Reading the Constitution

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:13 pm

What an amazingly gracious assumption there, Catharz.

My money's on ignorant jackassery.

Post by **fbmf** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:59 pm

Zinegata wrote:
K wrote:Yeh, and Jefferson was wrong. We freed the slaves and instead of tossing them alone and broke into the wilderness or a society that hates them, we gave them a mule and a parcel of land and it all worked out.
I still hear people who insist it didn't work out until the 1960s though. And there are still those who insist it isn't working even now .

There are people on this very message board who have suggested something of the kind.

While I agree with the "Constitution as it stands nopw gets less and less relevant as we get further away from its writing" viewpoint I still say it is the law of the land and we should either amend it all to hell or rewrite it. Ignoring it should not be an option.

It is amusing to me that Dems are saying that this was all a sham to make the GOP look like "the party of the Constitution". After reading this thread, it seems to me like they are.

Game On,
fbmf

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:00 pm

I like the re-write from the ground up every 50 years requirement. Good idea.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:34 pm

fbmf wrote:It is amusing to me that Dems are saying that this was all a sham to make the GOP look like "the party of the Constitution". After reading this thread, it seems to me like they are.

Yeah, because we can all see how much the Republicans respect the First, Fourth, and Eighth amendments. I don't think wanting every single state to be a theocratic fascist state gets to count as supporting the constitution any more than wanting the the south to secede and then blow them up counts as reducing political division.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:15 pm

fbmf wrote:It is amusing to me that Dems are saying that this was all a sham to make the GOP look like "the party of the Constitution". After reading this thread, it seems to me like they are.

That's certainly what they're trying to do, but more cynically: they want to brand themselves as the party of the Constitution.

In practice, the Constitution is just another complicated law with loopholes, oversights and missed opportunities. Pretending that your party has the only true interpretation of its intentionally vague content and then waving that interpretation around is rhetoric, not substance.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:31 pm

fbmf wrote:It is amusing to me that Dems are saying that this was all a sham to make the GOP look like "the party of the Constitution". After reading this thread, it seems to me like they are.

HA HA no, not really.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:45 pm

The Constitution is a framework for creating and enforcing laws. The thing the country actually runs off of are the laws and regulations. They are allowed for by the constitution, but the constitution doesn't create them.

If you keep a slave, you have violated the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution. But nothing actually happens because of that. The thing you actually get prosecuted in court for is violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. That's an act of Congress, which is the actual law of the land.

No, we don't need to constantly update the Constitution in order to prescribe specific enforcement provisions for upholding the ideals of our nation. We have laws for that. And an executive branch. And an incredibly stable judicial system.

-Username17

Post by **fbmf** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:46 pm

I didn't mean to hurt anybody's little feelings by what I wrote. I only meant that the Dems seem to be proud to be the party of ignoring the Constitution.

Again, I agree that the Constitution is outdated because the framer's couldn't have forseen how things would stand today. I just say you can't ignore the rules in place just because they are outdated. You need to formally Errata the existing rules or come out with a new Edition. Real World Government shouldn't be houseruled.

Game On,
fbmf

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:08 pm

fbmf wrote:You need to formally Errata the existing rules or come out with a new Edition. Real World Government shouldn't be houseruled.

Game On,
fbmf

So the Dems are playing RAI or RAW?

coming next fall from HASBRO of the Congress, USA 2011. the new exciting edition where we streamline the laws and the people can actually know what they are and use them without complex negative modifiers being postitive influences.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:19 pm

fbmf wrote:I didn't mean to hurt anybody's little feelings by what I wrote. I only meant that the Dems seem to be proud to be the party of ignoring the Constitution.

Again, I agree that the Constitution is outdated because the framer's couldn't have forseen how things would stand today. I just say you can't ignore the rules in place just because they are outdated. You need to formally Errata the existing rules or come out with a new Edition. Real World Government shouldn't be houseruled.

Game On,
fbmf

The constitution isn't ignored though. It's part of a long line of legal context that extends back to Prince John and forward to acts of congress and presidential policy decisions today.

