Is the US constitution carved in stone?

[Harshaw]

Not quite a QED, because you haven't shown that the Constitution is necessary for society's betterment.

You didn't say "necessary," you said "logical." It certainly is logical. And the men who wrote it found it necessary, anyway.

But I don't accept your requirement that something be aimed toward the betterment of society in order to be "justified," because a) that in it of itself is is a value judgment which others may not agree to, and b) you do not get to decide what's "better" for society or what isn't. There is certainly NO objective "betterment of society." There's only what people think is better.

And you are one person, no more, no less, and your judgment doesn't prevail over everyone else's.

As it stands now, I think the Constitution in its current form hinders us in too many ways to count, and is thus not justified. Even so, the fact that society values the ends it serves doesn't mean that those ends are necessarily good for the society in which it lives.

Then you are doing exactly as I'm saying and declaring yourself the arbiter of what's justified. What gives you the authority to decide that what society thinks is better isn't actually better? Nothing, that's what. The society decides for itself, not you.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

You didn't say "necessary," you said "logical." It certainly is logical. And the men who wrote it found it necessary, anyway.

But I don't accept your requirement that something be aimed toward the betterment of society in order to be "justified," because a) that in it of itself is is a value judgment which others may not agree to, and b) you do not get to decide what's "better" for society or what isn't. There is certainly NO objective "betterment of society." There's only what people think is better.

And you are one person, no more, no less, and your judgment doesn't prevail over everyone else's.




Then you are doing exactly as I'm saying and declaring yourself the arbiter of what's justified. What gives you the authority to decide that what society thinks is better isn't actually better? Nothing, that's what. The society decides for itself, not you.

What is it exactly that's logical about putting a law in place if it isn't known to have a beneficial effect? There is none. There is not logical connection between thinking that no soup Thursday is a good thing, and it being a good thing. If you can't demonstrate the benefit, it isn't logical.

You're also right that the great unwashed decide what they think is beneficial, and that I myself have no innate power to make my view law. However, there is power in numbers, and if you can sway enough people, you can make the world in your own image.

I should also note that a society is composed of individuals, all of who have as much right as I to arbitrate reality. My view is as good as any other.

 

[Harshaw]

What is it exactly that's logical about putting a law in place if it isn't known to have a beneficial effect? There is none. There is not logical connection between thinking that no soup Thursday is a good thing, and it being a good thing. If you can't demonstrate the benefit, it isn't logical.

You keep saying "betterment of society" as though that's required by anything. It isn't. Logic certainly doesn't require it if it's not your aim. And there's nothing that requires it to BE society's aim. Nothing at all.

And no, you don't get to decide what's better for society, so any argument as to whether or not a law of justified based on your own personal preferences fails.

You're also right that the great unwashed decide what they think is beneficial, and that I myself have no innate power to make my view law. However, there is power in numbers, and if you can sway enough people, you can make the world in your own image.

And then put people in prison for "insurrection" if they start trying to sway others that your laws should be changed. We know. You're going to have to build a lot of prisons, methinks. Or maybe you'll just have them shot? Under your construct, I suppose that would be "justified" as well. It certainly would be logical for the betterment of your society, as you have defined it, to get rid of these "rabblerousers" and "insurrectionists" and people you "resent" as quickly, quietly, and efficiently as possible.

I should also note that a society is composed of individuals, all of who have as much right as I to atbitrate reality. My view is as good as any other.

Yeah, well, the difference is, under my notion of how things should be, I don't try to stop you from disagreeing with what I consider "justified." You, however . . .

 

[Ockham]

I agree with you that the majority often rules, with sometimes ridiculous results. Do you believe that if a majority of Americans were to vote to send homosexuals to death camps, that would be justification enough, or would there have to be a good reason in your eyes?

The good thing about majority rule is, most often, such extreme's are not part of the majority. When was the last homosexual death camp the majority of American's voted in favor of? There's your answer...

Actually, the closest we came was with Japanese Internment Camps... that wasn't majority rule that was by fiat via FDR. And you want more government control ... silly.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

You keep saying "betterment of society" as though that's required by anything. It isn't. Logic certainly doesn't require it if it's not your aim. And there's nothing that requires it to BE society's aim. Nothing at all.

And no, you don't get to decide what's better for society, so any argument as to whether or not a law of justified based on your own personal preferences fails.





And then put people in prison for "insurrection" if they start trying to sway others that your laws should be changed. We know. You're going to have to build a lot of prisons, methinks. Or maybe you'll just have them shot? Under your construct, I suppose that would be "justified" as well. It certainly would be logical for the betterment of your society, as you have defined it, to get rid of these "rabblerousers" and "insurrectionists" and people you "resent" as quickly, quietly, and efficiently as possible.




Yeah, well, the difference is, under my notion of how things should be, I don't try to stop you from disagreeing with what I consider "justified." You, however . . .

I do, yes, and in my view what is beneficial to the collective is up for debate and interpretation. Anyone's view can hold as much water as the next, because there aren't any objective standards or goals.

