The Constitution is the very framework under which our government has become so out of control.
Minor point here, but I would offer that government has become out of control in spite of the Constitution.
I mean, just look at the Socialized Medicine debate going on. The Democrats are resorting to obscure procedural methods to get this passed in spite of the opposition rather than taking it to a vote in the spirit of the Constitution:
[i]Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have a major disagreement over how to handle healthcare reform, one of President Obama’s biggest priorities.
Baucus wants to win Republican support for an overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system but Pelosi is willing to ram it through Congress with only Democratic votes.
The difference boils down to an arcane procedural issue known as budget reconciliation. Handling healthcare reform under reconciliation would protect it from a GOP filibuster in the Senate.
The procedure was set up originally to make it easier for lawmakers to balance the budget but it has since been used to pass major legislative initiatives only tangentially related to fiscal housekeeping, such as the Bush tax cuts of 2001.
[/i][/quote]
I think it is an unfortunate sign of the times that parties will usually decide what they want to do, and then find the lexicon that will let it slide through the system. It is hard for any document to have meaning if we prevaricate on every word.
We all sat and watched a president say under oath that “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
Staunch defenders of literal interpretation and application of the Constitution are similar in temperament and mindset to religious fundamentalists who insist on a literal interpretation and application of the bible. Respect the wisdom of your ancestors, but realize that we don’t know everything yet, and will hopefully become even more wise with time. [/quote]
Not to hijack the thread, but this brings to mind something I have been wrestling with of late. When it comes to a constitution what could you tolerate other than a literal interpretation. I do not want my constitution figurative, open to works of the spin masters. Literal is the only way, unless or until the proper processes and procedures put in place for amendment are followed. Such amendment should border on the impossible, hence the term “it would take an act of congress.”
Now, when put into the context of religion, I am not so sure of myself. That is were my current struggles lie. I am a Christian, but struggle with my church’s and denomination’s (Baptist) insistence on a literal interpretation of every word of the Bible. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and feel no real conflict in doing so. I do not believe “In the beginning…” was intended to be a literal blueprint of the construction of all creation. The question then becomes, however, when does the literal interpretation take over? In the New Testament? There has to be a definitive point of literal interpretation or it all collapses into a subjective nightmare.
Staunch defenders of literal interpretation and application of the Constitution are similar in temperament and mindset to religious fundamentalists who insist on a literal interpretation and application of the bible. Respect the wisdom of your ancestors, but realize that we don’t know everything yet, and will hopefully become even more wise with time.
Not to hijack the thread, but this brings to mind something I have been wrestling with of late. When it comes to a constitution what could you tolerate other than a literal interpretation. I do not want my constitution figurative, open to works of the spin masters. Literal is the only way, unless or until the proper processes and procedures put in place for amendment are followed. Such amendment should border on the impossible, hence the term “it would take an act of congress.”
Now, when put into the context of religion, I am not so sure of myself. That is were my current struggles lie. I am a Christian, but struggle with my church’s and denomination’s (Baptist) insistence on a literal interpretation of every word of the Bible. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and feel no real conflict in doing so. I do not believe “In the beginning…” was intended to be a literal blueprint of the construction of all creation. The question then becomes, however, when does the literal interpretation take over? In the New Testament? There has to be a definitive point of literal interpretation or it all collapses into a subjective nightmare.
I will ad to this in a bit but welcome input. [/quote]
One has to take into account that the Constitution is a primary source document. The Bible is not.
Staunch defenders of literal interpretation and application of the Constitution are similar in temperament and mindset to religious fundamentalists who insist on a literal interpretation and application of the bible. Respect the wisdom of your ancestors, but realize that we don’t know everything yet, and will hopefully become even more wise with time.
Not to hijack the thread, but this brings to mind something I have been wrestling with of late. When it comes to a constitution what could you tolerate other than a literal interpretation. I do not want my constitution figurative, open to works of the spin masters. Literal is the only way, unless or until the proper processes and procedures put in place for amendment are followed. Such amendment should border on the impossible, hence the term “it would take an act of congress.”
Now, when put into the context of religion, I am not so sure of myself. That is were my current struggles lie. I am a Christian, but struggle with my church’s and denomination’s (Baptist) insistence on a literal interpretation of every word of the Bible. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and feel no real conflict in doing so. I do not believe “In the beginning…” was intended to be a literal blueprint of the construction of all creation. The question then becomes, however, when does the literal interpretation take over? In the New Testament? There has to be a definitive point of literal interpretation or it all collapses into a subjective nightmare.
I will ad to this in a bit but welcome input.
One has to take into account that the Constitution is a primary source document. The Bible is not.
[/quote]
I need some clarification with this statement. To my understanding, a primary source document would be a piece of historical literature that would have had a great influence or bearing on person, group, etc.
If this definition is correct, then would your statement not be backwards. The Bible WOULD be a primary source document to the framers of the constitution. The constitution would be a result. I suppose you could then say that the constitution became a primary source document to “us.”
