Current Topics
Post-Election Mischief
by perotista
1 second ago
Roundtable for Samhain 2020
by pdx rick
Today at 08:47 PM
The Support Rule
by pondering_it_all
Today at 08:44 PM
Progressives Can’t Find Anyone in Biden's Cabinet to Be Mad About—Yet
by pdx rick
Today at 08:41 PM
Problems .....
by pondering_it_all
Today at 08:40 PM
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by pondering_it_all
Today at 08:22 PM
Global warming predictions
by logtroll
11/26/20 12:35 AM
A Lot Went Wrong for Democrats on Election Night
by jgw
11/25/20 09:49 PM
Election day 2020 thread
by chunkstyle
11/23/20 02:44 PM
Which parts of the Constitution have meaning, and which don't?
by logtroll
11/22/20 03:11 PM
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by perotista
11/21/20 11:02 PM
Over 90,00 abuse claims against Boy Scouts
by Greger
11/18/20 08:50 PM
Gen. Barry Richard McCaffrey (ret.) sounds the alarm
by pdx rick
11/18/20 05:07 AM
The Vote Rule
by jgw
11/07/20 06:08 PM
Democratic Common Sense
by NW Ponderer
11/06/20 04:40 PM
How to deal with municipal forest fires
by jgw
11/04/20 06:40 PM
International reporting on the election
by Greger
11/03/20 02:03 AM
The new addition to the Supremes
by Greger
11/01/20 09:29 PM
The Portuguese Solution
by jgw
10/31/20 06:37 PM
Forum Stats
6292 Members
60 Forums
17026 Topics
304393 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#330326 - 11/20/20 03:58 PM Which parts of the Constitution have meaning, and which don't?
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 10440
Loc: One of the Mexicos
I am gobsmacked to learn that the purposes and objectives of a contract (of any kind) are meaningless to the implementation and effect of the contract. In fact, I don't buy it.

The "preamble" establishes the framework for the interpretation of everything in the contract that follows. If some particular statement in the contract terms falls into conflict with the purposes and objectives, then it stands to reason that the 'particular' is defective in fact or interpretation, not the guiding principles.

I bet there is contract case law that deals with this concept. Anybody got a reference? Hey, I think that the Supreme Court recently ruled on something like this when asked to toss out the entire ACA based on a weird argument related to the individual mandate.

The intent of the law is extremely important in the interpretation and application of the law - where do we learn about intent in a contract?

The fact that something has been debated for a very long time has no bearing on what is right and what is wrong; people "debate" inequivalent issues all of the time. Some folks never give up their position, no matter what the facts are. That's why we have to have laws and courts and judges and juries (and elections).
_________________________
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
– R. Buckminster Fuller

Top
#330327 - 11/20/20 04:34 PM Re: Which parts of the Constitution have meaning, and which don't? [Re: logtroll]
Irked Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 3563
Loc: Somewhere out in left field
I’ve always thought it both ridiculous and malignant to argue that parts of the constitution are merely “fluff” or “without force”, like the preamble or the first clause of the 2nd Amendment.

To argue this, so-called conservatives want us to believe that the writers of the constitution did not know what they were doing (writing a legal document where every word , by definition matters) and did not debate the wording of every clause of the document.

It’s revealing that not only are the so-called conservatives the only ones to claim that parts of the constitution have no meaning, the parts they declare inoperative are counter to their political druthers.
_________________________
How eager they are to be slaves - Tiberius Caesar

Coulda tripped out easy, but I've changed my ways - Donovan

Top
#330335 - 11/21/20 12:29 AM Re: Which parts of the Constitution have meaning, and which don't? [Re: Irked]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 10440
Loc: One of the Mexicos
If I didn't know better, I'd be suspicious...
_________________________
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
– R. Buckminster Fuller

Top
#330340 - 11/21/20 08:01 AM Re: Which parts of the Constitution have meaning, and which don't? [Re: logtroll]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 10601
Loc: North San Diego County
It's not like the "founding fathers" whipped out the Constitution in a long weekend. It took them almost four months of daily arguments, and there was the Articles of Confederation before that.

Top
#330349 - 11/21/20 06:00 PM Re: Which parts of the Constitution have meaning, and which don't? [Re: logtroll]
Irked Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 3563
Loc: Somewhere out in left field
Since the preamble has no practical effect and is just background and throat clearing, the United States does not have a constitution since the words explicitly implementing this are only found in the preamble.

Of course, Originalists read the preamble as below.

Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


And here is the Originalist’s “true” reading of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech* or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

*Speech is, of course, understood to only encompass the utterances and writings of Christian Conservatives, the only true Americans and the only people deemed to have protection under the constitution.

Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


*As before, people here is clearly referring to White Christian Conservative men since the founders obviously did not mean to include Blacks, women , Indians or other unAmericans like liberals.
_________________________
How eager they are to be slaves - Tiberius Caesar

Coulda tripped out easy, but I've changed my ways - Donovan

Top
#330365 - 11/22/20 12:29 AM Re: Which parts of the Constitution have meaning, and which don't? [Re: Irked]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 10440
Loc: One of the Mexicos
I wonder if the Constitution is like the Bible - written centuries ago and considered to be the final word - even though it depends upon human interpretation? And that interpretation is entrusted in a few people who have established their trustworthiness - how?

I think the reality is that there is no end to the process of interpretation and application to an arc of civilization that is ever changing. There is no final and infallible closing of discussion.

And what makes us think that those human beings of 250 years ago nailed every twist and turn, considered every contingency, predicted all the unknowns to come?

At least one thing we have learned is that 3/5ths men do not exist, and women can be trusted (at any rate as much as men) to vote. There's a couple of 'particulars' for you in the contract for that have been amended.

And it looks like the electoral election process is a hot mess, now that we have a President who is willing and eager to dishonestly attempt to take advantage of some of the faulty mechanisms that the Founders naively thought would not be sullied by any high-minded landed gentleman, and used to try to steal an election by the misapplication of 'particulars' that are embedded in the Constitution well below the pointless Preamble.

Speaking of which, has any of the Preamble need amending, yet?
_________________________
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
– R. Buckminster Fuller

Top
#330366 - 11/22/20 12:46 AM Re: Which parts of the Constitution have meaning, and which don't? [Re: logtroll]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 43534
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I wonder if the Constitution is like the Bible - written centuries ago and considered to be the final word ...

To strict Constitutionalists like Amy COVID Barrett, the Constitution never meant for women or non-white males to vote. I'm sure her rulings with reflect that mindset.

It is what it is. coffee

Hmm
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#330377 - 11/22/20 03:11 PM Re: Which parts of the Constitution have meaning, and which don't? [Re: logtroll]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 10440
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Quote:
"It is not in the power of this Court to violate the Constitution," Judge Matthew Brann of the US District Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania wrote on Saturday.

That is the interpretation believed by one judge.

However, the President of the United States, along with a cadre of top attorneys (and some say the Kraken) believe in a wildly different interpretation, and so the matter has been up for "debate".

Quote:
"In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more," the judge wrote. "At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."

So whose Welfare is paramount - the peoples', or the Nation's? Are the People the Nation?

I wonder if the Preamble could shed any light on this difficult argument?
_________________________
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
– R. Buckminster Fuller

Top

Moderator:  Doug Thompson, Greger, NW Ponderer 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 39 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Superfly, GreatNewsTonight, danarhea, RoughDraft274, CPWILL
6292 Registered Users
A2