Being hamstrung by historical interpretation (Founding Father discussion)

[Perpetual Change]

I think you're wrong. Here's why: in the context of a legal debate, the issue is what the law says, not whether or not there are good reasons for the law. Are there valid reasons for restricting the actions of government with a written constitution? Yeah. But that's irrelevant when arguing over what specific clauses of the constitution mean.

But the problem is, for me, that so many people excuse winning a temporary legal debate for winning a permanent one. And too many debates end with the Constitution. We should feel prompted to say, "hey, maybe it's the Constitution that's wrong and we should change it" more often. Unfortunately the authority the Constitution seems to carry seems to masquerade as a greater, more permanent authority than it really is.

[William Wallace]

I think you're wrong. Here's why: in the context of a legal debate, the issue is what the law says, not whether or not there are good reasons for the law. Are there valid reasons for restricting the actions of government with a written constitution? Yeah. But that's irrelevant when arguing over what specific clauses of the constitution mean.

Unfortunately the authority the Constitution seems to carry seems to masquerade as a greater, more permanent authority than it really is.

I honestly don't see how you could think that. Almost nothing is prevented because of the constitution these days.   

[ReaPsTA]

In conclusion, we need to rewrite that sucker.  I know it's probably a bad example, but look at Brazil, they've done it at least five times and they're being considered now as an emerging power (i.e. to replace us).

Ehhhhh.  Excuse me for not quaking in fear over a trilingual country whose main export is fart porn.

[Super Dude]

More like a trilingual country whose main exports include a large part of the world food supply (behind China, of course) and ethanol...

[Perpetual Change]

I don't get how trilingual is supposed to be an issue either.

[unklejman]

The constitution specifically describes how it can be amended.  Is it purposefully difficult to change so spur of the moment ideas can't influence it?  Yes.  But except for a couple sections, it's not designed to be written in stone.  

In fact, excepting the Bill of Rights, the constitution was amended on average once every 11 years between 1795 and 1992.  I'm not really sure why we've stopped for almost 20 years now.  If people are really so bothered by constitutional limitations, change the thing.

The reason we haven't amended it is because many parts have had a very stretched and loose interpretation applied that let's government get around it's restraint.

The whole point of the constitution was to restrain the federal government. Anything that is not specifically stated as the authority of the Federal gov. is reserved for the states.

If you could change the constitution on a whim then we would essentially have a democracy which is rule of the mob.

When it says the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It means just that. Any gun controlled measures should be up to the people of the specific states.

The whole point of having seperate states is that if you don't like how something is done in your state, it is:

A) easier to have an influence in your state capitol than it is in Washington DC.
B) it is much more practical to move to another state than to leave the country.

I don't understand why people want to the Federal government to have such broad powers. Isn't it better if things are different from state to state so that people have more choice on how they want to live?

[Super Dude]

Well yeah but there are some things that have to be changed on the national scale.  These are things like marriage licenses for homosexuals (as it was with race in the 60s), the environment, nuclear nonproliferation, things like that.  There are things more suited to state law, but right now the issues we're grappling with I think are handled best by the nation.

[unklejman]

None of those matters are addressed in the constitution. If enough people/states want the Federal government to intervene in those areas than amendments are needed. That's the way it is supposed to work, and for good reason.

[Super Dude]

I've tried to sorta keep my cool about it, but I just can't take it anymore: people are stupid.  Look at how people are ripping on Obama, saying that he's worse than Bush and everything.  Obama may not have accomplished much, but you'd have to have amnesia or lived under a rock the last ten years to say he's worse than Bush.  I tried to start a thread about whether or not the legislators should be able to, in times of crisis, refuse to follow the will of the people and instead make the hard choice, the one that will ultimately be to the betterment of the nation, and my answer is yes.

[unklejman]

No.

[PowerSlave]

The whole point of the constitution was to restrain the federal government. Anything that is not specifically stated as the authority of the Federal gov. is reserved for the states.

The constitution was drafted to make a more powerful federal government. If the founding fathers would have wanted to restrain the federal government and keep most of the power in the states we would still be living under the articles of confederation.

I'm not pointing this out to be confrontational. Personally, I would prefer that the federal government was much more limited in it's powers also. But, it's simply not historically true.

[unklejman]

The constitution did give more power to the federal government than the articles of confederation, but the document is still a restraint to deter a fast changing federal government. It's what protects the 49% from the whims of the 51% as well as the civil class from the ruling class.

Also it gives specific authority to the federal government but leaves the authority of the states completely open ended.

[rumborak]

I think an important aspect to this is also that Federal vs State doesn't just end at the borders of the United States, but that it directly and heavily influences how the United States acts on the global stage. Frankly, even the current state of discord amongst the states is hindering the US globally, and emphasizing even more on state independence would relegate the US to what Europe used to be (or at least, what it is trying to get out of). Small entities that get mowed over by the big guys essentially, despite the fact that combined they're actually more numerous.

rumborak

[unklejman]

I'm not a nationalistic person so I don't share your concern about that nearly as much as I have concern for individual liberty and not having people on the other side of the country determining the laws I live under.

