"Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick ... found it 'weird' that O’Donnell would consider the constitutionality of legislation."
"A similar reaction greeted the promise in the GOP Pledge to America that all bills include a clause specifically pointing to how the proposed law is provided for in the Constitution. 'Just plain wacky,' wrote Susan Milligan for US News & World Report."
First, you find ways to evade constitutional restrictions in extraordinary cases. Next, you make such evasion the standard. And then you get to the point where the whole idea of constitutional restrictions on the government is just a "weird" and "wacky" idea.
I honestly wonder whether this country can be saved.
posted
The issue here is about whether Congress needs to explicitly write down how the Constitution permits every law it passes. Given how vague the Constitution is about the limits of federal power, that would amount to little more than another hoop to jump through. Essentially, you could have every law point to the "necessary and proper" clause. It might be an interesting tradition to start as a way of honoring the Constitution, but its not going to prevent Congress from passing any laws it wants to pass.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I honestly wonder whether this country can be saved.
You will never be convinced, so why ask? You also think that the constitution is weird, given that it expressly forms the government to be permitted to operate using tools that are strictly immoral and wrong based on your hyperlibertarian view of rights.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I think the Constitution can be improved. But my method of improving it would be to try and get amendments passed. You know, the legal way. As opposed to just ignoring it, or pretending that it says things it doesn't.
The idea that you'd compare that to what these sick puppies are saying... well, coming from you, it honestly doesn't surprise me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think the Constitution is any less a living document -- and a product of oral interpretation -- than, say, the Torah?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The idea that you'd compare that to what these sick puppies are saying...
For starters, I'm not making that comparison. I'm just noting that given what I know of your extreme guidelines for what you would consider the 'salvation' of this country, I'm pretty positive that you will never, ever find this country 'saved.' You'll just be vaguely complacent "holding your nose" and voting for conservatives, and constantly reminding us of your visceral hatred of all things liberal. Constantly. It will never change.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you think the Constitution is any less a living document -- and a product of oral interpretation -- than, say, the Torah?
Of course it's a living document. That's why it can be amended. Being so subject to anyone's interpretation that it effectively has no limitations whatsoever does not make something a "living document". It makes it a joke.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
By that logic the New Testament is a perfectly valid way to "amend" the Torah eh?
IP: Logged |
Blayne, of course the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. If you think otherwise (from way up there in our northern provinces), maybe you'll say why, rather than smiling and nodding and saying, "Oh, she thinks the Fed is unconstitutional, so clearly her opinion doesn't count." You know, the intellectually honest way of dealing with a subject. Not like Sam, who seems almost pathologically incapable of responding with anything other than an ad hominem argument. Surely you can do better than that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick ... found it 'weird' that O’Donnell would consider the constitutionality of legislation."
"A similar reaction greeted the promise in the GOP Pledge to America that all bills include a clause specifically pointing to how the proposed law is provided for in the Constitution. 'Just plain wacky,' wrote Susan Milligan for US News & World Report."
First, you find ways to evade constitutional restrictions in extraordinary cases. Next, you make such evasion the standard. And then you get to the point where the whole idea of constitutional restrictions on the government is just a "weird" and "wacky" idea.
I honestly wonder whether this country can be saved.
Liberals agree with constitutional restrictions on the government and do not think the idea is intrinsically weird or wacky. The author of that partisan piece does not make a convincing case with cherrypicking quotes.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Now Lisa, how is the Federal Reserve Unconstitutional? And how does it not align with the constitutional right of Congress to delegate its authority to it?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You bore me, Sam.
Blayne, of course the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. If you think otherwise (from way up there in our northern provinces), maybe you'll say why, rather than smiling and nodding and saying, "Oh, she thinks the Fed is unconstitutional, so clearly her opinion doesn't count." You know, the intellectually honest way of dealing with a subject. Not like Sam, who seems almost pathologically incapable of responding with anything other than an ad hominem argument. Surely you can do better than that.
What part of this isn't ad hominem in a way that does not make you hypocritical?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: By that logic the New Testament is a perfectly valid way to "amend" the Torah eh?
Really, Blayne? Would you care to work that logic through, rather than simply making statements without basis?
Can you point me to something in the Torah that permits anyone to come along and throw out the laws of the Torah? Because I can point you to something in the Torah that says that even God can't do that.
Plus, just because Tom likes to play games doesn't mean that his analogy between the Constitution and the Torah is a valid one. The Constitution is man-made. And it includes provisions for its own amendment. And it's been amended a couple of dozen times already. We can actually amend the Constitution to make Christianity the national religion and ban the practice of Judaism. If we want to. There is no limitation whatsoever to how the Constitution can be changed. You can't have a more flexible document than that.
The issue here isn't changing or amending the Constitution. The issue here is not changing or amending the Constitution, but just ignoring it, or reinterpreting it, sans amendment, any way that we feel like.
Tell me you honestly don't see the difference.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You bore me, Sam.
Blayne, of course the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. If you think otherwise (from way up there in our northern provinces), maybe you'll say why, rather than smiling and nodding and saying, "Oh, she thinks the Fed is unconstitutional, so clearly her opinion doesn't count." You know, the intellectually honest way of dealing with a subject. Not like Sam, who seems almost pathologically incapable of responding with anything other than an ad hominem argument. Surely you can do better than that.
What part of this isn't ad hominem in a way that does not make you hypocritical?
What part of it is ad hominem? Let's have a look. First, I told Sam that he bores me. Is that ad hominem? No. An ad hominem argument is arguing that a premise is incorrect because the person espousing it sucks. While I think that accurately describes Sam, I wasn't responding to any premise put forward by him, so it isn't an ad hominem.
Next, I answered Blayne's question without cavil and without qualification. Surely you don't consider that ad hominem, right? And then I said that if Blayne disagrees, I'd like it if he would be so kind as to say why he disagrees. Is that ad hominem, in some unfathomable way?
Of course, the reaction I got from Blayne, disappointingly, was a complete dodge of my question. And as disappointed as I am in him (if he didn't have any particular reason to think I'm wrong about the Fed being unconstitutional, it might have been nice for him to say, "I admit that I don't have any reason to think it is or it isn't. Can you give me your reasons?"), I plan on answering him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick ... found it 'weird' that O’Donnell would consider the constitutionality of legislation."
"A similar reaction greeted the promise in the GOP Pledge to America that all bills include a clause specifically pointing to how the proposed law is provided for in the Constitution. 'Just plain wacky,' wrote Susan Milligan for US News & World Report."
First, you find ways to evade constitutional restrictions in extraordinary cases. Next, you make such evasion the standard. And then you get to the point where the whole idea of constitutional restrictions on the government is just a "weird" and "wacky" idea.
I honestly wonder whether this country can be saved.
Liberals agree with constitutional restrictions on the government and do not think the idea is intrinsically weird or wacky. The author of that partisan piece does not make a convincing case with cherrypicking quotes.
How are the quotes "cherry picked"? Or is it sufficient to say that they were cherry picked, relying on the fact that most people won't go back to the article and check to see if your claim has any basis?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:By that logic the New Testament is a perfectly valid way to "amend" the Torah eh?
Nothing in Lisa's logic seems to imply you can make that analogy.
quote:Blayne, of course the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. If you think otherwise (from way up there in our northern provinces), maybe you'll say why, rather than smiling and nodding and saying, "Oh, she thinks the Fed is unconstitutional, so clearly her opinion doesn't count."
The Constitution doesn't forbid the government from creating independent entities or from using those entities as a means through which to execute its powers. So, although it doesn't explicitly allow the creation of the Fed, I don't think it disallows it either.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is Samp saying that your premise is incorrect because you suck? And if you are inferring it, how is it worse than saying straightforwardly that someone is "disappointingly" dodging questions or seems "pathologically incapable" of not doing some things and that you expressly want to make a point that they are boring.
If ad hominem is a continuum you are further along it right now...
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Now Lisa, how is the Federal Reserve Unconstitutional? And how does it not align with the constitutional right of Congress to delegate its authority to it?
Blayne, can you please point me to the part of the Constitution which grants Congress the right to delegate its constitutional powers to others? Can Congress, for example, should it choose to do so, appoint a 12 person body called "Office of Federal Legislation", delegate their legislative powers to that body, and have it make all laws, submitting them directly to the President for signing?
To make things easier, here is a list of the things Congress is empowered to do by the Constitution.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: We have an easy way to test this, Lisa do you consider the Federal Reserve Unconstitutional?
Also, I'm curious to know how my view on this question is a way to "test" whether I think the constitution is a living document? Had the Fed been created by a constitutional amendment, I would have thought it a bad thing, but not unconstitutional.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Where is Samp saying that your premise is incorrect because you suck? And if you are inferring it, how is it worse than saying straightforwardly that someone is "disappointingly" dodging questions or seems "pathologically incapable" of not doing some things and that you expressly want to make a point that they are boring.