If you can convince people of your thinking, more power to you. I'll do my best as well, and we will see in the end who assumes the throne.

 

[Harshaw]

I do, yes, and in my view what is beneficial to the collective is up for debate and interpretation. Anyone's view can hold as much water as the next, because there aren't any objective standards or goals.

Then everything you've said today is completely, utterly, meaningless, because you just contradicted it all. But thank you for finally acknowledging it.

If you can convince people of your thinking, more power to you. I'll do my best as well, and we will see in the end who assumes the throne.

Take a look around you; you've already lost. And thus, by your own definition, you're in insurrection.

Fortunately for you, mere disagreement with the way things are isn't my, or this society's, definition of insurrection.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Then everything you've said today is completely, utterly, meaningless, because you just contradicted it all. But thank you for finally acknowledging it.




Take a look around you; you've already lost. And thus, by your own definition, you're in insurrection.

Fortunately for you, mere disagreement with the way things are isn't my, or this society's, definition of insurrection.

I've contradicted nothing. I haven't made any claims to be the arbiter of reality, only given you the interpretation of my subjectivity. There may be no scientific measurement to claim my view as superior, but I think by any subjective yardstick that measures what makes societies great, mine prevails.

And no, the majority opinion has nothing to do with whether I'm in a state of treason or not, I won't tell you again. Majority opinion won't help you.

 

[Harshaw]

I've contradicted nothing. I haven't made any claims to be the arbiter of reality, only given you the interpretation of my subjectivity.

You've made plenty of proclamations as to what's objectively "logical" and said that your definition of "justified" is the only one possible. Try, at least, to remember what you say from post to post.

There may be no scientific measurement to claim my view as superior

Oh, there assuredly isn't.

but I think by any subjective yardstick that measures what makes societies great, mine prevails.

Hmmm.

How about a society being great when its people can disagree with its laws, even its long-settled laws, without being silenced as "rabblerousers" and in "insurrection"? Oh, whoops. Dangit.

And no, the majority opinion has nothing to do with whether I'm in a state of treason or not, I won't tell you again. Majority opinion won't help you.

Funny, you thought it was going to help you here:

If you can convince people of your thinking, more power to you. I'll do my best as well, and we will see in the end who assumes the throne.

Now, I seriously have to ask -- how old are you?

 

[Patria Antiqua]

You've made plenty of proclamations as to what's objectively "logical" and said that your definition of "justified" is the only one possible. Try, at least, to remember what you say from post to post.




Oh, there assuredly isn't.




Hmmm.

How about a society being great when its people can disagree with its laws, even its long-settled laws, without being silenced as "rabblerousers" and in "insurrection"? Oh, whoops. Dangit.




Funny, you thought it was going to help you here:




Now, I seriously have to ask -- how old are you?

I haven't said a bleeding thing about absolute logic, only about what makes sense within parameters.

What is of benefit to the society is up to interpretation, but once that ideology is laid out, it's pretty clear what works towards that goal.

 

[Harshaw]

I haven't said a bleeding thing about absolute logic, only about what makes sense within parameters.

You keep declaring what's a "logical" law and what isn't.

What is of benefit to the society is up to interpretation, but once that ideology is laid out, it's pretty clear what works towards that goal.

Yes, and the ideology for THIS society has been laid out, and the Constitution clearly works toward it. Thus, it's justified, thus . . . you lose.

With that, I have no more time to waste on you.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

You keep declaring what's a "logical" law and what isn't.




Yes, and the ideology for THIS society has been laid out, and the Constitution clearly works toward it. Thus, it's justified, thus . . . you lose.

With that, I have no more time to waste on you.

I keep offering my opinion on what's logical, there's a difference.

And who's to say that the ideology has been laid out, and that the constitution clearly works toward. I don't see that the Constitution works toward either my ideology or the ideology of the modern American majority.

 

[Goobieman]

Could you quote where I set the parameter that it "may" have potential, as opposed to "needs" to? As far as I know, I've been rather clear that the benefit must be explained and demonstrated.

Sigh...

The part you seem to want to not address is that your argument, based entirely on subjectivity, is not sound, and as such, meaningless.

But, to contune to play your game...
Your standard is that it "improves society" or "serves for the betterment of society", with "improvement" and "betterment" left as a subjective defintion determined by the person making the argument.

The constitution improves society because it creates a governemt that leads a more perfect union. This benefits society because said more perfect union has justice, domestic tranquility, an effective common defense, and a framework for the promotion of the general welfare. As such, the Constitution is justified.

And thus, acccording to your your standard, in your oppositon to the Constitution, you are an insurrectionist.

 

[Goobieman]

What is it exactly that's logical about putting a law in place if it isn't known to have a beneficial effect? There is none.

This is absolutely false. A law may be completely based on absolutely sound reasoning and have no benefit to society whatsoever. There is abolutely no necessary relationship betwween sound reasoning and benefit to society.

And so, yet again, your argument is demonstrated unsound.

 

[Winston Smith]

I keep offering my opinion on what's logical, there's a difference.

