This is topic Prominent Democrats: The Constitution Is ‘Weird’ (Oh, and more Torah 101) in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
"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.
[ October 04, 2010, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do you think the Constitution is any less a living document -- and a product of oral interpretation -- than, say, the Torah?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
This thread train-wrecked unsurprisingly quickly.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
We have an easy way to test this, Lisa do you consider the Federal Reserve Unconstitutional?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
By that logic the New Testament is a perfectly valid way to "amend" the Torah eh?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
"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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
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?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
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. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
"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?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
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...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Unless of course, [some] the people who wrote the constitution disagree with you.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: 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.
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.
*crack of thunder*
[ September 29, 2010, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
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.
In other words, business as usual.
Boring.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
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.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
"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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
"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".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: There are fewer things more boring.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
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.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
... :/
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
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.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nope.
Legal precedent wasn't not simultaneously presented with the Constitution. It solely exists as a developing body.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Legal precedent wasn't not simultaneously presented with the Constitution.
I disagree. Arguments over what the text meant and how that text should be reflected in law actually predate the text itself, and were certainly contemporary with its introduction. It took a little longer -- although not much longer -- for us to settle on the "let the courts deliver the official interpretation" approach, but the idea that the text needed to be interpreted in order to be meaningful was certainly known and recognized from its inception.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
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.
I'm not lying. Look at my posts. They literally have no point at which they are stating that you are wrong. They're pointing out an interpretation of where I guess your position essentially stands, not making a concluding judgment that where you stand is wrong.
Or, more to the point, that where you stand is wrong because it is you saying it.
There's literally nothing here of mine that can be an ad hominem without using a broad definition of ad hominem that necessarily includes your posts as personal attacks in return. If you can't see that, it is a severe degree of inability to self-recognize when you are doing something that you accuse others of doing. You shouldn't do that any more than you should blame others for being the cause of thread locks that you were manifestly responsible for!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
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.
Also, janitorblade, remember when you were saying you were watching and waiting for additional personal attacks?
Here they are, not even trying to be hard to find.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: the idea that the text needed to be interpreted in order to be meaningful was certainly known and recognized from its inception.
Which is a far cry from having an actual interpretation presented simultaneously with the written document.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Thinking about my last post, I thought 'this would really be better as just quote by janitorblade, then lisa's personal attack, close, juxtapose, no commentary.' then I thought 'wait no I should just have reported it using the report function.'
So yeah. I'll just try that next time. Really this time.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The fact that "an eye for an eye" doesn't mean literal lex talionis is not "interpretation". The fundamental corpus of law and lore in Judaism is the Oral Torah. Not the written text. The text has enormous value in Judaism, but it is not the source of Jewish law, and never has been.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Thinking about my last post, I thought 'this would really be better as just quote by janitorblade, then lisa's personal attack, close, juxtapose, no commentary.' then I thought 'wait no I should just have reported it using the report function.'
So yeah. I'll just try that next time. Really this time.
It's kind of funny that the very first post after JB posted what he did was a personal attack against me. One you don't seem to have any problem with. Not that I'm surprised, either at Kwea or at you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm kind of assuming, given the quickness with which Kwea's response came after JB's, that it is most likely that Kwea hadn't read the pronouncement before it was posted. Kwea is, also, not the one dismissing posts as 'content free personal attacks' at convenience when the lack of content inferred is, well, not exactly lacking (especially not when put side to side with 'you bore me' style non-responses).
Also, while in general I don't care too much about personal attacks, I note that users can easily wear out their welcome with them. There's no way you're not on a tighter leash than other users, for good reason. I have no qualms with noting the much later personal attacks of a much more serially abusive user, especially given that said user appears manifestly less inclined to respect requests not to be abusive. Kwea, lacking such a history of serial misconduct and wanton abusiveness and short-temperedness, grants me plausible reason to suspect that he's sorry if the post was 'over the line,' whereas you provide little or no confidence that this is the case.
You can, of course, be as surprised as you want that this distinction plays out in terms of how readily capable I am of evaluating you differently than Kwea, instead of looking at it in terms of you both being blank slates.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The fundamental corpus of law and lore in Judaism is the Oral Torah. Not the written text.
According to the Oral Torah. And, interestingly, it is according to interpreted law that legal interpretations of the Constitution are our fundamental corpus of law.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: According to the Oral Torah.
And according to multiple citations in the Written as well.
I do wonder why you are so invested in this analogy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Rivka, it's because of me. If anyone else had posted what I did, he wouldn't have gone there. But he thinks that he can... I don't know, bug me? with this sort of analogy. It's a pity he didn't realize how little he knows about the subject.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm kind of assuming, given the quickness with which Kwea's response came after JB's, that it is most likely that Kwea hadn't read the pronouncement before it was posted. Kwea is, also, not the one dismissing posts as 'content free personal attacks' at convenience when the lack of content inferred is, well, not exactly lacking (especially not when put side to side with 'you bore me' style non-responses).
Also, while in general I don't care too much about personal attacks, I note that users can easily wear out their welcome with them. There's no way you're not on a tighter leash than other users, for good reason. I have no qualms with noting the much later personal attacks of a much more serially abusive user, especially given that said user appears manifestly less inclined to respect requests not to be abusive. Kwea, lacking such a history of serial misconduct and wanton abusiveness and short-temperedness, grants me plausible reason to suspect that he's sorry if the post was 'over the line,' whereas you provide little or no confidence that this is the case.
You can, of course, be as surprised as you want that this distinction plays out in terms of how readily capable I am of evaluating you differently than Kwea, instead of looking at it in terms of you both being blank slates.
Actually, my first post wasn't an attack at all, it was fact. It is a fact that a lot of people find many things boring, so boring isn't a litmus test for the quality of a post. You find Samp boring, or his post at least. Lot of people find you boring, offensive, and feel that your posting style is overly rude, a fact that you have been censored for in the past and one that has been made even by people who agree with you.
It's also a fact that you made an attack, and then posted
quote: 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.
. Sounded like playing the martyr to me, as Sam had only disagreed with you up to that point, not attacked you.
I made a point about EVERYONE being boring at one point or another, at least to someone else. Hardly an attack on you. I was pointing out that that wasn't a good refutation of anything he had said, just an attack on him.
It was clearly made, IMO, to discredit Sam and his views, otherwise why make it. Perhaps it was merely setting the stage for the later ad hom attack rather than being one itself. Considering how the rest of the conversation went from there, I doubt you can accurately refute that point.
Lisa, I don't ever have to attack you. You do more damage to yourself, and your causes, that I would ever be able to inflict myself. I wish you wouldn't actually, because sometimes you come up with good points. I LIKE hearing from people who disagree with me. They usually have a completely different viewpoint, and as long as they are considerate of me, I will listen.