If ad hominem is a continuum you are further along it right now...
Here's what Sam wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I honestly wonder whether this country can be saved.
You will never be convinced, so why ask? You also think that the constitution is weird, given that it expressly forms the government to be permitted to operate using tools that are strictly immoral and wrong based on your hyperlibertarian view of rights.
So his response was not an attempt to demonstrate that I was wrong by addressing what I said. It was a statement that dismissed what I said because (a) I will never be convinced, and (b) I have a "hyperlibertarian view of rights".
Neither of those statements is true, incidentally, but by claiming they are, Sam side stepped the necessity of addressing my points at all, and based his dismissal purely on his evaluation of me.
Do you know what the ad hominem fallacy is? Is there some way in which you can't understand how this is exactly an ad hominem argument?
If you disagree, I'm sure I'm not the only person who would love to hear why. I repeat, if you think that characterizing people is what an ad hominem argument is, you need to go and learn what it is. I didn't not say that Blayne's argument was wrong because he disappointed me. I did not say that Sam was wrong because he seems almost pathologically incapable of responding with anything other than an ad hominem argument. Had I done either of those, it would have been an ad hominem argument.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Wrong
quote:The necessary and proper clause has been interpreted extremely broadly, thereby giving Congress wide latitude in legislation. The first landmark case involving the clause was McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which involved the establishment of a national bank. Alexander Hamilton, in advocating the creation of the bank, argued that there was "a more or less direct" relationship between the bank and "the powers of collecting taxes, borrowing money, regulating trade between the states, and raising and maintaining fleets and navies". Thomas Jefferson countered that Congress' powers "can all be carried into execution without a national bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase". Chief Justice John Marshall agreed with the former interpretation. Marshall wrote that a Constitution listing all of Congress' powers "would partake of a prolixity of a legal code and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind". Since the Constitution could not possibly enumerate the "minor ingredients" of the powers of Congress, Marshall "deduced" that Congress had the authority to establish a bank from the "great outlines" of the general welfare, commerce and other clauses. Under this doctrine of the necessary and proper clause, Congress has sweepingly broad powers (known as implied powers) not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The Constitution doesn't forbid the government from creating independent entities or from using those entities as a means through which to execute its powers. So, although it doesn't explicitly allow the creation of the Fed, I don't think it disallows it either.
I hear you. The problem is that the Constitution doesn't explicitly disallow the Congress to make everyone wear matching clothes. The Constitution does not contain an exhaustive list of what Congress cannot do. It contains an exhaustive list of what Congress can do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Unless of course, [some] the people who wrote the constitution disagree with you.
IP: Logged |
quote:The necessary and proper clause has been interpreted extremely broadly, thereby giving Congress wide latitude in legislation. The first landmark case involving the clause was McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which involved the establishment of a national bank. Alexander Hamilton, in advocating the creation of the bank, argued that there was "a more or less direct" relationship between the bank and "the powers of collecting taxes, borrowing money, regulating trade between the states, and raising and maintaining fleets and navies". Thomas Jefferson countered that Congress' powers "can all be carried into execution without a national bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase". Chief Justice John Marshall agreed with the former interpretation. Marshall wrote that a Constitution listing all of Congress' powers "would partake of a prolixity of a legal code and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind". Since the Constitution could not possibly enumerate the "minor ingredients" of the powers of Congress, Marshall "deduced" that Congress had the authority to establish a bank from the "great outlines" of the general welfare, commerce and other clauses. Under this doctrine of the necessary and proper clause, Congress has sweepingly broad powers (known as implied powers) not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federal Papers that the Constitution did indeed limit the government to those actions authorized therein. During the Constitutional Convention, the prospect of "implied powers" was raised, and it was clear that the Constitution would never be ratified if such a thing was possible. Certain language in the Constitution was added precisely to disallow such a thing. Clearly, it didn't work, because Hamilton, the moment the Constitution was ratified, began working to expand the powers of the Federal government.
quote:As opposed to you, who is endlessly interesting, despite saying the same things over and over?
Janitor Blade reserves the right to be the most boring poster on this board as it's in his job description to talk about things like rules and forum conduct. There are fewer things more boring.
So in the spirit of being boring, please refrain from attacking each other. I'll be watching.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You bore me, Sam.
As opposed to you, who is endlessly interesting, despite saying the same things over and over?
If boring were a litmus test, most conversations here would fail, as they all bore someone.
