A thought experiment for those who cling blindly to the Constitution.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

At no point did I ever state: "the Constitution establishes nothing but only limits power", this is another one of your fanciful fabrications where people say something they never said. I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say. If you can only attack someones grammar by rewriting it to be deserving of attack, how do you expect to come to any reasonable conclusions about law? Your obvious belief that law can be invented grossly misunderstands law.

If I misread you I'd like you to help me understand you better, but I have to say it's a bit confusing to object at this point. I quoted your remark once and you didn't object, I paraphrased it in the next post and you didn't object. This feels more like trying to take something you regret saying back than anything else. You're welcome to take it back. I'm here to learn, not to "win 'an argument. But if you take it back, then you're left not explaining what you think the Constitution does in the first place, so you're going to need to do that.

I did not write as if the Constitution fixed a time limit to the republic it established, you "interpreted" it that way. That was clear in your reply and needed no clarification from you. I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say. Here is the problem with your arguments, you seem to be having a hard time grasping what is being said to you. For example; when I say: "Those who create the government, get to limit it...", you respond by claiming it has somehow become unclear what is meant by it. It is odd that a respected grammar teacher such as yourself would get so confused by a little pronoun agreement.

My friend, I wish you would spend less time being sarcastic and more time explaining your beliefs. It's true I've had quite a hard time understanding you from time to time. I can tell you think what you're saying is important so I wish you would explain it. Instead you refuse to say anything, continue to make and repeat assertions, and only say from time to time "No no that's wrong" but never explain what's right.

Let me be perfectly clear; people preexist government, they create government to protect their rights, this is the way it works, this is why we have governments. So, when the people create the government they get to limit that government, it is their prerogative. Any person who understands the law, when reading your claim that you have never seen a satisfactory account of right and wrong, will take that with a grain of salt, and would be wise to suspect you have many moments of righteous indignation when you have been trespassed upon.

Again the first part of your paragraph and second part seem oddly mismatched. First you say people preexist government, and I agree. But the question is, does some kind of Natural Law exist? If it does, I've never seen a satisfactory account. I only see human law, concocted by brute force and social compromise. I say this is all the Constitution is, when it comes down to it. You seem to want to say it's something more, but you won't explain what, except to say that it should be obvious. Vexing indeed.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The self evidence of law supporting the rights of individuals is in the daily accounts of those who risk their very lives to protect these rights

Thank you for bearing with me. Your post was very long and I am typing sitting cross legged on a motel room floor using a very old laptop and it has taken much pecking to reply to everything!

So this is the closest you come to offering an account of the basis of Natural Law. And it's exactly what I claimed the basis people most often offer was in my very first post. The very basis my thought experiment undermines. So we've come full circle. Ha ha. Discourse moves in funny ways.

Maybe it is a spiral.

I can see people are lurking, eager to star your posts before they've even had a chance to read them, so you are winning the battle of popularity. Don't let it go to your digital ego my friend, ha ha.

What was it Jonathan Swift said once...something about...oh well. Nevermind. Ha ha.

reply to post by EzraBuckley


When you spend all your time dismissing my language as incomprehensible, what do you think you're saying? You ask for evidence of the law and when I make clear of my willingness to rely upon it to protect my rights you attempt to dismiss this evidence and label it as "vigilante justice", as if I have no right to protect myself and my loved ones, as if I need your agreement to protect myself from you. That my friend, is indeed moral relativism. You will not convince me, nor any other rational soul, that I can only defend myself from you with your agreement, and without it, I am just out of luck, because law is not real it is just an imaginary guideline where we interpret it to fit our beliefs. No rational soul alive will buy that nonsense.

It is hard to not take you to task more sternly for accusing me of your own muddled reasoning. You claim that people need to go outside the law to get justice, but this is your claim, not mine. Justice can not be got, and it is felt most specifically in its absence. In the absence of justice, there is law, and if you have harmed my children, and I put a stop to that by use of force, it will be universally accepted by all who are rational that I acted properly. How's that for a hypothetical? Just as gravity is force, and because of its universal nature is law, so too are the laws dictating the rights of man, and all law is force. It is hopeless to pretend that self defense is "vigilante justice", and it is this type of moral relativism that has led to calling people who gather and peacefully protest "homegrown terrorists". Like a bad Doug Henning or David Blaine, you hope to awe with misdirection, but all the while we see your sleight of hand, and your tricks just aren't as fun as David Blaine's.