Not picking a fight here. If my definition is faulty then so is my logic.
An even better question: why does the constitution have any relevance to anyone alive today considering we had no say it it’s adoption.
How can a contract be forced on people who were not alive when it was enacted?
It isn’t forced on anyone. Emigration is open to everyone.[/quote]
That isn’t really fair. I’ve thought about this, but if I found our current system of government unnacceptable, I really don’t have a choice of somewhere to go that’s better.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
Thomas Jefferson actually believed the Constitution should be rewritten every 20 years or so…it’s what worked for them at the time. It was never meant to be permanent. I don’t know if we could throw the whole thing out and start fresh, way too many people involved, but it should be severely overhauled.[/quote]
Can you imagine though the evil that would have befallen this country had we decided to rewrite the Constitution every 20 years? If we even made it to the progressive era or hell to the depression you’d end up with a system of government that refuses to rewrite itself every twenty years and has written our BoR out of existence. There is no way government would not have expanded far beyond even the monster it is today.
A statement such as this compares in my opinion to a “drive by.” If you have some substance to go along with it, by all means, post away.
Otherwise it just seems cowardly.[/quote]
You have a photo of Ayn Rand as your avatar. You have bigger problems that trying to decipher any subtext to a short post of mine.
To your point, Jefferson professed an admiration for limited government, but didn’t provide a workable solution to ensure it absent encouraging revolution or political upheaval every generation or so.
Such an approach for securing your rights is - as I noted - manure.
Nothing would subvert and destroy our natural rights faster than this radically stuipid approach - cloaked in an unserious romanticism, it does nothing except get people killed and ravage property. And Jefferson’s school-girl crush on the French Revolution is the perfect example of why his opinion on the matter was, in fact, manure.
Can you imagine though the evil that would have befallen this country had we decided to rewrite the Constitution every 20 years? If we even made it to the progressive era or hell to the depression you’d end up with a system of government that refuses to rewrite itself every twenty years and has written our BoR out of existence. There is no way government would not have expanded far beyond even the monster it is today.[/quote]
Exactly. Imagine what would have happened had we adopted Jefferson’s approach and even a generation as late as the 1960s generation got their shot at their constitutional convention.
An even better question: why does the constitution have any relevance to anyone alive today considering we had no say it it’s adoption.
How can a contract be forced on people who were not alive when it was enacted?
It isn’t forced on anyone. Emigration is open to everyone.
That isn’t really fair. I’ve thought about this, but if I found our current system of government unnacceptable, I really don’t have a choice of somewhere to go that’s better.
mike
[/quote]
It was a bit of a flippant answer on my part, but one cannot be a conscientious objector to the Constitution. I’ll admit that I’m not too sensitive to the plight of the modern anarchist.
A statement such as this compares in my opinion to a “drive by.” If you have some substance to go along with it, by all means, post away.
Otherwise it just seems cowardly.
You have a photo of Ayn Rand as your avatar. You have bigger problems that trying to decipher any subtext to a short post of mine.
To your point, Jefferson professed an admiration for limited government, but didn’t provide a workable solution to ensure it absent encouraging revolution or political upheaval every generation or so.
Such an approach for securing your rights is - as I noted - manure.
Nothing would subvert and destroy our natural rights faster than this radically stuipid approach - cloaked in an unserious romanticism, it does nothing except get people killed and ravage property. And Jefferson’s school-girl crush on the French Revolution is the perfect example of why his opinion on the matter was, in fact, manure.
[/quote]
Thank you. I only wish you had included this with your original comment. I have no problem with your stated opinion, only the lack of one given the apparent magnitude of the statement.
BTW, I consider Rand to be one of the greater thinkers of this or any other generation. That does not mean that I adopt her philosophy. As stated earlier, I am Christian, which introduces obvious conflicts with Objectivism. I still respect her reason, intellect and congruency.
I also switch out avatars with those of Nikola Tesla, Aristotle, Descartes, etc. The thinking used to formulate your reply would suggest you to be intelligent enough not to try to analyze me simply by a posted picture.
My post may have come on stronger than I intended. I did want your reasoning, however, and in that my post served its purpose.
Can you imagine though the evil that would have befallen this country had we decided to rewrite the Constitution every 20 years? If we even made it to the progressive era or hell to the depression you’d end up with a system of government that refuses to rewrite itself every twenty years and has written our BoR out of existence. There is no way government would not have expanded far beyond even the monster it is today.
Exactly. Imagine what would have happened had we adopted Jefferson’s approach and even a generation as late as the 1960s generation got their shot at their constitutional convention.
[/quote]
Excellent point. I was just thinking through such an example. “Flower Power” could have been the complete undoing of our nation.
Can you imagine though the evil that would have befallen this country had we decided to rewrite the Constitution every 20 years? If we even made it to the progressive era or hell to the depression you’d end up with a system of government that refuses to rewrite itself every twenty years and has written our BoR out of existence. There is no way government would not have expanded far beyond even the monster it is today.