The fact that I rarely do listen to yours has less to do with me, and more to do with your posting style and lack of respect of anyone who disagrees with you.
On the rare occasion where I agree with you, I end up feeling vaguely disturbed and uncomfortable. I wish you could post less confrontational, because then perhaps we would get more substance. I know you strongly believe in your viewpoint. Maybe there is a reason why you do.
I don't call you names, or dismiss you out of hand most of the time. Yet, almost every thread I see that involves you degrades into name calling and personal attack. And pointing that out isn't an attack, it is a fact. I bet you have had more threads locked than anyone else in the history of Hatrack, yet you always (or almost always) blame everyone else other than yourself for this.
I know....let me guess.
Boring.
BTW, there are a ton of things Samp and I disagree on, and we have been vocal about a few of them. I don't recall making any attacks on him at any point, nor do I feel the same way about his disagreement with me. It's hardly a unified front against you, you know, based on similar values.
Just figured I would cut the next rationalization off at the knees BEFORE you tried the martyr thing again.
[ September 29, 2010, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lisa, don't flatter yourself; I'm not trying to irritate you. It's simply that Judaism is one of the single best examples of non-legislative law made up of both written doctrine and oral interpretation of that doctrine. The "body of law" that is the Torah is a body of law in almost exactly the same way that our Constitution and the legal precedents interpreting it constitute a body of law.
------
Rivka: do you seriously think that there were no interpretations of the Constitution extant at the time the Constitution was ratified?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not in an analogous way.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
(A little knowledge is a dangerous thing)
Tom, rather than supposing that you know enough about the subject to make such declarations, maybe you should ask some questions. 'Cause you don't get it.
There was no authoritative anything on the Constitution outside of the Constitution. If you insist on pretending that the Oral part of the Torah is just interpretations, or opinions, you're going to continue discussing something very different from Judaism.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Good God. Do you really expect me to read all the way through that? You have an exaggerated idea of how much I care about what you say.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm kind of assuming, given the quickness with which Kwea's response came after JB's, that it is most likely that Kwea hadn't read the pronouncement before it was posted. Kwea is, also, not the one dismissing posts as 'content free personal attacks' at convenience when the lack of content inferred is, well, not exactly lacking (especially not when put side to side with 'you bore me' style non-responses).
Also, while in general I don't care too much about personal attacks, I note that users can easily wear out their welcome with them. There's no way you're not on a tighter leash than other users, for good reason. I have no qualms with noting the much later personal attacks of a much more serially abusive user, especially given that said user appears manifestly less inclined to respect requests not to be abusive. Kwea, lacking such a history of serial misconduct and wanton abusiveness and short-temperedness, grants me plausible reason to suspect that he's sorry if the post was 'over the line,' whereas you provide little or no confidence that this is the case.
You can, of course, be as surprised as you want that this distinction plays out in terms of how readily capable I am of evaluating you differently than Kwea, instead of looking at it in terms of you both being blank slates.
Actually, my first post wasn't an attack at all, it was fact. It is a fact that a lot of people find many things boring, so boring isn't a litmus test for the quality of a post. You find Samp boring, or his post at least. Lot of people find you boring, offensive, and feel that your posting style is overly rude, a fact that you have been censored for in the past and one that has been made even by people who agree with you.
It's also a fact that you made an attack, and then posted
quote: 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.
. Sounded like playing the martyr to me, as Sam had only disagreed with you up to that point, not attacked you.
I made a point about EVERYONE being boring at one point or another, at least to someone else. Hardly an attack on you. I was pointing out that that wasn't a good refutation of anything he had said, just an attack on him.
It was clearly made, IMO, to discredit Sam and his views, otherwise why make it. Perhaps it was merely setting the stage for the later ad hom attack rather than being one itself. Considering how the rest of the conversation went from there, I doubt you can accurately refute that point.
Lisa, I don't ever have to attack you. You do more damage to yourself, and your causes, that I would ever be able to inflict myself. I wish you wouldn't actually, because sometimes you come up with good points. I LIKE hearing from people who disagree with me. They usually have a completely different viewpoint, and as long as they are considerate of me, I will listen.
The fact that I rarely do listen to yours has less to do with me, and more to do with your posting style and lack of respect of anyone who disagrees with you.
On the rare occasion where I agree with you, I end up feeling vaguely disturbed and uncomfortable. I wish you could post less confrontational, because then perhaps we would get more substance. I know you strongly believe in your viewpoint. Maybe there is a reason why you do.
I don't call you names, or dismiss you out of hand most of the time. Yet, almost every thread I see that involves you degrades into name calling and personal attack. And pointing that out isn't an attack, it is a fact. I bet you have had more threads locked than anyone else in the history of Hatrack, yet you always (or almost always) blame everyone else other than yourself for this.
I know....let me guess.
Boring.
BTW, there are a ton of things Samp and I disagree on, and we have been vocal about a few of them. I don't recall making any attacks on him at any point, nor do I feel the same way about his disagreement with me. It's hardly a unified front against you, you know, based on similar values.
Just figured I would cut the next rationalization off at the knees BEFORE you tried the martyr thing again.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Good God. Do you really expect me to read all the way through that? You have an exaggerated idea of how much I care about what you say.
I think we're all pretty fairly aware of how honestly willing you are to read into and own up into when you have unfairly charged others or dismissed others in threads. So, in that sense, a cop-out response like this isn't exactly something either of us would have anticipated from you due to an 'exaggerated idea' that you cared for actual, honest dialogue. :/
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you insist on pretending that the Oral part of the Torah is just interpretations, or opinions, you're going to continue discussing something very different from Judaism.
Of course the oral Torah is just interpretations and opinions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
As that is precisely the crux of the disagreement, it's not surprising that Lisa (in this case, I am comfortable speaking for her) and I disagree with that assessment.
Lisa is already offline for a few days. I will be shortly. We will be celebrating the receiving of something far more than interpretations and opinions.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If we're to be "intellectually honest" here, can we change the title of the thread? "Democrats: The Constitution Is ‘Weird’" is an awfully sweeping statement unless you have heard from everyone who considers him or herself a Democrat and they all agree. Many may even violently oppose that statement.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: If we're to be "intellectually honest" here, can we change the title of the thread? "Democrats: The Constitution Is ‘Weird’" is an awfully sweeping statement unless you have heard from everyone who considers him or herself a Democrat and they all agree. Many may even violently oppose that statement.
Seconded. The title itself is pretty much flamebait if you ask me.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Folks started talking about my admonition to lay off the personal attacks, that was a step in the right direction. But it's gone back to talk about personalities again. It needs to stop right now.