Hmm. So clearly, you equate ad hominem attacks with opinions you dislike. Noted.
I don't recall equating those, but in your case I will allow it.
Actually, Lisa, in your post I saw attitudes I don't like, presented by an ineffectual, argumentative style of "debate", as well as an ad hominem attack.
Followed closely by a martyr complex/passive aggressive attack.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Unless of course, [some] the people who wrote the constitution disagree with you.
That's an excellent point, Blayne. How might we know what the people who wrote the Constitution thought? One way might be by actually looking at the Constitution. Another might be by looking at records of the debates at the Constitutional Convention where the Constitution was written. A third way might be to look at the fact that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, explicitly address issues that the states demanded as a price for their ratification. Have you read the 9th and 10th amendments?
quote:Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So... what powers is the Tenth Amendment referring to? If any power can be inferred from the Constitution, what meaning, if any, does the Tenth Amendment have? And why was it so critical to the states that this amendment be included?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As opposed to you, who is endlessly interesting, despite saying the same things over and over?
Janitor Blade reserves the right to be the most boring poster on this board as it's in his job description to talk about things like rules and forum conduct. There's fewer things more boring.
So in the spirit of being boring, please refrain from attacking each other. I'll be watching.
*crack of thunder*
Really? Because Parkour and Sam and Kwea have responded with nothing but content-free personal attacks throughout this thread. And it doesn't seem to me that this is considered problematic at all. If I were to respond in kind, I expect I'd receive one of your lovely e-mails telling me to go away for a month. Gosh, I feel so special.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick ... found it 'weird' that O’Donnell would consider the constitutionality of legislation."
I remember reading the Lithwick column this is referring to. It made perfect sense to me. The O'donell comment was plain strange. O'Donell was quoted as saying "when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional." This to me sounds like she would vote for every piece of legislation that she found constitutional. That is weird. Lots of constitutional laws are simply bad. Why would anyone use constitutionality as a litmus test for legislation? I think it is probably not exactly what O'donell meant but she has stood behind stranger ideas and things. Lithwick also rightly pointed out that the litmus test that O'donell suggests is precisely what the constitution delegates to the courts that O'donell rails against. I thought it was an intersting enough piece and not really that controversial at all.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hear you. The problem is that the Constitution doesn't explicitly disallow the Congress to make everyone wear matching clothes. The Constitution does not contain an exhaustive list of what Congress cannot do. It contains an exhaustive list of what Congress can do.
I think the First Amendment does disallow the Congress to make everyone wear matching clothes.
I'd also think that events in American History (such as various recessions/depressions) have demonstrated that an institution like the Fed is necessary to fulfill the powers given to Congress to regulate commerce and provide for general welfare. It seems more necessary in that regard than, for instance, something like NASA.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
"Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick ... found it 'weird' that O’Donnell would consider the constitutionality of legislation."
I remember reading the Lithwick column this is referring to. It made perfect sense to me. The O'donell comment was plain strange. O'Donell was quoted as saying "when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional." This to me sounds like she would vote for every piece of legislation that she found constitutional. That is weird. Lots of constitutional laws are simply bad. Why would anyone use constitutionality as a litmus test for legislation? I think it is probably not exactly what O'donell meant but she has stood behind stranger ideas and things. Lithwick also rightly pointed out that the litmus test that O'donell suggests is precisely what the constitution delegates to the courts that O'donell rails against. I thought it was an intersting enough piece and not really that controversial at all.
I'm wondering if you could explain what you mean. There's nothing in the Constitution that says Congress can pass unconstitutional laws. They're bound by the Constitution as well; not just by the Supreme Court.
Inferring from O'Donnell's statement that she would vote for every piece of legislation that the Constitution permits is silly. You can't seriously think she meant that she'd vote for something she disagrees with just because the Constitution permits it.
And that's not how Lithwick too O'Donnell's statement. Because she doesn't express surprise that O'Donnell would pass everything that she thinks is Constitutional (as you did), but only that she'd consider constitutionality at all when deciding whether to vote for a law.
quote:How weird is that, I thought. Isn't it a court's job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn't that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?
And of course, it isn't. It's the job of everyone whose oath of office includes "to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hear you. The problem is that the Constitution doesn't explicitly disallow the Congress to make everyone wear matching clothes. The Constitution does not contain an exhaustive list of what Congress cannot do. It contains an exhaustive list of what Congress can do.
I think the First Amendment does disallow the Congress to make everyone wear matching clothes.