[Super Dude]

While that speaks volumes, I would like to point out that just as state power is relegated in order to combat the tyranny of the majority, the Founding Fathers considered the battle against the tyranny of the minority just as important.

Also pretty much what rumby said.

[rumborak]

I'm not a nationalistic person so I don't share your concern about that nearly as much as I have concern for individual liberty and not having people on the other side of the country determining the laws I live under.

I find the constant pounding on the "we need more individual liberties!!" rather misplaced to be honest. The United States is a very free country. What it lacks is unity.

rumborak

[unklejman]

What does unity in the United States look like to you?

[rumborak]

For example, once and for all figure out a compromise about stem cell research. The constant suits and counter-suits will inevitably leave the US in the dust when compared to other nations who figured out a compromise that both preserved ethics, but also fostered research.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

At this point in time our liberty is the least of our worries.  All the people crying "conspiracy!" sicken me.

[unklejman]

At this point in time our liberty is the least of our worries.  All the people crying "conspiracy!" sicken me.

Liberty is the least of your worries, not mine.  And it's not a conspiracy, it's just the nature of humans and government.

And Rumborak, the reason we will not be able to unite is that there are several conflicting philosophies in the United States that by their very nature cannot compromise.  I don't know what to tell you other than, force is not the answer.

[orcus116]

It's a shame since those philosophies usually seem to differ over the dumbest topics with one side usually completing ignoring things like facts and logic. I can't think of many serious ideological rifts.

[unklejman]

We are discussing one now.

[rumborak]

And Rumborak, the reason we will not be able to unite is that there are several conflicting philosophies in the United States that by their very nature cannot compromise.  I don't know what to tell you other than, force is not the answer.

Every country has widely different views, the US is not unique in that regard. In fact, I would even say the difference in ideologies are much less in the US than say in Europe. The US for example doesn't really have Communists, not even real Socialists for that matter.
It's the political culture that determines whether a consensus or compromise can be reached. And that's where the problem lies in the US, IMHO; the political parties don't try to work out their differences, they rather directly attack each other or try to undermine each other. Even worse, they pit parts of the country against each other.

rumborak

[unklejman]

And Rumborak, the reason we will not be able to unite is that there are several conflicting philosophies in the United States that by their very nature cannot compromise.  I don't know what to tell you other than, force is not the answer.

Every country has widely different views, the US is not unique in that regard. In fact, I would even say the difference in ideologies are much less in the US than say in Europe. The US for example doesn't really have Communists, not even real Socialists for that matter.
It's the political culture that determines whether a consensus or compromise can be reached. And that's where the problem lies in the US, IMHO; the political parties don't try to work out their differences, they rather directly attack each other or try to undermine each other. Even worse, they pit parts of the country against each other.

rumborak

I honestly don't know how you could have two or more philosophical differences work out differences. If they do, then are they really principled if they go against something they believe in just to compromise?  I really like slow change in government, especially when it comes to expansion of power. It is always better for liberty. And yes liberty is my highest priority as it is the main purpose of the government to protect it.

If you disagree, then it just illustrates what I have been saying. We will sit here and tell each other how we feel about the issues all day and never convince the other.

[rumborak]

You heard of this thing called "compromise", right? Not everybody is so dead-set in the complete fulfillment of their ideals that they will not trade some of it for the benefit of a consensus.
To say it poignantly through Ralph Emerson Waldo: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

ruimborak

[unklejman]

You heard of this thing called "compromise", right? Not everybody is so dead-set in the complete fulfillment of their ideals that they will not trade some of it for the benefit of a consensus.
To say it poignantly through Ralph Emerson Waldo: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

ruimborak

ruimborak, I have heard of compromise, I just don't believe in it when it comes to doing something that the constitution doesn't authorizes the federal government to do.

I would argue that it is wise consistency in this case. I put many hours of thought into this and it is not the conclusion of a "little mind".

If you want to change the constitution, amend it. That's all that I ask.

[Super Dude]

But nobody wants to, because the Constitution is second only to the Bible.

[ReaPsTA]

You heard of this thing called "compromise", right? Not everybody is so dead-set in the complete fulfillment of their ideals that they will not trade some of it for the benefit of a consensus.
To say it poignantly through Ralph Emerson Waldo: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

ruimborak

Consensus isn't an inherently valuable thing.

As always, I don't understand why there's a debate.  The law is supposed to be the law.  I'm not someone who likes to follow the orders of the man, but the legal foundation of the country is worth adhering to.  What are the words of the thing supposed to mean?  Make sure all the laws of the country follow from that.  If something doesn't work, change it.  Where's the disagreement?

The only real thing I can see in the thread is criticism of the weird false reverence we have for it.  And that's fair.  It's like how a lot of Christians look at the Bible as immutable and use that to impose on others, but somehow find ways to skirt the rules for their interests.  To which I say that taking the constitution more seriously rather than less seriously is the answer.  If we look at it for what it is, a legal document, we can look at it from a proper perspective.  Yes we'd have to deal with less federal government intervention (believe me, I like certain laws that are of dubious constitutionality), but then we could look at amending it to solve problems instead of completely subjective debates over opinion.