4 ms·

I enjoy how your response to Spooner's criticism of the Constitution is to declare that the Constitution permits these invasive acts. >If the Constitution said

I enjoy how your response to Spooner's criticism of the Constitution is to declare that the Constitution permits these invasive acts. >If the Constitution said: "Congress shall pass no law... abridging the right of privacy" we'd be in a different boat. No we wouldn't.[1] We'd still have some people[2] coming along and making whatever arguments are needed in order to preserve and expand the state. One way might be to constantly frame government power only in terms of explicit limits, with the default being otherwise unchecked power. Such limits can then be read to mean whatever those in power wish them to mean.[3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ [3] http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

rayiner 13y ago
> I enjoy how your response to Spooner's criticism of the Constitution is to declare that the Constitution permits these invasive acts I declare it because it's true, at least as the law stands right now. The Constitution doesn't just say whatever you want it to say. The fact that the actions are "invasive" doesn't mean they're unconstitutional. Did you know that a lawyer in a civil litigation can use the power of the courts, through a subpoena, to obtain nearly any information or force nearly anyone to testify as long as it's relevant to a litigation? And that subpoena is enforced through the threat of contempt of court? This is incredibly invasive, yet it's a basic feature of our court system. From an 1802 Evidence textbook: "It is the undoubted legal constitutional right of every subject of the realm who has a cause depending to call upon a fellow subject to testify what he may know of the matters in issue and every man is bound to make the discovery unless specially exempted and protected by law." The balance that has been struck in our system is not one where the protection of "privacy" trumps all other concerns. Indeed, the scale is heavily tilted the other way: the government, especially pursuant to a court order, has broad powers to seek out information subject to specific protections (4th, 5th amendment).
- ataggart 13y ago
  >The fact that the actions are "invasive" doesn't mean they're unconstitutional. Perhaps, though that only reinforces Spooner's point. Given the repeated attempts to frame this as only an issue of explicit prohibition, I think that perhaps you're trying to counter an argument I'm not actually making. Anyone who tries to make a claim of "unconstitutionality" -- or argue against someone making a claim of "constitutionality" -- is wasting their time. The Constitution means precisely whatever the people can be convinced it means, and that in turn is decided largely by a handful of individuals in power. If something as explicit as the Seventh Amendment's "twenty dollars" clause can be argued away, then anything can. Sometimes, as is (slightly, temporarily) the case now, the people may find an act of the state egregiously wrong, and look for protection in the Constitution. Thankfully we have people like you to remind them that they are incorrect. From this the value of the Constitution is revealed: the imprimatur of legitimacy it provides to those in power when they commit otherwise illegitimate acts.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Anyone who tries to make a claim of "unconstitutionality" -- or argue against someone making a claim of "constitutionality" -- is wasting their time. The Constitution means precisely whatever the people can be convinced it means Seems to be a very good reason why persuasion based around "constitutionality" is not a waste of time. > and that in turn is decided largely by a handful of individuals in power. Well, no, its decided by what the people accept, which depends pretty much entirely on the arguments they are exposed to. Certain individuals in power in government and the media have some advantages in terms of inherent trust with some segment of the population on the issue, or just a bigger microphone, but those can be overcome. Even in states where the means of mass communication have been far more tightly controlled than they are in the US, "what the people can be convinced of" has often conflicted with what those in power want; preaching defeatism of the kind you are here is precisely the thing that serves to reinforce the power of the elites, which mostly comes from other people giving up.
    - ataggart 13y ago
anigbrowl 13y ago
I enjoy how your response is not to engage with any of Rayiner's actual arguments and instead try to turn it into a character issue. If you look at the history of American law you'll find that historical scope of the 4th amendment and similar was always a lot narrower than most people today conceive it to be. In a broader context, it's particularly instructive to look at the history of Shays' Rebellion, which took place a mere decade after the founding of the US; the people running the government at the time, including founders such as John and Samuel Adams had no hesitation on dropping the banhammer on the rebels, to the point of suspending habeas corpus. The Constitution was most certainly not written with the intention of producing weak government. Like it or not, it invests the federal government with far-reaching powers, and such limits as it does put in place are partly to limit the Federal government's authority over the states, as opposed to individuals.
- jeremy6d 13y ago
  So much the worst for the Constitution. What has it done for us lately?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well it's certainly maintained a stable republic for far longer than the previous Articles of Confederation did, that's for sure.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The U.S. is awesome. I bet there is literally a handful of countries your average HN-er would rather live in than the U.S., and before the economic liberalization of Europe in the 1990's, it was probably less than that. Our prosperity has been supported by an incredibly stable government, one that is, 224 years after its founding, freer than it ever has been (read up on the Alien and Sedition Acts). It's easy to take what we have for granted, but it's important to maintain perspective. The cause of the republic is not served by those who declare it hopelessly broken and disengage. In the light of historical perspective, you realize that there have been many times in the past when the government was more corrupt than it is now, when society was less free than it is now, and that's a liberating thought because it means that the trend of government does not point inevitably towards corruption and repression.

rayiner 13y ago

> I enjoy how your response to Spooner's criticism of the Constitution is to declare that the Constitution permits these invasive acts I declare it because it's true, at least as the law stands right now. The Constitution doesn't just say whatever you want it to say. The fact that the actions are "invasive" doesn't mean they're unconstitutional. Did you know that a lawyer in a civil litigation can use the power of the courts, through a subpoena, to obtain nearly any information or force nearly anyone to testify as long as it's relevant to a litigation? And that subpoena is enforced through the threat of contempt of court? This is incredibly invasive, yet it's a basic feature of our court system. From an 1802 Evidence textbook: "It is the undoubted legal constitutional right of every subject of the realm who has a cause depending to call upon a fellow subject to testify what he may know of the matters in issue and every man is bound to make the discovery unless specially exempted and protected by law." The balance that has been struck in our system is not one where the protection of "privacy" trumps all other concerns. Indeed, the scale is heavily tilted the other way: the government, especially pursuant to a court order, has broad powers to seek out information subject to specific protections (4th, 5th amendment).

ataggart 13y ago
>The fact that the actions are "invasive" doesn't mean they're unconstitutional. Perhaps, though that only reinforces Spooner's point. Given the repeated attempts to frame this as only an issue of explicit prohibition, I think that perhaps you're trying to counter an argument I'm not actually making. Anyone who tries to make a claim of "unconstitutionality" -- or argue against someone making a claim of "constitutionality" -- is wasting their time. The Constitution means precisely whatever the people can be convinced it means, and that in turn is decided largely by a handful of individuals in power. If something as explicit as the Seventh Amendment's "twenty dollars" clause can be argued away, then anything can. Sometimes, as is (slightly, temporarily) the case now, the people may find an act of the state egregiously wrong, and look for protection in the Constitution. Thankfully we have people like you to remind them that they are incorrect. From this the value of the Constitution is revealed: the imprimatur of legitimacy it provides to those in power when they commit otherwise illegitimate acts.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Anyone who tries to make a claim of "unconstitutionality" -- or argue against someone making a claim of "constitutionality" -- is wasting their time. The Constitution means precisely whatever the people can be convinced it means Seems to be a very good reason why persuasion based around "constitutionality" is not a waste of time. > and that in turn is decided largely by a handful of individuals in power. Well, no, its decided by what the people accept, which depends pretty much entirely on the arguments they are exposed to. Certain individuals in power in government and the media have some advantages in terms of inherent trust with some segment of the population on the issue, or just a bigger microphone, but those can be overcome. Even in states where the means of mass communication have been far more tightly controlled than they are in the US, "what the people can be convinced of" has often conflicted with what those in power want; preaching defeatism of the kind you are here is precisely the thing that serves to reinforce the power of the elites, which mostly comes from other people giving up.
  - ataggart 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago

I enjoy how your response is not to engage with any of Rayiner's actual arguments and instead try to turn it into a character issue. If you look at the history of American law you'll find that historical scope of the 4th amendment and similar was always a lot narrower than most people today conceive it to be. In a broader context, it's particularly instructive to look at the history of Shays' Rebellion, which took place a mere decade after the founding of the US; the people running the government at the time, including founders such as John and Samuel Adams had no hesitation on dropping the banhammer on the rebels, to the point of suspending habeas corpus. The Constitution was most certainly not written with the intention of producing weak government. Like it or not, it invests the federal government with far-reaching powers, and such limits as it does put in place are partly to limit the Federal government's authority over the states, as opposed to individuals.

jeremy6d 13y ago
So much the worst for the Constitution. What has it done for us lately?
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well it's certainly maintained a stable republic for far longer than the previous Articles of Confederation did, that's for sure.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The U.S. is awesome. I bet there is literally a handful of countries your average HN-er would rather live in than the U.S., and before the economic liberalization of Europe in the 1990's, it was probably less than that. Our prosperity has been supported by an incredibly stable government, one that is, 224 years after its founding, freer than it ever has been (read up on the Alien and Sedition Acts). It's easy to take what we have for granted, but it's important to maintain perspective. The cause of the republic is not served by those who declare it hopelessly broken and disengage. In the light of historical perspective, you realize that there have been many times in the past when the government was more corrupt than it is now, when society was less free than it is now, and that's a liberating thought because it means that the trend of government does not point inevitably towards corruption and repression.