Really? Would you mind citing the part of the Constitution that disallows it? I don't recall it being mentioned at all, but it's been a while since I was in school.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I'd also think that events in American History (such as various recessions/depressions) have demonstrated that an institution like the Fed is necessary to fulfill the powers given to Congress to regulate commerce and provide for general welfare. It seems more necessary in that regard than, for instance, something like NASA.
Tresopax, the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve creating an artificial bubble. They wanted to increase prosperity, so they thought they could make it happen by jiggling interest rates. The result was the Great Depression. That cycle has been repeated any number of times since then.
I got into an argument with my mother-in-law on the day of my commitment ceremony, back in 1998. She said that the Federal Reserve was created because of the Great Depression. I pointed out that the Fed was actually created in 1913, and she was so outraged at my heresy that she flounced out. She was back for the ceremony, though.
I suspect a lot of people think the Great Depression preceded the creation of the Federal Reserve.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The issue here is not changing or amending the Constitution, but just ignoring it, or reinterpreting it, sans amendment, any way that we feel like.
This is specifically why I made the Torah comparison -- since, after all, isn't looking for loopholes in Kashrut law actually encouraged? Note that you're not changing the Torah; you're just interpreting it in a way that's favorable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:As opposed to you, who is endlessly interesting, despite saying the same things over and over?
Janitor Blade reserves the right to be the most boring poster on this board as it's in his job description to talk about things like rules and forum conduct. There's fewer things more boring.
So in the spirit of being boring, please refrain from attacking each other. I'll be watching.
*crack of thunder*
Really? Because Parkour and Sam and Kwea have responded with nothing but content-free personal attacks throughout this thread. And it doesn't seem to me that this is considered problematic at all. If I were to respond in kind, I expect I'd receive one of your lovely e-mails telling me to go away for a month. Gosh, I feel so special.
Lisa you need to calm down. I wasn't responding to just you, I quoted something Kwea said which was an attack against you.
As is always the case when posters start criticizing each other about their personalities the conversation turns into a fight. I'm trying to keep your thread on track, instead of letting it devolve into another thread where posters try to dissect each other's motives, and score rhetorical points.
And another thing, if you have something to say to me regarding my disciplinary methods as they pertain to you, please do so by email or PM. I'm happy to talk about it with you, the rest of the board does not need to be involved.
edit: Thanks for the grammatical correction, I fixed it.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:As opposed to you, who is endlessly interesting, despite saying the same things over and over?
Janitor Blade reserves the right to be the most boring poster on this board as it's in his job description to talk about things like rules and forum conduct. There's fewer things more boring.
So in the spirit of being boring, please refrain from attacking each other. I'll be watching.
*crack of thunder*
Really? Because Parkour and Sam and Kwea have responded with nothing but content-free personal attacks throughout this thread. And it doesn't seem to me that this is considered problematic at all. If I were to respond in kind, I expect I'd receive one of your lovely e-mails telling me to go away for a month. Gosh, I feel so special.
...you're not being unfairly persecuted for something that kwea and samp are doing that you aren't doing. If they are ad homming, you are ad homming. Period. You just have to learn how to see that rather than giving yourself a free pass.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a minute. I hadn't even started with personal attacks.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So his response was not an attempt to demonstrate that I was wrong by addressing what I said. It was a statement that dismissed what I said because (a) I will never be convinced, and (b) I have a "hyperlibertarian view of rights".
Neither of those statements is true, incidentally, but by claiming they are, Sam side stepped the necessity of addressing my points at all, and based his dismissal purely on his evaluation of me.
There's no dismissal in either of my posts. I never even started with an implication that your beliefs were wrong, I just stated what your beliefs and projected future attitude was going to be.
In your mind, this automatically becomes an Ad Hominem in all the ways that your posts aren't ad hominem at all? It baffles me that you'd mess up the fallacy in application that badly.
quote:Really? Would you mind citing the part of the Constitution that disallows it? I don't recall it being mentioned at all, but it's been a while since I was in school.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
quote:Tresopax, the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve creating an artificial bubble. They wanted to increase prosperity, so they thought they could make it happen by jiggling interest rates. The result was the Great Depression. That cycle has been repeated any number of times since then.
Our military also has made mistakes that have prolonged and potentially caused wars; that doesn't mean our military is the cause of war or isn't necessary to defend us.