Let's go back to the 13th amendment. Here's the full text:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That's it. That's the whole thing. Do we need to errata it? No. Do we need to overturn it? No. Does it tell us anything at all about how our society is run? Well... not really. The actual law is This Thing. It's really long. It's not short and punchy. Because it's not a declaration of intent, it's the actual fucking rules of a functional society.

And that's what's so fucking retarded about this. The constitution is a declaration of intent for congress to write laws. But it's not the actual laws. It's just a framework that tells us that we have an upper house and a lower house and an executive branch and a judiciary. That's great and shit, but it's not the actual rules. To put it into RPG language, the constitution is not the game rules, it's the job description of the game designer. And reading it aloud doesn't tell you fuck all about how anything actually works.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:20 pm

fbmf wrote:I didn't mean to hurt anybody's little feelings by what I wrote. I only meant that the Dems seem to be proud to be the party of ignoring the Constitution.

The part you are incorrect about is that it's any different for the Republicans. The FBI, CIA, NSA, Federal Air Marshals, Gitmo, and everything else are just as unconstitutional as the FDA or Welfare under a strict construction of the constitution.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 1:31 am

FrankTrollman wrote:
fbmf wrote:I didn't mean to hurt anybody's little feelings by what I wrote. I only meant that the Dems seem to be proud to be the party of ignoring the Constitution.

Again, I agree that the Constitution is outdated because the framer's couldn't have forseen how things would stand today. I just say you can't ignore the rules in place just because they are outdated. You need to formally Errata the existing rules or come out with a new Edition. Real World Government shouldn't be houseruled.

Game On,
fbmf
The constitution isn't ignored though. It's part of a long line of legal context that extends back to Prince John and forward to acts of congress and presidential policy decisions today.

Let's go back to the 13th amendment....

It's great that you can use the 13th amendment as an example of how nobody ignores the Constitution, but what about the parts that are ignored? The 2nd amendment? The 4th amendment? The 1st?

These ARE ignored, all the time, and plenty of people flat out say they should be ignored.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:34 am

fbmf wrote:I didn't mean to hurt anybody's little feelings by what I wrote. I only meant that the Dems seem to be proud to be the party of ignoring the Constitution.

Again, I agree that the Constitution is outdated because the framer's couldn't have forseen how things would stand today. I just say you can't ignore the rules in place just because they are outdated. You need to formally Errata the existing rules or come out with a new Edition. Real World Government shouldn't be houseruled.

Game On,
fbmf

I actually do agree that sincere respect for the Constitution is actually a good thing, and that blatantly ignoring the Constitution is a bad thing. Lots of countries are in deep shit because they are pretty bad at enforcing their own laws.

As I said very early in the thread though, the problem lies with certain groups who use "Defense of the Constitution" as a shield, even if what they're defending is arguably also against the Constitution.

However, these people should be called out for their fake defense of the Constitution, as opposed to questioning the actual practice of defending the Constitution. Mass generalizations wherein an entire party is also demonized as being a bunch of crazies also don't really help.

Moreover, I will also caution people that ignoring the process of constitutional amendments - i.e. using court rulings as opposed to a 2/3s vote, comes with its own risks. Liberals nowadays tend to view the courts favorably because of Rowe vs Wade, but never forget that the first time the courts actively intervened in American politics was actually the Dredd Scott case - where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery - which only dragged the country closer to Civil War.

They may just be guidelines, but these are pretty damn important guidelines - like the social contract that binds gamers.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:13 am

Zinegata wrote:never forget that the first time the courts actively intervened in American politics was actually the Dredd Scott case

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I love you too.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:07 am

PoliteNewb wrote:It's great that you can use the 13th amendment as an example of how nobody ignores the Constitution, but what about the parts that are ignored? The 2nd amendment? The 4th amendment? The 1st?

These ARE ignored, all the time, and plenty of people flat out say they should be ignored.

Those are all examples of parts of the constitution where people don't really agree on what they mean, because they were written in broad, and archaic language. The 2nd amendment was created to establish a militia defense of the country - something which is militarily worthless in the modern era. But what it actually means is something people do not agree upon. What the fuck is a "well regulated militia"? Does that mean the government has a responsibility to regulate who does and does not have access to firearms (my view) or that everyone has a responsibility to own their own M16 (the NRA's view)?

