Reading the Constitution

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:01 am

Kaelik wrote:Actually, I'm pretty damn sure that Jefferson would expect us to but no stock in their constitution.

In his more extreme moments he believed that the entire things should be redone every 20 or so years, each generation making their own. Even when being relatively conservative, he expected extensive changes very often.

But he'd expect us to have the common fucking sense to have A constitution, even if it's not the one he and his buds wrote.

He didn't believe that every 20 years you tore up the Constitution and just did whatever...when you overthrow the foundation of your country, you build a new foundation. I don't have a problem with people saying "the Constitution is outdated"...but if you want to get rid of the old, let's do it right and put in a new.

K wrote:From the Supreme Courts beginnings, they refused to give advisory opinions on whether new laws being proposed by the legislative were constitutional. Apparently, the Framers themselves had no problem with the courts determining the Constitution's intent and scope outside of the amendment process.

I don't have a huge problem with the courts interpreting laws and whether or not they pass constitutional muster...in fact, I don't think they declare ENOUGH laws unconstitutional. There are plenty I feel the court turns a blind eye to. And I don't feel judges should be the only ones to do this...I feel the jury system should also be able to judge laws unconstitutional, through nullification. Jury trials are also an important part of the judicial system, one which has been significantly weakened...which I consider bad, since it's also a major way for the common person to have direct influence on their governments (more so than voting).

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:04 am

K wrote:Listen, you know what the Founders didn't know? Basically everything that makes up modern society.

Education in the 1700s was basically just languages and law with a little history, literature, and philosophy. They didn't know about the advanced economics, science, or even political thought that we would create in the next 200 years and the math they taught is the same math we teach to high school students.

"Modern Society?" Crap and bullshit. I've got a damn degree in Physics, I know quantum mechanics like the back of my hand. Doesn't mean a fuck all in terms of government. In fact, politicians should leave science to the scientists.

Economics is a good point, many of the Founding Fathers were not good in that area. Although compared to modern politicans they were just fine; they went into debt just like they do today. Economics, on the other hand, is nothing short of voodo. We've fucked up more societies in the name of modern economics than I would care to think of.

Government is strucutred on the interrelationshiop between men. That's philosophy and there is a reason why their age is called the "age of enlightenment." And really, if we had learned so much since then, why doesn't the EU rock the socks off of the US?

I don't worship the Founding Fathers. I just like what I see. When I see it is more or less unique among its time and even today, I am even more impressed.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:16 am

tzor wrote:Really? I do believe the bullshit misdirection is coming from you. Let’s look at the General Welfare clause …

Also, it's been killing me that I haven't copped to totally fucking up the General Welfare clause.

I TOTALLY FUCKED UP THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE.

Thank god my argument was more robust than that or else tzor would've been right about something, at least vis a vis my own response.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 2:32 am

PoliteNewb wrote:
K wrote:Interesting quote I found:

"Meanwhile, here's Thomas Jefferson weighing in: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment...But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.""
Of course Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be amended...that's why a specific process for doing exactly that is laid out in it. That doesn't mean that very process should be circumvented for expediency.

A Constitution that cannot change is stagnant, and thus worthless.
A Constitution that can be changed too easily serves no purpose; it sets out rules of law that are ignored, and is thus worthless.

Balance is important. But if you believe the Constitution has any value (and I think Jefferson did, and I agree), you can't simply ignore it or handwave it because you think you know better.

It's interesting that they actually decided to read the amended constitution partly because they want to show it's a "living document".

K · Post by K » Sat Jan 08, 2011 7:56 am

tzor wrote:
Government is strucutred on the interrelationshiop between men. That's philosophy and there is a reason why their age is called the "age of enlightenment." And really, if we had learned so much since then, why doesn't the EU rock the socks off of the US?

I don't worship the Founding Fathers. I just like what I see. When I see it is more or less unique among its time and even today, I am even more impressed.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, but let me correct a few things for you.

The "relationship between men" is not philosophy. It's psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology.... even literature, all of which are things which became actual disciplines that could be scientifically studied decades or centuries after the Founding Fathers.

Second, "The Age of Enlightenment" is called that because for the first time people decided that science and rationality was a good thing. Look it up on Wikipedia. It happened in Europe and the Founding Fathers were in America, so I don't really know how you are connecting the two. The fact that they cribbed a few ideas (and decided to keep concepts like slavery that they liked) is irrelevant.

As for the EU, they actually do rock our socks off. In terms of happiness, education, social equality, democracy, medical care, upward mobility, dealing with poverty and hunger and even abortion.... they really do beat us hands down in all of those categories.

