Constitutional basic issue, for the right especially

[Craig234]

Republicans can’t change the constitution without a whole lot of non-Republicans agreeing to do so.

Not that many. Republicans have been getting close to enough states to call a constitutional convention.

38 States Call for Constitutional Convention

Can Red and Blue States Unite to Save Democracy? One news item receiving virtually no corporate media attention is that thirty-eight state legislatures have officially requested a constitutional …

stuartbramhall.wordpress.com

But my comments did not involve amending the constitution to remove democracy.

States have that power themselves for their state, and multiple states have passed measures allowing the legislatures to override elections and appoint electors for the election loser.

Any state that does so has ended democracy for that election in their state.

 

[US&THEM]

This is obviously wrong.

Even without the Constitution, there would still be an Army and police, or at least weapons and the will to use them. The Constitution is what limits the Army to foreign soil and requires the police to get warrants. Their power does not spring from the Constitution, but the limits do.


This is much closer. Every tinpot dictator has power within his realm, but legitimacy is much more difficult.


The power still exists in the form of naked force. Law is always backed by the potential application of force. High justice precedes low justice.


Thus, a social contract to shape and limit the threat and use of force. As diz pointed out, it gives the use of force legitimacy.

Oh Captain multi-quotes!!!
You realize the police and military are take an oath to support and defend the????? One guess

 

[Buckeyes85]

Oh Captain multi-quotes!!!
You realize the police and military are take an oath to support and defend the????? One guess

OOH, can I try?
Answer: the federal government?

 

[Jay59]

Oh Captain multi-quotes!!!
You realize the police and military are take an oath to support and defend the????? One guess

OOH, can I try? Answer: the federal government?

Both wrong. The stipulation is no Constitution, remember?

 

[US&THEM]

Both wrong. The stipulation is no Constitution, remember?

Yet they all take an oath to THE CONSTITUTION. By your theory they shouldn’t bother.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

And yet, who is deciding what inalienable rights there are? Oh look, it's the government.

Inalienable rights that pre-exsists any government. That's what inalienable means. Your still attempting to assign government to inalienable rights, but that's what good socialists try to do.

What would you prefer - a government that said it was 'granting' the right to free speech and observed the right, or a government that said it understood people naturally had a right to free speech, but it felt the need to violate it, and did so?

I think most people are more concerned with the practical issue than the theory about natural rights, not that they don't care about both.

Now your begging the question instead of supporting your assertion. Your either one or the other, when its nether.

As to your second choice, saying the government recognized natural rights to free speech, but felt the need to violate isn't how its suppose to go. Limiting speech isn't violating free speech, when it wasn't free speech to begin with, like slander for example. Which makes your either one or the other option invalid.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I would first marvel that progressives like to think they have become originalists and strict constructionists-- when the subject is abortion.

The right to have an abortion has been in the Constitution since the Bill of Rights was added to it in 1791. That fact has been confirmed by the SCOTUS.

 

[Jay59]

Yet they all take an oath to THE CONSTITUTION. By your theory they shouldn’t bother.

No Constitution.

Are you unfamiliar with hypotheticals?

The right to have an abortion has been in the Constitution since the Bill of Rights was added to it in 1791. That fact has been confirmed by the SCOTUS.

You're almost as silly as U&T.

 

[US&THEM]

No Constitution.

Are you unfamiliar with hypotheticals?


You're almost as silly as U&T.

I deal in reality and facts. Should have shown you only want to win your arguments.

 

[smallvoice]

Until 2021, when Republicans began to endorse overthrowing democracy.

Nonsense, but we have come to expect that kind of nonsense from you.

 

[Perotista]

You want to write a constitution for the United States. In it, you say that you want to give the federal government specific power, but to limit them to those powers, and powers they aren't given are retained by the people. You decide to list a few especially key rights, like free speech and the right to have guns, and just to make sure that rights that you didn't highlight aren't lost, you say any others are kept by the people.

Then a state or the federal legislature passes a law limiting a right of people that isn't listed in the constitution. How would you suggest that right be protected? How would you respond if a Supreme Court Justice said they were an "originalist", and if it wasn't listed, then he doesn't recognize it? You can answer both if the right in question is abortion, or another right.

Would you support saying that the right way to ban abortion would be to pass a constitutional amendment, as was done for alcohol, another right not given to the government?

What do you think you should do if your political interests conflict with the constitution?

