[besson3c]

There are so many things that we all dislike about this place, but what keeps on bringing us back?

For a while I thought for me that this was the prospect of productive and civil debate, but after a while and enough dream crushing I've given up on that. Now, it is to understand the other side a little better both for the sake of keeping an open mind, as well as for the sport of it and in refining my own positions. At least, that's how I justify my habit to myself.

I wonder though, am I weird and unusual this way? Learning and understanding the other side is a difficult thing to do, there are many times when I don't bother (especially with stuff that initially seems pretty far fetched to me), but why does this seem to happen so infrequently here? Most of the threads here are basically just rants or people trying to convince others of their righteousness without really understanding the opposing argument.

Have any of you taken a step back to examine what it is you do in here and why? Am I alone in my self justifications and in wondering about this sort of stuff?

My best theory right now is that endless ranting is in its essence not a rational thing to do but an emotional thing to do, which is why there is much more of it than trying to understand the other side. I guess we all have to rant, I know I do, but how many of you have felt like your need to rant has ever run its course? What then? Is this place someplace you think to turn to? Do you go somewhere else, or not really seek anything out in particular?

Or, how many of you feel that you really do understand the other side and would be confident enough to share that with us without a simultaneous editorial?

[turtle777]

I hate this place.

The only reason I come back is because my owner makes me at gun point.
I think he's all about postcount.

If it was up to me, I'd just hang out in my aquarium all day *shrug*.

-t

[besson3c]

I'm sorry Turtle, if I had known that your owner was a class A jerk I wouldn't have put Obama stickers on your shell where you can't reach them... Let's team up and get that bastard somehow. Hee hee, don't tell him, but I farted in my car that he stole about a thousand times.

[Wiskedjak]

I come back for the entertainment value and to get a heads up on the Conservative talking-points that my father will be regurgitating at the next family gathering.

[SpaceMonkey]

Stop asking questions!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I come back for the entertainment value and to get a heads up on the Conservative talking-points that my father will be regurgitating at the next family gathering.

Maybe your father knows best.

Besson, I think your disappointment with the political discourses around here stems largely from the fact that there's little common ground for discussion between the two sides. For example, I believe in the text of the United States Constitution, which sets forth a narrowly constrained federal government with specific enumerated powers and specific enumerated prohibitions. I therefore do not believe in an expansive role for the federal government as the other side does; I consider most of the government initiatives the other side embraces to be constitutionally defective incursions on the rights of the states and the people, therefore worthy of my scorn. I believe the primary responsibility of government is to protect our liberties against unlawful force or fraud, whether from domestic or foreign sources. I believe that if the federal government were to stay within its defined constitutional role, it wouldn't be wrecking our national future by incurring unsustainable levels of debt, and we would enjoy much more liberty than we currently have. I believe that those who advocate for big federal government and all the unconstitutional programs that come with it are actively aiding and abetting the destruction of this country. I believe my view of American government to be the only correct and proper one - just as 2+2 has only one correct answer - so I have little appreciation for the defective views that are contrarian to mine.

There's another barrier between you and those of us on the right, however. You come from a different political tradition than the one that created my country. You have different sensibilities and sensitivities - our Constitution is of little importance to your political mindset, which isn't unreasonable because I don't have much concern for your country's founding documents. But that means you probably don't appreciate what drives me politically in large part. I take with seriousness the American concept that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, so that is the starting point for me in any debate on American politics. Beyond that, I believe in free market, classical liberal principles for the rest of the world. That's where I'm coming from.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Big Mac, did your scorn take a vacation when Bush called the constitution "just a piece of paper?" What about when Reagan expanded the role of federal debt willy nilly all over our future? Look I recognize that people tend to look the other way because of their bias, and I do it myself (actually I'm doing it right now, as I don't really agree with using the federal government for health care). That doesn't mean that Bush and Reagan had "defective views." They just have imperfect implementations of their views. Everyone does. Your no-tolerance posturing is not doing anyone any favors. If you can manage to step outside your tunnel-vision just long enough to see what underlies your opposition, you'll be far more effective at convincing them of their most egregious errors.

Incidentally, besson, that's why I think I come back here, to get intelligent explanations from The Right. It's important to see the merit in the opposition's views, and that's something I don't get to do by listening to soundbites or in person where I am.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Maybe your father knows best.

Besson, I think your disappointment with the political discourses around here stems largely from the fact that there's little common ground for discussion between the two sides. For example, I believe in the text of the United States Constitution, which sets forth a narrowly constrained federal government with specific enumerated powers and specific enumerated prohibitions. I therefore do not believe in an expansive role for the federal government as the other side does; I consider most of the government initiatives the other side embraces to be constitutionally defective incursions on the rights of the states and the people, therefore worthy of my scorn. I believe the primary responsibility of government is to protect our liberties against unlawful force or fraud, whether from domestic or foreign sources. I believe that if the federal government were to stay within its defined constitutional role, it wouldn't be wrecking our national future by incurring unsustainable levels of debt, and we would enjoy much more liberty than we currently have. I believe that those who advocate for big federal government and all the unconstitutional programs that come with it are actively aiding and abetting the destruction of this country. I believe my view of American government to be the only correct and proper one - just as 2+2 has only one correct answer - so I have little appreciation for the defective views that are contrarian to mine.

There's another barrier between you and those of us on the right, however. You come from a different political tradition than the one that created my country. You have different sensibilities and sensitivities - our Constitution is of little importance to your political mindset, which isn't unreasonable because I don't have much concern for your country's founding documents. But that means you probably don't appreciate what drives me politically in large part. I take with seriousness the American concept that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, so that is the starting point for me in any debate on American politics. Beyond that, I believe in free market, classical liberal principles for the rest of the world. That's where I'm coming from.

Big Mac, this is unreasonable.

You cannot use what you see going on in politics now as a basis for saying that the Left is anti-constitution, and that the right is pro-constitution. For starters, the majority of people couldn't tell you more than a few things about the constitution, if that.

More importantly though, if you want to get into an "expansive role for the government" for the government you could bring in all sorts of public services into the picture: public education, public parks, fireworks displays, public libraries, the post office, etc. etc. I'm sure there are some who would like all of these things abolished, but you cannot say that a majority of the Right are out there on the streets demanding that we put an end to public libraries and the like.

Therefore, I think your characterizations are flawed, as is your understanding of the Left.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Big Mac, this is unreasonable.

You cannot use what you see going on in politics now as a basis for saying that the Left is anti-constitution, and that the right is pro-constitution. For starters, the majority of people couldn't tell you more than a few things about the constitution, if that.

Are you making the argument that you could only violate the constitution if you really knew it ?

That's unreasonable.

You can violate laws that you didn't know about. Ignorance is not an acceptable defense argument.

-t

[besson3c]

No, that's not my argument, that remark was meant as an aside...

However, building off of what you said, if you are not aware of the law you can't really say that you were for it prior to your education about it, can you? You can say that you agree with the design and intent of the law after the fact, but you can't actually be for against the policy itself without knowing that it exists.

My remark was meant to address the lay person who uses the constitution as some sort of justification for their political cause given that without doubt the vast majority of time that person hasn't even read the constitution. I'm not inferring that Big Mac hasn't read it, but I don't think anybody can say that the Right is philosophically all about the constitution while the Left isn't. For starters, there are so many glaring exceptions as we have debated many times in here, but whatever people on the Right or Left believe that is backed by the constitution the vast majority of the time is incidental and not intended given the overall level of ignorance, of which I include myself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Big Mac, this is unreasonable.

You cannot use what you see going on in politics now as a basis for saying that the Left is anti-constitution, and that the right is pro-constitution.

Yeah, the left was all about the constitution when they thought we were in an "illegal war." The left espouses the constitution when it suits them, and shirks it when it doesn't. So does the right. It's not so bad to be biased (well, it's not really an option). What's bad is not knowing it when you're being biased. Claiming that any major political body in the modern US is more true to the constitution is pure bias.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, that's not my argument, that remark was meant as an aside...

However, building off of what you said, if you are not aware of the law you can't really say that you were for it prior to your education about it, can you? You can say that you agree with the design and intent of the law after the fact, but you can't actually be for against the policy itself without knowing that it exists.

My remark was meant to address the lay person who uses the constitution as some sort of justification for their political cause given that without doubt the vast majority of time that person hasn't even read the constitution. I'm not inferring that Big Mac hasn't read it, but I don't think anybody can say that the Right is philosophically all about the constitution while the Left isn't. For starters, there are so many glaring exceptions as we have debated many times in here, but whatever people on the Right or Left believe that is backed by the constitution the vast majority of the time is incidental and not intended given the overall level of ignorance, of which I include myself.

Since you're making the argument that interpreting the constitution is too complex for the lay person, how about the simple (still subjective) litmus test of

"Would the founding fathers have condoned / supported this ?".

I bet you, in most questions, it would be pretty clear that whatever weasel arguments are being used to read sh!t as being constitutional, if you just asked if the founding fathers would have done it, it would be a pretty clear "No".

So , in a sense, let's look at the intent of the constitution.

-t

[besson3c]

The way I understand it, the constitution is a living, breathing document. It is not the bible. It need to be interpreted through the lens of today, as does, I would argue, the bible. Just because there weren't public libraries and things like that back then during the writing of the constitution doesn't mean that our founding fathers would disapprove of them, necessarily.

The other thing is, like the bible, when you start to argue one interpretation as it applies to everyday life you in a way embark on a rather slippery slope. For instance, does what the constitution say about torture apply outside of the United States in today's day and age? That's clearly debatable.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Since you're making the argument that interpreting the constitution is too complex for the lay person, how about the simple (still subjective) litmus test of

"Would the founding fathers have condoned / supported this ?".

I bet you, in most questions, it would be pretty clear that whatever weasel arguments are being used to read sh!t as being constitutional, if you just asked if the founding fathers would have done it, it would be a pretty clear "No".

So , in a sense, let's look at the intent of the constitution.

-t

So then we are getting into pretty debatable and perhaps subjective territory.

What do you think our founding fathers would say about torture outside of this country, but being performed by us in our facilities, for instance? What was the intent of this law?

That is a rhetorical question, we don't need to rehash all of this, but you can see that these sorts of things become rather debatable.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The founding fathers were opposed to political parties, on principle. Of course, it was only like 10 years before those fathers themselves gave up on that one. Trying to divine the intent of the founding fathers is a fool's errand.

[besson3c]

But, it must be said that making the jump from what we've said to Democrats/the Left/us not giving a rat's ass about the constitution is inaccurate too. I just think that it needs to be put into proper context, and that neither party has a monopoly on being cozy with and obedient to the constitution.

If you agree with what Ron Paul says, he has said that the Iraq war was unconstitutional. Clearly there are Republicans who supported the war that would disagree with this?

[auto_immune]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are so many things that we all dislike about this place, but what keeps on bringing us back?

I keep coming back for the entertainment value. All the over-inflated egos, petty arguments,
and presence of thin-skinned crypto-trolls never fails to entertain! There are also sometimes
some very interesting topics posted and discussed here.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The way I understand it, the constitution is a living, breathing document. It is not the bible. It need to be interpreted through the lens of today, as does, I would argue, the bible.

And this is one of those fundamental differences. This constitution is not a "living document". The very phrase is an oxymoron. We shouldn't be trying to "reinterpret" the constitution to suit todays issues. It is this "living document" nonsense that is giving our leaders the ability "constitutionalize" without having to go through the effort and political pain of the amendment process. This is a huge removal of power away from the people.

The intention is to look at current issues and determine how the constitution applies. That is quite different from reinterpretation.

[Big Mac]

I didn't say anything about representing any party, besson. I don't think the Republican party shows much substantive regard for the Constitution, either. I was merely presenting my side versus a general representation of the Left that is in opposition to my politics.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The way I understand it, the constitution is a living, breathing document.

This is scientifically false. The only way in which the Constitution could be considered "alive" is in that we have the ability to amend it as the times require, so it grows and adapts.

The idea that the meaning of the Constitution somehow just magically changes of its own volition over time is nonsensical and dangerous. What if this Living Constitution just woke up one day and decided that black people don't count as people and freedom of religion doesn't extend to false, non-Protestant "religions"? When people say "living Constitution," what they're really saying is "I can do whatever the hell I want and the law isn't going to stop me."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

And this is one of those fundamental differences. This constitution is not a "living document". The very phrase is an oxymoron. We shouldn't be trying to "reinterpret" the constitution to suit todays issues. It is this "living document" nonsense that is giving our leaders the ability "constitutionalize" without having to go through the effort and political pain of the amendment process. This is a huge removal of power away from the people.

The intention is to look at current issues and determine how the constitution applies. That is quite different from reinterpretation.

That's about as silly as trying to interpret the bible (particularly the Old Testament) without putting it into context with today, no offense.

Do you think a document written before the end of slavery should be interpreted literally, to the letter, without context? Not even for women and slaves? How painstaking a process would it be to amend the constitution to make reference to this, other public services which have come about (such as libraries), torture, use of modern wiretapping technology, etc.?

Many people have sex before marriage. Are they all a bunch of sinners destined for hell, or do we amend the bible too?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I didn't say anything about representing any party, besson. I don't think the Republican party shows much substantive regard for the Constitution, either. I was merely presenting my side versus a general representation of the Left that is in opposition to my politics.

Fair enough, sorry to assume that you were representing the Right in this country. For some reason I thought you considered yourself a Republican before you considered yourself a Libertarian? Or, do you think of yourself as perhaps a frustrated Republican not completely in line with his party?

I think if you did a survey of many people on the left you'd find that there are varying ideas as to how the Constitution applies to the issues of today, so if you feel that we should all be stricter to the letter of the Constitution it would seem to me that your real enemy is not the Left nor the Right, but anybody that doesn't revere the Constitution as you do. There are all sorts of policies and decisions that have been made that are debatable as far as how they align with the Constitution, I don't think any of the two major parties has a monopoly on righteousness in this regard.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you think a document written before the end of slavery should be interpreted literally, to the letter, without context?

Context is essential for interpretation. English is not a context-free grammar. But of course it should be interpreted literally. How else are you supposed to interpret something? If you aren't trying to get at its original meaning, that's not called interpretation — it's just making stuff up. It's like if you hired an interpreter for a business meeting and she started "interpreting" everything you said as insults to the other guy — that's not what interpreting is supposed to be.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not even for women and slaves? How painstaking a process would it be to amend the constitution to make reference to this, other public services which have come about (such as libraries), torture, use of modern wiretapping technology, etc.?

What are you talking about? Several parts of the Constitution address slavery and women, and I'm not sure why you feel that libraries need to be in there.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Many people have sex before marriage. Are they all a bunch of sinners destined for hell, or do we amend the bible too?

Having sex before marriage isn't forbidden by the Bible, but if the Bible did say that, then of course it would be true that the Bible says that — it's tautological.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Context is essential for interpretation. English is not a context-free grammar. But of course it should be interpreted literally. How else are you supposed to interpret something? If you aren't trying to get at its original meaning, that's not called interpretation — it's just making stuff up. It's like if you hired an interpreter for a business meeting and she started "interpreting" everything you said as insults to the other guy — that's not what interpreting is supposed to be.

Exactly. So, we can agree that there is no single interpretation, and that it is possible for somebody to be equally respecting of the constitution while having a different interpretation of it?

What are you talking about? Several parts of the Constitution address slavery and women, and I'm not sure why you feel that libraries need to be in there.

The roles of women and slaves have obviously changed over the years. I don't think that libraries should be in there, but wouldn't a reasonable interpretation of the concept of an expansive government say that public libraries overreach the role of government?

Having sex before marriage isn't forbidden by the Bible, but if the Bible did say that, then of course it would be true that the Bible says that — it's tautological.

Really? There is some disagreement of that here, and some that supports your claim:

http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/500892.html

I was always led to believe that it was a sin, or "fornication".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Exactly. So, we can agree that there is no single interpretation, and that it is possible for somebody to be equally respecting of the constitution while having a different interpretation of it?

I wouldn't say that. There may be some minor disagreements, but there should not be any major dispute as to what the Constitution is saying among people who are honestly going for a true interpretation — in that case, it was just poorly written.

Let me put it this way: If I were to interpret your posts in the healthcare thread as being wholeheartedly against Obama's plan (because I think that is a more pragmatic viewpoint in the context of American society), would you say that's just as valid as somebody who thought you supported it with some possible reservations?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The roles of women and slaves have obviously changed over the years.

And the Constitution was amended to reflect that, just as I said it should be. So…good job, America?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't think that libraries should be in there, but wouldn't a responsible interpretation of the concept of an expansive government say that public libraries overreach the role of government?

I don't know of any federally owned libraries other than the Library of Congress.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Really? There is some disagreement of that here, and some that supports your claim:

http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/500892.html

I was always led to believe that it was a sin, or "fornication".

Most churches teach it, but the Bible itself isn't quite as clear on the matter. It's much like how the Bible doesn't address the issue of lesbianism at all, but somehow everybody knows that's one of God's big no-nos too.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I wouldn't say that. There may be some minor disagreements, but there should not be any major dispute as to what the Constitution is saying among people who are honestly going for a true interpretation — in that case, it was just poorly written.

There are people that would say the same thing about the Bible, yet we have a gazillion different churches preaching slightly different interpretations. Text is an imperfect way to convey meaning, there are whole schools of philosophy that suggest that there is no absolute truth, only our experience. I happen to think that it depends on what you are talking about. While this might be true, it is not terribly actionable when you are trying to relate rational concepts like 2 + 2 = 4. However, with religion it's a totally different ballgame. There is no absolute theological truth that we'll ever be able to agree upon.

With something like the Constitution you have a bit of the same issues at play. I'm not an expert on Constitutional law, so I wouldn't be surprised if any of my examples are flawed, but it seems clear to me that it is possible to have two or more different interpretations of parts of the Constitution without an intentional attempt to skew for one's political intent, just as it is possible to have multiple interpretations of the same Bible passages, such as the pre-marital sex example.

Most churches teach it, but the Bible itself isn't quite as clear on the matter. It's much like how the Bible doesn't address the issue of lesbianism at all, but somehow everybody knows that's one of God's big no-nos too.

I guess one of the luxuries of being an atheist is that you can be down with lesbians, huh?

[Big Mac]

<religion-aside>Christianity may call premarital sex a sin. According to Judaism sex before marriage constitutes de facto marriage. Pre-marital sex is strongly discouraged on the social level in religious Judaism, but it isn't counted as a sin. As for lesbianism, there isn't a biblical commandment proscribing it like male homosexuality. In Jewish law it is classified as an immodest act and enjoined but at a lower level of intensity because it isn't a biblical transgression.</religion-aside>

The language of the Constitution is generally clear to those who wish to objectively evaluate it. Unfortunately, it has been abused and contorted by those who desire to expand the role of the federal government. Just because some have chosen historically to abuse the provisions of the Constitution does not meant hat such abuse is legitimate. I am a Constitution junkie, so I have definitive views on it. I realize not everyone cares about the Constitution, including many of our elected officials, but that doesn't make it right. But what is even worse than ignorance or apathy over the Constitution is when some people purposely advocate for a defective reading of the text because it suits their political agendas.

And btw, besson, provisions governing slavery were in the Constitution, and they were eliminated by the reconstruction amendments after the Civil War (in case you weren't clear on that point).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

*snip* For example, I believe in the text of the United States Constitution, which sets forth a narrowly constrained federal government with specific enumerated powers and specific enumerated prohibitions. I therefore do not believe in an expansive role for the federal government as the other side does; I consider most of the government initiatives the other side embraces to be constitutionally defective incursions on the rights of the states and the people, therefore worthy of my scorn. I believe the primary responsibility of government is to protect our liberties against unlawful force or fraud, whether from domestic or foreign sources. I believe that if the federal government were to stay within its defined constitutional role, it wouldn't be wrecking our national future by incurring unsustainable levels of debt, and we would enjoy much more liberty than we currently have. *snip*

Whoosh- very well said. The general crux of this I couldn't agree with more.

As for the whole 'living breathing' thing, all one has to do is take a look at the Dred Scott decision as a perfect example of how the whims of the times and a belief in a 'living breathing' constitution can be abused in the worst possible way. The constitution says what it says- and even though written centuries ago, it doesn't say jack squat that the court bent it into a pretzel to say justified Dred Scott. People that take up the 'living breathing' mantra, often only see that as a good thing, and never the potential for abuse.

I've heard it best expressed in terms of a contract. Another person and I draw up a contract- and we sign it. That contract doesn't 'live and breath' it simply means what the hell it means. I agree to pay so-and-so X amount in exchange for Y. Period. It means that today. I means that tomorrow. It'd mean the same thing 20 years from now. If the other party were to say, "hey, this document 'lives and breathes! It's been 20 years. You paid me X, but I now read it to mean "in exchange for J". Times change. Documents live and breathe!" Bullcrap. I paid you X; your obligation is Y. That's the contract.

