BF2S Forums Constitutionalism -- A Religion?

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You are also comparing the people who (strictly) interpret a text that is 200 years old with people that interpret a text that is 2000 years old. There is a far greater difference in the evolution of ideas and principles.

That is true.  The Constitution is definitely more relevant than the Bible.

Still, I think people get too stuck in their ways to consider practical changes to interpretation.

Considering that most people couldn't name more than maybe four of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, or tell you who wrote it (just as an example), I'd venture to say that there isn't a lot of hero worship going on for people that died 200 years ago. Some of us honor them, yes, but I'm sure my views on gay unions or abortion would be markedly different from their own. Times change, views change, but they created a timeless document in the Constitution which is built upon rational principles. There are no feelings or morals involved and that is how it should be.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Right, because it's the only thing holding back the floodgates of socialism in this country amirite? Or it could be that you're a distinct minority and you'd all be ridden out of town on a rail anyway.

John...  you're a minority too.  Most people aren't as far in the Libertarian direction as you.  So, I don't know exactly what you're getting at here.

The point is... a little realism isn't such a bad thing.  When people practically worship the Founding Fathers, independent thought is often lacking.

You always have the option to amend the constitution. This would require writing legislation that is common sense and that the vast majority of people in this country would get behind.

And you're wrong. I think Socially liberal, Fiscally frugal describes what the vast majority of people in this nation are. They may not be personally frugal but it's what they look for in their representatives.

Right now the choices are Socially Conservative/Fiscally retarded and Socially Liberal/Fiscally retarded. Not much of a choice now is there?

I would actually argue the opposite. Most people are populist -- socially conservative and fiscally liberal.  Most young people are what you describe though.  Libertarians are most common among certain sectors of academia, the wealthy, and people living in the middle of nowhere.  I used to be part of my college's local Libertarian party, so I met quite a motley crew of Libertarians.

I can still relate to civil libertarians on most issues, but I never could quite buy into their fiscal ideas.

As for the first part of your response, lobbyism prevents a lot of practical changes from occurring.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Set in stone, how fitting.

Come on John let's go. You don't just get to pick on the America hating communist.

Then pick something you truly believe in, and not just from a devil's advocate point of view, that we differ on. My venom is not restricted to communists by any means. I believe in the rational mind above all things.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You are also comparing the people who (strictly) interpret a text that is 200 years old with people that interpret a text that is 2000 years old. There is a far greater difference in the evolution of ideas and principles.

That is true.  The Constitution is definitely more relevant than the Bible.

Still, I think people get too stuck in their ways to consider practical changes to interpretation.

Considering that most people couldn't name more than maybe four of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, or tell you who wrote it (just as an example), I'd venture to say that there isn't a lot of hero worship going on for people that died 200 years ago. Some of us honor them, yes, but I'm sure my views on gay unions or abortion would be markedly different from their own. Times change, views change, but they created a timeless document in the Constitution which is built upon rational principles. There are no feelings or morals involved and that is how it should be.

Like religion, a lot of the people who claim to believe strongly in the Constitution are ignorant of its history and details.

Nevertheless, we can at least agree that the Bill of Rights is timeless.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The people that deserve power dislike it, but they will step in when needed. Like, say, if we were to revolt against the motherland.

If they don't, we're fucked anyways, and that's a fact. Might as well go out with our boots on.

You believe in the rational mind, but not that one exists.

A perfectly rational mind completely devoid of emotion? Of course it doesn't exist. Shouldn't stop one from trying to get as close to that ideal as possible though, no?

The Constitution is a living document, though the use of Amendments...otherwise its written in stone.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

A perfectly rational mind completely devoid of emotion? Of course it doesn't exist. Shouldn't stop one from trying to get as close to that ideal as possible though, no?

That much we can agree on.  Granted, there are multiple forms of logic, as shown by how different mine is from yours.

The entire premise of Communism is based on emotions. How you can be a self-described Communist and yet also think you're a Rational is beyond my understanding.

I'm socialist.  That's quite different from Communist.

The logic behind socialism is a mix between collectivism and rational self-interest.

Collectivism promotes putting the good of society above the good of the individual.  Rational self-interest involves helping others because they are more likely to help you in return when you need it.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You believe in the rational mind, but not that one exists.

A perfectly rational mind completely devoid of emotion? Of course it doesn't exist. Shouldn't stop one from trying to get as close to that ideal as possible though, no?

So why stop with our current Constitution?

Because I have serious doubts about the capacity of the members of our current society. Our Constitution was written during an age of rational enlightenment where scientific discoveries were front page news and people valued education. We live in a society where the average person spends more time watching American Idol every year than they do reading. I hate to say it but I genuinely feel that it was a one time shot and we happened to come out way ahead. I don't see lightning striking twice.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So why stop with our current Constitution?

