The Fallacy of a Return to the Constitution

Originally posted by capob
[SNIP]

I was interested in your back and forth with JPZ up until this point..... Your reply states that you don't like those who go against you so you must put them down and state they are "worthless". Classy....just classy.

reply to post by capob

[SNIP]

You just couldn't take my advice on taking a break and calming down a bit, could you. At least I think we've established you're probably not an attorney, or at least not a trial attorney. Could you imagine making such a remark to a jury? No plaintiff or defendant would benefit from such an argument

You are misrepresenting law and Constitutional principles. Like the ghost of Tom Joad, wherever there is some one abusing law or Constitution, I'll be there. Better get used to that.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Yes, often people are entertained by such back and forths, but such back and forths do not serve progress. I once had an argument online with a guy for 2 months. The argument had gone so far from it original point which was on nihilism that you could hardly tell the argument was ever about nihilism. He was forced to concede but would always bring up new points of contention until finally, at the end of two months, he had no more contention. I learned from that argument, it is so contrary to progress to argue with people fitting that guy's pattern that I will not.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by capob
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Yes, often people are entertained by such back and forths, but such back and forths do not serve progress. I once had an argument online with a guy for 2 months. The argument had gone so far from it original point which was on nihilism that you could hardly tell the argument was ever about nihilism. He was forced to concede but would always bring up new points of contention until finally, at the end of two months, he had no more contention. I learned from that argument, it is so contrary to progress to argue with people fitting that guy's pattern that I will not.

The back and forth had not strayed until you made your remark. Clearly JPZ has a different understanding than you do, but instead of discussing the issue, you imploded with the remarks you make.

If you are unwilling to argue and by design, discuss, than why post? To get praise? Pats on the back? To never be challenged in your thinking? I am confused at your presentation here given your answer and reason.

Post Script:

I am formulating a response to the OP and I hope you don't think I am honing in on responses only.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


What are you guys, brothers? The contention was on the idea that I was implying something I never intended to imply - at which point, this guy wants me to concede my ignorance of state constitutions having such and such directive. If you think that talking on that matter is conducive to progress, well, only bad conclusions can be drawn about you.

I would appreciate if you, too, no longer post on this thread.

reply to post by capob


There are some fine points made but I think you place too much trust into "interpretation" and not in the actual language used.

There is no doubt that politicians have skewed the language of the Constitution to fit their goals...and it dates back centuries. But the overall language was and still is clear, if we stop trying to place the words into a court of law and actually see what was being said.

When I state: "We need to revert back to Constitutional principles" it means just that. Limited Federal Government that has specific powered enumerated towards them. Each state than is free to draft their own Constitution in how they will operate as long as they do not infringe upon the basic blueprint of the Federal Constitution.

This isn't to say that the Federal Constitution isn't flawed, but it also doesn't state that it isn't. It wasn't meant to be a perfect contract

reply to post by ownbestenemy


These generalities, while arguably in the right direction, serve little use. Generalities such as:

"There is no doubt that politicians have skewed the language of the Constitution to fit their goals"
Then why are you stating this?

"This isn't to say that the Federal Constitution isn't flawed, but it also doesn't state that it isn't. It wasn't meant to be a perfect contract "

The design of having states as a sort of free market where people are capable of moving from one state to another as a sort of endorsement of one state over another is a fine idea, but insufficient. Again, my point of this original post was not to say the constitution is bad; the point isn't even just to say it's imperfect; the point is specifically to say the constitution is insufficient and if you want something that suffices you have to come up with it anew. And, the one dynamic of having a free market like state system is just one part in an engine, and might not even be needed in a better engine.

Please do not post any more.

reply to post by capob


There is no such thing as "free market like state system". The sate cannot impose a free market, only prevent one from happening. It is your use of language that is failing you. Phrases such as "free market state system" misunderstand both free markets and the state. Unless you mean "state" as being a condition or mode as in the state of a free market, you appear, by use of your language, to be suggesting that a "state" as in a political body is the arbiter of free markets. The problem with this is that the "state" - as in political body - can only deal with free markets in one of two ways: either by way of laissez faire (to let be) or by way of regulation, and the moment a state regulates a market it is no longer a free market.

Originally posted by capob
Please do not post any more.

You are quite the little tyrant aren't you? You didn't post to discuss your idea(s) -- you posted to decree your word as such and we just need to listen.

The design of having states as a sort of free market where people are capable of moving from one state to another as a sort of endorsement of one state over another is a fine idea, but insufficient. Again, my point of this original post was not to say the constitution is bad; the point isn't even just to say it's imperfect; the point is specifically to say the constitution is insufficient and if you want something that suffices you have to come up with it anew. And, the one dynamic of having a free market like state system is just one part in an engine, and might not even be needed in a better engine.

