Effort or Luck?

Very little, read the Constitution (the politicians should), and it's spelled out quite clearly.

 

The U.S. has a Constitution and if you read it, and can understand it as it was intended to be understood, you will find all your questions quite rationally and reasonably addressed.

I'm glad to hear you admit that feelings are not rational or reasonable, and perhaps you should cease using emotions as the basis of your argument.

 

I admit... I haven't read the constitution. I'm also not an American. But maybe you could save me some time and give me the gist of it... and then if we both agree your interpretation is right, tell me why it's not a good idea for things to change.

 

If we ever reach a point where such can be done, I will join in the discussion of what methods might be used. In the area I live, the problem does not exist currently, nor will it likely in the future.

It is a problem where it exists, and like I said the problem doesn't exist where I live.

And you're talking about forcibly making it the responsibility of society to provide care for children they had no part in producing.

How would "I" be making the child suffer for something that neither they nor "I" had anything to do with?

Torture is against the law and punishable.

Make love, not war sure sounded good, didn't it?

It depends on how you try to help. It's the quality of teachers, and subjects taught not the amount of money spent that produces better educated and more responsible citizens.

 

The entire document is on the wiki, but there are a number of additional documents and letters that should also be read to gain a full understanding. But if you're not an American, why would it be important to you? I assume you must live in a country with a much better form of government than that of the U.S., no?

 

Indie

We have been here before –

You said – “a proper interpretation of the Constitution”

I replied – “it seems to me that there can be many interpretations of the US Constitution, and that it could come down to the bias and prejudice of the individual as to what interpretation was deemed ‘proper’.”

So the statement seems meaningless without an explanation of what you see as the ‘proper’ interpretation.”

You refused to give it.

*

Later you said – “as it was "originally" intended”

I replied – “As to the original intent of the US Constitution we’ve discussed that and I’m still waiting for you to address the points raised by it”

I’m still waiting.

*

You bring it up again and well I’m still waiting because you are very unwilling or unable to explain your interpretation of the intent of the US constitution and without it, your statement is meaningless.

People are not mind readers and while I can look at something and may interpret it a certain way that will not necessarily mean I will interpret it exactly the way you would.

So you need to give us you interpretation of the US constitution and why you think it address the criticisms of you ideas.

Thing is I think you would of if you could so I’m guessing you just can’t.

In other words you don’t have any rational, reasonable or logical arguments, your just hope that somewhere, someplace there ‘must’ be some but you don’t know where or what they are.

*

Oh poor little Indie, petulant and snotty to the end.

But don’t you realise it is you that only has emotion, you certainly don’t have any rational responses, if you had you’d have presented them by now but you haven’t because you can’t, all you have is feelings and faith. Even you response above sounds like a Creationists – ‘go to the bible and understand it as it was intended to be understood and you will find all your questions answered’

Anyway my views on the constitution are well known to many here, basically I think it should be rewritten. To me basing the present health of a society on what was ‘intended’ in a 200 year old document is a bit like trusting your own health to a 200 year old medical book.

For a discussion on that please go to -

Tear up the US constitution?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=146334

I’ll bump it up

*

 

My interpretation is unimportant, and if you read my entire post you would note that I recommended reading other documents and letters written by the same persons who created the Constitution to gain a full understanding of it. Just because something is old does not mean it is no longer useful.

 

Indie

You think your interpretation is unimportant although you claim your interpretation address all the criticisms levelled at your view in a rational and reasonable way.

Well yes it doesn’t sound important - it sounds absolutely crucial to any understanding of your views and if any of them have any rational basis.

*

I did read your post and I’ve read the US constitution a few times over the years and some other countries constitutions as well. Also I’ve read a few books on the subject along with numerous histories on America where its discussed and biographies of the framers and a lot of their letters and articles and I’ve read and listened to many interpretations, in sum or part, from both academics and lay people.

