User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 129

  1. #41

    Default

    This thread is a bit of a mess and we've talked about legal government and constitutionalism generally but can I ask is this about Obama's legal changes re:gun ownership? Is that the opener for a general attack upon conservative constitutionalism?

    I only say that in the news today.

    I think that even if this is the case I'd return to the point I made previously, I think the economy has moved on from that in the days when the constitution was drafted and the constitution could be an obsticle to adjustment and public response to that fact.

  2. #42
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    This thread is a bit of a mess and we've talked about legal government and constitutionalism generally but can I ask is this about Obama's legal changes re:gun ownership? Is that the opener for a general attack upon conservative constitutionalism?

    I only say that in the news today.

    I think that even if this is the case I'd return to the point I made previously, I think the economy has moved on from that in the days when the constitution was drafted and the constitution could be an obsticle to adjustment and public response to that fact.
    An obstacle is what it is meant to be. That is precisely why it was codified in monolithic fashion.

    If we get rid of its hindrances we also get rid of its protections, because there are way too many contrary and controversial opinions to take the third option of cherry picking.

  3. #43
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @Mia.

    Yes. I'm saying the same things.

    I'm also saying that some times rules can and should be broken, which is the reason that this is being discussed at all.

  4. #44
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia. View Post
    2. The writers didn’t want that to be an option. They didn’t want changes to be made easily on whims, and they certainly didn’t want an isolated generation able to make sweeping changes to the original, basic structure of our government. They intentionally made it relatively difficult to even amend it for this reason. It's not that they didn't think of it - they didn't want it done. Which is what is pissing the "progressives" off so much.
    .
    Slavery is the most obvious example of a prominent part of the Constitution being taken out, shat upon, and having a war costing millions of lives over. And for good reason. Many of the founders wanted it ended too, but like crack addicts, they couldn't actually bring themselves to lead by example, get rid of their own slaves, and make useful laws protecting them. Over and over again, you see in their diaries an expectation (and a lament) that they left it up to later generations to sort out. I can offer quotes about it, if necessary.

  5. #45
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia. View Post
    Great example of a change done provisionally by amendment. There is however no provision for rewriting the document itself from scratch, and that was indeed intentional.
    Oh OK, we're in agreement then.

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    An obstacle is what it is meant to be. That is precisely why it was codified in monolithic fashion.

    If we get rid of its hindrances we also get rid of its protections, because there are way too many contrary and controversial opinions to take the third option of cherry picking.
    I know that it is meant to be an obsticle, to despotism or tyranny but it was also drafted with an agrarian society of independent farmers and plantations either in mind or as the unconscious backdrop, these things happen when you are attempting to draft something which is meant to be perrenial, so it is an obsticle not just to despotism and tyranny but to different economic conditions to those first conceived or assumed.

    That's if you are believing that the drafting of the constitution was an honest attempt to create a perrenial form of legal government and not the creation of a bunch of selfish architects acting to protect their own special interests.

  7. #47
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia. View Post
    And I'm saying you're talking out both sides of your mouth, and your statements are antithetical and incompatible with each other.
    If that were the case then we should still be British.

  8. #48
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mia. View Post
    If Britain had had our constitution we would be.
    If breaking the rules could never happen then they would not have our constitution, we would have theirs.

    I'm not saying that now is the time to break the rules. I'm saying that there does come a time, eventually, to break them. We would not be here otherwise.

    To deny this fact is to retract the founding of the nation.

  9. #49
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I know that it is meant to be an obsticle, to despotism or tyranny but it was also drafted with an agrarian society of independent farmers and plantations either in mind or as the unconscious backdrop, these things happen when you are attempting to draft something which is meant to be perrenial, so it is an obsticle not just to despotism and tyranny but to different economic conditions to those first conceived or assumed.

    That's if you are believing that the drafting of the constitution was an honest attempt to create a perrenial form of legal government and not the creation of a bunch of selfish architects acting to protect their own special interests.
    Yes but what will it be replaced with, and what sorts of upheaval will take place while it's being worked out?

    Even though things aren't good right now, I'm not confident that changing this will do anything to actually improve the situation.

    I would not pull such a move until we can figure out some other kind of foundation to base things around, or until things are just so dire that moving in any direction would be an improvement (and I do not think we are there yet by a longshot)

    Edit:
    Or put it this way. I can't do with replacing the Constitution with some unknown thing/anything whatsoever.

    "We need to change the Constitution" means absolutely nothing to me.

    If it were rather "We need to change the Constitution into this proposal, and we need to do it for this reason, and we need to do it in this way" then I might think differently about it.

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Yes but what will it be replaced with, and what sorts of upheaval will take place while it's being worked out?

    Even though things aren't good right now, I'm not confident that changing this will do anything to actually improve the situation.

    I would not pull such a move until we can figure out some other kind of foundation to base things around, or until things are just so dire that moving in any direction would be an improvement (and I do not think we are there yet by a longshot)
    I've got some sympathy with what you're saying.

    Although I've also got a personal and speculative sympathy with socialism.

Similar Threads

  1. Taking it again from the top: Root defintions of the functions
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 11-25-2017, 04:55 PM
  2. George McFly from "Back to the future"
    By Malcontent in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-08-2011, 11:21 AM
  3. Taking Communism away from the Communists: The Origins of Modern American Liberalism
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-15-2009, 01:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO