5 ms·

Appealing to the Constitution isn't really a valid line of argument, though. The Constitution isn't the Bible. It cannot, and should not, prescribe morality, wh

Appealing to the Constitution isn't really a valid line of argument, though. The Constitution isn't the Bible. It cannot, and should not, prescribe morality, which is what should drive law-making; nor should any part of it, including the Bill of Rights, be sacrosanct. The Constitution, and its derivates the US Code and state constitutions, are authoritative only to the point that they usefully represent their constituents' morality. > it should be encouraged at every step, though never forced I think you'll find that most of your "wacky libertarian" buddies don't see the distinction between these two methods. > Probably, the answer is somewhere in the middle, and I don't claim to know where it is. I'd recommend reading this book: http://www.amazon.com/Talking-Strangers-Anxieties-Citizenship-Education/dp/0226014673 http://www.amazon.com/Talking-Strangers-Anxieties-Citizenshi... One of the things it helps do is explain how and why we should negotiate the middle.

sanderjd 13y ago
His point (as I read it) isn't that the Constitution as written is sacrosanct, but that it is extremely useful to have a document whose rules are 1) executed as closely as possible in the present, and 2) changeable in the future. Otherwise there are no rules, and people are just making things up as they go. I tend to agree that this is the situation we currently find ourselves in, but I think a lot of the blame for it can be placed at the feet of the Constitution being too hard to amend, forcing the kind of (arguably) extra-legal pragmatism we see.
- bmelton 13y ago
  That is indeed exactly what I meant. That said, I think the difficulty found in the amendment process is an indicator that the founders intended the government to move far more slowly than it does, which leads one to believe they wanted less laws than more. Just an opinion there, but it is (I think) a fairly well supported one.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > an indicator that the founders intended This is exactly the mistake I'm trying to point out. "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. "Why do we eat bananas?" "Because the founders intended it." "Why aren't you eating a banana?" "Because the founders didn't intend for me to eat bananas." > they wanted less laws than more This works for you because you want less laws than more. I think that the amendment process is difficult because there are a fuckton of Americans and because the founders didn't trust the states. (Which is also why they had a House of Representatives.) They couldn't foresee the consolidation of federal power that came later, which may have justified an easier process to them.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      > "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. Well, it is though. That isn't to suggest that it's the definitive argument or standard to be held to, but it's definitely valid. Justices sitting on the Supreme Court agree, though not all of them. There are definitely competing beliefs, but just saying that isn't valid doesn't invalidate it. Regardless of whether we agree that it should be the prevailing theory, there are ramifications for its applicability. The House just passed (rather, extended, but same difference) that would, if enacted, ban the manufacture of undetectable firearms. So, we're in a legal morass right now that it is legal for me to manufacture guns at home, and it is legal for me to purchase undetectable firearms, but it is not legal for me to manufacture undetectable firearms at home. What does that mean? Well, presumably, the intent is to prevent me from being able to smuggle home-grown guns onto airplanes. By that metric, if I manufacture a gun that is made of plastic, but that has some metallic (detectable) components, am I in the clear? By the law, yes I am. If, however, those metallic components are detachable, such that I could still effectively smuggle the weapon through TSA screening, does that change the matter? > This works for you because you want less laws than more. Who said that I want less laws? I acknowledged in my original diatribe that more individual freedom may not prove to be the most effective outcome, and ultimately, the most effective outcome to win. I don't know what that is. Perhaps it is an application of less laws, perhaps it is an application of more consistent laws, or perhaps it is a more consistent application of law? My biggest gripe, for what it's worth, relates to the latter of those. I believe that the largest problem in our nation relates neither to the relative wealth or dearth of laws, but of their corrupt application. I would wager that many on either the right or left would share this interpretation, whether they know it or not, though I don't know how many would agree on its prioritization. > They couldn't foresee the consolidation of federal power that came later, which may have justified an easier process to them This is the statement with which I most disagree. I think that they very gravely foresaw this, and even went so far as to challenge later generations of Americans with the task of preventing it. Hamilton even advocated for this, on matters of efficiency, but ultimately lost out on the argument, though I'd argue that conflict accounts for much of the vagueries of the Constitution that we have now.
  - kefka 13y ago
    There are 'less laws'. It just so happens one of those laws is "FDA has final say on drug stuffs"... And then they decide on the real laws. After all, congress already gave them approval. Yep. Real transparency.
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    I think you're probably right about the founders intentions, but I think they were wrong about the speed at which government should be able to move. It's not an easy balance, and there is a real danger of government being too reactive, but I think (like you, just an opinion) that the Constitution is too far the other way for our current society. edit: wording
- dnautics 13y ago
  if the government fails to follow its own rules, then there will be a time when the people come to realize that they should not follow any of the government's rules, either.
bmelton 13y ago
> Appealing to the Constitution isn't really a valid line of argument, though. I disagree. Right or wrong, it is the document against which we supposedly make all laws. I'm not suggesting that we appeal to it as it is, rather, appeal to its defined measures for ensuring that it is kept current. Put simply, in football, they have a rule book. That rule book is what we consult on matters of the rules. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, and sometimes the rules need updating -- but suggesting that we disregard the rule book while playing football seems naive. The rules are necessary. The Constitution is that rule book. Either follow the rules or write new ones. Why is that so untenable? > The Constitution isn't the Bible. It cannot, and should not, prescribe morality, which is what should drive law-making; I disagree that law-making should be driven by morals. The Constitution, in theory at least, should work as a bulwark ensuring that minority opinions are upheld. Just as homosexuals are fighting for equal rights under the law because their moral values aren't shared by enough people, the Constitution is their prescriptive measure. They have equal rights because they are people, and deserving of equal rights, regardless of their or others' morals. We're still niggling over the details of it, but ultimately, I have hope and faith that gay rights will eventually achieve parity in law that the rest of us enjoy. > nor should any part of it, including the Bill of Rights, be sacrosanct. ... until it is ratified, I disagree. > The Constitution, and its derivates the US Code and state constitutions, are authoritative only to the point that they usefully represent their constituents' morality. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the statement, but by your argument, gays shouldn't have rights if the majority of constituents agree they shouldn't? I disagree here, and I would expect that every minority group should. It's very possible that I've misconstrued your intent though, so please feel free to correct me if I'm in error.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > The Constitution, in theory at least, should work as a bulwark ensuring that minority opinions are upheld. That's not what pluralism is. The key is in ensuring that minority opinions are heard and reasonably considered, not "upheld". > They have equal rights because they are people, and deserving of equal rights, regardless of their or others' morals. And yet, that's not actually what the Constitution says. Nothing in the Constitution actually says that people have equal rights. That's why, when they tried to write an amendment to ban gay marriage, they didn't have to include any deletions, because it would have contradicted nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment This is the example you chose; it's not helping your case. :P Edited to add: > suggesting that we disregard the rule book while playing football seems naive That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm saying that "because Constitution" is not the right reason to write law. Gays shouldn't have rights because the Constitution says they should; it doesn't. Gays should have rights because we say they should, and if the Constitution doesn't, then maybe it fucking should. > Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the statement, but by your argument, gays shouldn't have rights if the majority of constituents agree they shouldn't? I disagree here, and I would expect that every minority group should. It's very possible that I've misconstrued your intent though, so please feel free to correct me if I'm in error. Your error is that you think moral opinion is static. If the majority is wrong, then we (1) act to protect the minority and (2) convince the majority that they are wrong. Not sure if you noticed, but the last several years have been full of "LOOK! GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT EVIL! ISNT THAT GREAT!". This is part of the process.
mogrim 13y ago
> Appealing to the Constitution isn't really a valid line of argument, though. Fully agree - because it's only valid in the USA. Assuming libertarianism has some value outside of the States, the fact that the Constitution (and the Founding Fathers) may or may not back it up is irrelevant.

