About constitutions...

OutOfBreath

Now, I have many times read from americans, and particularly Ron Paul, that the constitution is almost a holy document, perfect and good in all ways, and the founding fathers were superhuman demi-gods that has thought of everything. I don't even know where to begin to disagree with all this.

First of all, a constitution is a nice, but not necessary part of the founding of a nation. Britain has done nicely without one, relying on customs and selected documents. A constitution that puts on paper how the nation should be from the moment it is written is a practical thing to have at least, being a foundation for a legal system and legal government. However, constitution can be, and are, amended all the time, and congresses all over can vote to change the constitution. (although I guess like in Norway, a 2/3 majority is needed) Amendments and changes happen because the original text is outdated, which is no wonder after a couple of centuries. Reading a constitution like the commandments of the bible is flat out silly. A constitution is not timeless, in fact precisely the opposite.

Now, who wrote the constitutions? Both in the US and Norway it was the affluent people in position of money and/or power who gathered to write it down. (I think in Norway's case, a minimum of land ownership was required, and not a small piece of estate either) Now, in principle, why should the rich men of 200 years back have the final word on everything that might come later? So that the world is forever locked in archaic conservatism no matter what else might happen? Freeze the world's ideas from the early 1800s onwards? The constitution should be respected as a document which takes some care of tradition and customs, and act as a baseline. But very much open for change and development. If not, at some point the nation will suffocate in it's own traditionalism being completely unable to adapt to new conditions.

Now the constitutions of both the US and Norway are being modified over time. Amendments occur, changes of wording, and outright removing of passages. (Like Norway's: "Jews will still not be allowed inside the kingdom") And that is good. Progress here is slow, but that's the point of the whole thing. Change happens more gradually, and the battleground of politics move with it. But over time it changes, as it must.

Therefore, I am about as astonished by constitutional purists as I would be to meet pure feudalists. What time do you live in? Are you aware of the history of the past 2-3 centuries? A constitution is not and should never be treated on the same line as christiains treat their commandments, as timeless, always true statements for things now and to come forever and ever. I will not give the rich and powerful men of the past that authority, nor will I lock society to such a rigid frame. See what has happened in some muslim countries, where tradition has totally suffocated progressive elements.

*steps off soapbox*

Peace
Dan

surferdude

OutOfBreath wrote:

Now, I have many times read from americans, and particularly Ron Paul, that the constitution is almost a holy document, perfect and good in all ways, and the founding fathers were superhuman demi-gods that has thought of everything. I don't even know where to begin to disagree with all this.

First of all, a constitution is a nice, but not necessary part of the founding of a nation. Britain has done nicely without one, relying on customs and selected documents. A constitution that puts on paper how the nation should be from the moment it is written is a practical thing to have at least, being a foundation for a legal system and legal government. However, constitution can be, and are, amended all the time, and congresses all over can vote to change the constitution. (although I guess like in Norway, a 2/3 majority is needed) Amendments and changes happen because the original text is outdated, which is no wonder after a couple of centuries. Reading a constitution like the commandments of the bible is flat out silly. A constitution is not timeless, in fact precisely the opposite.

Now, who wrote the constitutions? Both in the US and Norway it was the affluent people in position of money and/or power who gathered to write it down. (I think in Norway's case, a minimum of land ownership was required, and not a small piece of estate either) Now, in principle, why should the rich men of 200 years back have the final word on everything that might come later? So that the world is forever locked in archaic conservatism no matter what else might happen? Freeze the world's ideas from the early 1800s onwards? The constitution should be respected as a document which takes some care of tradition and customs, and act as a baseline. But very much open for change and development. If not, at some point the nation will suffocate in it's own traditionalism being completely unable to adapt to new conditions.

Now the constitutions of both the US and Norway are being modified over time. Amendments occur, changes of wording, and outright removing of passages. (Like Norway's: "Jews will still not be allowed inside the kingdom") And that is good. Progress here is slow, but that's the point of the whole thing. Change happens more gradually, and the battleground of politics move with it. But over time it changes, as it must.

Therefore, I am about as astonished by constitutional purists as I would be to meet pure feudalists. What time do you live in? Are you aware of the history of the past 2-3 centuries? A constitution is not and should never be treated on the same line as christiains treat their commandments, as timeless, always true statements for things now and to come forever and ever. I will not give the rich and powerful men of the past that authority, nor will I lock society to such a rigid frame. See what has happened in some muslim countries, where tradition has totally suffocated progressive elements.