The US has a big military and a lot of money. We are also the fattest and unhealthiest people in the world with the highest rates of depression and suicide. I don't really think we win the Best Overall Civilization Trophy.

But what's your point when you bring up the EU and the Founders? Flag-waving and wanking to the ideals of the Founders doesn't mean anything. Society has moved on and formed better ideals.... like how owning slaves is totally bullshit and how letting some guys get monopolies makes society and business lose overall. We actually know more about justice, democracy, business, and the world than the Founders would have ever imagined. We are Jesus/Supermen compared to them, so I don't even know what it means to say "I like what I see" because they actually DIDN'T follow the ideals of the Enlightenment because they didn't follow religious tolerance, use reason, and were even ignorant of the science of the time (except for Ben Franklin, who was a pimp).

Sashi · Post by **Sashi** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:17 pm

tzor wrote:I've got a damn degree in Physics, I know quantum mechanics like the back of my hand.

This. Explains. Everything.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:38 pm

Sashi wrote:
tzor wrote:I've got a damn degree in Physics, I know quantum mechanics like the back of my hand.
This. Explains. Everything.

No it does not, and screw you for suggesting it. Particle physics tends to attract the hard-cases and jerks of the physics world, but that does nothing to explain Tzor. The first step in understanding Tzor is to realize that he's an engineer, and therefore naturally predisposed towards Right-wing terrorism. Not that he is a Right-wing terrorist!

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:52 pm

I think he was getting at the Feynman quote about nobody understanding quantum physics, so anyone who does is insane... which is an outdated idea at this point. Science marches on.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:10 pm

My only objection to Tzor's rant on page 1 is the slight against the romans.

The roman emperors were not "inbread [sic]". People harp on Rome falling but make no mention that rome was the dominant cultural force in Europe for nearly a thousand years. No modern nation is going to last anywhere near that long.

Like any nation, there were good rulers and bad rulers.

Tzor, you are confusing the Romans with the Egyptians (who did have inbred pharoahs. And the word inbred has no "a" anywhere in it).

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:35 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:The roman emperors were not "inbread [sic]". People harp on Rome falling but make no mention that rome was the dominant cultural force in Europe for nearly a thousand years. No modern nation is going to last anywhere near that long.

I was thinking of Caligula; his father Germanicus was the nephew of Tiberius who then adopted him as a son (here is where my confusion came in) and his mother Agrippina the Elder was the second grandaughter of Augutus. So I suppose the familiy distances were enough.

Still he was one sick bastard.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:42 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:The first step in understanding Tzor is to realize that he's an engineer, and therefore naturally predisposed towards Right-wing terrorism.

First of all I am a scientist who graduated from an engineering "institute" who, whith the exception of ten years where I worked on computer games spent most of my life working on computer programs for financial applications.

This is balanced by the fact that I am a professed Secular Franciscan so I couldn't be a terrorist even if I wanted to. Heck, at times I even like my Demonic Democratic representative to congress, Mr. Tim Bishop.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:43 pm

tzor wrote:
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:The roman emperors were not "inbread [sic]". People harp on Rome falling but make no mention that rome was the dominant cultural force in Europe for nearly a thousand years. No modern nation is going to last anywhere near that long.
I was thinking of Caligula; his father Germanicus was the nephew of Tiberius who then adopted him as a son (here is where my confusion came in) and his mother Agrippina the Elder was the second grandaughter of Augutus. So I suppose the familiy distances were enough.

Still he was one sick bastard.

In multiple ways. Emperor Gaius Germanicus was a pretty good ruler for the first couple years of his rule. However, he contracted some sort of fever and was in a coma for months. When he woke up, he wasn't the same as he was. Modern historians speculate he had some sort of brain anuerysm.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:49 pm

Everyone loves to talk about slaves. By the time of the end of the 18th century, do you know what the biggest problem was in the minds of some of the Founding Fathers? There were too many of them! At the time, there was only one common result of areas that liberally "freed" their slave populations; those slaves revolted against their former masters. Thomas Jefferson once called this problem the "tiger" ... he thought to keep them would be immoral and to free them would lead to diaster.

Europe, which manged to avoid large slave popuylations in thier own countries was more quick to establish laws against it. The notion that somehow we had gotten morally better and thus anything written by them can be blissfully ignored is blatant bullshit.

Sashi · Post by **Sashi** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 9:20 pm

Quantumboost wrote:I think he was getting at the Feynman quote about nobody understanding quantum physics, so anyone who does is insane... which is an outdated idea at this point. Science marches on.

