Of late I have kept myself quite occupied and have allowed
myself only an occasional look in to read the comments posted here. As par usual they tend to be the same rehash
without any real discussion about the root cause of anything but in http://mwamericanpolitics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/a-milepost-nothing-lasts-forever.html I did ask Max a question and in respect of
the fact that he gave me an honest answer, I owe him no less than a reply. The subject matter also speaks to various
comments in more recent threads, so like a good congressperson I will create an
‘omni’ post to cover it all.
The original post speaks of a change in demographics that are relegating
‘right wing’ commentators such as Rush Limbach to history… Yes, opinions change… how that change comes
about is important. Is the changed
driven by the desire of one group to bury the ideas of another or are the ideas,
as presented, so flawed that people reject them out of hand? The subject of this thread comes from Max’s
response to me in which he states:
“It's not a matter of what I personally think needs to change. Rather,
it's a matter that I believe any large group of individuals have the right
to decide what is important to them. “
When I read it, frankly I was taken back. I thought about it for a few
days but then reengaged with my other endeavours but could not shake the
comment. This is not a statement of the
Max I have come to know… or perhaps the statement is a reflection of a bias
that resides in each of us and within likeminded groups of individuals; A bias of
greed and self-interest that we must learn to isolate away from our government
because a legitimate government must operate impartially and most
importantly, from a base of rock solid principles on which laws are built. ‘Any
large group of people’ usurps that function, unless the group is large enough
to amend the foundation, for which there is an agreed upon adequate provision
in Article V. Change to fundamental law
which, because of its importance must be considerably harder to amend than a
mere 50.1% of a population or in the case of a fragmented set of opinions… a
mere plurality.
Growing up I listened to the cases made by many groups on
civil rights, abortion, gay’s, women’s rights, etc. Their points made a lot of sense to me. They clearly objected to various laws based
in unconstitutional principle and imposed by a populous power structure. These groups, though small, skilfully,
rightfully and vocally used the constitutional foundation of this country to
show the unjustifiable premise of Jim Crow… of sodomy laws… and state
prohibition of abortion. Had they not
had that avenue to argue (the
constitutionality of), likely, many of these laws would still stand today. They rightly pointed out the hazards of the
‘tyranny of the majority’. Of course I
also listened to the US government lecture Russia on a country’s right to
self-determination and national sovereignty.
Hypocrisy large and small it would seem.
I suppose the foundations of my libertarian beliefs can be
found in all of these arguments, but as history has shown while these groups
used the constitution and not the power of any superior numbers to slice and
dice unfounded standing law, the remedies they sought were not to resend bad
law but to push law, just as unconstitutionally in the other direction… their
direction… and at the same time impose a gag order on those who opposed them.
While government mandated segregation had no foundation in
the constitution, neither does mandated integration… except of course within
the government itself. The reason we
have continuing race problems today, IMHO, is a federal government that lead
by example and never adhered to the constitution it is bound to and
created by… to the point that the armed forces weren’t integrated until the
1950’s, the postal service and many other government agencies had segregated
departments even though the federal government ordained itself ‘colorblind’
some 100 years earlier and all state and local government a short time later. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) promoted redlining as a way to
protect property prices (as if that is a somehow a function of the federal
government)… before abruptly becoming self-righteous and outlawing people’s
ability to pick and choose who they sold their own private property to... Which
goes to the most egregious incursion into individual rights… some people just
don’t want to associate with others, be it in their business or their
community. By me, that’s alright… businesses
will either succeed or fail based on their model and communities will wither
and die or flourish… none of the feds business and all part of the pursuit of
happiness. Had we not had forced
integration, doubtless to say Ferguson would have grown up with a police force
that reflected the majority black population it serves and sympathetic to its people?
Interestingly, the methods for creating law and societal
direction that you espouse (the right of large groups) is the same deviation
from the constitution and identical process that created Jim Crow laws with the
aid of a judiciary that looked to congress and precedent for guidance rather
than the constitution; the same exact thing that these small groups argued
against not a half a century ago.