Article I section 8 outlines exactly what congress or the federal can do or should I say must do, they have authority over that. Article I section 9 outlines what congress can't do no matter what. The question then is what about all that stuff that falls in-between what congress or the federal can do and what it can't do. Supposedly the 10th Amendment took care of that, but has been largely ignored when it comes to the federal government amassing more and more power.

Supposedly, all the stuff not defined in either section 8 or 9 is left for the states to decide or determine. One state could have it one way, another state another way or not at all if it isn't defined in either section 8 or 9. Then you have section 10 which specifies what the states can't do. There's no doubt in my mind the federal government does a lot of stuff, has the power never envisioned by the framers who wanted a small, limited power federal or central government.

 

[Craig234]

Inalienable rights that pre-exsists any government. That's what inalienable means.

And who says what those inalienable right are and who enforces them? What inalienable rights did native slaves have under Columbus? Slaves under the founding fathers? Roman citizens? Peasants under King Henry VIII? Russians under Stalin? Germans under Hitler? They're inalienable, it doesn't matter what the government says. You say.

 

[Craig234]

As to your second choice, saying the government recognized natural rights to free speech, but felt the need to violate isn't how its suppose to go. Limiting speech isn't violating free speech, when it wasn't free speech to begin with, like slander for example. Which makes your either one or the other option invalid.

You're not understanding the issue or arguments.

 

[LostInSeattle]

This is not quite right, because the power is always ultimately from potential violence. However, you seem to mean the social contract that the Constitution represents. That ability to adapt, through an internal process, is what set the US Constitution apart from comparable documents of the same era. Hence the term living document.

Where lies the potential violence behind a Constitutional Convention or Amendment? Those are entirely non-violent procedures, so far as I am aware.

I don't find the Constitution itself so much a social contract as the commitment to the ideal of the rule of law than undergirds the Constitution. Without that commitment, that shared agreement to abide the rules set for in the document, the Constitution is just a bunch of words on paper, just as without a faith in God the Bible is just a collection of stories. And there's no power that can force people to that commitment. You can force people to abide by the rules of the Constitution, but you can't force them to respect the rules. That's why the behavior of the current Republican Party is so worrisome.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

And who says what those inalienable right are and who enforces them? What inalienable rights did native slaves have under Columbus? Slaves under the founding fathers? Roman citizens? Peasants under King Henry VIII? Russians under Stalin? Germans under Hitler? They're inalienable, it doesn't matter what the government says. You say.

Typically the government under the people, at least under the U.S. Constitution. And if the government doesn't defend these unalienable rights, by the people themselves, by force if nessicary.

 

[Jay59]

I deal in reality and facts.

Should have shown you only want to win your arguments.

A worthy opponent would have value.

Where lies the potential violence behind a Constitutional Convention or Amendment? Those are entirely non-violent procedures, so far as I am aware.

It's in the power of the police to arrest you with the threat of lethal force. In fact, it's called the police power.

Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't find the Constitution itself so much a social contract as the commitment to the ideal of the rule of law than undergirds the Constitution. Without that commitment, that shared agreement to abide the rules set for in the document, the Constitution is just a bunch of words on paper, just as without a faith in God the Bible is just a collection of stories.

The concept of Social Contracts was discussed extensively during the Enlightenment, eg Rousseau. This is not intended to be that formal.

Rather it is an agreement between the states to form a federal government, ie almost literally a contract between elements of society. The writing was very practical, with considerable negotiation and compromise. The idealistic part was the Bill of Rights, which came after.

 

[US&THEM]

A worthy opponent would have value.


It's in the power of the police to arrest you with the threat of lethal force. In fact, it's called the police power.

Police power (United States constitutional law) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The concept of Social Contracts was discussed extensively during the Enlightenment, eg Rousseau. This is not intended to be that formal.

Rather it is an agreement between the states to form a federal government, ie almost literally a contract between elements of society. The writing was very practical, with considerable negotiation and compromise. The idealistic part was the Bill of Rights, which came after.

You are using Wiki for a source. Yea, even wiki states the Constitution gives powers to the police. Wow dude you mad?

 

[Craig234]

Typically the government under the people

So, the government says what they are, as essentially I said all along. Not surprised you didn't answer the examples.

 

[LostInSeattle]

It's in the power of the police to arrest you with the threat of lethal force. In fact, it's called the police power.