If you feel a compulsive need to insult each other, go to email. If you are looking for a place where you can insult each other so that everybody can read it, this is not the place for it.
I have no problem locking this thread if this continues. Please stop.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Rivka: I wasn't just making the original analogy idly. (I'll understand if this needs to wait for a few days, BTW; I'll wait for a reply, if any.) It's my understanding that the justification for the authority of the oral Torah is in fact the oral Torah; while there is scriptural justification for Levitical authority, the authority of Rabbis to codify the Talmud (and further interpreting it today) is based almost entirely on the oral tradition they choose to employ.
To my mind, this is a fairly solid allegory for the role of the American Supreme Court, who have evolved into the "rabbis" of our legal system and certainly have created a legal tradition that does not posit past or future alternatives to their influence short of dramatic upheaval.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So let's look at this article.
First, Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick did not exactly sum up the reaction, as stated. She just wrote a column. I'm not seeing a groundswell of Dems chastising O'Donnell over her statement. I read Lithwick's column and her declaration of "weirdness" doesn't seem to be to be about the consideration of the Constitution when passing laws, but the way O'Donnell is going about it. It's not anti-Constitution, it's anti-O'Donnell.
quote: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.
Yep, she did. And she goes on to explain why she thinks that, and why she distrusts the GOP's sudden adherence to it.
quote:The influential liberal blog ThinkProgress warns that the Pledge reflects “radical ‘tenther’” thinking, using a dismissive term for those who cite the Tenth Amendment’s limits on federal power.
Yep, they said exactly that. And followed it with a history lesson on 200+-year-old argument over what the Constitution does and doesn't allow for, and points out exactly where in the Pledge the GOP is hoping to limit spending on the services they don't like.
I do not agree with everything the Dems do. I do not agree with everything President Obama does. But I am more than a little tired of the hatefest that deals only in hyperbole and conveniently ignores the same or worse offenses when committed by people the orator favors.
Obama is not sitting at his desk, cackling with glee and dry-washing his hands over how quickly America is falling to his scheme. I believe he is honestly doing what he thinks is right to govern the country, and rather than stepping up to help him by offering advice and working to create bills that are more effective for having both sides' input, too many politicians are simply gainsaying everything he says or does and claiming it's all a trap.
This does not help us. This is not governing. It's petty politics for personal gain.
(Note that this is criticizing the author of the original linked article)
[ September 29, 2010, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Good God. Do you really expect me to read all the way through that? You have an exaggerated idea of how much I care about what you say.
No. I expected you to make a dismissive comment that failed to address any points made, as usual.
Thanks for proving me right.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
This article has some really pertinent history on constitutional interpretation by the founding fathers in the earliest years of the republic.
The article makes it very clear that the founding fathers had strong disagreements about the role of the Federal government and that the Constitutiion (probably deliberately) was not intended to resolve those major disagreements in a definitive way.
quote:The truth is that the disputatious founders -- who were revolutionaries, not choir boys -- seldom agreed about anything. Never has the country produced a more brilliantly argumentative, individualistic or opinionated group of politicians. Far from being a soft-spoken epoch of genteel sages, the founding period was noisy and clamorous, rife with vitriolic polemics and partisan backbiting. Instead of bequeathing to posterity a set of universally shared opinions, engraved in marble, the founders shaped a series of fiercely fought debates that reverberate down to the present day. Right along with the rest of America, the tea party has inherited these open-ended feuds, which are profoundly embedded in our political culture.
quote:President Washington's Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, wasted no time in testing constitutional limits as he launched a burst of government activism. In December 1790, he issued a state paper calling for the first central bank in the country's history, the forerunner of the Federal Reserve System.
Because the Constitution didn't include a syllable about such an institution, Hamilton, with his agile legal mind, pounced on Article I, Section 8, which endowed Congress with all powers "necessary and proper" to perform tasks assigned to it in the national charter. Because the Constitution empowered the government to collect taxes and borrow money, Hamilton argued, a central bank might usefully discharge such functions. In this way, he devised a legal doctrine of powers "implied" as well as enumerated in the Constitution.
The primary reason the US Constitution has endured for 2 centuries with minimal revision is that is intentional vague about many key issues and thus allows the citizens of this country flexibility to address the problems of changing times.
The arguments we are having today about the proper role of the federal government, are mirrored in surprising detail in the debates between the founding fathers and the compromises struck in the deliberately vague working of the US constitution. Looking to the constitution to resolve those debates today shows genuine ignorance regarding the founding fathers and the nature of the US constitution.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: 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.
Gah! Yes, I know what ad hominem is. That's the point, is that when you look at the posts you accuse of being ad hominem, there is none of the dismissal of premise that you need for it to actually be an ad hominem. It is only when you expand the idea of an ad hominem the way you did that it makes your own posts count towards it as well.
Its really *NOT* brain surgery, which is why its so baffling that you can not revisit it for yourself and see the error of your ways. Is it similar to how you can conviince yourself that the last thread lock was armoth's fault, not yours? Is it similar to how you process my posts as 'content free personal attacks'?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Seconded. The title itself is pretty much flamebait if you ask me.
Republicans: "We hate America."
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Hatrack, you are the intellectual version of Jersey Shore.
I love it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I want to hear more what Chris Bridges and The Rabbit have to say.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: If we're to be "intellectually honest" here, can we change the title of the thread? "Democrats: The Constitution Is ‘Weird’" is an awfully sweeping statement unless you have heard from everyone who considers him or herself a Democrat and they all agree. Many may even violently oppose that statement.
I'd be happy to change the title.
Edit: I hope that's more to your liking.
[ October 02, 2010, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
My high school math teacher used to say "There's no such thing as a good analogy." The reason being that all analogies fall apart at some point.
Sure, you can analogize the two in the sense that they are both the law. But the way the US government has treated the US Constitution in the past century is very similar to how most American Jews have treated the Torah over that same period of time. Which is to say that they've put it in a library and chosen to treat it as a quaint thing that's only of historical interest.
Also, if you look here, you'll see that Golub is a Reform rabbi, and as such, his view on similarities between the Torah and the US Constitution are iffy, at best.
A cousin of mine who I met last year on Facebook expressed surprise at the idea that the Oral Torah was given at Sinai. She said she was going to ask her (Reform) rabbi. I told her what he was going to say. Not because he's a liar or anything, but because even their rabbis have learned this kind of misinformation and think that the Oral Torah is "an interpretation of the Torah". A month or so ago, she mentioned to me that she finally got around to asking him. I asked if his answer was what I said it would be, and she said it was.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which prominent Democrat has suggested that the Constitution is weird, Lisa?
