The Glade 4.0

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/11/oba ... more-58210

With Help from the Muslim Brotherhood.



Trying to think of what a conservative example of this would be to explain it to some liberals. Hmmm it would be if ... oh hell no conservative group could get away with something this dumb.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

Something like, say, people advocating the murder of elected officials who don't uphold their interpretation of the powers of government?

You sly dog, you.

That but they would have to be calling upon the cleaninsing with say Canadian Neo Nazi's or a foreign corporation.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you find so hard to understand?

What part of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." is terribly confusing?

What part of "Law" addles your brain?

Does the meaning of "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government," escape you?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

What part of "killing someone for not doing their job" is okay to you?

Heh Farsky.

Just so we're clear, constitutional breaches are punishable by death in your view? (or at least the violent overthrow of the gov't)

I don't understand why people say "interpretation of powers of government". The Constitution isn't confusing, it's written in English; it doesn't need to be "interpreted".

As for breaches being punishable by death. At the very least, a removal from office to which elected is certainly appropriate. After all, that is why they were elected and if they aren't executing their office, why should they remain in office? Would you not be expected to be terminated for not doing your job or breaching a contract with a counter-party? Presumably, we're talking about Federal government, but States have their own consitutions as well. It is at the behest of each State to enforce its constitution however it sees fit per the Tenth Amendment.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Riiiiight.

That of course explains why centuries of political dicussion and legal experts have always exactly agreed on what the constitution means on everything.

That is a fallacy. Because the common atmosphere is one of confusion regarding the plain, English language of The Constitution (a matter which you seem to be cotentious on), does not mean that is confusing.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the case might be a large part of the population has preconceptions of what the role of our government ought to be and are conflating them with the words of The Constitution and thus, find that error must not be theirs, but that the language obviously has some more obfuscated and subtle meaning, read with the subtext of said preconceptions.

Let me anticipate your response, for your convience:

1)
2) Heh
3)

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

The Consitution does need a great deal of interpretation. It is very short, and its own clarity makes it vague when applied to specific situations.

What is "unreasonable" search and seizure? What is "cruel and unusual punishment"? There is not one right answer to such questions.

The idea that there is one, clear, right answer to Constitutional questions is simply a way of saying one's own view is necessarily right and all others are necessarily wrong.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It has nothing to do with one's own view. You want it to have something to do with personal views, because that is easier to argue and dismiss. Do you contend the words are malleable and mutable? How do you provide consistent basis by which law may be derived, applied or challenged? If the langauge needs a great deal of interpretation, then The Constitution may as well not exist, because you can interpret it to mean nothing or anything.

If it is supposedly the basis for all law, and the ultimate Law of the Land, then what use does it have?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

This is completely sily. It's a false dilemma of "if meanings are not set in absolute stone, then they can be anything anyone wants them to be".

It's very easy to have a consistent basis. When a question comes up, the courts decide it. That becomes precedent, and is used for all similar cases until and unless a better answer to the question is found.

I don't want it to have anything to do with personal views; it does have to do with personal views. People are always saying "it doesn't need interpretation, it clearly means X". Yeah, according to them, according to someone else it clearly means Y. Don't give me this crap about "malleable language"; if there were only one clear meaning we wouldn't have such debates.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think rafael is Proving Diamondeye's point by even debating the subject.

It's not a false dilemma. A false dilemma would be saying "If it doesn't mean what I think it means and what you think, then it can have no meaning." Perhaps a better way to word it, in the context of what you are saying, would be "anything we have our courts decide them to mean." I'm not sure what you define to be "consistent" but setting new precedent and then using it until yet newer precedent is found is not defined as "consistent" to me. Not whatsoever. You are ignoring the temporal context of the word and only focusing on the fact it is "consistently" applied until it is discarded. I'd argue, you're just taking an interpretation (not a necessarily "wrong" interpretation) of the word "consistent" and picking it such that you can declare the way The Constitution is adhered as being consistent.

Again, the dog does not wag the tail. It is pure induction and circular logic to say that "because meaning of The Constitution is debated over, it is evidence that the Constitution is not clear, because if it were, there would be no debate."

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Thought I would add to your question, so we were being accurate in our descriptions. Also, the biggovernment blog is proving itself to be less and less connected with reality with every post UF makes from there.

Calling for the arrest of people who have actually violated actual law is not what this blogger is making it out to be.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

MOST of the rules the court has made are consistant over the span of 50-100 years. What you're trying to claim is 'immutable' --however the intent of the constitution was NEVER that the laws and Constitution were immutable. That is why there is room for ammendments, why there is a judicial branch. It is fully expected that the zeitgeist would change and that the winds of change would require a revisting of the interpretation of the laws. The constitution is very specific in some places. (occasionally odd places, but for the most part they're targeted)

Congress shall make NO law....
Other times the language is deliberatly left open. What is Cruel and Unusual in one circumstance is not Cruel and Unusual in another.

You're arguing for a strict constructionist point of view, without really understanding that the construction was intentionally fluid in many cases.

No one is arguing that there are occasions that the interpretations have occasionally stretched the bounds of original intent and somtimes even creduility, however it would be disingenuous to claim they are 'inconsistant' -- what you mean to say is they are inconsistant in some key areas that are near and dear to you, simply because those issues ARE so contentious.

I'm not arguing for immutability of The Constitution. The Fifth Article clearly indicates it is not immutable. What I'm arguing for is immutability of the words written in The Constitution. The Constitution is prescriptive and specific in all places: where it speaks about the powers vested within Congress, The Office of The President, The Supreme Court and how these branches interact, the process of amendment, due rights of the states, the ratification of itself etc. it is very specific and prescriptive. Rather, the language to which you point is not part of the original construction of The Constitution - it was amended in after its ratification.

As for construction of The Constitution, the precipitous balance between the Powers of The State and the personal liberties of the individual have been understood and long predate The Constitution. The construction of The Constitution is clearly to preserve the rights of The States.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Code Pink is nothing more than a terrorist organization these days.

Not are - that would be a declaration of what currently exists. Willfully betraying the public trust for an elected or appointed governmental office should carry the sentence of death.

I've always thought that I have been very clear on this for some years now.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I believe that many of those who are arguing that the Constitution is not clear have never actually read the words of the Constitution in areas where it is considered unclear.

While the Constitution has room written into it to be flexible in some very limited areas (cruel and unusual for example is defined as subjective). The powers such as interstate trade and its explicit limitation in the 10th amendment have NO subjective areas written into them, yet the courts keep trying to say there is where there is no construction of the document in the definitions at the time of its writing which would allow such expansion. Are we to believe that all works of language should be understood in the context of what the words mean when they are read rather then when they were written? If so then Huck was never friends with nigger Jim, or Huck was black.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

If one considered it treasonous, then you could lawfully do so. Unfortunately, it isn't treasonous under the law.

Every American should consider that a possible necessity of life.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

So you're saying that you understand the complete context of 1787 and what all words meant? Further are you suggesting that you are more trained and learned in constitutional law than the judges that sit in our judicial system?

The parts of the Constitution that I have studied so far - I understand as clearly as if I had been in that hot building swearing for my point of view for months.

Appeal to authority.

Many judges are over-ruled themselves or make decisions based on their wants, desires, or political cravings. The Supreme Court itself is over-ruled so you cannot appeal to an authority which both takes numerous different positions, and takes conflicting positions.

Appeal to tradition. As constitutional law has been corrupted with case law history which the weak court defers to instead of correcting (see Thomas's dissent in Raich v Gonzales).

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville