely a power grab in the aftermath of Marbury v Madison. Whether its establishment as a pro forma power was for the better of the country is debatable. The history of the SCOTUS is long and tangled. SCOTUS has zero power to enforce any of its decisions other than budgetary control of the federal courts. It is a political institution just like any other but with a unique set of tribal rules. It offers its opinions, and if it offers too many contrary to public opinion it becomes irrelevant to political life.