As a side note: the only thing that says the Oral Torah was given at Sinai is the Oral Torah. In the same way, the only thing that says the Supreme Court gets to interpret the Constitution is the Supreme Court. It seems to me like a pretty solid analogy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Playing pretty fast and loose with the definition of "prominent" aren't we?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's a logical extension of using National Review to assert the motives of liberals, I guess.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The "weird" statement was from a semi-prominent columnist who evidently leans left. I assume she's mildly prominent; she writes for Slate, but I've never heard of her before this. Other comments that failed to provide the same reverence mentioned in the article were another columnist, a few actual Democratic politicians, and Nancy Pelosi (the only actual "prominent" Democrat mentioned).
I think it's worth mentioning that Pelosi didn't say anything against the Constitution or suggest that was not the ultimate law of the land.
quote:“Are you serious?” responded a stunned and baffled Nancy Pelosi when asked about the constitutionality of the health-care bill. But, given the Left’s view of permissible government power, Pelosi’s surprise may have been forgivable.
Since the article takes it as fact that all Democrats want to ignore the Constitution -- and assumes its readers already agree -- this passage just adds to the preponderance of evidence. Me, I see it as Pelosi simply being caught off guard by a question she didn't expect.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Rivka: I wasn't just making the original analogy idly.
*shrug* So? You're still wrong. I understand your analogy; I disagree with it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I disagree with it.
Again, I don't quite understand why. What is the distinction that you are trying to draw? In Jewish oral tradition, as interpreted by generations of Rabbis, generations of Rabbis are empowered to interpret Jewish law as codified in the written Torah. How does that differ from America's tradition of legal interpretation, which again is nowhere defined in the Constitution but which has become part of our body of law anyway?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I disagree with it.
Again, I don't quite understand why. What is the distinction that you are trying to draw? In Jewish oral tradition, as interpreted by generations of Rabbis, generations of Rabbis are empowered to interpret Jewish law as codified in the written Torah. How does that differ from America's tradition of legal interpretation, which again is nowhere defined in the Constitution but which has become part of our body of law anyway?
We are not "interpreting" Jewish law, as you think. And it isn't just "oral tradition", as that term is commonly used. The primary corpus of law and lore in Judaism was never written down. Could not be written down. It required emergency situations to even allow the Mishnah to be written down, and that's merely an extremely terse and abbreviated guide to the Oral Torah. The Talmud is less terse than the Mishnah, but even it is not the Oral Torah. It is merely discussions about the Oral Torah.
What is happening with the US Constitution is that when it was created (by people, mind you), there were two primary views. One was what you could call Hamiltonianism, which was the view that the US should be a monarchy. Or that failing that, it should mimic a monarchy so much as to be pretty much the same thing under a different name. He wanted the Presidency to be for life. He wanted the state governors to be nothing but agents of the President, akin to European nobility.
On the other side, there was what you could call Jeffersonianism, which wanted the bare minimum of government necessary to keep people from eating each other alive, but otherwise wanted the government to be a relatively small servant of the sovereign people of the several states (which were countries in their own right, bound together voluntarily in a union which existed for the purposes of defense, foreign policy, and keeping the states from warring with one another, economically or otherwise).
Had the Constitutional Convention chosen one of these views as the authoritative one and chosen not to write it into the Constitution, you might have a partially workable analogy going. But they didn't.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I think it's worth mentioning that Pelosi didn't say anything against the Constitution or suggest that was not the ultimate law of the land.
quote:“Are you serious?” responded a stunned and baffled Nancy Pelosi when asked about the constitutionality of the health-care bill. But, given the Left’s view of permissible government power, Pelosi’s surprise may have been forgivable.
Since the article takes it as fact that all Democrats want to ignore the Constitution -- and assumes its readers already agree -- this passage just adds to the preponderance of evidence. Me, I see it as Pelosi simply being caught off guard by a question she didn't expect.
I wonder what it would take for you to be convinced that the Democrats, as a whole, do not consider Constitutional limitations to be a concern when legislating. The quotes in the article from Stark and Hare and Clyburn, which went without comment or criticism by any of their party leaders, are clearly unimportant to you.
A Supreme Court Justice saying that there's "no constitutional impediment to Congress’s passing a law that required every American to eat a minimum daily amount of fruits and vegetables" doesn't seem problematic to you.
Granted, the Republicans aren't a lot better. But you know what? Given the choice of a thief who is embarrassed enough at his thievery to say "Stealing is wrong", and a thief who is completely cool with the idea of stealing, I'll take the former.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The primary corpus of law and lore in Judaism was never written down.
And, of course, neither is the Constitution the primary corpus of law and lore in America.
quote:Had the Constitutional Convention chosen one of these views as the authoritative one and chosen not to write it into the Constitution, you might have a partially workable analogy going.
Why? It's not like the only purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide whether or not an issue should be decided by the states.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Deuteronomy 17:9-11
"And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment. And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which the LORD shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee. According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left."
I say this all the time to friends who ask of my study of Jewish law and American law has any parallels. It has a LOT of parallels, and that's cool and all - but one major difference is American law tries to decide on what the best policy is, and Jewish law is largely about determining what policy God wanted.
American law is more fluid, case law interprets and reinterprets - the very source of Judicial review isn't the constitution, it's case law!
There can be no such thing as judicial activism in Judaism - there aren't even amendments. The only innovations are in terms of creating boundaries so that Torah laws are not violated - for instance, the prohibition against running a store on the Sabbath is largely rabbinic, as a cautionary measure taken so that one does not violate the biblical commandment of writing on the Sabbath.
Otherwise, there is interpretation of "original intent" I suppose.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I say this all the time to friends who ask of my study of Jewish law and American law has any parallels. It has a LOT of parallels, and that's cool and all - but one major difference is American law tries to decide on what the best policy is, and Jewish law is largely about determining what policy God wanted.
Where's the meaningful distinction? Do you think the best policy is not the one God wants?
quote:There can be no such thing as judicial activism in Judaism - there aren't even amendments.
I think Jewish history disproves this. There are amendments. They just happen in blood, and then passionate denial that anything was ever amended.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I say this all the time to friends who ask of my study of Jewish law and American law has any parallels. It has a LOT of parallels, and that's cool and all - but one major difference is American law tries to decide on what the best policy is, and Jewish law is largely about determining what policy God wanted.
Where's the meaningful distinction? Do you think the best policy is not the one God wants?
quote:There can be no such thing as judicial activism in Judaism - there aren't even amendments.
I think Jewish history disproves this. There are amendments. They just happen in blood, and then passionate denial that anything was ever amended.
For me, it helps seeming religion as sort of a "God knows better than you" thing.
Basically, humanity is flawed, and despite the fact that we know the truth, we have awesome difficulty in living it.
