3 ms·

>The fact that the actions are "invasive" doesn't mean they're unconstitutional. Perhaps, though that only reinforces Spooner's point. Given the repeated atte

>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
  >Seems to be a very good reason why persuasion based around "constitutionality" is not a waste of time. Perhaps, but it's not a very good reason to engage in an argument with someone making positive claims about "constitutionality" (e.g., rayiner). Personally, I'm disinclined to participate in a lie merely in the hopes of yielding a favorable outcome, particularly when doing so cedes the fundamental point of my position. I am content to simply note the lie.

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
>Seems to be a very good reason why persuasion based around "constitutionality" is not a waste of time. Perhaps, but it's not a very good reason to engage in an argument with someone making positive claims about "constitutionality" (e.g., rayiner). Personally, I'm disinclined to participate in a lie merely in the hopes of yielding a favorable outcome, particularly when doing so cedes the fundamental point of my position. I am content to simply note the lie.