Of course we no longer hear about the right to
self-determination as we send our military anywhere and everywhere, invited or
not, nor do we hear about the constitution, as both are now an inconvenient
obstacle to movements (right and left) that seems more interested in
self-indulgent and immediate gratification than a solid society, the future of
our country or the burdens and restrictions today’s decisions places on our
children. We do seem to hear a rise of
antagonized voice about certain religions… whites (Particularly men) and the
Jewish people among others… the new niggers of a changing majority? After all, it seems from your words that,
without a strong foundation of and adherence to a fundamental law, it takes
only a likeminded plurality to make it so.
The truly interesting thing here is the arguments that are
raised in objection to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that force
integration and remove a person’s right of free association. Within your own words a lesser message is
that an individual should have the right to decide what is important to
themselves as long as it does not breach the freedom of others to do the same,
yet anyone who speaks negatively about those provisions is a racist, a bigot… a
hater.
You speak of ‘any large group of individuals’…. For many years no one really cared about gays,
homosexual, queers, or fags as they were known…(most liberals don’t care about
them now except for the votes they drum up).
My only focus on the issue was the appalling way gays were treated
(physical violence and legal isolation) because of what they did in privacy of
their own homes. The majority had an opinion and it was that very opinion that
made the state the arbiter of sexual rights and wrongs… and the dictator of
social conscious. I found the laws
which made private consensual activity a crime appalling and was ashamed of a
legal system that refused to enforce the laws against violence and intimidation
which every citizen is entitled to.
What we got however was hate laws and political correctness that stifle
opinion… opinion that may in the long run prove correct and laws that force people
to hire, work with and service people with whom they passionately disagree…
even if population of those who disagree is still of formidable size and was certainly
much larger when the 1964 Civil rights Act was passed.
It’s like the marriage debate… there really is no debate if
you look to the constitution. Either the
state makes itself available to each and every citizen to set up mutually
agreeable associations or it doesn’t… period.
Society however shouldn’t be stifled in objecting to … or supporting
gays in their communities… but they are. Churches shouldn’t be forced to
administer its rites to people who do not abide by the rules of its
organization… but increasingly the force of the state is being used to strong-arm
a rather large group into conformity into another groups’ idea of righteousness…
and the other group is by most measures a smaller one.
There is debate about the role of judicial deference
in these discussions; a subject that goes back to Marshall. Jefferson certainly didn’t find Marshall to be
a friend of that deference and Madison argued to Congress that amending the
Constitution to include a Bill of Rights would prompt the judiciary to serve as
“the guardians of those rights.” In fact, Madison wrote, the judiciary “will be
an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or
executive.” I would not call that a roaring endorsement for or defence of
judicial deference.
Of course libertarians and certain Tea Party types face an
uphill battle within the republican party and indeed with the conscience of conservatives
themselves who are firmly entrenched in the idea, like liberals, that majority rule whether based on a religious conviction or a secular utilitarian dogma, regardless of its
particular merits should push society to change.. many times just in the name
of change without regard for concequence, without respect for future generations.
See… you either believe in the rule of law… real law based
on a solid foundation that requires more than a whiff of populism to change… or
you believe in the very thing you supposidly oppose… survival of the fittest… the
rule of the biggest mob.
What I find odd in the argument is the very people, from the
president, to academia who have worked tirelessly to instil their version of
society rather than educating our children to think and reason for themselves,
down to the minions who follow the call of these piedpipers; the very people
who not 50 years ago who the very same documents to argue their cause are now
calling those who point out the need to abide by the constitution… 'Extremists'…
To use the words of a regular patron here: “I saw what you
did there...”
TS, a very thoughtful piece. As I am reading this literally just before I leave for work, it will likely be a few days until I get to providing a solid response. In brief, the general flow of your thoughts here remind me of why I got so hooked reading Rand and others in my early 20's. It is near impossible to argue against the philosophical underpinnings of the constitution, or Aristotle or other philosophers. The problem, as I continue to see it, is that people in real life generally do not live in such a manner that every last action they take is rational. Real life is kind of messy. but, that's about all I can say for now.