I remember when I was 17, I heard an amazing lecture from a spiritual guru of mine, and I walked out feeling like I saw the world so clearly - Judaism was so obvious and true, I had no desire to ever "sin" again (and sin here can be read as, i decided never to be a jerk again, or whatever you prefer, I sin in many ways), and so I congratulated myself for becoming a saint at such a young age.
But obviously, I had come to sin again, and it shook me to the core. I had thought that religion was about discovering the truth. But since then, religion has been about discovering truth, yes, but mostly, adhering, and living according to that truth.
People are fickle. We can't stick to the plans we set for ourselves. We never stick to our diets, we know certain relationships are bad for us, but we don't get out of them, etc.
When I got into a really coldly rational phase of Judaism I had a problem with Sabbath. What. God rested on the 7th day, so we have to rest every 7 days. What the heck?! Why did He rest? And why after 7 days?
And after I began to learn a little more, I learned that Sabbath is the abstention from creative activity (not "work" as many often thing, although a lot of creative activity is subsumed under "work", although owning a store, is not...") - and that abstention is a testimony to the fact that it is God, and not we, who created the world.
Every 7 days is a reminder of that. And what's interesting, what I realized about human nature, is that we need that reminder. It's not just about learning the concepts, it's about living them.
And so one example of the distinction in Jewish law is that there is a lot of "what God wants" in terms of these reminder-like laws that humanity, left on its own, would likely not come up with. And it that sense "God knows better than you" and His laws are more beneficial to humanity than man-made laws, and often would not be derived by humanity because of the inherent flaws of humanity.
I mean - look at it this way - the fact is that a majority of people pass a law, and then it gets struck down as unconstitutional. That means that a majority of people forgot, ignored(in many cases) or dishonestly interpreted the constitution.
When you come to the table, interpreting American law, knowing it is man made - the degree of interpretation we, as a society, afford ourselves, is much broader than Rabbis, coming to Jewish law knowing it is God-made.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There can be no such thing as judicial activism in Judaism - there aren't even amendments.
I think Jewish history disproves this. There are amendments. They just happen in blood, and then passionate denial that anything was ever amended.
No, Tom. There are no amendments. I think what I don't understand with you, here and over at Ornery, where you're making the same sort of claims, is why you think that baldly stating things you know that Rivka and Armoth and I don't accept as true is a good use of your time. I mean, you're making arguments based on these claims of yours. But since the claims themselves are false (not that you ever try to substantiate them; you seem to content to just claim them), they can't be used as premises.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There can be no such thing as judicial activism in Judaism - there aren't even amendments.
I think Jewish history disproves this. There are amendments. They just happen in blood, and then passionate denial that anything was ever amended.
No, Tom. There are no amendments. I think what I don't understand with you, here and over at Ornery, where you're making the same sort of claims, is why you think that baldly stating things you know that Rivka and Armoth and I don't accept as true is a good use of your time. I mean, you're making arguments based on these claims of yours. But since the claims themselves are false (not that you ever try to substantiate them; you seem to content to just claim them), they can't be used as premises.
Oh right, I forgot to address this. Tom, it would help if you could provide an example.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You mean an example that you won't totally write off? I mean, I recall a conversation very recently in which you simply refused to accept the possibility that an event that happened possibly as far back as seven thousand years ago might have grown a bit in the telling. *grin*
---------
My point, of course, is that it fundamentally does not matter that the law here is presumably given by God; that it's presumably God's Law is no more relevant to this conversation than the idea that it's somehow Man's Law enshrined in the American Constitution. I understand that it's important to some Jews to believe that the law on which they rely is somehow the interpreted and complete word of God, but the irony here is that many strict Constitutionalists treat the Constitution exactly the same way; replace "God" with "the Founding Fathers" and there's no functional difference.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Is that your argument? I thought it was that the constitution was a living document, like the Torah is.
I was just pointing out the difference.
If your point was that some strict constitutionalists treat the constitution like the Torah is treated, i concede.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Again, I don't quite understand why.
This is a lie. And a fairly transparent one at that.
You understand perfectly well. You simply disagree. Which is just fine.
The snide dishonesty is not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is that your argument? I thought it was that the constitution was a living document, like the Torah is.
Yes, that is also my argument. And like many strict Constitutionalists, many Jews don't think of the Torah as a living document. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Man, Tom, if ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Man, Tom, if ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic.
Exactly. I was gonna reply to Tom, but I threw up my hands in exasperation. Telling 3 orthodox Jews who are fairly-well versed in the interpretation of the Torah and Oral Law that it's just like the interpretation of the Constitution...I mean, seriously?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This occurred to me while reading through some of this thread, and it's not really on topic for your current argument, but...You know the funny thing about unconstitutionality: Technically if we followed the exact letter of what powers are given by the Constitution, nothing passed by Congress would ever be unconstitutional. Not unless they said it was.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
That doesn't make any sense. And personally, I'm more than happy to move on from that "current argument", since it's content free on one side.
People don't suck as much as you think they do, Lyrhawn. Legislators mostly stuck to their Constitutional limitations for quite a while.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There is no mechanism in the constitution for judicial review of congressional legislation. It is an implied power, not a specifically codified one. And you'd better believe that the other two branches of government screamed bloody murder when Marshall claimed it for himself. When Congress first met and started passing bills, they intended to be their own police men, and were pretty pissed with Marshall stuck his nose in their business.
And I think you'll find that claims of unconstitutionality go back about as far as the constitution does.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There is no mechanism in the constitution for judicial review of congressional legislation. It is an implied power, not a specifically codified one. And you'd better believe that the other two branches of government screamed bloody murder when Marshall claimed it for himself. When Congress first met and started passing bills, they intended to be their own police men, and were pretty pissed with Marshall stuck his nose in their business.
And I think you'll find that claims of unconstitutionality go back about as far as the constitution does.
True. I don't think the power to declare something unconstitutional was used until Dred Scott.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Marbury v. Madison. And then yes, it wasn't used again until Dred Scott v. Sanford.
I think you also have to consider all the cases that were decided and the law was not struck down, as merely hearing the case under the guise of judicial review seems to confirm that they have the power, they just chose not to exercise it. These types of cases really took off around the time of the civil war, and have never really slowed down since.
All of it is based upon the legal rationale that Marshall used in Marbury to justify SCOTUS having the power to strike down an act of Congress, and not anything actually written in the Constitution specifically.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know the funny thing about unconstitutionality: Technically if we followed the exact letter of what powers are given by the Constitution, nothing passed by Congress would ever be unconstitutional. Not unless they said it was.