*steps off soapbox*

Peace
Dan

I agree with most of what you say, except that the constitution defines what it means to be American or Norwegian or whatever. I'm all for it being an evolving document as long as the proper protocol is followed.

I think way too may people, politicians, judges and presidents want to ignore their constitution but are too lazy to do the procedural work to update it. They have suck myopic, short-sighted views it's scary.

CorporateWhore

Like Surferdude says, changes to the constitution and the law should be done legally. Currently, they are not. The constitution is ignored.

I support changing the constitution when the time is fitting. But, that is not what politicians do. They ignore it and pass laws anyway.

Also, if you want to change the constitution, it should be a damn good reason.

Collin

I agree with you whole-heartedly.

inmytree

OutOfBreath wrote:

Now, I have many times read from americans, and particularly Ron Paul, that the constitution is almost a holy document, perfect and good in all ways, and the founding fathers were superhuman demi-gods that has thought of everything. I don't even know where to begin to disagree with all this.

First of all, a constitution is a nice, but not necessary part of the founding of a nation. Britain has done nicely without one, relying on customs and selected documents. A constitution that puts on paper how the nation should be from the moment it is written is a practical thing to have at least, being a foundation for a legal system and legal government. However, constitution can be, and are, amended all the time, and congresses all over can vote to change the constitution. (although I guess like in Norway, a 2/3 majority is needed) Amendments and changes happen because the original text is outdated, which is no wonder after a couple of centuries. Reading a constitution like the commandments of the bible is flat out silly. A constitution is not timeless, in fact precisely the opposite.

Now, who wrote the constitutions? Both in the US and Norway it was the affluent people in position of money and/or power who gathered to write it down. (I think in Norway's case, a minimum of land ownership was required, and not a small piece of estate either) Now, in principle, why should the rich men of 200 years back have the final word on everything that might come later? So that the world is forever locked in archaic conservatism no matter what else might happen? Freeze the world's ideas from the early 1800s onwards? The constitution should be respected as a document which takes some care of tradition and customs, and act as a baseline. But very much open for change and development. If not, at some point the nation will suffocate in it's own traditionalism being completely unable to adapt to new conditions.

Now the constitutions of both the US and Norway are being modified over time. Amendments occur, changes of wording, and outright removing of passages. (Like Norway's: "Jews will still not be allowed inside the kingdom") And that is good. Progress here is slow, but that's the point of the whole thing. Change happens more gradually, and the battleground of politics move with it. But over time it changes, as it must.

Therefore, I am about as astonished by constitutional purists as I would be to meet pure feudalists. What time do you live in? Are you aware of the history of the past 2-3 centuries? A constitution is not and should never be treated on the same line as christiains treat their commandments, as timeless, always true statements for things now and to come forever and ever. I will not give the rich and powerful men of the past that authority, nor will I lock society to such a rigid frame. See what has happened in some muslim countries, where tradition has totally suffocated progressive elements.

*steps off soapbox*

Peace
Dan

I agree, I think the constitution is a subject document that can be interpreted in many ways...and changes should be made to reflect the times and current norms...

times change, and the constitution should be able to change with it...granted, it's a fine base to start from...but, as I said times change...

OutOfBreath

About making laws "against" the constitution, it can be done and quite legitimately, if accepted by the courts whose charge it is to adhere to it. But very often when you talk about a big conservative institution like a constitution, since general changes to it are hard to make, not much will change in it until well after the point that it has been accepted practice everywhere else, including the courts.

For instance, just this year Norway finally changed it's constitution to include parliamentarism in it, and revised the procedures for impeachment. (parliamentarism means the government must resign if a majority of the congress votes for a "no confidence" motion, ensuring congress control over government) It has been practice since 1888, but is only now written in. So constitutions can be a bit like the catholic church like that.

My point is that there is no point to go starry-eyed about the founding fathers and their excellence, as pretty much all the premises and understandings they based the constitution on has been changed, new considerations arise and old important issues fade away. To me, if practice have long since invalidated passages from the constitution, then the constitution must change, not the practice. It is a useful baseline document and a line back into the past. However, it seems to me often that the reason constitutions arent modified to realitites, may be those who dont really refute it's outdatedness, but merely find it convenient for their political agendas that it does not get changed. And there are those that treat it like the mark 2 of the bible and the 10 commandments.

