Dismantling Civil Society

[evmori]

Hypothetical question then. If any state, say Montana for instance holds a referendum on whether to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted to schools, and 100% of the people vote yes, should that not be allowed.

 

No. It's a violation of the first amendment.

 

If the posting of the Ten Commandments is for historical purposes & other religions allowed to post something similar, then there is no violation. Remember, the freedom OF religion, not FROM. And if someone is offended, so what! There is nothing in the Constitution that say being offended is a right!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

The people don't have a right to make rules for their society, interesting.

 

Because powers aren't rights. You can't seem to understand the distinction.

 

"Can you give me an example of what you consider a right that cannot be taken away?"

 

Yes. You have missed a fundamental distinction of my argument. There is a great differcnce in what:

 

1. What a state is constitutionally authorized to do under our system, and

2. What rights are inalienable and endowed to us by God

 

Example. For abortion. I think a state has a right to allow abortion in all cases. I also believe however that this violation of

an individals inalienable right to life.

 

Well, I asked you for a right that "cannot be taken away" -- above, you seem to be saying that the state DOES have the right to take away an individual's right to life. So that wouldn't be an example of a right that cannot be taken away.

 

Care to take another swing at naming a right that can't be taken away?

 

And I don't really care if you can't understand how I view the constitution. I certainly can't understand your bizarre view that people have the "right" to legislate away other people's rights.

 

Ed writes:

If the posting of the Ten Commandments is for historical purposes & other religions allowed to post something similar, then there is no violation.

 

But that wasn't the hypothetical situation Ed. At least you're catching on equal treatment instead of majortarianism.

[evmori]

Actually, Merlyn, there will never be equal treatment! That has been tried by the USSR but there were some who were more equal than others & it didn't work. Majority rule is a much better way.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

I am taking this comment here, because it fits the title better, I think, but no, its not about the Constitution, then again, maybe it is.

 

So the Pastor of the Church doesnt want politicians who represent ideas contrary to the Catholic Church, and he is castigated for that? For upholding a belief he and his faith believe in? How is this different that the BSA saying no gay or atheist members? The BSA has its standards and we applaud it when they stand by those standards, but now because Monsignor stands by his standards he is to be castigated for it? If there are a multitude of non-Catholic scouts are their parent able to start a new troop, one more in line with the thinking of those parent? Why should the Monsignor change his views, he is the Institutional Head, he gets to run the Troop in this manner he sees fit. The LDS dont allow women leades, there are those who dont see this as "enlightened" should they change? What do you do in a civil society when some one holds a practice truly abhorrent to you? In the local paper told a story of a Luthern Synod deciding whether or not to allow gay clergy, what if some religion, you pick it, decided to get back to some serious biblical roots and endorsed slavery? Then what? They say, hey, dont worry about it, unless you are of our faith, you arent involved, you wont be a slave, but we will own them. What then? What is the recourse?

 

and yes, this is hyperbole to make a point

[TheScout]

Ok Merlyn, then were do the powers of government come from? In my view they come from the people's rights to make rules for their society, which come from God. Where do you think the powers of government come from then?

 

 

In your discussion of what rights can be taken away, you miss a fundamental point. Governments take away the rights of citizens all the time. Witness Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR for two of the worst examples. Jews and political opposition certainly had their rights taken away. Such as the right to life. So since this was taken away by government, does this mean that their is no "right" to life.

 

Now under both systems I mentioned rights were violated in accordance to the laws of the land for the most part.

 

So I say, Nazi Germany acted for the most part in a constitutional manner in depriving Jews of their rights.

 

However, they took inalienable rights way from them, so the government lost its legitimacy.

 

There is a difference between constitutional and moral propriety.

 

So I once again say life is still an inalienable right. (Though many governements seem to take it away).

 

I still find it quite fascinating that you do not subscribe to a school of constitutional interpretation. And with all do respect, it makes your arguments in some cases seem a bit hypocritical. (I may be wrong, thats just what it seems to me).

 

It almost seems like you subscribe to any theory which can get you to your desired ends.

 

You preached literalism with your view of the 5th Amendment.

Then your 10 Commmandment ideas certainly are not. Seems a literalist would say the only thing Congress can not do in regards to the 1st Amendment would be to establish a state religion. It seems like there you are preaching a more Living Constitution approach. Then when it comes to the 14th Amendment, you were telling me what the original intent of the Congress was in passing it.

 

Just seems funny. So how do you decide how to interpret phrases of the constitution then if you do not subscribe to any theory of interpretation? Maybe this will help me see the merits of your argumen.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

Ok Merlyn, then were do the powers of government come from?