Exactly. Imagine what would have happened had we adopted Jefferson’s approach and even a generation as late as the 1960s generation got their shot at their constitutional convention.
[/quote]
If Jefferson was so supportive of institutionalized revolution, why did he not start one–or even call a constitutional convention–when he had a chance, 1801-1809?
One more example of Jefferson’s hyperbole taken selectively as doctrine.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, if the constitution isn’t going to be upheld, then the contract is broken. Seccession is legal, and the federal government no longer has constitutional legitimacy. Why honor a contract the other party is fudging on? [/quote]
I keep seeing everyone calling the Constitution a contract and I would like to know why?
I see the Constitution more as directions you get in the box when you buy stuff. Some people will read it and understand what the builders want it to look like and how to make the job easy. Others will just try to put it together and end up with a mess that took them so long they forgot what it was they were trying to do.
Jefferson’s quotes are good for certain things and when you look at what he did in later years it showed he was happy with how this nation was coming along so that 20 years or so was not worth it. And this country didn’t get really bad till all the programs were put into the government control which I hate. They want to control health, Car company’s, Banks, Wall Street, and everything else but NONE of them have ever ran a business let alone do what they said they would when elected.
The Problem I see in America is people want more and more to be taken care of the more control that government the more the lazy will get coddled by them and the ones that see that and are angry don’t have the back bone to do anything about it so just buckle in to the roller coaster boys its going to be a long drop to the bottom.
[quote]Slayers wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, if the constitution isn’t going to be upheld, then the contract is broken. Seccession is legal, and the federal government no longer has constitutional legitimacy. Why honor a contract the other party is fudging on?
I keep seeing everyone calling the Constitution a contract and I would like to know why?
I see the Constitution more as directions you get in the box when you buy stuff. Some people will read it and understand what the builders want it to look like and how to make the job easy. Others will just try to put it together and end up with a mess that took them so long they forgot what it was they were trying to do.
Jefferson’s quotes are good for certain things and when you look at what he did in later years it showed he was happy with how this nation was coming along so that 20 years or so was not worth it. And this country didn’t get really bad till all the programs were put into the government control which I hate. They want to control health, Car company’s, Banks, Wall Street, and everything else but NONE of them have ever ran a business let alone do what they said they would when elected.
The Problem I see in America is people want more and more to be taken care of the more control that government the more the lazy will get coddled by them and the ones that see that and are angry don’t have the back bone to do anything about it so just buckle in to the roller coaster boys its going to be a long drop to the bottom.[/quote]
So do you think that all regulation is bad?
What about the antitrust legislation of the early 20th century?
What about laws establishing a standard of workplace health and safety?
What about laws establishing a baseline of environmental consciousness within industry?
There is a bit of a slippery slope from “small government” (which I am a fan of) to “no government” (which I am not so much). It seems that a lot of people end up sliding down that slope without realizing the consequences associated with it. There are certain matters in which individuals lack the ability to do for themselves that a government must be relied upon.
Can you imagine though the evil that would have befallen this country had we decided to rewrite the Constitution every 20 years? If we even made it to the progressive era or hell to the depression you’d end up with a system of government that refuses to rewrite itself every twenty years and has written our BoR out of existence. There is no way government would not have expanded far beyond even the monster it is today.
Exactly. Imagine what would have happened had we adopted Jefferson’s approach and even a generation as late as the 1960s generation got their shot at their constitutional convention.
[/quote]
I didn’t say I agreed with him, after all, he said black people are only 3/5 of a person and he really imagined the ideal America as an agrarian society modeled after the Southern plantation way of life and everyone reading stuff in the original Greek and Latin. But I do agree with him that the Constitution is fluid and was meant to be fluid. It has been amended and needs to continue to be amended. I think it should be rewritten and the archaic sections omitted.
I offer this thought experiment. The third amendment preventing soldiers from being quartered in your home is clearly a relic of another time. At the time of the Revolution, it was a clear priority, but there has never been an instance of the government attempting to do so in over 200 years of existence. Old law, serving a different time. A forgotten amendment.
Fast forward to 2001 - right after 9-11, Bush decides to put soldiers in people’s homes in major metrpolitan areas because of concerns that terrorist cells have proliferated in New Yrok City.
Where do the “progressives” sit? Does the 3rd Amendment prevent Bush from doing this?
If Jefferson was so supportive of institutionalized revolution, why did he not start one–or even call a constitutional convention–when he had a chance, 1801-1809?
One more example of Jefferson’s hyperbole taken selectively as doctrine. [/quote]
A great point - Jefferson had many good thoughts and many good things to say on a number of topics, but when it came to getting serious about the nature of securing rights, etc., he was an irresponsible flirt who always behaved differently than he preached.
Jefferson was never the agitator he claimed was so important in a free society - before, during, or after his Presidency. His life and property were never to be sacrificed in the name of perpetual revolution - but he was happy to encourage it and enjoyed the show.