But to repeat – I’m not a mind reader and while I can look at something and interpret it a certain way that will not necessarily mean I will interpret it exactly the way you would.

So can you please give us your interpretation of the intent of the US constitution, and it would seem to me (since you have linked the two) that refusing to give it can only be seen as you basically refusing to give any rational, reasonable or logical argument to back up your views?

 

I think it should be obvious to you if you have read the U.S. Constitution that the nation was founded as a Constitutional republic, with the founders recognizing the shortcomings of democracies, which essentially are rule by a majority. The Constitution allows for a Federal government with its powers enumerated. If it's not allowed by the Constitution, it is prohibited without proper amendment as also described within the Constitution. Rights belong to the people, not the government, and are also spelled out in the Document, and it is governments duty to protect not provide rights. While the 10th amendment is virtually ignored, the 16th and 17th amendments and the creation of the Federal Reserve and subsequent actions which have had great negative effect upon the currency of the land, have been responsible for many of the problems which have reduced greatly the sovereignty of not only the states but of the citizens as well.

If you really have read as you claim, then I must conclude that you either did not understand Adams reference to being a "nation of laws, not men" or are just hell bent on Marxism.

 

Indie

I think you need to read a bit more history and put more thought into your comments, because I would ask - do you understand Adams comments?

OK let’s tackle this.

Well first strangely enough he said it in connection with the British constitution, which at the time was deeply hierarchical and class ridden -

And so be come to the meaning of - “an empire of laws, and not of men.”

To someone who gives it little though may sound profound but if you do think about it the phrase clearly doesn’t make sense.

Laws don’t just appear out of thin air nor are they divinely ordained (I think even Moses went up the mountain with a hammer and chisel), no, laws are man-made, the products of human brains who think them up and enforce them.

So a more accurate rendition might be – an empire of men’s laws not of men – which doesn’t seem to make sense in any rational way – that is until you put it in context.

John Adams was a conservative, there were many groups and factions in the American Independence movement from the conservatives who basically wanted the old hierarchical social order to carry on but just without British control to the radicals who wanted a more equal and democratic society and Adams definitely leaned to conservatism.

The question is what did his ideas mean when put into practice.

Here is how one general history of the US describes Adams and his influence -

(By contrast see the Pennsylvanian model)

So what does this indicate?

Well it’s about limiting those that can create law, voters had to be qualified by property to vote (around 10%) with even less people, with even greater property, being the only ones allowed into positions where laws could be proposed and enacted.

So we come back to that irrational statement again - an empire of men’s laws not of men.

Well it does make sense if there are two classes of men, the men that can make laws and men that should obey the laws if it read – an empire of a few men’s laws to be obeyed by everyone.

It isn’t about a government of the people but of government under the control of a few people.

To Adams and others like him laws were just tools of control and order not fairness or justice.

This can be seen in Adams presidency he supported and signed into power the US’s first (but not last) ‘Sedition Act’ which made it a crime to publish "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against his Administration when he and his conservative Federalist party came under attack from critics. A number of newspaper editors were convicted under this law, fined and even jailed with some papers being closed down.

Now you might say that this was clearly against the 1st Amendment, but as the historian Leonard Levy explains that is not many in the propertied classes saw it –

So I think we now get the measure of Adams and his thinking.

 

Indie

So where are the rational arguments you talked of?

You still seem to have no rational basis for promoting the interests of a few in society over those of everyone.

We have already had the republic/democracy argument and you still have not explained in any rational way why a constitutional republic can’t be a democracy as well.

We have already established you would prefer a much more oligarchical system with wealth having greater voting rights so that they could block the vote of all other groups, but you haven’t in any rational way explained why this would not be a system that would just end up been run in the interests of a few rather for the benefits of everyone.

I could go on…

This sidestep into the US constitution seems more and more like a trick you are trying to pull to distract from the fact you still haven’t produced any rational, reasonable or logical arguments to back up your viewpoint.