I understand your point Ezra and you're probably right about many of the founding fathers NOT wanting things that have come to pass. They were the ones who decided women shouldn't vote and that blacks were to count as 3/5ths of a person. Indeed their supposed wisdom fell far short at times, it's true.
What you seem to have a problem with is the idea of sacred itself, that something could be elevated to a position above the mundane and the secular. We do this with the Bible, the Torah and the Quran as well. Would you have the same criticism of them?
Yes, these were all things produced by the hand of man. But sometimes the things made by man rise above and are elevated by declaration, where people find things of exceptional value or wisdom.
Such is the Constitution, made sacrosanct by the declaration of many generations of Americans. Not because it guarantees anyone their rights or freedoms, other documents described those, but because it describes the LIMITS OF GOVERMENT instituted to protect those rights.
God made man free but by our common consent we are governed. When our rights are abused by those entrusted to protect them we are ruled by force. The Constitution was designed to protect us from that ever happening. It was only when the Constitution was ignored that we became ruled over instead of ruled by consent.
I hold the Constitution sacred because it is not only the source of our past, it is the only legal and sane road in to the future. Without it we will suffer from tyranny from within. I beleive the last 10 years in America show what happens when the source of governments' empowerment is ignored, resulting in the economic and political disaster we call America today.

I personally believe the Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence are 2 of the greatest works ever written by man. So much so that I swore an oath 33 years ago to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. Swearing an oath at the expense of your life is as close to sacred as I know.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by Asktheanimals]

Originally posted by EzraBuckley
Sit back. Take a deep breath. Uncle Ezra is about to truth you.

I have a thought experiment for all those who seem to believe The Constitution has some sacred meaning in and of itself.

The Constitution is considered sacred by The People because
everyone intuitively believes they have the Inalienable Right to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. Of course those words come from the Declaration of Independence but they average person considers them part of the constitution.

And they are Sacred Words. Happiness being a quality of the Divine.

The Bill of Rights establishes the protection of those basic principles and so it is Sacred too.

The rest of the document regarding the structure of government is just a pragmatic construction of how the government should function.

But the founding fathers were not the least bit sacred and were perhaps closer to profane hypocrites.

""""If you hope to convince people that law is magic fairy dust belonging to priest class lawyers who will utter their mystical incantations of legalesee,...""""

That is indeed what it has become. Just ask Kafka.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


You're one of the few people to read my post properly. I do have a problem with the notion of "sacred" in and of itself. I don't believe anything (the Koran, the Gita, not even the OMG BIBLE) is inherently authoritative, divinely inspired, or innately deserving of respect and veneration. I don't believe in Natural Law. I believe in interests, agendas, and negotiation.

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by EzraBuckley
Sit back. Take a deep breath. Uncle Ezra is about to truth you.

I have a thought experiment for all those who seem to believe The Constitution has some sacred meaning in and of itself.

The Constitution is considered sacred by The People because
everyone intuitively believes they have the Inalienable Right to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. Of course those words come from the Declaration of Independence but they average person considers them part of the constitution.

So the average person's veneration of the Constitution is really a misplaced veneration of the precepts of the Declaration? I agree. This is both a vexing and entertaining situation, incidentally. Patriotism based on misunderstanding? Sounds right.

We are in agreement, incidentally, if you feel that the force of the Constitution is derived not from the document itself but rather from the attitude toward that document the present generation adopts. Life is for the living. The dead have had their chance.

And they are Sacred Words. Happiness being a quality of the Divine.

What is The Divine? Nobody has explained or offered me an account of this concept yet. It's still just a word to me.

The Bill of Rights establishes the protection of those basic principles and so it is Sacred too.

Not sacred. Smart. Brilliant, even. Astute. But not Sacred. It only has the value the generation of the living choose to give it. The only interpretation that matters is the one given by those of us who still have to get out of bed and go to work and do the dishes. The day Jefferson is in my kitchen doing my dishes, he can have his say again. But as it stands, he's already said his piece.

The Constitution belongs to us. We don't belong to the Constitution.

""""If you hope to convince people that law is magic fairy dust belonging to priest class lawyers who will utter their mystical incantations of legalesee,...""""

That is indeed what it has become. Just ask Kafka.

Kafka believed this was all the law ever could be, all life ever could be. That was the root of his existential angst. Kafka was on my side and so are you, my friend.

Originally posted by EzraBuckley
This generation is the only one that matters. The Constitution is parchment and ink with no inherent value that we are free to interpret as we wish.

PARTY PARTY

rules are just words written on paper!

do anything you want!

EzraBuckley said so

what's funny is , or at least I think it is ,

this thread is dedicated to the argument in acute reference to those that cling "BLINDLY" to the constitution

most of the people posting here in opposition are well informed patriots of the constitution that are 'not into' the idea that demeans the constitution

i want to hear from someone who just really blindly follows it, if anyone really

reply to post by EzraBuckley


I've read this entire [very interesting] thread, and enjoy the provocation of though, and the general tenor of the discussion.

For me, it is glaringly simple. The Constitution is a document that has been and is currently treated as a whole... or not at all. This document's validity doesn't hinge on it's creators, but on a majority of the legal citizens for whom it empowers.

Currently, a majority of the citizens endorse its entire application. That doesn't mean that The Constitution of the United States of America posesses any timelessness or inate truth simply because of its relatively short period of support; it DOES mean that a majority of elected officials at least profess to support its ideals.

Short answer: It is a living document, and constitutional amendments can and will be agreed upon by the elected majority.