My last polsci professor noted this as one of the more supreme oddities of our system of legal constitutional review. More so, he used it as an example of how the way law works in practice will never consistently remain as the law says; this is especially true in the event of a system becoming dysfunctional and/or necessitating common-sense mechanisms of bypass in order to keep operating. Which means that the more Congress locks up, the more power the executive will casually absorb. Doesn't matter which party's in charge.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Telling 3 orthodox Jews who are fairly-well versed in the interpretation of the Torah and Oral Law that it's just like the interpretation of the Constitution...I mean, seriously?
Again, what do you consider to be the practical difference? You haven't actually presented a meaningful distinction between the two, bearing in mind that it does not in fact matter whether God or the Founding Fathers wrote the document in question.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Telling 3 orthodox Jews who are fairly-well versed in the interpretation of the Torah and Oral Law that it's just like the interpretation of the Constitution...I mean, seriously?
Again, what do you consider to be the practical difference? You haven't actually presented a meaningful distinction between the two, bearing in mind that it does not in fact matter whether God or the Founding Fathers wrote the document in question.
What do you want me to say, "yuh huh"? Come spend a couple of years in religious seminary and then you'll be all - "Gee golly, I should probably not presume to know anything about religious legal system after never having studied it"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There is no mechanism in the constitution for judicial review of congressional legislation. It is an implied power, not a specifically codified one. And you'd better believe that the other two branches of government screamed bloody murder when Marshall claimed it for himself. When Congress first met and started passing bills, they intended to be their own police men, and were pretty pissed with Marshall stuck his nose in their business.
And I think you'll find that claims of unconstitutionality go back about as far as the constitution does.
Oh, I know. And I think Marshall was just plain wrong. He was simply depending on an unwillingness to get into a constitutional crisis. There isn't any reason why SCOTUS should have the right of judicial review.
But limits are limits whether they're enforced or not.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Telling 3 orthodox Jews who are fairly-well versed in the interpretation of the Torah and Oral Law that it's just like the interpretation of the Constitution...I mean, seriously?
Again, what do you consider to be the practical difference? You haven't actually presented a meaningful distinction between the two, bearing in mind that it does not in fact matter whether God or the Founding Fathers wrote the document in question.
What do you want me to say, "yuh huh"? Come spend a couple of years in religious seminary and then you'll be all - "Gee golly, I should probably not presume to know anything about religious legal system after never having studied it"
QFT
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pfft. This is Tom.
No, he still wouldn't. He's stubborn like that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What do you want me to say, "yuh huh"?
I would like you to explain the mechanism of difference between an oral Torah justified by itself and interpreted by a committee of elites from legal precedent justified by precedent and interpreted by a committee of elites. How do these mechanisms functionally differ?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Most ideas can, in fact, be explained in a forum post, even if it takes two years to [s]brainwash you into accepting them[/s] explore the full implications. How about you getting down off your high horse and telling us what the big deal is, instead of this sneering appeal to authority?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
It's interesting. KoM. You'd earn a lot more credibility if you always played the part of the rationalist. Surely, you'd recognize that to explain a legal system in a forum post is ridiculous.
Tom - on the point of self-justification, I quoted you the verses in Deuteronomy from which Oral Torah derives its written authority.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this is massively entertaining for all of the wrong reasons.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There is no mechanism in the constitution for judicial review of congressional legislation. It is an implied power, not a specifically codified one. And you'd better believe that the other two branches of government screamed bloody murder when Marshall claimed it for himself. When Congress first met and started passing bills, they intended to be their own police men, and were pretty pissed with Marshall stuck his nose in their business.
And I think you'll find that claims of unconstitutionality go back about as far as the constitution does.
Oh, I know. And I think Marshall was just plain wrong. He was simply depending on an unwillingness to get into a constitutional crisis. There isn't any reason why SCOTUS should have the right of judicial review.
But limits are limits whether they're enforced or not.
That's adorable.
If the branches are equal, and checks and balances is a real thing, then where does SCOTUS fit into the government? If they have no power over either branch, the Executive and the Congress can walk all over them, and there's no check over Congressional power, it would depend entirely on Congress' self-control. The whole point of checks and balances is to NOT have to rely on any one branch's self-control.
Your theory on government seems to distill to "we can trust them to do the right thing." That sounds a hell of a lot more like something that I would say.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why is it ridiculous to explain a legal system in a forum post? Especially when all that's being asked is the functional distinction between two analogous situations?
Armoth: "listen to the Levites" is an awfully narrow scripture on which to hang the oral Torah.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
The Levites and the Judge. The Levites were a tribe of scholars and teachers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes, I know. Why do you mention it?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I prefer to stay in the background on the religious threads. I learn more by reading and thinking than I do by participating, I feel. Plus, judging by the outcome of many threads, not participating saves me a lot of unnecessary stress.
Would it be possible for Rivka, Lisa, or Armoth to explain, even briefly and succinctly, why interpretation of the Torah and Oral Law is different from interpretation of any legal code?
(I'm not sure I'm even asking the right question, here.)
I'm not trying to be a pest, but I'm approaching this discussion (and I use that term pretty loosely) from a different perspective. My knowledge of Judaism is limited. I'm not quite sure I understand your perspective; because of that, I'm not sure I understand Tom's perspective, either. :shrug: Maybe it could help other lurkers understand, too. This little exchange has been...confusing...
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: this is massively entertaining for all of the wrong reasons.
The funny thing is, you could tell right from the start how this would end.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: Would it be possible for Rivka, Lisa, or Armoth to explain, even briefly and succinctly, why interpretation of the Torah and Oral Law is different from interpretation of any legal code?
(I'm not sure I'm even asking the right question, here.)
I think that's probably the problem. Would you mind clarifying the question, please? When you say "interpretation of the Torah and Oral Law", to what are you referring? Can you point to something, so that we can know how to respond?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, I know. And I think Marshall was just plain wrong. He was simply depending on an unwillingness to get into a constitutional crisis. There isn't any reason why SCOTUS should have the right of judicial review.
But limits are limits whether they're enforced or not.
That's adorable.
If the branches are equal, and checks and balances is a real thing, then where does SCOTUS fit into the government?
Where does it say that all three branches are equal? Or that every branch has checks and balances on each of the others? That's a result of Marshall's judicial review coup, and not something in the Constitution.
SCOTUS is the high court. Geddit? You appeal, you appeal, you appeal, and finally there's an end to it.
The check on Congress, incidentally, according to Jefferson and everyone else who wasn't into Hamilton's federal government uber alles position, is the States. The States are entitled to nullify laws which they deem unconstitutional. This is called nullification, or interposition.
James Madison claimed that not only do States have this right, it is in fact their duty.