Whether or not mistakes made by the Fed contributed to the Great Depression, events like the Great Depression and the recessions before it and since demonstrate why we need institutions to keep an eye on the monetary system. When the monetary system gets out of whack, it damages our entire system of commerce and the general welfare, potentially for a long time. The only question is how to keep an eye on it. The Fed is one answer to that problem.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As opposed to you, who is endlessly interesting, despite saying the same things over and over?
Janitor Blade reserves the right to be the most boring poster on this board as it's in his job description to talk about things like rules and forum conduct. There's fewer things more boring.
So in the spirit of being boring, please refrain from attacking each other. I'll be watching.
*crack of thunder*
Really? Because Parkour and Sam and Kwea have responded with nothing but content-free personal attacks throughout this thread. And it doesn't seem to me that this is considered problematic at all. If I were to respond in kind, I expect I'd receive one of your lovely e-mails telling me to go away for a month. Gosh, I feel so special.
...you're not being unfairly persecuted for something that kwea and samp are doing that you aren't doing. If they are ad homming, you are ad homming. Period. You just have to learn how to see that rather than giving yourself a free pass.
And you need to learn what an ad hominem really is. One more time, because you seem to be a slow learner, it is not criticizing a person or attacking them. It is dismissing or disputing a premise because a person you consider unworthy has stated that premise.
Go look it up, for crying out loud. It isn't brain surgery.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? Would you mind citing the part of the Constitution that disallows it? I don't recall it being mentioned at all, but it's been a while since I was in school.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Interesting. I'm not quite sure how making us all wear matching clothes abridges my freedom of speech. Unless one of the items of clothing is a gag, I mean.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Tresopax, the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve creating an artificial bubble. They wanted to increase prosperity, so they thought they could make it happen by jiggling interest rates. The result was the Great Depression. That cycle has been repeated any number of times since then.
Our military also has made mistakes that have prolonged and potentially caused wars; that doesn't mean our military is the cause of war or isn't necessary to defend us.
Whether or not mistakes made by the Fed contributed to the Great Depression, events like the Great Depression and the recessions before it and since demonstrate why we need institutions to keep an eye on the monetary system. When the monetary system gets out of whack, it damages our entire system of commerce and the general welfare, potentially for a long time. The only question is how to keep an eye on it. The Fed is one answer to that problem.
If it's that important, the Constitution could have been amended to create that power.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The issue here is not changing or amending the Constitution, but just ignoring it, or reinterpreting it, sans amendment, any way that we feel like.
This is specifically why I made the Torah comparison -- since, after all, isn't looking for loopholes in Kashrut law actually encouraged? Note that you're not changing the Torah; you're just interpreting it in a way that's favorable.
First of all, that's not even what we're talking about here. We're talking about legislators and journalists literally laughing at the idea that there needs to be a Constitutional justification for a law.
Second of all, we don't get our laws from interpreting the text of the Torah. For example, "An eye for an eye" never meant literal lex talionis.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Wait a minute. I hadn't even started with personal attacks.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So his response was not an attempt to demonstrate that I was wrong by addressing what I said. It was a statement that dismissed what I said because (a) I will never be convinced, and (b) I have a "hyperlibertarian view of rights".
Neither of those statements is true, incidentally, but by claiming they are, Sam side stepped the necessity of addressing my points at all, and based his dismissal purely on his evaluation of me.
There's no dismissal in either of my posts. I never even started with an implication that your beliefs were wrong, I just stated what your beliefs and projected future attitude was going to be.
In your mind, this automatically becomes an Ad Hominem in all the ways that your posts aren't ad hominem at all? It baffles me that you'd mess up the fallacy in application that badly.
... :/
You lie. At least have the courage of your convictions, if you have any.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're talking about legislators and journalists literally laughing at the idea that there needs to be a Constitutional justification for a law.
No, they're laughing at the idea that the justification needs to be stamped on the law -- that, in fact, the justification needs to be both explicit and textual.
quote:Second of all, we don't get our laws from interpreting the text of the Torah. For example, "An eye for an eye" never meant literal lex talionis.
Except that's basically what it says. Are we saying that some kinds of interpretation are better than others?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. We're saying that in the case of the Torah, the Written Law cannot be properly understood without the Oral Law.
Also, where did you get the idea that we deliberately look for loopholes in kashrus laws? Quite the contrary.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're saying that in the case of the Torah, the Written Law cannot be properly understood without the Oral Law.
Would you not make the exact same argument about the American Constitution, where legal precedent stands in place of the Oral Law?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Legal precedent wasn't not simultaneously presented with the Constitution. It solely exists as a developing body.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
