About constitutions...
OutOfBreath
Posts: 1,804
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(although I guess like in Norway, a 2/3 majority is needed) Amendments and changes happen because the original text is outdated, which is no wonder after a couple of centuries.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
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
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
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.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
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.
-Enoch Powell
naděje umírá poslední
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...
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
And what scientific objective truths are being ignored by lawmakers in your... opinion?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
A) The brain is causal
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.
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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.
-Enoch Powell
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.
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
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.
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.
Interesting, and a lot of truth to it, no doubt.
lol, why that would take me no time at all then
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
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.
-Enoch Powell
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.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
How is it then that we know how water or electricity work?
Society will watch them, but first society must mature.
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.
Society's not mature enough yet? LOL I didn't know you were a fascist.
-Enoch Powell
That's not fascism, and no society is in the infant stages.
Oh that's funny because I thought fascists believed that society matured over time. You know, they thought that Aryans were at the most mature level and therefore were most capable of leading humanity.
I've always been under a different impression. The more society changes, the more it stays the same.
-Enoch Powell
No I don't agree with that.
The constitution protects the individual from the tyranny of the majority. It's not supposed to be democratic, it's supposed to protect people's rights.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say it was perfect, but it does have some very good principles that should never change.
I just bought a pocket copy, actually. I read it twice the other day.
I can't think of one piece of it off the top of my head that i read and thought "well now, that's just antiquated, or silly, or incorrect" ... in fact, quite the opposite ... i was humbled, and stood in admiration of the great men who crafted it with obvious love and respect for life and liberty and humanity in their hearts and conscience.
I don't understand why you would want to eschew such an founding document as merely something to "consider" when making decisions in your country.
Because for me, atleast ... for America ... the Constitution truly is the greatest of all laws, the SUPREME law of the land ... and it COULD NOT BE MORE RELEVANT TODAY than it was two hundred years ago ...
the fact that modern politicians (and presidents, cough cough) WALK ALL OVER IT is appauling, and i would argue the contrary ... that we should FORCE THESE FUCKERS TO READ IT ONCE A WEEK ... like they made us do with reciting the pledge of allegience in school for twelve years .... day after fucking day ....
these bastards are making laws which i'm quite sure many congressman are ignorant of their constitutional ramifications ...
that is, IF they are even READING the bills which they are voting on and signing in to law.
:( :( :(
so no.
i don't get all this ho-hum about constitutions.
Yes they are living, and yes they are capable of being modified through ammendments with a 2\3rds majority ... but that has historically happened very few times, all things considered ...
and then you get fucktard in power, who wants to put shit like gay marriage bans in to the constitution, while managing to sidestep just about every other single goddamn ammendment or bill of rights within our supreme legal doctrine!
motherfuckers!
don't get me started!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Well, you had Nixon after like 25 years, and had it been such a general outrage over FDRs actions, it would have been overturned sometime in elections. But, no, the reps didnt do anything about it either.
The parties may be mostly the same, especially if you only have 2 of them, competing for the middle. I could also go into my larger size = more democratic problems when it comes to nations, but I dont have the time right now. I think you americans have bigger trouble in that department, quite frankly, given your power and your monocultural and person-oriented politics.
My main point was what baraka outlined, to not recast founding fathers into secular saints, nor have undue reverence for the constitution, and especially not it's traditional interpretation.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
That was a very vague answer, depending on highly subjective value statements. What would you do in this "immature" society right now?
Certainly, which is why everyone should be treated equal by the courts. That someone gets away with it because noone saw it, is hardly an argument for abolishing the courts. And very much of our lives is very much determined by our emotions, and on aggregate the emotions of the public. You seem to put a barrier between emotions and reality. Which I can't get to fit with your view of brain controlling everything deterministiacally, and emotions being part of it. That would make emotions very much a reality, and hence, something to include in models, and something we may never disregard.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
And frankly, if the people of the USA wants to ban gay marriage, then they should. The problem is not the law but the people wanting them. Although I myself think putting it in the constitution is kinda drastic, and probably (since they know they'll never get it through) just a play for those traditionalist religious votes.
Anywho, my point was also that constitutional "purists" bug me for the reasons listed throughout.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
and that is my concern.
After having read it fresh, i actually think we SHOULD uphold it as a near sacred document. A BIBLE of law if you will. Why not? Have we anything better to use as a basis for "right & wrong" in this country?
Again, our founding fathers were incredibly gifted with foresight, understanding, and compassion ... the document they produced is nearly ageless in it's discription of a system of law and governance ...
and to NOT UPHOLD IT IN A PURE FASHION ... in other words ... to manipulate its intent by READING BETWEEN THE LINES and INTERPRETING WHAT IS NOT THERE
is a real serious concern.
The constitution SHOULD be read for WHAT IT IS, not for what it might be, what they may have meant, what you could get out of it ... etc ...
Why is it so hard to believe that our fouding fathers meant what they wrote, and nothing they didn't write.
I don't think it was written under duress or in haste ... they spent real time thinking of the best possible CLEAR WORDING ... it is not some cryptic message like the bible ...
If I opened it now would you not understand?