Anyway, it was just something I had to get off my chest. Surprised it even got this much of a response really.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

Laws always go out of style before they are repealed. It's a side-effect of democracy. Other side-effects are that all laws are written on emotions of the majority and little or no scientific or objective truth.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Other side-effects are that all laws are written on emotions of the majority and little or no scientific or objective truth.

That would depend on the country, and the laws in question. But they should reflect the majority's wishes, that's the point of democracy.

And what scientific objective truths are being ignored by lawmakers in your... opinion?

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

That would depend on the country, and the laws in question. But they should reflect the majority's wishes, that's the point of democracy.

And what scientific objective truths are being ignored by lawmakers in your... opinion?

Peace
Dan

A) The brain is causal

Class inequality causes most crime

C) Genetics and neural pruning constrain a humans abilities.

D) We are animals

If a man commits murder due to his perceived class inequality and suffers in an impoverished area. The man is sentenced for a long period of time, in contrast to evidence that long periods of incarceration are detrimental to mental reform. For this period the man's family is plagued with serious financial difficulties, while already being impoverished due to economic forces beyond their control and the result of their circumstances of birth. This often leads the man's children to commit crimes themselves. The entire criminal system is a system of vengeance, for the masses, who feel that their morality is the objective truth. Yet, we watch this moral objectivity morph with the ages.

Ahnimus

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12027/12027-h/12027-h.htm

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

A) The brain is causal

Class inequality causes most crime

C) Genetics and neural pruning constrain a humans abilities.

D) We are animals

If a man commits murder due to his perceived class inequality and suffers in an impoverished area. The man is sentenced for a long period of time, in contrast to evidence that long periods of incarceration are detrimental to mental reform. For this period the man's family is plagued with serious financial difficulties, while already being impoverished due to economic forces beyond their control and the result of their circumstances of birth. This often leads the man's children to commit crimes themselves. The entire criminal system is a system of vengeance, for the masses, who feel that their morality is the objective truth. Yet, we watch this moral objectivity morph with the ages.

Alright, I'm on board with a lot of the reasoning actually. However, what should be done about these people then? Especially seeing as they may be "damaged goods" and maybe beyond "repair" or even if "repaired", being put back into their "natural environment" would make them revert? Should there be no repellant to such acts. And I would at least modify your axioms a bit:

a) The brain appears to be causal, although we have no real way of knowing.
b) Class inequality generates some of the crime.

c and d I'm cool with.

However, this victimization of everyone not fitting our current norm sounds a bit too much, and raises the ugly question abut who defines normal. Sure, in several cases rehabilitation would work much better, as in most drug convicts for instance. But I'm not as convinced that all deviant behaviour can be therapied away as easily.

Besides, arguing determinism in a court system based on the idea that we (more or less) control our own actions quickly destroys the entire system. Every convict would claim victim and get off, not exactly deterring those actions we now lock up people for, like murder, theft and whatnot.

But as I said, I sympathize with the main gist of your argument (apart from the modifications to a and b), and I wish it was that simple. I just dont believe that it is.

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12027/12027-h/12027-h.htm

I have no problem accepting the subjectiveness and cultural underpinnings of what makes a criminal and what makes crimes. I'm a sociologist after all. I can't read that thing as it is way too long, but as I said, as a sociologist I am very aware of the creation of crime and how that process works. That said, I don't know if a book from 1922 is the definite statement on the subject.

Peace
Dan

CorporateWhore

OutOfBreath wrote:

About making laws "against" the constitution, it can be done and quite legitimately, if accepted by the courts whose charge it is to adhere to it.

That's just because that system benefits liberal thinking. If it didn't benefit liberal thinking, then you wouldn't support it.

Laws against the constitution are illegal laws. When government acts outside its enumerated powers, it acts unconstitutionally. The way to remedy that is to pass constitutional AMENDMENTS - not misinterpret the constitution. When congress doesn't declare war but a war still occurs, that is an unconstitutional action.

Consistency is key.

The courts currently do not adhere to the constitution, but ignore it in favor of personal judgment and even foreign law. There is no other way that the Supreme Court could conclude that the Interstate Commerce Clause gives congress the power to rule on any part of our lives. FDR pressured the court to get his socialist programs (by threatening to stack the court) in and he got them to give up - prior to his administration, the Supreme Court struck down attempts to interpret the Interstate Commerce Clause as anything but interstate relations between the states - not as a way to sneak in laws about the drinking age or toilet water usage.