Even the 1st Amendment isn't as clear as we'd hope. Telling people that rat poison is sweetener is clearly an attempted murder rather than free expression. But where does the line go? I don't even know where I would draw the line between destruction and expression, let alone where the courts actually do.

Yes, you have people who want to repeal the 14th amendment because they hate anchor babies. And yes, you have fuckwits putting "In God We Trust" on our money in the 50s because they hate communists more than they like the constitution. But the vast majority of constitutional arguments are actual arguments made in good faith by both sides.

And if we can't even agree on what the Constitution does say, do you really think we could get everyone to agree on what it should say?

-Username17

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:20 am

Kaelik wrote:I love you too.

....

Ewwww.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:39 am

Kaelik's just begging to have shipfics written about him.

K · Post by K » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:35 am

FrankTrollman wrote:
PoliteNewb wrote:It's great that you can use the 13th amendment as an example of how nobody ignores the Constitution, but what about the parts that are ignored? The 2nd amendment? The 4th amendment? The 1st?

These ARE ignored, all the time, and plenty of people flat out say they should be ignored.
Those are all examples of parts of the constitution where people don't really agree on what they mean, because they were written in broad, and archaic language. The 2nd amendment was created to establish a militia defense of the country - something which is militarily worthless in the modern era. But what it actually means is something people do not agree upon. What the fuck is a "well regulated militia"? Does that mean the government has a responsibility to regulate who does and does not have access to firearms (my view) or that everyone has a responsibility to own their own M16 (the NRA's view)?

Even the 1st Amendment isn't as clear as we'd hope. Telling people that rat poison is sweetener is clearly an attempted murder rather than free expression. But where does the line go? I don't even know where I would draw the line between destruction and expression, let alone where the courts actually do.

Yes, you have people who want to repeal the 14th amendment because they hate anchor babies. And yes, you have fuckwits putting "In God We Trust" on our money in the 50s because they hate communists more than they like the constitution. But the vast majority of constitutional arguments are actual arguments made in good faith by both sides.

And if we can't even agree on what the Constitution does say, do you really think we could get everyone to agree on what it should say?

-Username17

What the Constitution actually means has been decided by the courts, and that's the idea that people can't wrap their minds around.

So we know that any actual amendment or clause is so vague it can mean anything. What we do have is a series of cases where the court has come up with various tests to determine if something is "constitutional" or "non-constitutional" and then come down on the merits of the case.

So what the actual bits of Constitution actually mean is decided by the courts and not any democratic process, mostly because in a democracy some kinds of laws are never going to be made by legislature. I mean, the laws that protect you also protect child molesters, and the court has to decide if protecting you is more important that getting those guys in a way politicians never will (they will always be on the side of "tough on crime", regardless of the freedoms they remove from the rest of us).

You see, opinions change over time. I mean, most people don't even know that state sodomy laws were stricken down as unconstitutional several years ago. That's not a change that any politician was going to want on his political resume (Pro-sodomy platform!!!), but the courts took down laws designed to punish deviancy from the social norms because in this day and age it was no longer terribly deviant any more and husbands wanted to get a blowjob in their own home from their wife without being arrested. Society had reevaluated their priorities, and the court responded.

And that's what the courts do: things politicians don't have the balls to do. The problem with this is that they really only have reason on their side, and if they do something off-script then politicians need to create laws to reign them in (which is not something they often have the balls to do).

Also, they are often bound by precedent and can't override that without overwhelming reasons. This is why corporations are now allowed unlimited ability to donate to political causes.... something which we might see as a terrible undermining of democracy, but you need to blame the case law that has consistently come down on the side of the corps over the people.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:27 am

The 2nd amendment? The 4th amendment? The 1st?

2nd amendment: The one congress voted for says the federal government must not disarm the state militias. The one the states ratified says the general populace must not be disarmed, because they make up the state militias.

But the courts consider "the security of the state" a broader and more personal thing than the militias now. Like home security, but not car security.

4th amendment: "reasonable". Reason's handy like that.