Because I have serious doubts about the capacity of the members of our current society. Our Constitution was written during an age of rational enlightenment where scientific discoveries were front page news and people valued education. We live in a society where the average person spends more time watching American Idol every year than they do reading. I hate to say it but I genuinely feel that it was a one time shot and we happened to come out way ahead. I don't see lightning striking twice.

Um... the general populace was far less educated then than it is today.  The key difference between today and then is that, back then, only white male landowners could vote.  So, the Founding Fathers were the privileged and most educated of their day, which is why they were so ahead of their time.

I know you haven't said this outright, but if you read between the lines, it seems that you're implying a system where everyone can vote is less "enlightened."

Do I think most people are unqualified to vote? Indeed. I believe Democracy is doomed to failure. Show me a single Democracy that has flourished within the confines of human history. There isn't a single one. I believe in a Republic coupled with a meritocratic system that rewards competence instead of birth, wealth or connections.

The problem is that there is no easy solution. There are extremely smart poor people and extremely stupid wealthy people. This is why poll taxes or land ownership qualifications are intrinsically unfair. I happen to like Robert Heinleins idea which he employed in his book Starship Troopers where the right to vote was earned via government service in the military. The premise was that only those that would risk their own health and well being were worthy of being Enfranchised.

Feasible? Hardly. But it's an idea to toy with.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Do I think most people are unqualified to vote? Indeed. I believe Democracy is doomed to failure. Show me a single Democracy that has flourished within the confines of human history. There isn't a single one. I believe in a Republic coupled with a meritocratic system that rewards competence instead of birth, wealth or connections.

The problem is that there is no easy solution. There are extremely smart poor people and extremely stupid wealthy people. This is why poll taxes or land ownership qualifications are intrinsically unfair. I happen to like Robert Heinleins idea which he employed in his book Starship Troopers where the right to vote was earned via government service in the military. The premise was that only those that would risk their own health and well being were worthy of being Enfranchised.

Feasible? Hardly. But it's an idea to toy with.

Plato's Republic probably mentions the most meritocratic system you could devise.

That being said, given our freedoms and current reality, our democratic republic is about as good as it gets.  Nevertheless, I also question how an uneducated vote can be considered equal to an educated one.

Due to rampant gerrymandering we as a people have sent the incumbent back to Washington at a rate of 90%+ We as a people have sent felons, tax cheats, adulterers, you name it. Most people look for a D or an R and cast their vote without a second thought. It doesn't matter what that representative did or did not do during his time in office, chances are he or she will be reelected no matter what. It gives them free reign to become as corrupt as we see our current government has become. Show me a Senator or Representative that isn't in the pocket of at least one lobbying group and I will show you the T-Rex I have chained in my backyard.

What are the requirements to amend it?

Here we need.
    * an absolute majority in both houses of the federal parliament; and
    * the approval in a referendum of the proposed amendment by a majority of electors nationwide, and a majority in a majority of states.

FEOS wrote:

So, to answer the OP: No. It's not. That's like asking if mathematics or physics is a religion because the people who use them follow certain rules associated with them.

Incorrect, maths and physics are sets of theories and models waiting to be overtaken by better theories or models.

For example, Newtonian physics - whilst very handy most of the time - is known to be inaccurate and has been overtaken by Einsteinian physics.
Einsteinian physics, while better is also known to be inadequate.

The people who use them know this full well.

Try telling the NRA the constitution is flexible and open to interpretation and further amendment and watch the fun.
There are people who take it literally.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-10 06:14:54)

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So, to answer the OP: No. It's not. That's like asking if mathematics or physics is a religion because the people who use them follow certain rules associated with them.

Incorrect, maths and physics are sets of theories and models waiting to be overtaken by better theories or models.

For example, Newtonian physics - whilst very handy most of the time - is known to be inaccurate and has been overtaken by Einsteinian physics.
Einsteinian physics, while better is also known to be inadequate.

The people who use them know this full well.

You've essentially described the Constitution's model as well. If there is a better model or way of getting the same thing done, the Constitution can be changed to accommodate that. But those mathematical and physical theories or models can't be interpreted by someone to suit their personal agenda.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Try telling the NRA the constitution is flexible and open to interpretation and further amendment and watch the fun.
There are people who take it literally.

The NRA has the same position as Kmarion pointed out: there are mechanisms to change the Constitution. If you don't like part of it (like the 2nd Amendment) then go through the process (the model established by the Founders) to change it. If not, don't think you can just say "I see it this way" to suit your personal agenda.

This is correct. They hardly see the Constitution as perfect or infallible. But, they rightly protest all gun control laws because they violate that second amendment. That, and gun control laws are wildly ineffective and dangerous.