Nobody likes to be backdoored, and that does not honor the terms of the document. If the majority agree, it can be terminated. I doubt that will ever happen -- at least within the masses who elect those voting politicians.

____________________

Shorter answer: The Constitution today bears strong resemblance to the first approved draft. It was meant to be changed to reflect the will of the people.

reply to post by indigothefish

this thread is dedicated to the argument in acute reference to those that cling "BLINDLY" to the constitution

most of the people posting here in opposition are well informed patriots of the constitution that are 'not into' the idea that demeans the constitution

i want to hear from someone who just really blindly follows it, if anyone really

I'd guess that most everyone declined to nibble on that particular pongy cheese.

Originally posted by EzraBuckley


What is The Divine? Nobody has explained or offered me an account of this concept yet. It's still just a word to me.

I have. Read the book.

www.beezone.com...

Only The Horse Knows pp 139-141

Avatar Adi Da Samraj: Existence in the waking and dreaming states is a mummery ... presumptions. Human beings live as mummers...as if the play they are appearing in were the carrying out of a plan they know full well, and reality is evident to them. It is not so. Reality is not evident ..not Self-evident, not evident as the Most Profound State, the "Brightness" State, the Samadhi of the "Brightness". Your are all mummers because you do not know That Which Is Always Already The Case. You only know the mummery.

I am not merely Principle, I am Person, Fullness of Being, Love-Blissful Self-Consciousness, without the slightest difference or separation or otherness or relatedness or separation. No difference, No relatedness is the characteristic of My Samadhi, of Existence Itself. There is one, Undifferentiated, Indivisible Reality, or Self-Condition, Apparent divisibility is due to a polarizing fractioning of the Light. But that polarizing of the Light, in and of itself, does not change the Light, in of of Itself. It is an apparition, a refraction, a fractal, a spreading of patterned color, with other characteristics proposed by the senses. The Light is nevertheless a Current in the midst. The opposites are lined up on either side of that Current.

......for those who are awakened to the super-physics of all light, Truth, the very Reality, which is salvation or Happiness, is not itself Light or any light in the exclusive sense. Light itself is ultimately resolved in a Principle that includes and is prior to both light and darkness. The Truth of life is not the victory of light over darkness. The Truth of life is not its physics of manifestation, or any kind of experiential destiny. The Truth of life is Unqualified, prior to all distinctions. It is not realized via the way of the knowledge of lights, or in the objective Shine and Sound of ultimate Brightness. It is intuited via the Wound or Mystery of Paradox, the irreducible profundity of absolute Ignorance. One whose enjoyment is Truth is thus free of all complications, even all the changes that appear in the manifesting Light.

Such a one is eternally purified by the Realization that, no matter what arises, high or low, bright or dark, he does not know what even a single thing is.

The constitution's value is that it was written by people who had lived under the horrors of tyrannical government run amok.

Only fools would blanketly & incautiously discard that without a lot of careful consideration.

reply to post by EzraBuckley


Thanks Ezra. As a younger man I held nothing to be sacred. Beyond self-interest nothing seemed to hold importance for me but alas, time has mellowed me out and led me to find more in life.
Indeed, what is "Sacred"? Books? Papers? no. There is no "grand Creation" made by man that would qualify to me. Not Beethovens' 5th or the Mona Lisa.
Sacred as I understand it is life itself, yours, mine, every plant, animal, bug and bird. Life is the great mystery; why it came to be and what it is for. If you see each life as sacred the world takes on a new dimension, one filled with beauty and mystery, they very things mankind NEEDS but fails to recognize. Without it life is cheap, profane and utterly useless.
You don't see the sacred yet because you haven't looked inside yourself. You are so much more than a bunch of random molecules locked together that moves about and thinks itself alive. You are a part of that great mystery, the very essence of creation.
In one quiet moment you will realize the brotherhood you share with all living beings and there you will find the sacred. It is easily hidden beneath the layers of distraction, noise and internal dialogue.
I think Aldous Huxley said it best when he said that "if the doors of perception were cleansed we would see all things as they really are, infinite".

I take offense, to the OP's comments. I AM a "student of Mr. Jefferson, and spent 12 years, studying (sometime part-time), at his "Academical Village", in Charlottesville.
Mr. Jefferson, DID NOT APPROVE of slavery, and freed HIS slaves, upon his death. Like LINCOLN, and most others of "that time", he believed that a bi-racial society could NEVER work. Like LINCOLN, he approved of re-patriating the negros, back to Africa.
The U.S. Constitution, was a compromise- but STILL the finest document, establishing a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, ever to exist.
For the record- the publishing company, that just put an insulting disclaimer on our FOUNDING DOCUMENTS, is:
Wilder Publications, (540) 639-2217.
Board of Directers: John D. Kessler, Tiffany Kidder, & Warren Lapine.
Anyone, just feel free to give them a call, and let THEM know how YOU feel!! Have a wonderful GREAT COLLAPSE!