1st amendment: they just pretend you're inciting a crime, or that your assembly isn't peaceable. Easy as. No idea how they get away with banning religious observance, "establishment" means the government declaring one true religion for your state, not saying a prayer at football game.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:58 pm

fbmf wrote:Again, I agree that the Constitution is outdated because the framer's couldn't have forseen how things would stand today. I just say you can't ignore the rules in place just because they are outdated. You need to formally Errata the existing rules or come out with a new Edition. Real World Government shouldn't be houseruled.

That quote is good enough to be a signature. But, when you think about it, most liberal progressives just want to play Magical Tea Party. Rules? What are rules?

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:04 pm

K wrote:What the Constitution actually means has been decided by the courts, and that's the idea that people can't wrap their minds around.

Which is sort of ironic given the fact that technically speaking the "courts" ... technically speaking the Supreme Court ... doesn't have the Constitutional authority to determine the "meaning" f the Constitution.

The whole problem started when they deliberately changed the meaning of the English law term "High Crimes" to make them unimpeachable. It went downhill from there.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:12 pm

tussock wrote:2nd amendment: The one congress voted for says the federal government must not disarm the state militias. The one the states ratified says the general populace must not be disarmed, because they make up the state militias.

Generally wrong, but to really understand the 2nd admendment would make everyone sad and dissapointed. At the time of the Constitution, there was a general belief that standing military forces could lead to military dictatorships. There was supposed to be no standing army for The United States. The vision of anchient greeks taking up arms as needed to defend their republic as well as visions of how such militias were used at the start of the revolution (ignoring the standing army of the Continental Congress under Washington) gave them the notion that we could respond to any emergency by calling all citizens to arms as necessary. Not only did this require all citizens to be proficient with a musket, they had to have one because of the logistics.

The notion of not having a standing army, navy and marine force didn't last long. The quasi war was an embarrasment. Then the war of 1812 make it intitutively obvious.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:18 pm

tzor wrote:Which is sort of ironic given the fact that technically speaking the "courts" ... technically speaking the Supreme Court ... doesn't have the Constitutional authority to determine the "meaning" f the Constitution.

The Constitution, Article 3 wrote: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

What that means is open for debate. Because we're a republic and can debate anything. But for the last 208 years, the prevailing interpretation has been that Article 3 does in fact allow for judicial review to strike down a law that violates the constitution. That's totally in the constitution.

For someone who loves the founding fathers so much, you really don't do that well on civics questions.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:52 pm

tussock wrote:No idea how they get away with banning religious observance, "establishment" means the government declaring one true religion for your state, not saying a prayer at football game.

Religious observance has never been banned ever.

What has been banned is using government resources to impose your religious observance on others.

If you want to pray at a football game, then pray at a football game, without using a government funded speaker system, and having the government arrange for a period of time for you to do it when no one else can do anything.

Saying "establishment is only declaring one true religion for the state, not practicing religion" is a cop out. Yes, it is in fact establishment if you make a mandatory worship of Jesus part of every government activity, while saying "but we aren't saying that it's the one true religion, just that you have to worship him before every government meeting."

K · Post by K » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:39 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
tzor wrote:Which is sort of ironic given the fact that technically speaking the "courts" ... technically speaking the Supreme Court ... doesn't have the Constitutional authority to determine the "meaning" f the Constitution.

The Constitution, Article 3 wrote: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
What that means is open for debate. Because we're a republic and can debate anything. But for the last 208 years, the prevailing interpretation has been that Article 3 does in fact allow for judicial review to strike down a law that violates the constitution. That's totally in the constitution.

For someone who loves the founding fathers so much, you really don't do that well on civics questions.

-Username17

Considering that the founding fathers interpreted the constitution in a way that allows judicial review, I don't even know why this is up for debate.

The courts were deciding Constitutional questions from the very beginning, even before all the amendments were fully ratified. Obviously the founding fathers approved since they allowed it.

The first Congress even asked the Supreme Court to tell them before they passed laws to determine if they were Constitutional. The court declined, preferring to simply have the power of review.

The only way you can think that the courts don't have the power of judicial review is if you think the Constitution is some magic document and somehow you can read insights in it that 200 years of founders, lawmakers, and lawyers can't.... which is some bullshit magic thinking. That's what religion is for.