ReplyDeleteMax has written a good response as a shot gun reaction to the post by TS. Perhaps this will be the most pertinent response TS receives but yet he deserves so much more. I too, having just finished breakfast and read the post as your country is sleeping, will make a shotgun response with the proviso that I can reconsider and amend my post later if the debate develops!.
ReplyDeleteTS has touched upon almost all the nerve centers, both original and amended by time to push the idea that change is necessary but he gives us no firm guide as to the way change should occur. Of course change is necessary, it is obvious in both your nation and mine that by trying to live the present within the constraints and mores of the past is anti progress at best and a recipe for self destruction at worst
.
It seems to me that if you genuinely desire change then the very roots of your nation need reinvigorating, as for that matter does the roots of mine. I cannot of course tell you what changes are needed to your constitution, I cannot say with certainty that the majority of Americans would agree to drastic changes. But I can say, after looking at America from afar for many years that change is necessary.
Some of the obvious changes, at least obvious to any but Americans, is the need to rely not on the revolutionary mindset of 1776 but to consider the needs of a modern, secure and wealthy America of today. The few amendments ratified by the States to date are surely a poor reflection of a nation’s ability to respond to change. To retain some of the anachronistic provisions which pander to revolutionary idealism rather than practical necessity seems to me to be foolish in the extreme.
The changes America needs, in fact must have, cannot be obtained until the root cause of the need for such changes is identified and repaired.
These few points are so obvious to a foreigner but I fear they will meet with derision in your country. Never mind, William I am sure together with TS will use me as a coconut stall as they fire their responses using the flintlocks, fowling pieces and black powder weapons so loved by the participants in the constant reenactments of battles long past!
For those prepared to search, there is ample evidence in the Federalist Papers that at least some of the founders were prepared to consider changes to your nation in the period they were no longer there to enact such changes.
Cheers from Aussie.
Meat and potatoe's. Thank you TheScott. Lot's to think about. A common thread within your comments, within the Constitution. Less is more, simplicity of the law, consistancy of time honored truths.
ReplyDeleteToday's society has broken down into so many derivatives, so many special interests, that what you are talking about is no longer at the edge of the forest but buried deep within.
Thanks for the substantial effort. Lot's to think about.
TS, I have read and re read your essay several times. You make a solid case for your beliefs and yet, I keep having the same thought in my head that the society of America has always lived in contrast to rather than in accord with the constitution. In the middle, you use the example of race and Jim Crow laws. The premise that it was the government who caused problems in society by allowing discrimination within its institutions seems flawed to me because I simply do not believe that the private sector was some bastion of tolerance and acceptance while it was the government who was demanding that society think otherwise. Rather, I think that the government and it's institutions reflected the society it operated within.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that individuals used the constitution as a philosophically pure foundation to overturn Jim Crow laws, it took basically 100 years after the civil war for the country to pull its collective head out of its ass. In honesty, you would find I have more agreement than not that hate crime laws do nothing to change the thinking and feeling of those who fundamentally hate people of color or gay people. They are flawed laws. Still, I see them as a societal response, call it the tyranny of the majority if you will, to say to the recalcitrant minority that they are free to think and feel whatever they want, but that there are limits to open discrimination. It's not "fair" and in reality it's EXTRAconstitutional and undeniably, it's not philosophically sound. However, it is also not, IMO, the response of an irrational crowd with torches, at least, not when you consider context that there always was and always will be a clash between what people say they believe and how they act towards others.
I believe we all do have inalienable rights, and yet, as a society we have always denied the rights of some group, be it black people, gay people, women and so on. This does not even begin to address what we do to others through our military in name of protecting our interests. I don't like it, but it's reality that we have always done this, and we always will and we do so in the name of self interest. I've said hundreds of times that the founding fathers created a perfect statement of philosophy that all men are created equal despite the fact they openly accepted that in practice, rather than principle, we are not remotely created equal. Further, those with more ability, more wealth, more standing and so on, really shouldn't have to answer to those with less. This isn't a problem of the constitution, it is a problem of society.
