In my short time on this board, I have come to realize that nothing is obvious. Long and hard is the path out of ignorance.
In matters constitutional I find two sides to the arguments for/against their practical enforcements. Semantic…what does this mean? Practical…what do we enforce?
I tend to try and bring in the third side…what is the difference? That is, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we must at least consider that we may have a member of the family anatidae on our hands (to restate Dirk Gently via Douglas Adams :)).
I think this is what The Ryan is getting at. It may very well be semantics or “practical” enforcement, but the effects are hauntingly similar.
What say you all? Are he and I calling a spade a spade?
No, it doesn’t. It establishes that some people are intellectually dishonest.
I have at multiple times in this thread presented a reasoned argument: the draft is servitude, it is involuntary, therefore it is unconstitutional. No one has been able to rebut this argument. Instead they have brought up other criteria, such as “orignal intent” and “historical context”, as if they are more important than what the amendment actually says.
Yes, that is the core issue. However, you brought up the side issue of whether my plain reading is the coirrect plain reading.
Well, of course. Without it the whole idea of a contract becomes meaningless. If you could prove that your “intent” in signing a car loan was not to pay more than 15% APR, should the car company be barred from charging more than 15% APR, even if the contract clearly states that the interest rate may go over 15%?
How so?
My whole point in this case is that there is no clear reading, so relying on the clear reading isn’t absurd; it’s impossible.
That’s circular reasoning. You’re saying that the burden of proof is on me to show why original intent is irrelevant. In support of that claim you point out that my position is against the original intent, thereby assuming that the original intent is indeed relevant. You have said that you do not accept the principle that clear reading is the only thing that matters. But how can you dispute the principle that clear reading should, at the very least, be the default criterion? The idea that we should not at the very least start at the clear reading is absurd.
You have already stated that slander and fraud are not included in freedom of speech. Therefore, “freedom of speech shall not be infringed, except in cases of slander or fraud” is redundant, because freedom of speech already excludes slander and fraud.
“Freedom of speech” is unambiguous? Are you really trying to claim that?
No more than me not having a 60 gig hard drive is. Neither me having a 60 gig hard, nor slander and fraud being protected, are part of freedom of speech. The ideal is realized.
Yes, the word “slavery” is ambiguous. That does not change the fact that “involuntary servitude” is not. Do you really think the draft is not involuntary servitude?
Ryan… you’re confusing servitude and service. Draft is involuntary service.
Servitude, as defined by m-w… (and if you dispute this, you are conceding the point, saying that there is dispute) … : a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another.
Since soldiers are not owned. It is not servitude. It is not illegal
Look, military service (or, more specifically, the potential of military service–since the draft will probably not be used again for a long, long time) is a service exchanged for certain privliges and rights you get as a memeber of this country. It is not forced upon you–you can register as a conscientous objector or apply for citizenship elsewhere. It’s a trade, not slavery.
You trade your potential service for your rights as a citizen, and on top of that you get compensated financially if you do serve. So where’s the compulsion in that?
Of course, this only applies to men, at least for the time being.
By intellectually dishonest, you mean of course, believing constitutional provisions should be interpreted by additional standards besides the one you hold.
Perhaps that is because they believe those other criteria are more important. Sorry for the bolding, but I would have thought that would have been abundantly clear quite some time ago.
I brought up the issue of whether your plain reading was the correct reading of the amendment- as you yourself noted previously I agreed with your plain reading- if we had no other information to rely. But since we do have other information which clearly contradicts the plain reading, I believe the plain reading is an incorrect reading in this case.
Leaving aside the issue that a constitutional amendment is not a contract- however much you might wish for ideological reasons to view it as one- your example is disingenuous. In the case under consideration it is clear from the historical record that neither those proposing the 13th amendment nor those ratifying it considered conscription, jury duty or mandatory education to be servitude. So for your example to be relevant it would have to be one in which both parties to the contract clearly undertake to interpret its language in a manner different than a clear reading. In that situation such an understanding would be binding.
You are entirely correct- on this one point- and I withdraw it. But that still leaves two remaining: consistent interpretation and standard constitutional theory.
I do not dispute that clear reading is the default position- in the absense of other information pointing towards a contradictory conclusion. But we do have other information in the case of the 13th, and as I have said repeatedly, it points to an entirely different interpretation re what was meant by involuntary servitude. Now you may regard that clear evidence as irrelevant; you may regard people who disagree with you on that as intellectually dishonest. However, the courts and the majority of other observers do regard that additional information as important, and I fail to see where your repeated assertion that plain reading alone must be the sole criteria provides a compelling reason for any of them to change their position.
aynrandlover said:
When interpreting a passage, one person uses only knowledge of the words; a second person uses knowledge of the words, and knowledge of what the author intended. Which one is working from a position of greater ignorance and which is working from a position of lesser ignorance?
They are both arguing at two different angles. If we are basing laws on what the constitution “means” over what it “says”, then why not correct the constitution?