sanderjd 13y ago

His point (as I read it) isn't that the Constitution as written is sacrosanct, but that it is extremely useful to have a document whose rules are 1) executed as closely as possible in the present, and 2) changeable in the future. Otherwise there are no rules, and people are just making things up as they go. I tend to agree that this is the situation we currently find ourselves in, but I think a lot of the blame for it can be placed at the feet of the Constitution being too hard to amend, forcing the kind of (arguably) extra-legal pragmatism we see.

bmelton 13y ago
That is indeed exactly what I meant. That said, I think the difficulty found in the amendment process is an indicator that the founders intended the government to move far more slowly than it does, which leads one to believe they wanted less laws than more. Just an opinion there, but it is (I think) a fairly well supported one.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > an indicator that the founders intended This is exactly the mistake I'm trying to point out. "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. "Why do we eat bananas?" "Because the founders intended it." "Why aren't you eating a banana?" "Because the founders didn't intend for me to eat bananas." > they wanted less laws than more This works for you because you want less laws than more. I think that the amendment process is difficult because there are a fuckton of Americans and because the founders didn't trust the states. (Which is also why they had a House of Representatives.) They couldn't foresee the consolidation of federal power that came later, which may have justified an easier process to them.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    > "The founders intended" isn't a valid line of argument. Well, it is though. That isn't to suggest that it's the definitive argument or standard to be held to, but it's definitely valid. Justices sitting on the Supreme Court agree, though not all of them. There are definitely competing beliefs, but just saying that isn't valid doesn't invalidate it. Regardless of whether we agree that it should be the prevailing theory, there are ramifications for its applicability. The House just passed (rather, extended, but same difference) that would, if enacted, ban the manufacture of undetectable firearms. So, we're in a legal morass right now that it is legal for me to manufacture guns at home, and it is legal for me to purchase undetectable firearms, but it is not legal for me to manufacture undetectable firearms at home. What does that mean? Well, presumably, the intent is to prevent me from being able to smuggle home-grown guns onto airplanes. By that metric, if I manufacture a gun that is made of plastic, but that has some metallic (detectable) components, am I in the clear? By the law, yes I am. If, however, those metallic components are detachable, such that I could still effectively smuggle the weapon through TSA screening, does that change the matter? > This works for you because you want less laws than more. Who said that I want less laws? I acknowledged in my original diatribe that more individual freedom may not prove to be the most effective outcome, and ultimately, the most effective outcome to win. I don't know what that is. Perhaps it is an application of less laws, perhaps it is an application of more consistent laws, or perhaps it is a more consistent application of law? My biggest gripe, for what it's worth, relates to the latter of those. I believe that the largest problem in our nation relates neither to the relative wealth or dearth of laws, but of their corrupt application. I would wager that many on either the right or left would share this interpretation, whether they know it or not, though I don't know how many would agree on its prioritization. > They couldn't foresee the consolidation of federal power that came later, which may have justified an easier process to them This is the statement with which I most disagree. I think that they very gravely foresaw this, and even went so far as to challenge later generations of Americans with the task of preventing it. Hamilton even advocated for this, on matters of efficiency, but ultimately lost out on the argument, though I'd argue that conflict accounts for much of the vagueries of the Constitution that we have now.
- kefka 13y ago
  There are 'less laws'. It just so happens one of those laws is "FDA has final say on drug stuffs"... And then they decide on the real laws. After all, congress already gave them approval. Yep. Real transparency.
- sanderjd 13y ago
  I think you're probably right about the founders intentions, but I think they were wrong about the speed at which government should be able to move. It's not an easy balance, and there is a real danger of government being too reactive, but I think (like you, just an opinion) that the Constitution is too far the other way for our current society. edit: wording
dnautics 13y ago
if the government fails to follow its own rules, then there will be a time when the people come to realize that they should not follow any of the government's rules, either.

bmelton 13y ago

> Appealing to the Constitution isn't really a valid line of argument, though. I disagree. Right or wrong, it is the document against which we supposedly make all laws. I'm not suggesting that we appeal to it as it is, rather, appeal to its defined measures for ensuring that it is kept current. Put simply, in football, they have a rule book. That rule book is what we consult on matters of the rules. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, and sometimes the rules need updating -- but suggesting that we disregard the rule book while playing football seems naive. The rules are necessary. The Constitution is that rule book. Either follow the rules or write new ones. Why is that so untenable? > The Constitution isn't the Bible. It cannot, and should not, prescribe morality, which is what should drive law-making; I disagree that law-making should be driven by morals. The Constitution, in theory at least, should work as a bulwark ensuring that minority opinions are upheld. Just as homosexuals are fighting for equal rights under the law because their moral values aren't shared by enough people, the Constitution is their prescriptive measure. They have equal rights because they are people, and deserving of equal rights, regardless of their or others' morals. We're still niggling over the details of it, but ultimately, I have hope and faith that gay rights will eventually achieve parity in law that the rest of us enjoy. > nor should any part of it, including the Bill of Rights, be sacrosanct. ... until it is ratified, I disagree. > The Constitution, and its derivates the US Code and state constitutions, are authoritative only to the point that they usefully represent their constituents' morality. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the statement, but by your argument, gays shouldn't have rights if the majority of constituents agree they shouldn't? I disagree here, and I would expect that every minority group should. It's very possible that I've misconstrued your intent though, so please feel free to correct me if I'm in error.

saraid216 13y ago
> The Constitution, in theory at least, should work as a bulwark ensuring that minority opinions are upheld. That's not what pluralism is. The key is in ensuring that minority opinions are heard and reasonably considered, not "upheld". > They have equal rights because they are people, and deserving of equal rights, regardless of their or others' morals. And yet, that's not actually what the Constitution says. Nothing in the Constitution actually says that people have equal rights. That's why, when they tried to write an amendment to ban gay marriage, they didn't have to include any deletions, because it would have contradicted nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment This is the example you chose; it's not helping your case. :P Edited to add: > suggesting that we disregard the rule book while playing football seems naive That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm saying that "because Constitution" is not the right reason to write law. Gays shouldn't have rights because the Constitution says they should; it doesn't. Gays should have rights because we say they should, and if the Constitution doesn't, then maybe it fucking should. > Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the statement, but by your argument, gays shouldn't have rights if the majority of constituents agree they shouldn't? I disagree here, and I would expect that every minority group should. It's very possible that I've misconstrued your intent though, so please feel free to correct me if I'm in error. Your error is that you think moral opinion is static. If the majority is wrong, then we (1) act to protect the minority and (2) convince the majority that they are wrong. Not sure if you noticed, but the last several years have been full of "LOOK! GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT EVIL! ISNT THAT GREAT!". This is part of the process.

mogrim 13y ago

> Appealing to the Constitution isn't really a valid line of argument, though. Fully agree - because it's only valid in the USA. Assuming libertarianism has some value outside of the States, the fact that the Constitution (and the Founding Fathers) may or may not back it up is irrelevant.