That's police power generally. We were talking about the act of changing the government, in the context of who has power and whether that power needs to be force. I said the People have the non-violent power to change the government through a Constitutional Convention, and that that is the greatest power. Police power, constitutionally wielded, is not greater than that.

The concept of Social Contracts was discussed extensively during the Enlightenment, eg Rousseau. This is not intended to be that formal.

Rather it is an agreement between the states to form a federal government, ie almost literally a contract between elements of society. The writing was very practical, with considerable negotiation and compromise. The idealistic part was the Bill of Rights, which came after.

All of which I understand and does not change what I wrote, namely that the real social contract is the willingness to abide by the rules, which is much less formal than the written Constitution and much more idealistic, and without which, little in the Constitution has practical value.

 

[Jay59]

That's police power generally. We were talking about the act of changing the government, in the context of who has power and whether that power needs to be force. I said the People have the non-violent power to change the government through a Constitutional Convention, and that that is the greatest power. Police power, constitutionally wielded, is not greater than that.

Pretty to say so, which is why things of this sort are said so often, but no. The power to destroy the planet is is greater than your greatest power.

That said, the integrated power to amend, coupled with the use of that power for the Bill of Rights, is what made this Constitution unique in history to that point. It's what gives life to the ink on paper.

All of which I understand and does not change what I wrote, namely that the real social contract is the willingness to abide by the rules, which is much less formal than the written Constitution and much more idealistic, and without which, little in the Constitution has practical value.

Here we agree. It's important to understand that this was written as a contract between states, not directly with the citizens. The several states needed a central government with the authority to mediate disputes and govern trade. It was their ability to abide by the rules which ultimately mattered most.

In due course, the federal government took center stage, but that was generations in the making.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Pretty to say so, which is why things of this sort are said so often, but no. The power to destroy the planet is is greater than your greatest power.

I hear what you're saying, that naked force overcomes all. But you're applying an irrelevant use of power to this context. I said police power, constitutionally wielded. Blowing up the world isn't power constitutionally wielded and has no application to changing the government.

That said, the integrated power to amend, coupled with the use of that power for the Bill of Rights, is what made this Constitution unique in history to that point. It's what gives life to the ink on paper.

Agreed.

Here we agree. It's important to understand that this was written as a contract between states, not directly with the citizens. The several states needed a central government with the authority to mediate disputes and govern trade. It was their ability to abide by the rules which ultimately mattered most.

States and The People are distinguishably separate entities in the language of the Constitution. States were indeed the vehicles through which the (at the time) popular will expressed itself in the creation of the Constitution. But the Constitution also gives creedence, collectively, to The People of the United States. The FF clearly envisioned a nation with a duality of construct: at times one country, united; at times, 50 "sovereign" States, collectively.

 

[Jay59]

I hear what you're saying, that naked force overcomes all. But you're applying an irrelevant use of power to this context. I said police power, constitutionally wielded. Blowing up the world isn't power constitutionally wielded and has no application to changing the government.

I am saying naked force underlies all. It's the foundation.

Agreed. States and The People are distinguishably separate entities in the language of the Constitution. States were indeed the vehicles through which the (at the time) popular will expressed itself in the creation of the Constitution. But the Constitution also gives creedence, collectively, to The People of the United States. The FF clearly envisioned a nation with a duality of construct: at times one country, united; at times, 50 "sovereign" States, collectively.

The people don't directly enter the picture until the Balli of Rights.

As to the duality, of course. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were nearly independent countries.

 

[LostInSeattle]

I am saying naked force underlies all. It's the foundation.

And I'm saying it's not in the United States.

The people don't directly enter the picture until the Balli of Rights.

Reread the preamble and Article 1.

 

[Jay59]

And I'm saying it's not in the United States.

I'm saying that is all of human civilization since the dawn of time. It's hardwired into our makeup, though we don't like to admit it.

Reread the preamble and Article 1.

That does not really change anything. No one likes to admit our propensity for violence is necessary, but even the preamble talks of common defense.

What particularly about Article 1 is important?

 

[Athanasius68]

The right to have an abortion has been in the Constitution since the Bill of Rights was added to it in 1791. That fact has been confirmed by the SCOTUS.

I am not aware of the word "abortion" in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution.

I think the reason why the OP, a noted progressive hereabouts, tried to make an "originalist" argument to defend abortion rights is because he or she recognizes that the "living Constitution" argument in favor of it being a constitutional right makes no sense.