So your question makes some sense, but only if you start from the idea that the States are absolute subjects of the Federal government. Which they are not.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Your theory on government seems to distill to "we can trust them to do the right thing." That sounds a hell of a lot more like something that I would say.
It does sound more like something you'd say. But I don't really buy it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The states have looooong since ceased to be anything other than Absolute subjects of the federal government, this I think was a predictable course of action even then, that overtime the States would continue to surrender more of their rights for more collective securities and prosperity on a national level.
The civil war, and then the civil rights act I think essentially push down and then buried the concept.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Blayne, ideas come and go in this country. Ron Paul brought the idea of the Constitution back into the light of day, and the Tea Party (which is a direct result of the Paul campaign) is continuing to push this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: James Madison claimed that not only do States have this right, it is in fact their duty.
The claim to nullification has been defunct since Cooper v. Aaron. Anybody can claim that the states have this right (or claim that income tax is unconstitutional, or that we never landed on the moon) but it's not backed up by precedent or application, and the states are in no position to assert otherwise.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:SCOTUS is the high court. Geddit? You appeal, you appeal, you appeal, and finally there's an end to it.
This means nothing. We're talking about powers, not process. I know how the appeals process works, but to what extent do they have the power to grant appeal requests?
quote:The check on Congress, incidentally, according to Jefferson and everyone else who wasn't into Hamilton's federal government uber alles position, is the States. The States are entitled to nullify laws which they deem unconstitutional. This is called nullification, or interposition.
Show me where it says this in the Constitution.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
This seems to be a case of "I'm right and you're wrong," with a strong unspoken undercurrent of, "because God said so" and a side order of Special Pleading.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:The check on Congress, incidentally, according to Jefferson and everyone else who wasn't into Hamilton's federal government uber alles position, is the States. The States are entitled to nullify laws which they deem unconstitutional. This is called nullification, or interposition.
Show me where it says this in the Constitution.
That'd be the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The 9th amendment says people might have rights that aren't spelled out in the Constitution. It doesn't even vaguely address the powers you've asserted.
The debate for the 10th amendment included consideration of the necessary and proper clause, and the consensus decision was a version that did not trump the necessary and proper clause (if they had added "expressly" it would have). It does, however, at least vaguely pertain to the question at hand.
But you seem to have created a situation where the federal government has absolutely no power over the states. After all, if in your interpretation the states are sole arbiters (separately, as indicated by the 10th amendment that you're using to support the idea) of what's Constitutional, they can name anything unconstitutional.
Even Jefferson didn't think that was the case.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Interestingly, Jefferson seems to have liked the Federal government to be essentially unanswerable to anyone unless they pissed off at about two thirds of everyone.
quote:"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."
He's clearly interpreting (in this and other quotations) the 10th amendment to not allow what you said, instead relying on the power to call for new amendments. That is, if people don't like the Congress having done something, and can't get a new Congress to undo it (and evidence is clear they haven't been easily persuaded in that direction), they need to amend the Constitution to undo it, in Jefferson's worldview.
Since the evidence is overwhelming that most people are willing to tolerate, ah, statist interventions, I'd think libertarians would be happy to get at least minimal protection of rights by the courts. Of course, you're probably going to respond that the situation created by not having courts able to overrule Congress would lead to such dissatisfaction that people would become aggressively rights-minded.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Blayne, ideas come and go in this country. Ron Paul brought the idea of the Constitution back into the light of day, and the Tea Party (which is a direct result of the Paul campaign) is continuing to push this.
This is arguable at best.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Blayne, ideas come and go in this country. Ron Paul brought the idea of the Constitution back into the light of day, and the Tea Party (which is a direct result of the Paul campaign) is continuing to push this.
This is arguable at best.
Well, Paul's role in bringing about the Tea Party is probably somewhat important, but in the grand scheme of things I'm betting most people in the Tea Party couldn't name what his biggest issue is. And anyone who has heard him talk for five minutes knows what it is. Him having "brought the idea of the Constitution back into the light of day" is an incredibly vague statement that I don't even understand. Okay, I know what she means by it, but it's still a silly thing to say.
You know I think the most interesting election in the country is going to be in Alaska. In many ways Alaska is an electoral outlier from almost any other state in American politics. It's a state that is extremely cheap to campaign in, where write-in candidates actually have a decent history of winning, and where there are so few people that any halfway decent get out the vote campaign can turn up numbers that can win an election. The Tea Party candidate there unhorsed Lisa Murkowski from the GOP senate nomination. Murkowski is from the closest thing that Alaska has to a political family dynasty, and she got the boot. But now she's running a write-in campaign across the state. Anywhere else I'd say they already chose their poison and she doesn't have a chance, but here's why I'm interested. Alaska gets something like two to one in federal money. That is, for every dollar they pay out in taxes, they get almost two dollars back. They are the most heavily subsidized state in the entire country, which is sort of ironic considering their oil money means they almost always have a nice surplus in their budget.
But here's the rub: The guy they nominated on the GOP side wants a dramatic slash in federal spending. Cut Social Security, cut Medicare, cut unemployment benefits. Really, eliminate them. That's a lot of money for Alaskans. Now, the chances of him getting any of that are pretty much zero, but it's what he wants. Will Alaskans vote for him knowing they'll be losing out big time on federal dollars, but perhaps knowing that this won't really happen, yet with fingers crossed that taxes might somehow get lowered despite that? Or will they vote for Murkowski to protect those programs? Either way the exit polls will be interesting.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: The check on Congress, incidentally, according to Jefferson and everyone else who wasn't into Hamilton's federal government uber alles position, is the States. The States are entitled to nullify laws which they deem unconstitutional. This is called nullification, or interposition.
There's still a big hole in this system that we don't have in the present system.
If the only way to enforce the Constitution is nullification by the states, how could it be possible to prevent a state from passing unconstitutional laws?
For instance, if a state were to make a law abridging the right to bear arms, how would the consitutional prohibition on such laws be enforced?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: If the only way to enforce the Constitution is nullification by the states, how could it be possible to prevent a state from passing unconstitutional laws?
It wouldn't really be that possible. Basically, the state nullification argument in its present form is a desperate revisionary concept by the same people who basically believe that the united states should be a confederacy and that Lincoln et.al were horrid tyrants for keeping the union intact, etc.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: The check on Congress, incidentally, according to Jefferson and everyone else who wasn't into Hamilton's federal government uber alles position, is the States. The States are entitled to nullify laws which they deem unconstitutional. This is called nullification, or interposition.
There's still a big hole in this system that we don't have in the present system.
If the only way to enforce the Constitution is nullification by the states, how could it be possible to prevent a state from passing unconstitutional laws?
For instance, if a state were to make a law abridging the right to bear arms, how would the consitutional prohibition on such laws be enforced?