 

Are you claiming the Constitution to be irrelevant? If so, then there is no way to produce a rational, reasonable or logical argument as government would then be simply a case of majority rules. My viewpoints are based upon the authority the Federal government has as described within the Constitution, including later added amendments. A pure democracy we are not.

 

Indie

My view on constitutions is similar to Thomas Jefferson who wanted to have a new constitution re-written every 20 years or so.

"Jefferson's dedication to "consent of the governed" was so thorough that he believed that individuals could not be morally bound by the actions of preceding generations. This included debts as well as law. He said that "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." He even calculated what he believed to be the proper cycle of legal revolution: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
He was basing his idea on generations, and life expectancy has gone up in the US since then so I think 50 to a hundred years would be best.
In fact many people have believed that the US constitution should have been re-written or dramatically altered.

Here is some historical background

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_newc.html

You could also try reading - How Democratic Is
the American Constitution? by Robert A. Dahl.

 

Indie

You are still not producing the rational arguments that you implied would be short coming.

If you cannot produce any rational arguments to back up your ideas I wonder why you hold them.

 

I'm somewhat surprised you would take from Jefferson, who also wrote "I consider the foundation of the Federal Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

It would be curious to know just what response a legitimate poll would produce asking the U.S. citizens if they would like to have a new Constitution written, and if they would, would they want it written in a way that increased or decreased the power of the Federal government.

As it is, it IS the Supreme Law of the land, and until such time as it is changed or replaced I think a growing number of citizens are beginning to pay it more attention, and demand that their elected representatives begin to do the same.

How about "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." or "No man on earth has more implicit confidence than myself in the integrity and discretion of the confidential officers of the government, who are the choice of the people themselves... But is confidence or discretion, or is 'strict limit', the principle of our Constitution?"

Jefferson provides many thoughtful, and quite well reasoned, rational, highly principled words of wisdom, would you not agree to that?

 

Indie

So where are the rational arguments you talked of?

You still seem to have no rational basis for promoting the interests of a few in society over those of everyone.

We have already had the republic/democracy argument and you still have not explained in any rational way why a constitutional republic can’t be a democracy as well.

We have already established you would prefer a much more oligarchical system with wealth having greater voting rights so that it could block the vote of all other groups, but you haven’t in any rational way explained why this would not be a system that would just end up been run in the interests of a few rather for the benefits of everyone.

This sidestep into the US constitution seems more and more like a trick you are trying to pull to distract from the fact you still haven’t produced any rational, reasonable or logical arguments to back up your viewpoint.

 

This entire thread, based on "Effort or Luck" has nothing to do with the duties or responsibilities of government as founded under the Constitution, and until which time it is amended or replaced with a new one which gives government to act in those areas, I don't see how we can agree on anything more than it's a shame that some are more lucky than others, or that effort does not always produce the desired results.
What we have been arguing over are actions of charity, which relate to giving, while government has nothing to give except for that which it first takes at which point it is no longer an act of charity but a government redistribution program, which does not address the welfare of the Nation, but that of individuals or groups who are then beholding to government and not their fellow citizens. As such it is quite divisive of the society, primarily of benefit to government as a means of gaining greater power and authority over the governed.

 

Indie

So I take it from your reply that you don’t have any rational, reasonable or logical arguments to back up your views only a ‘feeling’ of what you think things should be like.

 

If we are talking about government responsibility to address what you term to unfairness of society, I have yet to see any rational, reasonable, or logical argument as to where government has legal authority to adjudicate in the instance you put forth. It is not illegal in the U.S. to acquire property or wealth, nor does being poor or even destitute provide any legal claim for any form of damages. What you put forth to argue over is the need for charitable action, not government action.

And you are quite correct about the 'feeling' of what both you and I think things should be like. The question posed is emotional based, and answered emotionally.

 

seems like a person might interpret this:

to cover some of that . . .