American Constitution Losing Appeal

Page 6 of 6 [ 96 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Previous topic | Next topic

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

09 Feb 2012, 8:19 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Ideally we should have a new Constitution every 30 years. That way every living soul will have had a hand (direct or indirect) in forging the Constitution under which he lives. That takes care of your "living tree". Replant it in every generation.

Have you ever read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason"? I'm just curious if it played a role in shaping your views, not that I'm attacking them.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Feb 2012, 9:03 pm

CoMF wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Have you ever read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason"? I'm just curious if it played a role in shaping your views, not that I'm attacking them.

I agreed with Spooner's position without any help from him.

ruveyn

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

09 Feb 2012, 9:33 pm

ruveyn wrote:

I agreed with Spooner's position without any help from him.

I figured that was the case. Though the man has been dead for over 120 years now, so I doubt he could've persuaded you much.

Magdalena
Sea Gull

Joined: 6 Feb 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 205
Location: United States

09 Feb 2012, 11:15 pm

When you rule out or diminish the possibility of using government as a tool to help solve problems, you limit yourself. Because then, the only entities that are big enough, and capable enough, of providing for people and addressing political issues (assuming that gov't is limited) are unregulated private entities who can be as abusive as they want to those who depend on them, without fear of criminal charges.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Feb 2012, 11:10 am

Magdalena wrote:

How about unregulated ever growing, ever intrusive government? Is that better?

ruveyn

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Feb 2012, 2:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:

I believe in amendments, not twisting language like a pretzel. If the Constitution is deficient or flawed then amend it or abolish it.

Ideally we should have a new Constitution every 30 years. That way every living soul will have had a hand (direct or indirect) in forging the Constitution under which he lives. That takes care of your "living tree". Replant it in every generation.

ruveyn

It's certainly a reasonable approach--but I think that it is a recipe for mediocrity. The singular advantage that judicial interpretation has is that it deals with the instant case never contemplated by drafters.

Suppose you had promulgated a new constitution in, say, 1990. Would we we obliged to continue to wait until 2020 to address lacunae? Think about the constitutional jurisprudence that has taken place in the last 22 years. How much litigation has occurred around questions like interception of wireless communication or of electronic messaging? The proliferation of cell phones and email has fundamentally changed rules that existed before, but under your scheme, there would have been no capacity to undertake these changes, short of constitutional amendment, until the 30 year redraft.

The mischief that you seek to cure cuts both ways. Many of the protections that you enjoy today as a member of a free and democratic society are not enshrined in the plain text of your constitution, but have been established by the Courts' attempt to give effect to that text. Consider that before you merrily advocate for cutting off the judicial branch at the knees.

_________________
--James

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

10 Feb 2012, 2:58 pm

I have been reading this book that makes a very good point. People always say how 'young' America is as a country, but when you really look at things, our government system is probably the oldest in the world.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Feb 2012, 3:45 pm

visagrunt wrote:

You want someone who was never elected and who is not accountable to the public making the rules under which you live? You want Philosopher Kings, such as Plato advocated.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 13 Feb 2012, 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Feb 2012, 6:40 pm

ruveyn wrote:

You want someone who was never elected and who is not accountable to the public making the rules under which you live? You want Philosopher Kings, such as Plato advocated.

ruveyn

Of course I do, because these Judges--or, "Philosopher Kings," if you prefer--serve as a restraint upon those who are elected.

Elections and referenda are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to establish democratic government. If primacy is given exclusively to the legislature, then we are in no better position than the Soviets.

Rule of Law is just as important to a democracy as a freely elected legislature. And frankly, given the crony capitalism under which you currently labour, one might wonder whether philosopher kings not accountable to the electorate might be better able to insulate themselves from corruption.

_________________
--James

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

10 Feb 2012, 6:43 pm

I believe my rights are given to me by a giant puppy that breathes fire.

I have my rights and thus they exist.

My rights exist and thus giant fire breathing puppy exists.

My logic is unbreakable!

_________________
.

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

10 Feb 2012, 7:06 pm

visagrunt wrote:

And frankly, given the crony capitalism under which you currently labour, one might wonder whether philosopher kings not accountable to the electorate might be better able to insulate themselves from corruption.

...except history shows that the less accountable a public official is to the public, the greater the likelihood and incentive for corruption. After all, why should I care if I disenfranchise you and everyone else for my own benefit if I only have to answer to myself? I can even do it under a guise of magnanimity or make an occasional concession or two just to keep you complacent.

Sorry, but as flawed as our current political system in the United States may be, I'm unwilling to trade it for a monarchy.

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

10 Feb 2012, 7:08 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

I believe my rights are given to me by a giant puppy that breathes fire.

I have my rights and thus they exist.

My rights exist and thus giant fire breathing puppy exists.

My logic is unbreakable!

Groan...

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

13 Feb 2012, 11:42 am

CoMF wrote:

Which is why balance is required. Unelected judges holding elected legislators in check is just as essential to democracy as the legislators' right to enact law.

_________________
--James

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

13 Feb 2012, 11:51 am

visagrunt wrote:

Which is why balance is required. Unelected judges holding elected legislators in check is just as essential to democracy as the legislators' right to enact law.

When you put it in that context, I'd have to agree. I wasn't aware you were alluding to the Supreme Court of the United States, however.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Feb 2012, 1:44 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Rule of Law is just as important to a democracy as a freely elected legislature. And frankly, given the crony capitalism under which you currently labour, one might wonder whether philosopher kings not accountable to the electorate might be better able to insulate themselves from corruption.

You misread Plato entirely. The Philosopher Kings would rule by virtue of their wisdom and they would no be accountable to the hoi polloi. The little people are to obey their betters, not to make their betters accountable.

ruveyn

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

14 Feb 2012, 12:44 pm

ruveyn wrote:

visagrunt wrote:

Please reread my post, ruveyn. Please note the word, "not," carefully included between the words, "kings," and, "accountable."

Also, it's, "accountable to hoi polloi, not accountable to the hoi polloi." But that's just me being pedantic.

_________________
--James

Page 6 of 6 [ 96 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Jump to:

American Constitution Losing Appeal Post Reply New Topic

American Constitution Losing Appeal