Dismantling Civil Society

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, it isn't just atheists who consider e.g. 10 commandments on courthouses to be violations of the first amendment. Lots of people of various religions agree. Now, if you're in favor of real equal treatment, establish a public forum where everyone can put up displays.

 

TheScout writes:

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

 

Almost never; typically, there is a previous government that has to be fought off first. In the case of the start of the US, a revolution had to be won first. In the case of the civil war, the confederate states were unsuccessful in maintaining their new government. In a similar vein, if someone attempted to form a new government in an existing US jurisdiction (without e.g. congressional consent), it wouldn't be recognized by the US.

 

The supreme court is the final arbiter of what the constitution means. In that sense, yes, the supreme court IS never "wrong," though I and many other people can disagree with their opinions (where they typically aren't termed "wrong," but "bad," or "contradictory," or "confusing," etc), and even the court reverses itself every now & then.

[TheScout]

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

 

"Almost never"

 

It is interesting that you do believe in the fundamental right of self-government. This seems to me to be one of the highest expressions of the inalianable right to liberty.

 

 

"the supreme court IS never "wrong," though I and many other people can disagree with their opinions"

 

I do wonder though Merlyn, how can you disagree with the decisions of the Supreme Court. You previously stated that to interpret the constitution, "Generally, I read it and read court opinions based on it."

 

So if you base your interpretation on that of the Court, how can you "disagree" with its decisions. This is unless when you read the text you have a different theory of interpretation. So I wonder what that would be?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

It is interesting that you do believe in the fundamental right of self-government

 

If you'll read what I wrote, you'll notice I didn't say that.

 

I do wonder though Merlyn, how can you disagree with the decisions of the Supreme Court

 

I disagree a fair amount of time.

 

So if you base your interpretation on that of the Court, how can you "disagree" with its decisions

 

Since most verdicts are not unanimous, there are usually conflicting opinions on every case. Some wag pointed out that, in the two 10 commandments cases that were decided a couple of years back (both by 5-4), only one justice out of the nine agreed with both opinions.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[TheScout]

It seems that you do not believe that people have a fundamental right to self-government. When I asked you, "So is it a "right" people have to "get together and create governemnts?"

 

You replied, "Almost never"

 

Maybe I interpreted the substance of your point wrong.

 

I must point out however the Declaration of Independence which writes, "that whenever a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, (securing rights) it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,and to institute a new government . . ."

 

I know the DOI has no force of law, but it seems to hold that it is the RIGHT of the the people to abolish bad governments and institute new ones. Maybe you don't agree with the passage quoted above.

 

 

 

"I do wonder though Merlyn, how can you disagree with the decisions of the Supreme Court"

 

"I disagree a fair amount of time."

 

"So if you base your interpretation on that of the Court, how can you "disagree" with its decisions"

 

"Since most verdicts are not unanimous, there are usually conflicting opinions on every case. Some wag pointed out that, in the two 10 commandments cases that were decided a couple of years back (both by 5-4), only one justice out of the nine agreed with both opinions."

 

So let me get this straight. When you say you base your interpretation on the Supreme Court's, you actually just mean you base your decision on the side of the ruling that you agree with?

 

How then do you determine what side you agree with?

 

And I still wonder, if you were the a SCOTUS justice on a case, how would you go about interpreting constitutional clauses.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

Maybe I interpreted the substance of your point wrong.

 

Probably. Governments generally do not consider their own citizens to have a right to overthrow it and create a new one, whether the government is tyrannical or benevolent. The US government during the civil war did not regard the confederate government as legitimate, and it considered the states to be in rebellion. You and/or I might consider the formation of a new government in defiance of an existing government to be the right thing to do, but I doubt that the existing government says that its citizens have an actual right to overthrow it.

 

How then do you determine what side you agree with?

 

I think about it.

 

And I still wonder, if you were the a SCOTUS justice on a case, how would you go about interpreting constitutional clauses

 

Well, I don't wonder about such things.

[TheScout]

So what part of the phrase from the DOI "that whenever a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, (securing rights) it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,and to institute a new government . . ." do you disagree with?

 

So in your mind a people are not free until the tyrant agrees? So under your logic we should not celebrate our independence on July 4 because the UK did not recognize it. We should instead celebrate the 1783 date when the UK recognized us in the Treaty of Paris.

 

It seems like in this instance you are placing more clout in the authority of tyrannical governments than those seeking freedom. Suprising position for you based on your other thoughts I think.

 

 

So you determine what size of a court case you agree with as you "think about it." I am sure you know that in most cases both sides present well referenced opinions. When you think about it, what is the standard you use to determine which is correct.

 

So if you "think about it," I ask, what standard do you use to critique the opinions as you think about them? Please, if you cite the constitution, tell how you find out what it means as both sides of the Court always base their arguments on the constitution.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I'm talking about a "right" as a social/legal construct; currently, under US law, neither one of us has a right to overthrow the US government and install a new one. You're talking about "rights" in a sense of you get to do whatever you think is right, including, ironically, removing the rights of other people.

 

As for your harping on wanting to know my entire constitutional philosphy, I'll quote Wesley from The Princess Bride: "Learn to live with disappointment"

[TheScout]

"I'm talking about a "right" as a social/legal construct; currently, under US law, neither one of us has a right to overthrow the US government and install a new one. You're talking about "rights" in a sense of you get to do whatever you think is right, including, ironically, removing the rights of other people."

 

Though I said the DOI has no legal construct, I am talking about the "rights" in a social theory as stated by the DOI.

 

So I am just wondering if you do indeed agree with the statement, "that whenever a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, (securing rights) it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,and to institute a new government . . ."

 

"As for your harping on wanting to know my entire constitutional philosphy, I'll quote Wesley from The Princess Bride: 'Learn to live with disappointment'"

 

Oh Meryln, I don't want to know the whole philosophy. Just a small glimpse into how you pick if you like the majority of miniority opinions of the case.

 

Though I don't really like your views, I realize that you are not a fool by any means. This makes me think that despite what you say you have to have some theory to interpret the constitution.

 

(This message has been edited by TheScout)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Now you seem to be conflating two different uses of the word "right", since we were talking about rights under US law, and there isn't a right under US law to overthrow the US government. People can and should overthrow repressive governments, which is nearly always an illegal act, so I usually try to avoid calling it a "right", because that's used as a legal term, and I think it gets very arbitrary and confusing to use the term interchangably. The US government is expected to respect e.g. first amendment rights, but I don't expect it to respect a supposed right to overthrow the government.

[TheScout]

I do not think so. In this context we were not talking about constitutional rights. We were debating the origin of constitutional government. This must come about before the existence of such a constitution.

 

I think we have we have rights that are not simply given to us by our constitution, but additional natural rights that come from our Creator.

 

 

I still don't want to know the whole philosophy. Just a small glimpse into how you pick if you like the majority of miniority opinions of the case. There must be some way!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

In this context we were not talking about constitutional rights.

 

I was, but you weren't. That was part of the problem.

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Well, I think this is pretty well dismantled(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[TheScout]

So do you agree with the statement, "that whenever a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, (securing rights) it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,and to institute a new government . . .?"

 

I would still love to see just a small glimpse into how you pick if you like the majority of miniority opinions of the case. There must be some way!