And that's basically the problem with my liberal thinking. I value the right of the individual when it suits me, and I value the integrity of society over the individual when it suits me. There is no society without the individual, however, I would also argue the other way and say there really are no rights of an individual without a society to protect them. admittedly, many laws passed with good intention are simply taken advantage of by those who don't want to work, because that is human nature. That's long enough and I would just keep making the circular argument. I understand your point TS, but I nonetheless still can't find a way to square the reality that this nation has always lived in contrast to the very document we claim is the foundation of everything we believe.
King
ReplyDeleteYour single minded focus on the second amendment in every discussion is tiring. While you might call support for the amendment anachronistic, the best that would happen with its abolition would be the saving of some lives which, while not being a bad thing, hardly sets a new direction in American problem solving (unless you consider a large percentage of the population mentally and emotionally subordinating themselves to an ever more aggressive police state as progress).
The one thing I find maddening about your responses is your vagueness. You propose no solutions, ostensibly because “Its not your place” but you certainly aren’t shy about blathering on about the second amendment. Who knows, sharing a few of your thoughts might make some sense and start a movement.
You admonish me for showing the root cause of many other the problems in the US without giving solutions. I would suggest that you have been so mentally distracted by the second amendment issue that you fail read anything else. Do you have any understanding of the Libertarian point of view? I would say, whether they agree with me or not, Max and Pfunky probably have the clearest understanding of my positions on people’s interactions with their government and with each other and, as I have been reminded on several occasions, I’m not generally lost for words in describing my opinions and seldom are they about the 2nd amendment.
I find your use of the word ‘modern’ as absurd as a roman senator proclaiming the Roman Empire to be eternal in the sunshine years previous to the Huns and then the Ottomans. Greece gave the world language, typography, philosophy, architecture, history, science, geography, astronomy, art, and of course a clear understanding of the perils of direct democracy. What have we done with that knowledge but learned how to put an internet connection in a refrigerator. What makes your ‘modern’ society of today any more secure than the wealth and for reasons not unlike present day America, the eventual failure of the Roman Empire?
You continually point out the positions that can be found within the federalist camp. Generally those that support whatever it is you are arguing. You are however correct in identifying the spectrum that existed(s). There were federalist who believed in a limited federal that dealt with affairs of state, foreign policy and national defence all the way to those who still had great affinity with the English government but knowing the antagonism of the colonists obligingly agreed to a name change from Parliament and King to Congress and President. You regularly fail, however to mention the anti-federalist who’s spectrum of views aligned with that of the federalist in a limited federal that dealt with affairs of state, foreign policy and national defence all the way to those who wanted no unifying national government at all. It would seem that all of the good sound reasons America fled the aristocracy of Europe has come full circle… where the centrists are now the extremists and the supporters of kings and over controlling government are somehow … in vogue. Perhaps power corrupts and absolute power corrupts completely… (I’m sure cradle to grave programs supported by massive Robin Hood programs don’t hurt either)
Yes there were early visionaries who saw blacks as something other than chattel but every generation it would seem has people who seem have only their own ears as audience… everyone else just calls them crazy… or conspiracy theorists.
Scott
TS. I shall refer in this post only to your post of March 24, 2015 at 1:05 PM which does appear to be addressed directly to me as a response to my original post.
DeleteFirst up I apologize for getting up your nose, it has never been my intent to do so. Perhaps there is a language or comprehension difficulty because even after doing a pars analysis on my post I find absolutely no reference to the second amendment ,my views on which you appear to have taken considerable exception.
