About constitutions...

CorporateWhore

Ahnimus wrote:

Society will watch them, but first society must mature.

Society's not mature enough yet? LOL I didn't know you were a fascist.

Ahnimus

CorporateWhore wrote:

Society's not mature enough yet? LOL I didn't know you were a fascist.

That's not fascism, and no society is in the infant stages.

CorporateWhore

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

CorporateWhore wrote:

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.

No I don't agree with that.

dmitry

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.

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

yeah. i'm not sure what the beef is with the US Constitution in this thread?

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!

OutOfBreath

CorporateWhore wrote:

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And I'm not talking about giving anyone absolute power.

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.

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 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.

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

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

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

We don't really. We know a lot about them in special conditions, and in instances we can use it to our benefit. To know how it really works would be to resolve the whole thing about atoms, quantums and all that theory of everything stuff. We haven't. We have some information about it that's useful for us, and so we do about the brain. We know a lot about neural connections and whatnot in the brain now, even to the extent where we can crudely use mood-shaping drugs (whose effects I can tell you from first-hand experience from work may be far from the expected as it depends on many factors) We dont have to understand something in order to use it. (you get drunk from alcohol even if you dont know how and why) However, claiming we have nailed how the brain works, it is all conditioning, and we can just pack up the entire system and culture as we know it, well... Not too sure about that. Our knowledge is in any case still far too patchy on the subject for any such radical changes.

Society will watch them, but first society must mature.

That was a very vague answer, depending on highly subjective value statements. What would you do in this "immature" society right now?

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.

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

OutOfBreath

Driftingbythestorm, my beef is not with the US constitution in particular, nor is the point that i think it's an appaling document. My points were directed against making it a sort of secular bible, and giving it neverending authority on any matter.
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

DriftingByTheStorm

OutOfBreath wrote:

Anywho, my point was also that constitutional "purists" bug me for the reasons listed throughout.

Peace
Dan

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 ...

OutOfBreath

I would think the american constitution is just as vague and open to interpretations as any document of the sort. Which makes it seem grand until the details have to be dealt with in the real world. Know that saying "the devil is in the details"? Enter amendments. The precise interpretation is exactly the point about such a document. It says little in itself apart from grand phrases, unless it is read, interpreted and yes, read between the lines. That's what lawyers do after all, interpret the written word. Neither will I grant them particularly gifted minds, other than being seasoned statesmen and revolutionary leaders with a degree of common sense and a general idea how the country should be run and created based on new ideas at the time.

For someone with such a revolutionary bent as you seem to have sometime, I dont think you should waste your time admiring the founding fathers too much, as it would be the result of their system you would seek to overthrow. Today is not what they thought, well, that's how it turned out. That's empiry for you.

Peace
Dan