The Glade 4.0

Stare decisis is a major flaw in constitutional law, IMO.

It has a fantastic purpose in other areas though.


The problem I see with it, is that the tradition of stare decisis comes from English Common Law, which was of course not built on a constitutional framework (small 'c' on purpose). In other words, it was an old model of decision making put onto a new model of government. Or what I like to call a "bad idea."

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

What makes you say that? What is your source for that knowledge?



I'm not making any appeals, nor have I made any statements. I'm asking clarifying questions. And I note that you haven't answered the second one. Do you feel you are better trained and educated on constitutional law than those who handle these issues as a part of their occupation?

No. No, it shouldn't.

Lenas:

What penalty should it carry? At what point do the in-office actions of elected officials become criminal? At what point does "removal from office" cease to be an acceptable punishment?

_________________

At what point do we actually make that the punishment? 'Cuz I'm looking forward to that day.

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

In case of treason, and treason only.

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

Diamondeye:

And where does granting diplomatic immunity to an international police organization with sanction to operate in the United States fall?

_________________

Prison, maybe. Death? Certainly not.

Lenas:

I get you advocate prison. I'm curious as to where the line is that makes something criminal. Traitors are another matter entirely.

_________________

I just don't think that someone should lose their life over what amounts to a betrayal of trust.

I think what Khross is trying to say is that what you're saying here is understood, but that he (and I and maybe others) want to know where it becomes a criminal offense in your mind, rather than what it is now of essentially "gee shucks, the politician broke their oath."

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

Not under treason, unless some direct connection between that international police force and an enemy could be shown.

It falls under "removal from office".

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

It pretty much fits the second two definitions of treason under a quick dictionary.com search...

Just FYI.

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

Ayn Rand was right about the merits (or lack there of) of campaigning as a means of education seeking political reform. This whole conversation is meaningless.

The truth of the matter is that our Constitution, as much as I have argued in favor of it, has been hopelessly usurped as the High Law of the land by Constitutional Law. We don't have rule of law, we have rule of lawyer, and since lawyers write the laws, they have insulated and protected themselves from it to the point that the document has become completely meaningless.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I don't argue that it's not a criminal offense - I argue with Elmo's sense of justice regarding it.

Maybe just a bit more studying would have revealed that immediately after the signing, the founders began debating what it said.



So what? Is there a standard, accepted set of rules for debate that makes appeals to authority invalid?



So what? Why can't you appeal to tradition? Was it been established somehow, as debating processes where developed over time, that it's unacceptable? Is this written somewhere?

Those are both logical fallacies. Using them, as such, proves no point.

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

As DFK! stated, logical fallacies are just clutter, they only serve to divert attention. They neither validate a point, nor do they invalidate it.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

The way you phrase your question puts the status of judges as experts for me to compare myself to. Thats an appeal to authority regardless if you realize it is.


I also consider being "trained" to be a negative in this area for several reasons. The training in law school does not encourage critical thinking, it encourages thinking within the flawed framework of our legal system which includes how to manipulate emotion and to rely on appeals to tradition as if they are sound. It teaches you to go by conflicting information and largely to ignore case law pre 20th century (even when such items have not been overturned). The training mostly consists of the "interpretationist" theory. Training for me as an originalist would be nothing more than indoctrination in the current group think.

Am I better educated on constitutional law than many of the judges? I believe so because they come to the wrong conclusions using spurious reasoning at best and ignoring several aspects of the law.

_________________
"...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

Treason is clearly defined as a crime in the Constitution, and in any case, dictionary definitions are not used when determing when a crime has been committed. The crim as defined in the law (in this case the Constitution) is.

The way you phrase your question puts the status of judges as experts for me to compare myself to. Thats an appeal to authority regardless if you realize it is.


I also consider being "trained" to be a negative in this area for several reasons. The training in law school does not encourage critical thinking, it encourages thinking within the flawed framework of our legal system which includes how to manipulate emotion and to rely on appeals to tradition as if they are sound. It teaches you to go by conflicting information and largely to ignore case law pre 20th century (even when such items have not been overturned). The training mostly consists of the "interpretationist" theory. Training for me as an originalist would be nothing more than indoctrination in the current group think.

Am I better educated on constitutional law than many of the judges? I believe so because they come to the wrong conclusions using spurious reasoning at best and ignoring several aspects of the law.




All you're really doing is appealing to your own authority instead of a judge's. You haven't said anything to establish the actual merits of your position. For example, you talk about a "flawed framework" but you do not establish why it is flawed. If you're trying to convince others, you should make some argument that they find convincing, not just one that works within your own assumptions.

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

I'm not trying to convince others atm. I am responding to questions.

_________________
"...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

While this is true, the fact that you aren't providing reasoning behind your answers means that basically I'm throwing the information in the garbage out of hand.

Like it or not, conventional wisdom does not agree with your assertations, so therefore the onus is on you to argue your point and convince others that yours are correct.

One would think that providing some convincing underlying reasoning would improve those answers.

One also wonders why you would answer questions without concern over whether others will find those answers convincing.

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

I think he'll have to provide a convincing argument to a jury of his peers frankly.

You asked what I thought and I told you.

I gave some examples of why I don't think your assumed premises are valid as well but I don't see you defending them, just harping because you don't like my answers.

I could have answered you: Yes I do.

Do you want to start defending some Supreme Court cases like Raich? How about Kelo? (the root of the monster and Wickard?)

_________________
"...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