I do admit to having a healthy dislike to the second but to delete or amend the constitution for the protection of your citizens would not be effective if you simply fix the second. To expand slightly on this point I would question your interpretation of the purpose of the Constitution and the analogy with Rome. Historically a constitution is a document which sets out limits of central government , as well as rights and OBLIGATIONS of the citizens. It is not as you suggest a document for the people to hold over the head of the government but rather a document for the guidance of both. It is this basic concept, tied to the revolutionary history of the US which is creating so many problems.
If we can agree that the Constitution is for GUIDENCE then it is but a short step to the consideration of changes to meet modern conditions of both the nation and the people. It has been my contention all along that blind obedience and may I say, veneration of a document produced and written in stone two centuries ago is a bit self defeating. It is this concept of venerating the past but ignoring the future that appears to have us batting for different sides ( this is not a reference to the gay and lesbian argument which I prefer to ignore) As to your comparison with Rome, perhaps it would be well to remember that Caligula tried to have his horse incitatus made a Consul .I think of Jeb Bush as the gelding following his ancestor
and sibling,two stallions into the gold plated stable of the white house.
Now this may well be something new for you, as it is for me, but you bring up Roe V Wade. I wonder if examination of this case together with the ruling of the Supreme Court would prove the value of the constitution or would it demonstrate the fallibility of the document in the present age?. Most I think would come down to support or opposition to the ruling on grounds of either their sex or religious beliefs. The court appears to have based its ruling on their understanding and interpretation of the constitution. My contention, and I apologize for any offence caused, is that it is not the place of the Court with its narrow and legalistic interpretation but the WOMAN concerned. Pray tell, how can a document written before the invention of even antisepsis determine the right of a citizen to make such a decision?. I submit it is the woman’s right to choose and the lawyers and god botherers should butt out. What a pity the constitution does not prevent such interference .
I shall nor respond to the two post following the reference; I simply cannot see their relevance but then others may well do so and the debate will either develop or wither on the vine.
In conclusion, as you appear determined to accuse me of being fixated on the second, I leave you with a quote from an apparently well known actor who was paid by the NRA as a mouth piece “From my cold dead hand”. enough said perhaps.
Cheers from Aussie
King,
DeleteFirst of all, yes we do seem to have some precepts and definitions that are in conflict. Those, I will attempt to clear. It will either bring us to a new understanding and agreement with certain principles or we will, with clarity, respectfully agree to disagree.
Three points:
The word Guidance actually has two accepted meanings that appear to be universal within British, American and Canadian usage both present and past. 1. The act of guiding or showing the way or giving advice 2. The act of setting and holding a course. The example given for this second definition is interesting given the subject matter: "a new council was installed under the guidance of the king" I think that the king didn’t ask for the council to be set up nor do I believe the guidance given, was a request.
A constitution can and is most anything the participants say it is… So for the purposes of my discussions with regards to the US and it governance I will refer to the words agreed upon by the parties and not the platitudes of “Historically a constitution is a document which…”
This hopefully would be fodder for your suggestions as to what you think our ‘modern’ constitution should look like.
Third and most pertinent:
Article VI, section 2 of the U. S. Constitution reads: "THIS CONSTITUTION, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." (Emphasis mine)
There is nothing, wishy-washy, equivocal or ambiguous in that statement making the US Constitution anything other than the sole base for US Federal law. “WHICH SHALL be made in pursuance thereof” is not a request. The 14th amendment later brought state constitutions and laws in line with federal civil rights law. Previously states operated far away from precepts contained in the US constitution.
Having stated my belief that the US Constitution is the base from which all laws are derived, then I must also point to that document with respect to citizen responsibilities in which I can only seem to find a couple. One is of course the implied responsibility to defend the country via the second amendment and a direct responsibility imposed by Article 1 Sec 8 and another backhanded responsibility is to house soldiers during a time of conflict. The preamble gives us some general indications of our responsibility as citizens but no court has used the preamble as the basis of a legal decision thus far.
Of course there are implied responsibilities which require us to obey properly ordained laws and the officials that administer and enforce them but do take note that I said ‘properly ordained’.
Continued>>>>
Interestedly I went to a web site for new citizens and they list these as responsibilities.