 

"The consent of the governed" works for me.

 

Seems a literalist would say the only thing Congress can not do in regards to the 1st Amendment would be to establish a state religion.

 

I don't think a literalist would say that, partly because the first amendment says "establishment of religion", not "establishment of a religion".

[TheScout]

"Ok Merlyn, then were do the powers of government come from?"

 

"The consent of the governed" works for me."

 

Ok then, where do governed get their ability to give consent from?

 

I would still like to know how you interpret clauses of the constitution then?

 

Maybe this would help me gain insight into your views. It just seems odd that you don't have a school of interpretation. It almost seems like you subscribe to any theory which can get you to your desired ends.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

Ok then, where do governed get their ability to give consent from?

 

It seems to me all people capable of thinking can give or withhold consent.

 

I would still like to know how you interpret clauses of the constitution then?

 

You seem to want a label. I don't have one. Deal with it.

[TheScout]

True, the people consent to delegate some of their powers to the government. But where do the people get the powers from that they are delegating?

 

 

"I would still like to know how you interpret clauses of the constitution then?"

 

"You seem to want a label. I don't have one. Deal with it."

 

I do not need a label. I would just like a small insight into your thought process in how you interpret a phrase of the constitution. There must be some way!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

True, the people consent to delegate some of their powers to the government. But where do the people get the powers from that they are delegating?

 

What "powers"? A bunch of people got together and created a system of government. What kind of "power" needs to be present to do that? X-ray vision?

 

"You seem to want a label. I don't have one. Deal with it."

 

I do not need a label. I would just like a small insight into your thought process in how you interpret a phrase of the constitution. There must be some way!

 

Generally, I read it and read court opinions based on it.

[TheScout]

"True, the people consent to delegate some of their powers to the government. But where do the people get the powers from that they are delegating?"

 

"What "powers"? A bunch of people got together and created a system of government. What kind of "power" needs to be present to do that? X-ray vision?"

 

The powers of government. Authority can not spring from no where. Government gets their power delegated from the people. The people must then get if from some where?

 

 

"Generally, I read it and read court opinions based on it."

 

Interesting. But I am sure you know reading the constitution can not answer all questions. What does "cruel and unusual mean" what does "due process" mean. Sort of questions that can not be answered by just reading. And court opinions? They have a theory of the constitution that they spring from. Or do you not think through the consitution yourself and just rely on court decisions. Seems like that would make a very static society because a court decision would never be wrong if we just all rely on court decisions.

 

So by now I am dying to know. How do you interpret constitutional phrases. Something like, what is "necesary and proper?"

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

The powers of government. Authority can not spring from no where.

 

I don't agree. People really do just get together and create governments. There's no magical power or authority.

 

what is "necesary and proper?"

 

Misspelled, for one thing. And it's pretty much up to the supreme court to decide.

 

This really doesn't have anything to do with scouting, and I don't see any point in continuing this digression further.

[evmori]

The quandary as I see it is groups like atheists feel that having the 10 Commandments or any other religious "stuff" displayed on any public building like a court house is "establishing" a religion. Actually, by these type of groups whining & crying foul, they actually want the government to violate the 1st Amendment. But they don't see it that way. They would rather have the government dictate equality instead of the people deciding it. Sounds sorta like what communists preach.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

I think it was Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the Social COntract that expressed the idea that when man comes together with fellow men to establish a "Social Contract", a system of providing security and defense for himself and his family he by necessity subjugates his own liberty to that of the group. In a total Anarchy, the best piece of land is held by the one who can defend it, in a "civil" goverment, the land is "owned", not so much because the "owner" has a piece of paper saying so, but because his neighbors respect the authority of the agency that issued that paper and understand the penalties that come with any attempt to usurp that property.

 

So it is the respect we give our fellow man, and rely that they give that respect back to us that enables us to live in our society. I drive on the right side of the street and face on-comming traffic secure in the knowledge, the other drivers intend on staying to their right as well. Both as repect and self preservation, when these are lost, the basis of civlilization is lost

[TheScout]

"I don't agree. People really do just get together and create governments. There's no magical power or authority."

 

So is it a "right" people have to "get together and create governemnts?"

 

 

"And it's pretty much up to the supreme court to decide."

 

So if the only source of constitutional interpretation is the supremee court. Why should we ever bother appealing its decisions. It is the SOLE source. Then it can never be wrong I presume.

 

That then leaves the question. How should the SCOTUS go about interpreting the constitution then? What if you were a justice, how would you do it?

 

And if you want to correct each others spelling and grammar, you should really capitalize Supreme Court.