The Consitution

[justanotherbozo]

I do believe that someday our species will not need any laws.

i'd love to see a day when the laws we live by are self-imposed but sadly there are too many fools who would choose not to control their own behaviour.

...and human nature is what it is, we are animals at the core after all.

and Dr.Kynes, well said, i particularly liked this paragraph.

all the vague handwaving about ambiguity in the constitution presumes the constitution is a permissive document, a list of the things we the people are permitted under the benevolent gaze of our betters in washington. this could not be farther from the truth, the constitution was created as a restraint on the encroachments of government power and the tendency to slowly ease into despotism shown by EVERY government in history, no matter how well meaning at the start.

without the limiting power of the Constitution we would be in big trouble.

peace, bozo

 

[Dr Kynes]

You know I disagree. I do hold hope however that a species of posthumans (to whom we will have been the wild-type midwives) will be able to build a true utopian society without formulated law. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

there's just one problem with your Utopian Vision...

 

[Doer]

Sorry, but both 'due process of law' and 'cruel and unusual punishment' are both 'language examples'. Or are you saying both are narrowly, or even widely, defined by the Constitution? They're not, of course.

Hmmm....let's leave aside the fact that when you said "throughout" I was desiring big stuff, not little phases. But, just mis-match of expectation on my part and perhaps a bit of hyperbole on yours. No matter. IAC, both those phrases are defined every day by the Law. The Constitution sets out the principles. And along with the self-evident ones, these two principles you mention are almost self-evident.

I really thought you were going into the 2nd Amendment. My bad. It does contain an unusual turn of phrase for our modern thought.

So, I really think the principles are clear, including the ones where it is open to the future rule of Law. Very accommodating but so interlocking and balanced. A genius of a document and our very strength of national character. No wonder it is being attacked by Agenda.

No wonder the Union of Teachers have to be forced to teach it but won't regard it as genius. The Agenda is not un-Constituional.
It is an attack on the Constitution.

 

[abandonconflict]

there's just one problem with your Utopian Vision...

He should be wearing a suit and working on Wall Street.

 

[Xub420]

is there anywhere that say we have the right to an opportunity to gain?
Im stuck in a work comp vs. ssdi benefits fight. Docs say I am disabled and Social Security says no. So I am not allowed to work by docs orders and have no income or benefits right now whatsoever. been 2 yrs. just had another hearing with alj for ssdi and just recieved another denial. I fuckin swear our country forces innocent consciencious contenders to have to resort to a criminal act just to put fuckin dinner on the table.
So again,,,anyone have any idea if I should just sue the shit out of the docs the lawyers and ssi altogether for sticking me in a corner and forcing hardship?

 

[john.roberts85]

Hmmm....let's leave aside the fact that when you said "throughout" I was desiring big stuff, not little phases. But, just mis-match of expectation on my part and perhaps a bit of hyperbole on yours. No matter. IAC, both those phrases are defined every day by the Law. The Constitution sets out the principles. And along with the self-evident ones, these two principles you mention are almost self-evident.

I really thought you were going into the 2nd Amendment. My bad. It does contain an unusual turn of phrase for our modern thought.

So, I really think the principles are clear, including the ones where it is open to the future rule of Law. Very accommodating but so interlocking and balanced. A genius of a document and our very strength of national character. No wonder it is being attacked by Agenda.

No wonder the Union of Teachers have to be forced to teach it but won't regard it as genius. The Agenda is not un-Constituional.
It is an attack on the Constitution.

I listed a few examples, which is what should be expected on a weed growing message board. The Second Amendment is just another example of ambiguity.

 

[john.roberts85]

Let's be fair.
It is a document that proposes a social contract, and as society includes and contains the orneriest of us, a rigid document would be some combination of exclusive and impracticable.
I am generally a big, huge fan of very specific instructions and precise text. It works in science and engineering. When we get to contract law however, we are presented with both the bewildering ambiguity of language in general, and the amazing energy people put into riddling advantage from the text. Overprecision in a contract is easy pickings for the manipulators, who have an effect of changing the terrain to which the original contract conformed. This fluidity of the human terrain is both consequence of, and a prime reason against, rigid contracts that cannot adapt.

So i conclude that a rigid Constitutional document could not have succeeded for any real length of time.

We remain at the mercy of the goodwill of appellate court justices. They are charged with translating the document(s) into currently applicable procedures. It's a lousy system, but so far has anyone come up with a practical, durable and somewhat equitable alternative? cn

I've already acknowledged that the lack of rigidity is purported to be one its stronger suits as well.

 

[cannabineer]

I've already acknowledged that the lack of rigidity is purported to be one its stronger suits as well.

I'm not seeing that in the bit I quoted. You were holding up its lack of rigidity as an apparent defect. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

He should be wearing a suit and working on Wall Street.

dude. the entire Smurfs program was communist utopian indoctrination.

putting gargamel in a suit would be too on-the-nose, but since his stated goal was to catch smurfs and turn them into gold... yeah ok why not.

'

"25 steps past the Big Oak in the forest, across the little stream. 5 paces to the north... Curses! I'll never find that Smurf Village!"

 

[john.roberts85]

so your answer is to insult? ...who is the invalid here, lol?

if you had cogent arguments rather than ambiguous bullshit you'd use them.

...and you STILL fail to offer an alternative, lol.

Alternative: A constitution with less ambiguity. If you're really expecting me to lay out a detailed societal program here for you, then you're wildly mistaken about my priorities and your importance.

 

[cannabineer]

Alternative: A constitution with less ambiguity. If you're really expecting me to lay out a detailed societal program here for you, then you're wildly mistaken about my priorities and your importance.

Less ambiguity is the same as more rigidity. I think the current document is at or very near an optimum. I'm not saying it's good ... I am (tentatively) saying that more or less rigid/defined is worse in either direction. cn

 

[john.roberts85]

I'm not seeing that in the bit I quoted. You were holding up its lack of rigidity as an apparent defect. cn

Gee, I guess it must've been in a different post then:

Now we're onto jingoistic Love It or Leave It, Foreigner! drivel? I gave the most common criticism of the AC: lack of rigidity. It also happens to be touted as one of its superior qualities too. I'm flat-out being trolled by invalids.

 

[justanotherbozo]

Alternative: A constitution with less ambiguity. If you're really expecting me to lay out a detailed societal program here for you, then you're wildly mistaken about my priorities and your importance.

lol, it's you who's dissatisfied homes, ...and it's YOU who've made this discussion one of your priorities, despite your denials...all i'm sayin' is, if you want to jump out of this boat, show me a better one to jump TOO.

and my importance or lack of importance is irrelevant, ...you bloviate and obfuscate because your argument is filled with air.

bozo

 

[cannabineer]

Gee, I guess it must've been in a different post then:

To describe something as "touted as _____" means that you think _____ is bad. Sarcasm is a fine weapon but is unforgiving of misuse. cn

 

[john.roberts85]

To describe something as "touted as _____" means that you think _____ is bad. Sarcasm is a fine weapon but is unforgiving of misuse. cn

I wasn't being sarcastic. The lack of rigidity is touted by many, mainly pragmatists. Anything else?

 

[john.roberts85]

lol, it's you who's dissatisfied homes, ...and it's YOU who've made this discussion one of your priorities, despite your denials...all i'm sayin' is, if you want to jump out of this boat, show me a better one to jump TOO.

and my importance or lack of importance is irrelevant, ...you bloviate and obfuscate because your argument is filled with air.

bozo

You asked for examples, and I gave them. You said they were generalities and not specific verbiage, so I linked to the phrasing in the context of the amendment itself. Then you started with the Love It or Leave It dumbassery. Frankly, I don't give two shits if you drown. I'm here to debate, not educate.

 

[canndo]

Less ambiguity is the same as more rigidity. I think the current document is at or very near an optimum. I'm not saying it's good ... I am (tentatively) saying that more or less rigid/defined is worse in either direction. cn

I don't think so canna. Consider the 2nd again and all of the ambiguity that first clauses introduces. In the case of civil rights, don't we want rigidity? Isn't ambiguity with regard to say, a female's right to her equality something to be avoided? "the right to peaceably assemble" is a pretty concrete right and I believe a concrete statement to that effect is the most powerful and useful - leaving no room for interpretive wiggle room might be necessary.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I don't think so canna. Consider the 2nd again and all of the ambiguity that first clauses introduces. In the case of civil rights, don't we want rigidity? Isn't ambiguity with regard to say, a female's right to her equality something to be avoided? "the right to peaceably assemble" is a pretty concrete right and I believe a concrete statement to that effect is the most powerful and useful - leaving no room for interpretive wiggle room might be necessary.

the "first clause canard" is older than my gamgam and just as dead.

the "well regulated militia" meant the WHOLE of the people, or specifically all free males between 16 and 60 (seriously, thast the actual age range), the well regulated part referred to the Regulations" or making things regular (like a high fiber diet's role in regulating your bowels) not the current form regulation takes, where its everything just short of a blanket prohibition.

the first clause sets up the purpose of the amendment, not the limitations on it's scope. the LAST clause sets the limnitations allowed. here's an example in the modern idiom:

Because Cannabis is SO WICKED AWESOME, super useful for medicinal uses, making paper,, making cloth, making cordage, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the right of every person to grow, process, posses and use the Cannabis Plant, in all of it's varieties and all of it's products shall not be infringed.

while this may seem a clear statement, in 200 years of Harry Ainslingers,, J Edgar Hoovers and Richard Nixons, this simple statement can become an excuse to eradicate cannabis from our society "for our own good". you read the second amendment as vague because thats how you have been told to read it.

without that training anyone who reads it for the first time will think it means exactly waht it was intended to mean:

"Because the world is a dangerous place, the right of the people to have weapons, keep weapons and carry weapons about on their persons must not be taken away."

 

[canndo]

the "first clause canard" is older than my gamgam and just as dead.

the "well regulated militia" meant the WHOLE of the people, or specifically all free males between 16 and 60 (seriously, thast the actual age range), the well regulated part referred to the Regulations" or making things regular (like a high fiber diet's role in regulating your bowels) not the current form regulation takes, where its everything just short of a blanket prohibition.

the first clause sets up the purpose of the amendment, not the limitations on it's scope. the LAST clause sets the limnitations allowed. here's an example in the modern idiom:

Because Cannabis is SO WICKED AWESOME, super useful for medicinal uses, making paper,, making cloth, making cordage, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the right of every person to grow, process, posses and use the Cannabis Plant, in all of it's varieties and all of it's products shall not be infringed.

while this may seem a clear statement, in 200 years of Harry Ainslingers,, J Edgar Hoovers and Richard Nixons, this simple statement can become an excuse to eradicate cannabis from our society "for our own good". you read the second amendment as vague because thats how you have been told to read it.

without that training anyone who reads it for the first time will think it means exactly waht it was intended to mean:

"Because the world is a dangerous place, the right of the people to have weapons, keep weapons and carry weapons about on their persons must not be taken away."

Ahem. Doc, the fact that you felt forced to expend 5 paragraphs and two different fonts explaining two lines worth of stated law tends to prove my point. Had the amendment stated "the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" there would be no need for your elaborate explanation. There would be no need to transport us back several centuries, no need for comparisons with current drug law, no need to reflect back upon past nefarious regulators. The point here is always the same one, if you need to do what you just did, then the law is indeed ambiguous.