And who's to say that the ideology has been laid out, and that the constitution clearly works toward. I don't see that the Constitution works toward either my ideology or the ideology of the modern American majority.

What is it that you don't like about it? What would you change?

 

[Patria Antiqua]

This is absolutely false. A law may be completely based on absolutely sound reasoning and have no benefit to society whatsoever. There is abolutely no necessary relationship betwween sound reasoning and benefit to society.

And so, yet again, your argument is demonstrated unsound.

But there is. If there's no benefit to society, there's no sound reasoning in enacting it. If there's no benefit, there's no reason to enact the law, and one would be unjustified in doing so.

Sigh...

The part you seem to want to not address is that your argument, based entirely on subjectivity, is not sound, and as such, meaningless.

But, to contune to play your game...
Your standard is that it "improves society" or "serves for the betterment of society", with "improvement" and "betterment" left as a subjective defintion determined by the person making the argument.

The constitution improves society because it creates a governemt that leads a more perfect union. This benefits society because said more perfect union has justice, domestic tranquility, an effective common defense, and a framework for the promotion of the general welfare. As such, the Constitution is justified.

And thus, acccording to your your standard, in your oppositon to the Constitution, you are an insurrectionist.

If the Constitution actually did any of the things you allege, perhaps. Of course, nobody could possibly prove that it does. You can believe it does if you like, but I someone don't see that as an objective view that one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

That fact you keep trying is cute, but you should now know that when you have to keep blindly asserting the same things over and over, it's time to quit.

"Blah blah subjective hurr durr" gets old rather quickly. It's hard to blame me for being subjective when I've been asked for my personal opinion, and in territory where this is no such thing as objectivity. Whether or not God in Heaven can come out of the clouds and affirm my view as absolute truth is worse than irrelevant.

-----------

Oh, and Winston, the Constitution has too much religious freedom and state autonomy for my tastes, just for starters.

 

[Winston Smith]

Oh, and Winston, the Constitution has too much religious freedom and state autonomy for my tastes, just for starters.

As contentious and personal a matter as religion is, do you think it would be a good idea to make it a subject of legislation?

 

[hazlnut]

Most Reps and conservatives in general beleive that the constituion is carved in stone and cant be changed/ interperated.

I beleive that the constitution is a living constitution as can be reinterpreted by every generation. Otherwise issues like slavery and the emanipation of women would have to reflect the status of 1789.

The constitution can be seen as a road map, and when questions arise ie social security and HC that were unknown to the founding fathers , then we cant look for answers in such an old piece of paper.

It depends on the issue.

With gun rights, they tend to see the 2nd amendment through a keyhole and argue any pragmatic gun regs.

 

[tlmorg02]

The foundation and framework are indeed stone, the decor is what may change.

 

[Goobieman]

But there is. If there's no benefit to society, there's no sound reasoning in enacting it. If there's no benefit, there's no reason to enact the law, and one would be unjustified in doing so.

You repeating your absolutely false claim does not change the fact that it is absolutely false - there is absolutely -no- necessary relationship betwween sound reasoning and benefit to society.

You should now know that when you have to keep blindly asserting the same things over and over, it's time to quit.

If the Constitution actually did any of the things you allege, perhaps.

It does. Without question.
And thus, acccording to your your standard, in your oppositon to the Constitution, you are an insurrectionist.

 

[Goobieman]

It depends on the issue.

With gun rights, they tend to see the 2nd amendment through a keyhole and argue any pragmatic gun regs.

No... just the ones that infringe on the right to arms.
Liberlals, OTOH, tend to ignore the 2nd amendment and argue for all kinds of infringements.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

You can interpret words that are carved in stone too, so I would say no. They're every bit as legible as words written on paper.

 

[qwertyuiop]

The reason the ability to amend exists it is because it isn't carved in stone.

 

[jamesrage]

The reason the ability to amend exists it is because it isn't carved in stone.

The OP is arguing that the constitution can be changed through reinterpretation, not an amendment process. I do not think any conservative is saying the constitution can not be amended.

 

[qwertyuiop]

The OP is arguing that the constitution can be changed through reinterpretation, not an amendment process. I do not think any conservative is saying the constitution can not be amended.

Yes it can. For example, Freedom of Speech was originally thought not to apply to wartime and to "seditious speech." Now, what with Tea Partiers absurdly claiming that Obama creates "Death Panels and equally absurd claims of Bush being Hitlers reincarnation (though Dick Cheney may very well be ), the part about "seditious speech" is clearly untrue. And with fair amounts of people protesting wars, the other part is equally false. I'm pretty sure no one would disagree with allowing protests and speech against the government (In this forum anyway), so yes the constitution can be reinterpreted.

 

[GPS_Flex]

If the constitution was judged in today's court as a legal contract, it would be denied. Too many incomplete statements, no actual terms, times, dates, and other specifics. Terms like "We find these truths self-evident," has no legal meaning.

ricksfolly

"We find these truths to be self-evident" is from the Declaration of Independence, and I think it is actually "We hold these truths..."