The constitution is like like a contract drawn between the government and the people. The government promises limits on its own powers, reserves specific powers for the branches, and divides power with the states. Those limits and divisions meant what they did 200 years ago, and they mean what they mean NOW.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The idea that the meaning of the Constitution somehow just magically changes of its own volition over time is nonsensical and dangerous. What if this Living Constitution just woke up one day and decided that black people don't count as people and freedom of religion doesn't extend to false, non-Protestant "religions"?

Ironically it was exactly the other way around. Originally black people were counted as 3/5 of a white person. It was thanks to our ability to think for ourselves and change the country we live in, that nonsense like this was abolished.

I don't want a dead document I follow blindly. That reminds me too much of religion. I want people to think for themselves and shape their own country. That doesn't mean I don't value the Constitution. It means I understand that the Constitution like every other document reflects its authors and the circumstances under which it was written. I have enough faith in the democratic process to believe that ultimately democratic decisions do not endanger the ideals promoted by the Constitution. They do however empower us, the people. Just as the founding fathers had intended.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Ironically it was exactly the other way around. Originally black people were counted as 3/5 of a white person. It was thanks to our ability to think for ourselves and change the country we live in, that nonsense like this was abolished.

Rotten example.

It wasn't with any 'living breathing' nonsense that the three-fifths clause was abolished, it was with the Thirteenth AMENDMENT. If you want to change the document- you have to CHANGE IT, not just reinterpret it through the lens of some current whim.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

If you want to change the document- you have to CHANGE IT, not just reinterpret it through the lens of some current whim.

I wouldn't go so far as to call abolishing slavery 'some current whim', but otherwise I agree. The document should be changed when the result of democratic process calls for it.

[ebuddy]

I think those who have to put this much thought into understanding "the other side" have become too mired in "their side" to understand the differences are usually much more subtle. I think the key to understanding the "other side" is to understand human nature. We all have perspectives and they are shaped by our life-experiences. Sometimes they are informed perspectives, sometimes they are just emotional outbursts, sometimes they exist just to oppose another perspective.

This side/that side becomes most apparent when allegiances are more important than facts. I post here to glean the various perspectives, combat the belligerent ignorance of some, the bitterness and pessimism of others, and to stay intimately aware of current events and the facts surrounding them. Often a news story will just break, I'll pop on here and sure enough, people are already opining. I like the hustle and bustle of it all.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Whoosh- very well said. The general crux of this I couldn't agree with more.

That's high praise - thank you very much, CH.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

As for the whole 'living breathing' thing, all one has to do is take a look at the Dred Scott decision as a perfect example of how the whims of the times and a belief in a 'living breathing' constitution can be abused in the worst possible way. The constitution says what it says- and even though written centuries ago, it doesn't say jack squat that the court bent it into a pretzel to say justified Dred Scott. People that take up the 'living breathing' mantra, often only see that as a good thing, and never the potential for abuse.

You have it completely reversed. The constitution as it stood at that time supported slavery. The Dred Scott decision blindly obeyed. In order to do what you and I would consider the right thing, the constitution had to be amended, which it was 11 years later with the 14th. Dred Scott is an example of your constitutional viewpoint, not besson's.

As for living/breathing, when I was in school, that term referred to the amendment process itself. It was never represented to me that the constitution could change absent an amendment. "Creative" interpretations by the supreme court would have been outside the whole "living/breathing" meme.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You have it completely reversed. The constitution as it stood at that time supported slavery. The Dred Scott decision blindly obeyed. In order to do what you and I would consider the right thing, the constitution had to be amended, which it was 11 years later with the 14th. Dred Scott is an example of your constitutional viewpoint, not besson's.

The Court ruled that blacks were "altogether unfit to associate with the white race." You're telling me that's an example of strict, literalist interpretation? The Constitution allowed for slaves and indentured servants (somewhat reluctantly, too), but the utter dismissive racism of the Dred Scott decision was not in there.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The Court ruled that blacks were "altogether unfit to associate with the white race." You're telling me that's an example of strict, literalist interpretation? The Constitution allowed for slaves and indentured servants (somewhat reluctantly, too), but the utter dismissive racism of the Dred Scott decision was not in there.

It may have been garnished with some distasteful attitude, but the fact is that the decision upheld the status quo, both of the current times and of the constitution as it stood. If the basic decision had been different, that would most certainly have been "legislating from the bench." A constitutional amendment was the correct method for changing that situation, not a ruling.

[Chuckit]

I disagree. It seems to me that the ruling was very much a case of judicial activism. The Dred Scott decision was about whether it was legal to own slaves in a state where owning a slave was illegal. The Constitution does not address that matter, so I don't see how you can say it "upheld the status quo of the Constitution."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You have it completely reversed. The constitution as it stood at that time supported slavery. The Dred Scott decision blindly obeyed.

Completely false. Read the Dred Scott decision. (And by the way, it's but ONE example of many where the court has grossly abused it's power). The court basically declared that ALL blacks had no rights as citizens- the constitution as strictly interpreted even then allowed no such thing, nor allowed the court or any other branch of government to declare any such thing.

The decision was so off-base it has in fact, NEVER been overruled. That's a fact. It didn't need to be- only for later more rational courts to get back to a strict constitutional interpretation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I disagree. It seems to me that the ruling was very much a case of judicial activism. The Dred Scott decision was about whether it was legal to own slaves in a state where owning a slave was illegal. The Constitution does not address that matter, so I don't see how you can say it "upheld the status quo of the Constitution."

No, it was about the reciprocal situation of whether slaves could sue for their own freedom retroactively after having spent time in a free-state, previously. Here's why I maintain the decision upheld the status quo:
1) Dred Scott was the plaintiff, and he lost. Plaintiffs don't sue to uphold the status quo, they sue to change it.
2) The decision was appealed to the US supreme court from Missouri, a slave-state. That is why the case was first and foremost about the status quo within slave-states. Scott was suing for his freedom in a slave-state; that would not have been the status quo there, obviously. And since the constitution does address slavery in the slave-states, that was the status quo constitutionally as well as practically. And I'll add that if you're going to apply judgements like "reluctantly" to one part of the constitution, that puts you squarely on the besson3c side of the "living breathing" debate.
3) The first segment of the decision was that the "federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute." You can't get any more status-quo-friendly than "I'm not listening." Now obviously they were listening, because they made further decisions from there, but this aspect also supports my contention that the decision was in favor of the status quo.
4) Adding stronger language than was in existing law is commonplace when the law is upheld. Stronger language does not mean the law is being overturned. A suit is brought because the law's language is not strong enough, so the court elaborates/clarifies with stronger language. Just because the Dred Scott decision used more forceful language than was in the constitution, this gives us no information about whether the decision upheld the constitutional status quo, or overturned it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Completely false. Read the Dred Scott decision. (And by the way, it's but ONE example of many where the court has grossly abused it's power). The court basically declared that ALL blacks had no rights as citizens- the constitution as strictly interpreted even then allowed no such thing, nor allowed the court or any other branch of government to declare any such thing.

That's debatable, as naturalization is the jurisdiction of the federal government, not states, so deciding who is and isn't eligible for citizenship has to be allowed for some branch of the federal government.

The decision was so off-base it has in fact, NEVER been overruled. That's a fact. It didn't need to be- only for later more rational courts to get back to a strict constitutional interpretation.

Ha! It was overruled 11 years later by the 14th amendment. You sound like one of those nutniks who claim you don't have to pay income tax because there is no law for it, conveniently ignoring a whole constitutional amendment allowing it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I wouldn't go so far as to call abolishing slavery 'some current whim', but otherwise I agree. The document should be changed when the result of democratic process calls for it.

Abolishing slavery wasn't the current whim example- it was courts making ridiculous overreaching rulings even beyond what the constitution addressed regarding slavery, because the 'current whim' of the time was that non-whites had no rights.

And we agree completely- in order for the document to change meaning, it needs to actually be changed. Which is why of course we have an amendment process. It's funny to me, when suggested now that if you want to change the constitution, then by all means, try to change it- many libs act like that's asking too much. But then, many did try for years to go the correct route of amending the constitution with the Equal Rights Amendment. I always found that sort of ironic, since in my view (and most opponents) the constitution already provides for the protections the ERA wanted- if only the government would actually abide by its own rules.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ha! It was overruled 11 years later by the 14th amendment. You sound like one of those nutniks who claim you don't have to pay income tax because there is no law for it, conveniently ignoring a whole constitutional amendment allowing it.

Now you're just proving your ignorance of the entire issue. Overrulled means overruled by the SCOTUS.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Now you're just proving your ignorance of the entire issue. Overrulled means overruled by the SCOTUS.

Irrelevant semantics. The Dred Scott ruling was made obsolete by the 14th amendment. There was no need to "overrule" it after that.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Irrelevant semantics. The Dred Scott ruling was made obsolete by the 14th amendment. There was no need to "overrule" it after that.

No, it's just you (as usual) arguing without much thought, since it was clear I was talking strictly about the court itself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

You said, "The decision was so off-base it has in fact, NEVER been overruled." That's irrelevant. There was no need to "overrule" it by the court because it was shortly afterward effectively "overruled" by the amendment process. That doesn't inform us as to whether it was "off-base" constitutionally speaking. That's why it's irrelevant. Get it now?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You said, "The decision was so off-base it has in fact, NEVER been overruled." That's irrelevant.

Again, read up. A later court ruled that only part of it was touched on by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The more important matter, and the part you're actually in the silly position of trying to defend with your "argument", is that the decision already violated the Bill of Rights, specifically the 5th Amendment (due process) the Ninth (protection of rights not specifically enumerated) and the Tenth Amendment (powers reserved to the states and the people)- a branch of the federal government exercised a power not specifically granted to it, therefore outside the constitution.

(Of course, it's largely the last two that current political hacks constantly seek to ignore as well.)

This is why your statement: "so deciding who is and isn't eligible for citizenship has to be allowed for some branch of the federal government." is pure bunk with regard to Dred Scott and how it vastly overstepped the courts constitutional bounds. (In fact, it's amazing in this day and age that even has to be pointed out to anyone).

It's pretty fascinating your entire attempt at arguing such a weird position- we're talking about a time when the whim of the day held it was okay for one person to OWN another person, and yet you think it's a big stretch that people holding such beliefs would have any problem at all ignoring the constitution in order to promote such a warped belief. In a round-about way, you're sort of demonstrating how courts believed they could get away with it in the first place, and in a way, exactly how the 'living breathing' crowd might allow other forms of 'current whim' to trump the letter of the law and original intent, if allowed. Essentially, the whole crux of this issue in a nutshell.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I wouldn't go so far as to call abolishing slavery 'some current whim', but otherwise I agree. The document should be changed when the result of democratic process calls for it.

Or, in that case, it can be changed when one part of the nation attacks and burns the other part and then nullifies self-rule in the other part for 25 years. Hope we don't have to do that next time.

As for "understanding the other side": most worthy folks I know try to understand both sides of every issue. I don't think that's somehow different for conservatives versus Leftists (although I've found conservatives much more open to factual demonstration rather than emotion for some reason).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Blah blah blah, Essentially, the whole crux of this issue in a nutshell.

Nothing you just said is relevant to why the ruling not being overturned means anything. If you mean that tangents and random walks are the crux of the "difficulty in understanding the other side" issue, I'd have to agree.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Lame backout.

Can't blame you.

Actually mounting the "argument" that: "Oh sure, Dred Scott was perfectly constitutional" is something I don't think too many people would seriously attempt- at least while sober.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Can't blame you.

Actually mounting the "argument" that: "Oh sure, Dred Scott was perfectly constitutional" is something I don't think too many people would seriously attempt- at least while sober.

Are you for real? If so...
Here's why I maintain the decision upheld the status quo:
1) Dred Scott was the plaintiff, and he lost. Plaintiffs don't sue to uphold the status quo, they sue to change it.
2) The decision was appealed to the US supreme court from Missouri, a slave-state. That is why the case was first and foremost about the status quo within slave-states. Scott was suing for his freedom in a slave-state; that would not have been the status quo there, obviously. And since the constitution does address slavery in the slave-states, that was the status quo constitutionally as well as practically.
3) The first segment of the decision was that the "federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute." You can't get any more status-quo-friendly than "I'm not listening." Now obviously they were listening, because they made further decisions from there, but this aspect also supports my contention that the decision was in favor of the status quo.