Prior to the 14th amendment, the idea of the US Constitution having any effect on States was ridiculous. The Constitution defines the federal government. The Bill of Rights is restrictions on the federal government.
But then the States themselves voted to ratify the 14th Amendment. So now any protections afforded people by the Constitution are binding on a state level as well.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Which is by design, if the states nolonger wish to hold their soveriengty the way they used to then how is this a problem?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
She's right about that. State governments were very protective of their rights. If anyone was going to oppress the people, then gosh darnit, it'd be the states, not the federal government.
I don't agree with anything she has to say about state power over the federal government though. Or at least, anything I've heard that far. Doesn't mean she won't say something I agree with in the future.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Prior to the 14th amendment, the idea of the US Constitution having any effect on States was ridiculous.
No, it wasn't. Certain rights could be argued over, but others were unambiguously guaranteed -- and the Constitution is quite explicit that it is the supreme law of the land. The courts have been enforcing those rights as regards states since the very beginning, too. Take, as an example, the fourth amendment. That's been binding on states since the very beginning. Would you like to present some evidence otherwise?
edit: I did some research, and I'd like to retract. Early on the Constitution was interpreted this way for the fourth amendment (though I think it obvious the explicit text of the Constitution made certain parts applicable, and would be interested in seeing logic that says otherwise). However, certain other clauses were applied to the states: for instance, the commerce clause restricted what states could do, even early on.
[ October 06, 2010, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Prior to the 14th amendment, the idea of the US Constitution having any effect on States was ridiculous. The Constitution defines the federal government. The Bill of Rights is restrictions on the federal government.
So prior to the 14th amendment, the states had the right to ban guns and execute accused criminals without jury trials? That's absurd.
I can see the rationale here with the amendments that say "Congress shall make no law," but some of them are clearly worded as blanket bans. The 5th amendment makes no exception exempting states.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Prior to the 14th amendment, the idea of the US Constitution having any effect on States was ridiculous. The Constitution defines the federal government. The Bill of Rights is restrictions on the federal government.
So prior to the 14th amendment, the states had the right to ban guns and execute accused criminals without jury trials? That's absurd.
I can see the rationale here with the amendments that say "Congress shall make no law," but some of them are clearly worded as blanket bans. The 5th amendment makes no exception exempting states.
Not all of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated yet.
My high school math teacher used to say "There's no such thing as a good analogy." The reason being that all analogies fall apart at some point.
Sure, you can analogize the two in the sense that they are both the law. But the way the US government has treated the US Constitution in the past century is very similar to how most American Jews have treated the Torah over that same period of time. Which is to say that they've put it in a library and chosen to treat it as a quaint thing that's only of historical interest.
Also, if you look here, you'll see that Golub is a Reform rabbi, and as such, his view on similarities between the Torah and the US Constitution are iffy, at best.
A cousin of mine who I met last year on Facebook expressed surprise at the idea that the Oral Torah was given at Sinai. She said she was going to ask her (Reform) rabbi. I told her what he was going to say. Not because he's a liar or anything, but because even their rabbis have learned this kind of misinformation and think that the Oral Torah is "an interpretation of the Torah". A month or so ago, she mentioned to me that she finally got around to asking him. I asked if his answer was what I said it would be, and she said it was.
I didn't mean for that video to be dispositive. I was merely pointing out that the analogy was not merely a misunderstanding by an "ignorant" non-Jew. Actually, given the Supreme Court's track record the analogy is insulting to the Rabbis.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Oh yeah, this thread. It was an interesting discussion near the end.
The early interpretation of the Bill of Rights as not governing the states still strikes me as bizarre, and obviously inferior to our present system of courts enforcing the amendments at both the federal and state level.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I mean - look at it this way - the fact is that a majority of people pass a law, and then it gets struck down as unconstitutional. That means that a majority of people forgot, ignored(in many cases) or dishonestly interpreted the constitution.
You left off a 4th option, that people honestly disagreed about how the constitution should be interpreted. Failure to recognize that possibility, the possibility of honest disagreement and loyal opposition is, I think, one of the biggest problems in American politics.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Oh yeah, this thread. It was an interesting discussion near the end.
The early interpretation of the Bill of Rights as not governing the states still strikes me as bizarre, and obviously inferior to our present system of courts enforcing the amendments at both the federal and state level.
You have to imagine a national attitude towards citizenship that put state citizenship and national citizenship not only on different levels, but where state citizenship was valued the most. Even after the 14th amendment was passed this attitude persisted in the south. These were people who didn't necessarily fear government, but they did fear a national government diluting their own power to have control over their own state. Like I said way earlier in this thread, if someone was going to oppress the people it had darn well better be the state government, not the national.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There is no mechanism in the constitution for judicial review of congressional legislation. It is an implied power, not a specifically codified one. There is no mechanism in the constitution for judicial review of congressional legislation. It is an implied power, not a specifically codified one. And you'd better believe that the other two branches of government screamed bloody murder when Marshall claimed it for himself. When Congress first met and started passing bills, they intended to be their own police men, and were pretty pissed with Marshall stuck his nose in their business.
And I think you'll find that claims of unconstitutionality go back about as far as the constitution does.
I believe this is wrong, especially the portion above in italics.
Article III, Section 2.1 addresses specifically the judiciary's power to review congressional legislation: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States [which are the laws passed by Congress], ..."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Check your Con Law history. Historically, the section you put forth has never had the force you think it does.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Check your Con Law history. Historically, the section you put forth has never had the force you think it does.
Lyrhawn, You are being surprisingly one sided in your representation. There have been prominent people on both sides of this issue since before the constitution was ratified.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As to whether the Constitution implies the power? Of course.
I've never seen the argument hinge on that specific section though.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm not enough of a Constitutional Scholar to know which section people have used to argue for particular powers. I am however knowledgable enough of history, to know that the idea that the constitution is a document with a clear indisputable meaning to which all honest people must agree, is laughable.
The Founding Fathers were a highly fractious bunch of people and the document they produced was a compromise in just about every way. They had very strong disagreements about the "correct" interpretation of the document. Many of the most contentious issues were left vague, or avoided all together (like secession for example) intentionally because they knew that clarity would make the constitution unratifiable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Okay. Nowhere did I contradict what you're saying. I specifically commented on one aspect of one section of Article III. You seem to be deriving some sort of larger point from what I'm saying that I never intended, and that I don't think is it all justifiable.
I was talking specifically about SCOTUS interpretations of Constitutional power and the justification regarding judicial review.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I mean, I recall a conversation very recently in which you simply refused to accept the possibility that an event that happened possibly as far back as seven thousand years ago might have grown a bit in the telling. *grin*