Government attained the ability to rule on every aspect of our lives in a corrupt and bullying fashion, NOT in any constitutional way that respected the people's rights.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

I have no problem accepting the subjectiveness and cultural underpinnings of what makes a criminal and what makes crimes. I'm a sociologist after all. I can't read that thing as it is way too long, but as I said, as a sociologist I am very aware of the creation of crime and how that process works. That said, I don't know if a book from 1922 is the definite statement on the subject.

Peace
Dan

It's a good read. It addresses many of your concerns about a reform system based on determinist thought.

I would question, with your revision to A, how can we know that a car engine is a causal machine? and why is the brain different?

I think that we need to define 'crimes' within objective boundaries. It's too common to see laws flip-flop back and forth. One year it's legal and the next it's illegal, a year later, it's legal again. The laws seem to change with public opinion/emotion.

In the case of the U.S. constitution and the Patriot Act, it's self-evident. The constitution held for a long time and protected citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. However, an emotionally stimulating event like 9/11 empowered the legislaters to over-turn the constitution, while a calm and collected populous would not have condoned it. I've recently learned of a similar incident in Canadian history under Trudeau, and the laws written then were abolished shortly after.

At times, an economist may be of use, to tell us what the cost and bennefit of laws are, a scientist to tell us if our expected results match the desired results, or if our hypothesis is total bunk.

I advocate total justice reform, the abolishment of judges, juries, persecutors and defense. All we need is a panel to humanely and sympathetically analyse the psyche of the indivudal in question and perscribe appropriate treatment. In cases that treatment does not succeed, life in seclusion from society may be the only option, but the quality of the life should not be fully compromised for the safety of others where no safety is objectively gained.

My understanding is that prison causes a certain degree of crime in its self.

While I feel that Darrow was quite knowledgable for his time and ours, this really requires a thorough scientific investigation and cost/bennefit analysis. Our system now is structured on archaic principles of Good, Evil and Justice.

Ahnimus

Hey Dan,

Here is the chapter on Repealing Laws, though you might find it interesting, it's very short.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12027/12027-h/12027-h.htm#CHXVII

Ahnimus

btw, the entire book is less than 180 pages.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

It's a good read. I would question, with your revision to A, how can we know that a car engine is a causal machine? and why is the brain different?

A car engine is something we have made from scratch, and thus know exactly how works. We have not made our brains, and understanding on how it works is still at best patchy and incomplete.

I advocate total justice reform, the abolishment of judges, juries, persecutors and defense. All we need is a panel to humanely and sympathetically analyse the psyche of the indivudal in question and perscribe appropriate treatment. In cases that treatment does not succeed, life in seclusion from society may be the only option, but the quality of the life should not be fully compromised for the safety of others where no safety is objectively gained.

That sounds like the rational scientist take on it. And for some case and some issues, I would welcome such a panel instead. However, who chooses the panel, and to what authority do they answer? Since you have no faith in laws (flipflopping as they are and emotionally based), who will watch the watchmen? Many scientists dream of the technocrat state, where after all, they will be in control. I have serious reservations towards implementing and enforcing such a system, even if I think treatment may be a better idea in many cases.

While I feel that Darrow was quite knowledgable for his time and ours, this really requires a thorough scientific investigation and cost/bennefit analysis. Our system now is structured on archaic principles of Good, Evil and Justice.

I for one dont think those concepts are "archaic" in the sense of outdated. I do not believe them to be objective entities, but they are there as subjective expressions of what the people likes and not.

And the laws may well be based on the majority's emotions and attitudes, but actually, that's as it should be. If people dont feel justice is being served, the system will not survive, or just gone around or ignored in many cases. In your case, your problem is not with the system, but rather the people who wants it.

Ahnimus wrote:

Hey Dan,

Here is the chapter on Repealing Laws, though you might find it interesting, it's very short.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12027...7-h.htm#CHXVII

Interesting, and a lot of truth to it, no doubt.

Ahnimus wrote:

btw, the entire book is less than 180 pages.

lol, why that would take me no time at all then

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath

CorporateWhore wrote:

That's just because that system benefits liberal thinking. If it didn't benefit liberal thinking, then you wouldn't support it.

