3 ms·

What is 'it'? Where is it in the constitution? Why are we supposed to be constrained by founders' principles?

• programmarchy 12y ago
  Why do citizens even have a duty to obey the state? What gives the state any political authority at all?
  • Retra 12y ago
    Are you asking because you don't know, or because you think I don't know?
    • programmarchy 12y ago
      I don't know why the state has political authority, and I don't know if you know. I was asking because I thought it might be related to why we are or are not bound to the founders' principles.
• AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  We are in fact supposed to be constrained by the constitution (at least until we amend it). But, as you asked, where in the constitution is that? Where specifically?
  • Retra 12y ago
    The constitution is supposed to represent _our_ principles, not the founders'. The fact that it does not speaks more to our failure than to their success.
    • AnimalMuppet 12y ago
      Say what? NO. It's not supposed to represent any generation's principles. The constitution is supposed to be an agreed-upon set of rules that is in place until enough people what badly enough to change it that they go through the deliberately-almost-impossible process of amendment. Because if you were just going to have each generation decide what principles that they want to be governed by, why have a constitution in the first place (especially one that's hard to change)? Why not just, you know, let each generation do what it wants? Look, I was initially agreeing with you. If pbreit is going to claim that it makes no sense given the constitution, I want to see section and clause quoted before I believe that it's any such thing. But I also don't think that each generation gets to re-do the constitution in the image of their own principles.
      • Retra 12y ago
        I don't appreciate your tone. You are jumping to conclusions about my opinions on a complicated and controversial matter. >But I also don't think that each generation gets to re-do the constitution in the image of their own principles. I never said that. But every generation does have that power, because all other generations are dead and don't get to make amendments anymore. I don't know what it is about what I've said that makes you think I would support some _other_ means of modifying the constitution. Those who are alive have all the power. I don't see what is so objectionable about that; it's one of the great benefits of not being a corpse.
        • AnimalMuppet 12y ago
          Ah, I see. Then, yes, I did misinterpret what you said. My apologies. (In case you can't tell, I'm not a fan of the "it's a living document, it means whatever we want it to mean" school of constitutional interpretation.)
          • Retra 12y ago
            I'm not a fan either, but in a sense we have no choice. We can't ask older generations what they meant, we can only hope that their values were passed on effectively. And where they aren't, we do not share those values and so shouldn't be constrained by them. I don't think we should be reinterpreting the law to suit whatever goal we currently want. That kind of behavior is essentially corruption. We should be rewriting the laws to say explicitly what we want, why we want it, and how important it is to us.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]