Nope. I was referring to how every tzor-flavored wingnut I've ever met is part of some flavor of hard science or engineering.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:46 pm

I've always found the best flavored wingnuts are current officers or current contractors to the Untied States Navy.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:40 pm

tzor wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:The first step in understanding Tzor is to realize that he's an engineer, and therefore naturally predisposed towards Right-wing terrorism.
First of all I am a scientist who graduated from an engineering "institute" who, whith the exception of ten years where I worked on computer games spent most of my life working on computer programs for financial applications.

This is balanced by the fact that I am a professed Secular Franciscan so I couldn't be a terrorist even if I wanted to. Heck, at times I even like my Demonic Democratic representative to congress, Mr. Tim Bishop.

Hey, I already said that you aren't a terrorist, without any proof to that effect. I know plenty of Christians who are less crazy than you (including a guy with a framed picture of Bush on his wall who works for AIG), but I'm still impressed by your ability to completely overcome your naturally terroristic tendencies.

K · Post by K » Sun Jan 09, 2011 2:46 am

tzor wrote:Everyone loves to talk about slaves. By the time of the end of the 18th century, do you know what the biggest problem was in the minds of some of the Founding Fathers? There were too many of them! At the time, there was only one common result of areas that liberally "freed" their slave populations; those slaves revolted against their former masters. Thomas Jefferson once called this problem the "tiger" ... he thought to keep them would be immoral and to free them would lead to diaster.

Europe, which manged to avoid large slave popuylations in thier own countries was more quick to establish laws against it. The notion that somehow we had gotten morally better and thus anything written by them can be blissfully ignored is blatant bullshit.

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.

The Founders were dumb. Really dumb. For example, they didn't know about disease theory. They honestly thought that disease was caused by bad air and the very idea that you could create a government organization to saves lives by making sure food was clean would be inconceivable to them.

What they did know about was living under a repressive regime where soldiers would live in your house and take your shit willy-nilly and you'd get huge taxes in exchange for no government services or government power. They covered those bases pretty well.

They were aristocrats who only cared that they kept making money and that they could raise an army to keep England or some other nation from interfering in their money-making. The very idea that government should serve the people or provide day-to-day services in exchange for taxes has only been practiced in the last hundred years.

Not only were they ignorant, but their opinion doesn't matter. There is nothing magical about what they wrote down. The Constitution does not heal the sick when they view it and has no other magic powers.

We have to make laws that make sense now, and interpret laws in ways that make sense now. Letting dead barbarians tell us how to live is somewhere between criminal and willfully ignorant.

Founder wanking is a classic fallacy: it's called the Appeal to Authority. As proponents of reason and masters of rhetoric, they themselves would found Conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans to be laughable.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 2:57 am

That...

K. Wow. This has been interesting to read for the past day or two and it has helped a few things slide into focus for me.

Thanks.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:30 am

Corollary: the Boston Tea Party (and pretty much the whole of the Boston patriot crowd, save Ben Franklin) were a bunch of plutocratic smugglers not above base demagoguery in order to get the rubes to take an axe (or tar) to anyone horning in on their hustle, justifiably or otherwise.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/b ... ntPage=all

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:17 am

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

.

The Founders were dumb. Really dumb. For example, they didn't know about disease theory. They honestly thought that disease was caused by bad air and the very idea that you could create a government organization to saves lives by making sure food was clean would be inconceivable to them.

It's more of society as a whole back then, and not just the Founders.

So yes, while their knowledge was relevant for the 1700s, it's not entirely applicable for the modern day.

The very idea that government should serve the people or provide day-to-day services in exchange for taxes has only been practiced in the last hundred years.

Yeah, thank Bismarck for that. Yes, that bastard Bismarck.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:05 am

Jon Stewart covered the reading of the Constitution, and it was the most laughable thing they could have done. They split up the reading between representatives, so that it took longer for people to get to the podium than it did to read their line.

And, of course, there was the birther interruption when the prereqs for being president were read.

This could have been a good thing for Congress. But they should have done something like get Sam Waterston to read it, so that it was a solitary, coherent, contiguous presentation.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:36 am

Two House Republicans have cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday, a violation of the Constitution on the same day that the GOP had the document read from the podium.

The Republicans, incumbent Pete Sessions of Texas and freshman Mike Fitzpatrick, missed the swearing in because they were at a fundraiser in the Capitol Visitors Center.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:42 am

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:53 am

Gets better:

They took time out to watch the swearing-in on TV and raised their hands at appropriate moments and thought that counted.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:01 am

Maxus wrote:Gets better:

They took time out to watch the swearing-in on TV and raised their hands at appropriate moments and thought that counted.

Eh, their lawyers probably advised them that it did. At least this means that they cared enough (and were cognisant enough) to make some effort.