Delete• Support and defend the Constitution
• Serve the country when required
• Participate in the democratic process
• Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws
• Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others
• Participate in your local community
Their seem to be some pretty flowery ones here, like participate in the democratic process… One could say that I am doing that at the present moment… at least as these discussions impact other US citizens. ‘Support and defend the constitution’ seems to be a mere platitude in today’s atmosphere where laws are created in direct contradiction to the constitution and anyone who points this out… is somehow a subversive or a terrorist .
Of course when law and constitution do not match and the constitution is considered the supreme law of the land, ‘Respect and obey federal, state and local laws’ kind of sets up a conflict of interest wouldn’t you say?
I like the last one… the government through regulation is doing everything within its power to kill volunteerism as it has charity hospitals, placing a greater burden on society that was already ready, willing and able to help.
So, no King, I don’t believe that we can agree that the US constitution is a set of napkin notes which can be disregarded. Note however that I did not say that those provisions couldn’t be modified should the will of the people be so inclined. It’s not venerating the past or enshrining the original words of the constitution in stone…. It is, adherence to the law of the land and until that law is properly changed (note that you made reference to, in your opinion, the abysmal number of amendments thus far), it remains in full force and effect…. Simple as that.
As far as Roe v Wade… you and I are somewhat in agreement… the court, except when dealing with the word “LIFE”, as in ‘Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness’ has absolutely no place in the discussion. However, rather than dealing with the word ‘Life’ directly, they punted and created a law that decrees not only the physical protection of any woman who wishes to terminate a baby, but also places the moral discussion of that decision out of reach of society. While we agree that the lawyers should butt out, the moral fabric of a country… any country… is decided by the interactions of it citizens and laws such as hiring and discrimination laws skews that, is to prevent some people being able to say….” I don’t like your behaviour… I don’t want to do business or socialize with you”. The only question before the courts is the disagreement over when life begins… period. The decision as to whether unbridled abortion is good for the future of a society or the value we place on human life is for the people to decide, freely, openly and without interference of law creating barriers to the natural social discussion between people.
As far as my belief that you tend to be overly focused on the 2nd amendment… well, after this volley, I need to go clean the Flinty, mould some more balls… and as it is a rather humid day in March… dry my powder for another day…
Scott
First, let’s not forget that the constitution is the operating instructions for the government and NOT for the citizen. It is not the people that the constitution speaks to when it uses words like equality; it is the government in all of its laws, actions and practices. The country… that is the people… may not squarely align themselves with the platitudes of the constitution... it was never a design that they should. After all, ‘pursuit of happiness’ in and of itself denotes bias… people of the country getting on with life and the government injecting itself only if one citizen uses violence, coercion or fraud against another imparting some of that blind justice. There is no provision in the constitution for the government to be the arbiter of social norms… anywhere.
ReplyDeleteI think that the only reason that the government and people operated in relative harmony was that diversity was never an issue…. Time to hold the government and the leaders we elect to the standard of our written constitution, not our common flaws. It is no wonder a growing backlash against both parties exists. Both the left and right playing political ping pong, supposedly for the same good results with laws that shouldn’t even exist in the first place.
The point here is, except when it is doing it in the manner and direction YOU consider favourable, the government has no business doing anything other than what the constitution instructs it to do. Interestingly all of my disagreements with liberals and many conservatives, center around this point, but for a multitude of different reasons. As I said, much of my political belief system comes from the various struggles for ‘equal rights’ under the constitution. My view points about society and how people should decide social mores by interaction and not law comes from years of discussions like this… and with people and with people of many different countries.