Laws against the constitution are illegal laws. When government acts outside its enumerated powers, it acts unconstitutionally. The way to remedy that is to pass constitutional AMENDMENTS - not misinterpret the constitution. When congress doesn't declare war but a war still occurs, that is an unconstitutional action.

Consistency is key.

The courts currently do not adhere to the constitution, but ignore it in favor of personal judgment and even foreign law. There is no other way that the Supreme Court could conclude that the Interstate Commerce Clause gives congress the power to rule on any part of our lives. FDR pressured the court to get his socialist programs (by threatening to stack the court) in and he got them to give up - prior to his administration, the Supreme Court struck down attempts to interpret the Interstate Commerce Clause as anything but interstate relations between the states - not as a way to sneak in laws about the drinking age or toilet water usage.

Government attained the ability to rule on every aspect of our lives in a corrupt and bullying fashion, NOT in any constitutional way that respected the people's rights.

Well, it wasn't done right then, it seems. Should have just got it into the constitution at once, formally.

Then again, the establishment are often loathe to change the constitution at once. They dont do it until there is no way out of doing it, and hardly then. The inappropriate reverence for it again. But my question here is that since what FDR did was such an outrage and abomination, why didn't anything get done about it before? After all, it isn't like FDR set it in stone. And republicans and whathaveyou have certainly had the power in the meantime. Yet it remains. And after this long time of practice, what the constitution says should just be amended to the new reality. But that won't happen, coz libertarians and republicans won't admit it and let it be written in. Which makes it a victim of political agendas again. This is the overtly conservative power of the constitution. That in many cases it won't get changed before it is completely outdated and noone cares for it anymore.

Anyway, I think what FDR did would have been done anyway, as similar things were done all over the industrial world at the time. The rest of us just got it grounded into law more thoroughly it seems.

Peace
Dan

CorporateWhore

OutOfBreath wrote:

But my question here is that since what FDR did was such an outrage and abomination, why didn't anything get done about it before? After all, it isn't like FDR set it in stone.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Once the government receives such power, it is almost impossible for it to relinquish it, barring revolution. Democrats held congress for 60 some years after FDR so the Republicans really didn't have a chance, but even so, the Republicans are complicit in casting aside the constitution in favor of bigger government.

The parties are not very different when it comes to holding power. They support a view of the constitution that enables them to retain power, not lose it. If there is more government to be managed, it necessarily follows that the people who made the government bigger also need to be there to "make it smaller." The problem is, they never actually get around to cutting government.

baraka

I agree, OutOfBreath. The founding fathers were brilliant, but the founders do not deserve to be historically recast as secular saints, as they were just as fallible as you or I (I could go into detail, but it might derail the thread ). Although they created a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual freedoms, this document was not seriously enforced until over a hundred years later.

Also, the constitution is meant to describe general principles of governance, not specific laws. It is not a specific document, which is why many get upset with varying interpretations or 'distortion of the plain meaning'. I think that in a constantly evolving and changing society highly specific language in a constitution can stifle a society and impede growth & progress. That is why the language IS so simplistic, to allow growth & change. Specific laws are better left to Congressional legislation, I think.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

A car engine is something we have made from scratch, and thus know exactly how works. We have not made our brains, and understanding on how it works is still at best patchy and incomplete.

How is it then that we know how water or electricity work?

That sounds like the rational scientist take on it. And for some case and some issues, I would welcome such a panel instead. However, who chooses the panel, and to what authority do they answer? Since you have no faith in laws (flipflopping as they are and emotionally based), who will watch the watchmen? Many scientists dream of the technocrat state, where after all, they will be in control. I have serious reservations towards implementing and enforcing such a system, even if I think treatment may be a better idea in many cases.

Society will watch them, but first society must mature.

I for one dont think those concepts are "archaic" in the sense of outdated. I do not believe them to be objective entities, but they are there as subjective expressions of what the people likes and not.

And the laws may well be based on the majority's emotions and attitudes, but actually, that's as it should be. If people dont feel justice is being served, the system will not survive, or just gone around or ignored in many cases. In your case, your problem is not with the system, but rather the people who wants it.

Peace
Dan

But is it not unfair for a man sentenced to a crime to stay in jail while a man guilty of the same crime roams free? And only because of the emotions of the people at the time of their conviction.