Admittedly I had a few adult beverages when I posted and I came off general, but the above is just as vague.

Where is the Constitution insufficient? And if the point is to specifically say it is, then why ask others to come up with something anew?

Should each state in the Union not have their own Constitutions and only rely upon a National one?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


"You are quite the little tyrant aren't you? You didn't post to discuss your idea(s) -- you posted to decree your word as such and we just need to listen. "

You are not adding to the thread, you are just trying to subtract an divert. And, even when you come up with ideas, as I said in the previous post, they are too general to be of any use and might as well not have been stated. This is why I don't want you posting here. If you had posted suggestions as to additions to my paper or corrects, or if you had posted ideas on your own dynamics to be included in a new constitution, I would encourage your posting, but you have shown your true character - as has your buddy - and I care none for it.

"Where is the Constitution insufficient?" Did you read the original post or were you too busy drinking your "adult beverages".

"And if the point is to specifically say it is, then why ask others to come up with something anew? " Are you serious? The very conclusion leads to the need to come up with it anew. I am not saying constitutions in general are insufficient - at least not here.

"Should each state in the Union not have their own Constitutions and only rely upon a National one? "
I am not saying states should not have their own constitutions and why would you even ask this question?

If I don't respond to your posts from now on, it is not that I can't or that your (ownbestenemy, Jean Paul Zodeaux) points are so valid as to stifle me, it is that I don't find responding worth my time. And if any moderators think this is too much of a calling out or decorum violation, why don't you read "Jean Paul Zodeaux" posts and see they are just more wordy attacks on me? In which case, I'd have you delete the whole lot of my and their posts altogether, as they add nothing to the thread

reply to post by capob


If "adding to the thread" requires simply agreeing with you that a "new Constitution" need be written, then I, for one, have no interest in "adding to thread" and my only interest lies in refutation. Since it is more than evident that governments don't even abide by the very constitutions that allow for their existence, it is beyond naive to believe that writing a new one will some how correct this problem. The Constitution is, after all, merely a piece of paper, and it either describes law and formation of government or it does not.

The Bill of Rights most certainly describes law, yet too often that law is broken by the very government tasked with upholding and defending it. Rewriting a Constitution will not damper the ambitions of politicians. No piece of paper will restrain the ambitious. That restraint must come from the very people who have ordained the Constitution.

reply to post by capob


Yes I did read the OP. I just find it interesting that people pressing you on issues or questioning your reasoning resulted in calls for posters to "go away" and to "stop posting". I could already see you in the presence of Socrates and watch you scurry away as he pressed you upon your reasoning and your demands for him to be silent!

There were points in your OP that I can concur with such as "...government can choose not to follow the Constitution" and "[e]ven if those in government were composed of all upstanding people who would do nothing contrary to the word of the Constitution, the words of the Constitution allow interpretation that can stray from the intent of the writers."

Those are fine points and will always be a manner of the Men that make up the Government. But the idea was that the People would be the unidentified "4th Branch" of Government; with the prospect of self-governance. As we can see, over time, self-governance has given away to once again having overlords.

Typically when people call for a return to Constitutional governance, it isn't to say that all will be right in the world; rather it states that the Federal Government has taken a gross miscalculation in believing (rightly so due to the lack of interest of self-governance of the People) that it has all the political power.

I do not follow your logic though when you state they are no limits upon the Federal Government within the Constitution. You even rightly stated that such amendments as the 10th are redundant and that Madison (the scribe of said amendment) saw it useless because no power was granted in the Constitution otherwise. He saw the document to be a negative law doctrine, in which that not stated within, has no power to begin with. The political power was never granted.

What we see now is a swing of the pendulum in that the document is a positive law doctrine, in which if nothing is stated, than it must mean the power is assumed. This is the path that politicians and power brokers have been pushing now for over a century.

Again, much of what you said I have no problem with and was taken aback by your resistance for others to join and seek questions and answers. Sadly you took the approach that others just don't get it and they should go away.

Originally posted by capob

I think you miss the point almost completely, but you do have some similar ideas to those I have had. See what you think about: persistencesociety.com...

Humm, you are trying to make the description to your thoughts on that kind of society too complex, and because of this you do not describe such a society in a concise manner.

You should try to get to the point instead of trying to find analogies, which to be honest make no sense.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by capob

I think you miss the point almost completely, but you do have some similar ideas to those I have had. See what you think about: persistencesociety.com...

Humm, you are trying to make the description to your thoughts on that kind of society too complex, and because of this you do not describe such a society in a concise manner.

You should try to get to the point instead of trying to find analogies, which to be honest make no sense.

"you are trying to make the description to your thoughts on that kind of society too complex"
No, I am trying to apply needed detail.

"You should try to get to the point instead of trying to find analogies, which to be honest make no sense."
Could you expand; which analogies make no sense?