A good many years ago I engaged in a rather… robust… conversation with a lesbian lady who I came to know through a mutual acquaintance. This was during the time when gays were selling the ‘gay gene’ as their unequivocal right to exist (as a behvour). During the course of the discussion and in the heat of a retort, she let slip the essence of my objection to elevating the disposition of 2-3% of the population to that of ‘normal and ordinary’ by force of law. She said that if she could just have one hour alone with my daughter, she could ‘turn her’(her exact words). I told her my daughter was quite happy with dating boys. She said that it didn’t matter, sexual attraction is as much a matter of thought as it is genetics, and anyone’s mind can be changed.(as a male, she was quite appealing) I think that she regretted those comments because they didn’t at all endear me to the cause...nor does it endear me to ‘progressive’ sex ed in state run schools. (so much for NOW’s attempts at legislating sexual attraction out of existance)
Later, and more to the point I got into an BBS (before the internet) ‘discussion’ with a gay man. I talked about my reservations with regard to making gay… normal. I told him that I had no qualms with his consensual behavours behind closed doors (this was long before the concept of gay marriage was even a topic)… I told him about my thoughts that, as has been shown in history, that mainstreaming the gay life style was not, in the long run a good thing for society or its children… He then proceeded to end the conversation with a tirade about how he didn’t care about my children or about tomorrows society… he was only concerned about his life, his happiness and once he was dead, he didn’t care.
Continued >>>>
Your first para of this particular response has given me a lot to think about. Again, I appreciate that you give some color to your views, because I have frequently wondered the reasoning behind some of what you say. Thinking out loud, what I'm left wondering about after reading this post is that if the constitution is not meant to be both an affirmation of philosophical truths as well as framework for how people should generally think, then I ask myself what the hell is the point of having a constitution.
DeleteThere is no provision that the government be the arbiter of social norms. And yet, this doesn't seem to ring wholly true to me. There is much you have said here TS that i can't fundamentally disagree with, but it still feels like viewing the world through a small drinking straw. If it is never to be an arbiter of social norms, then why use it as a foundation to overturn Jim Crow laws? Is that not the tyranny of a majority "forcing" a group of people to alter their local state societies in the name of social engineering?
That's somewhat rhetorical I guess, because I feel like I could argue your point if I wanted to and that is part of my dilemma.
Max,
Delete"There is no provision that the government be the arbiter of social norms. And yet, this doesn't seem to ring wholly true to me. There is much you have said here TS that i can't fundamentally disagree with, but it still feels like viewing the world through a small drinking straw. If it is never to be an arbiter of social norms, then why use it as a foundation to overturn Jim Crow laws? "
2 points
Previous to July 9 1868 you would be correct. The states pretty much had the leeway to create constitutions and laws that suited themselves, with the proviso that they were republican in structure, which allowed punishments for state crimes to far exceed the federal threshold of ‘cruel and unusual’ and restrictions on personal liberties that had no relation to BOR protections. The reconstruction 14th amendment brought state constitutions in line with the US constitution with respect to rights of citizens.
As I am sure you are aware ‘Equal but Separate’ was originally a Louisiana law and was challenged in the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court through some flight of fantasy upheld this law under the US Constitution (that is, the right of the state to legally separate populations) in Plessy v. Ferguson 1890. It is clear to anyone who actually reads the document that under the US Constitution that no such provision of segregation exists… (this is how allowing populism, judicial deference and precedent to deviate from the actual mandate of the constitution creates serious aberrations in the law…and society.) The reversal of Plessy v Ferguson wasn’t preventing the states to discriminate; it was killing a federal decision allowing them to maintain odorous laws that should have never been created in the first place or at least should have become void the instant the 14th amendment was ratified. Had the Supreme Court looked to the constitution in the first place, it would have struck down separate but equal laws 70 years earlier and if it had truly done its job under reconstruction, the whole concept of race would have started a healing process nearly 100 years before it instituted laws of force integration… another equally damaging aberration. (Ever put two cats in a bag to see how they get along?)
I think that the problem here is that various groups wish to ordain their version iron clad of a just society on a template that was meant to allow for change…The very thing liberals say they want but slightly harder to achieve because it requires real consensus and not the crippling force of law, which, in the long run may, like segregation, do much more harm than good. While I may argue my version of right and wrong, society as a whole, over time will decide. This is why states’ rights are so important to me. They, while having to conform to federal civil rights, can grow and try new ideas to be adopted or rejected by other states… and by extension, individual rights to associate with or reject the individuals or states that do not conform to their desires in life… in order to form (not dictate) a more perfect union.
I would say that the philosophical truths that you ask about are those that reside in the declaration of independence.
Thomas Jefferson wrote of it before his death that it was “intended to be an expression of the American mind….” Self Evident truths, natural rights, equality (not equality under the sun… equality under government) and the right to pursue ones happiness.
Let’s say a blessed thanks to those … outliers who wouldn’t shut up until the bill of rights were added… had it not been for them, Lord only knows what America would look like today….
I have talked to women who have shown great remorse in having an abortion but I have also talked to women who consider its implications no more than they would a flu shot. It’s about them… their happiness… their wants… their life. Implications for society are not part of the discussion. We rationalize these abortions with words like poor, unwanted, uneducated and yet to cover the shortfall of some 55million citizens since Roe, a good many who would now be grandparents, we throw open our borders to unrestricted immigration … immigrants who, by and large are poor, unwanted and uneducated. All so we can live our selfish little lives without responsibility to anything more than ourselves and then we turn to the state when we get into trouble. So, rather than providing social consequence for selfishness, we enshrine it in law… and then create more laws to cover the damage. Society would have moved away from the religious view of abortion, but it never would have allowed the kind of irresponsibility created by Roe.
ReplyDeleteAt anyrate, what I come away with is a group of people, some altruistic, some self-centred who are in a marriage of convenience. A bond that you say you deplore… at least in congress. All these little groups voting as a block… neither caring about the plight or consequence of the other but all working together to get what, taken on their own merits, society would reject out of hand. It reminds me of the laws that are passed today. One guy has a bill with little support(no doubt because it is worthless law)… someone comes along and says, “let me attach my rider and I will vote for it”… and another says “ I don’t like the bill or the rider but if you will both support my bill(which I can get no support for), I will vote for yours”
Is it any wonder that someone steps up on the soap box and says “Enough is Enough?” More and more people are doing it and while the youth may be more socially tolerant, there are strong signs that they are tired of both the government and the irresponsibility of their parents... but as long as we can create enough laws and debt now… we can impede any changes they may want to invoke in the future…
Scott
Scott,
DeleteExcellent topic.
There is no consequence for a decision by a woman to end a pregnancy today. Morally we justify it as a nation as a right. Where are the rights of the father? The unborn child? It doesn't matter because it was a mistake? Everyone should have the right to chose however, is that right a good thing when there is no consequence for the action?
I toss this moral question around often and have yet to come up with a sound answer.
A person has the right to terminate an unborn life yet the very same people are against condemning the person in prison saying we have no right to take their life. The other side condemns the practice of taking an unborn life yet cheer the fact the state can end the life of a person in prison.
Perhaps this is why we have the issues today in this country. We want it all without consequence.
A few items struck home when I read your piece.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find odd in the argument is the very people, from the president, to academia who have worked tirelessly to instil their version of society rather than educating our children to think and reason for themselves, down to the minions who follow the call of these piedpipers; the very people who not 50 years ago who the very same documents to argue their cause are now calling those who point out the need to abide by the constitution… 'Extremists'…
Interesting how people that claim to have such tolerance for others have changed. They can embrace gay marriage yet demonize the people who want to abide by the constitution and call them extremists.
One could say the very people who claim they are tolerant as they embrace the change are beyond intolerant as they disagree with the views of other.
I believe any large group of individuals have the right to decide what is important to them. “
That statement smacks of sheer laughable make believe.
If that were the case, Max would insist the ACA go away as the majority do not support the law. There are so many examples of that grand statement that apply to both the left and the right.
Glad I could tickle your funny bone. Like anything, you can take my statement there out of context and pretend I am advocating for a ridiculous, constitutional defying extreme. Doesn't make it true, but it serves a purpose I suppose.
Delete