There is little doubt that unambiguity can be removed from any statement. There is doubt that it can’t be said better. There is also doubt that case law is unconstitutional in this matter.
Are we going to argue case laws vs constitution? What the founders “meant”? Fine, but expect dissent. Constitutional matters are from from clear as “the case law” should point out.
I would also like to counter the “you aren’t forced into the constitution.” Yes, you are. By merely being borne in the US you fall under it. Clearly you may remove yourlsef from it by leaving the US, but it would be absurd to say that there is initial choice in the matter. Only reactionary.
This is an interesting claim. What’s even more interesting is that no one else has brought this up. It seems like most people are more interested in arguing what the 13th amendment should say rather what it does say.
What is important is not whether there is a dispute but whether there is a legitimate dispute. If you say that the 13th amendment says that everyone must eat at least one hot fudge sundae each day, there would be a dispute. That doesn’t mean that I need to concede anything.
Yes, but
a) This is listed as listed as the second definition, implying that it is not the standard definition
b) It does say “as a piece of land”. My dictionary specifically states “in law, a charge upon one estate for the benefit of another; an easement; as, the servitude of way or of water draining.” Now, as slaves are not land/estate, this does not apply to them. Furthermore, this only applies to a use given to someone else. According to this interpretation, slavery is okay as long as only the owner benefits from it.
c) This meaning is not consistent with its use in the 15 amendment.
Hey, Myrr21, mind actually reading the thread before contributing to it?
Can’t that argument be used for any other violation of civil rights? If the government has a law against criticizing the the government, aren’t you agreeing to that law by staying here? Aren’t you trading your right to free speech for the benefits of US citizenship?
No, obviously you don’t remember the 14th amendment. Citizenship is given automatically to anyone born here. You don’t have to “trade” anything for it.
You really don’t think the draft is compulsory? :rolleyes:
No, I don’t think the draft is compulsory. You know why? Because I don’t have to do it. In fact, I believe I’m registered as an objector. I probably wouldn’t have even bothered, except that they withold federal financial aid if you don’t.
If I was using the ridiculous abstraction of exchange of goods and services, that’s only because I’ve been arguing with Libertarians too much.
Simple fact, which I fail to see how you can dispute: The draft is a pain to avoid if you suddenly decide “I don’t like this” the day before your number gets drawn, but with some advance planning it is certainly not mandatory.
However, I remember quickly why I dislike so much debating someone who’s tactic consists of “What you said was irrelevant. I don’t have to prove myself, you have to prove yourself. What’s your point?”…
No, by intellectually dishonest I mean interpreting constitutional provisions in ways that are completely at odds with what they say.
But they have been able to present no reason why this should be so. It’s as if I were to present a proof (using geometry) that pi is, to three significant digits, 3.14, and a bunch of people say that since the Bible says pi is exactly 3, I’m wrong. Then to top it off, someone comes along and says “However, IMHO, it does mean that if you wish to change the majority’s interpretation the burden is on you to convince them with reasoned arguments, not dogmatic pronouncements”! I’m not the one making dogmatic pronouncement; you guys are!
I realize that people don’t believe that plain reading is the most important factor. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t.
First of all, it is hardly disingenuous to fail to take into account every characteristic that someone might find relevant. Secondly, they wouldn’t have to “undertake to interpret its language in a manner different than [sic] a clear reading”, merely not notice a consequence of it. I don’t believe that that would invalidate that consequence. Thirdly, if you want a more faithful analogy, how about this: suppose that two people disagreed two months ago about who enjoyed more popular support: Bush or Gore. They make a bet regarding whether Bush or Gore will win the US presidential election, even though their intent was to make a bet regarding who would win the popular vote. Assuming that this bet was made in a jurisdiction in which it is legal, should the bet be evaluated under their intent, or their actual agreement?
Truth is not decided by majority vote. If consistent interpretation and standard constitutional theory say one thing, and common sense says another, which should we follow?
If clear reading is the default position, then any other evidence must be justified as being relevant.
Well, I guess it comes down to what we value. I value what the constitution actually says; you value what other people say it says. I don’t know if there’s anything that I can say to change your values.
And still a third works from knowledge of the words, what the author intended, what the GNP has been for the last thirty years, and the astrological data of the writers. Who’s working from a position of the least ignorance?
Which is more rude: expecting someone to go over the same points over and over again, or chiding someone for doing so?
Again, I have already dealt with that objection.
People shouldn’t have to make “advanced planning” to keep their rights. And short of breaking the law or leaving the country (which I believe is actually a subset of the first category), it is mandatory for men.
What’s wrong with saying it’s irrelevant, if it is irrelevant? I have proved my position, and now people have decided to just ignore my proof. I think that once I have shown that the plain reading supports my position, it is the burden of anyone who disagrees with me to either dispute my reading (as oldscratch did) or first establish that some other criterion is more important, then show that that criterion supports their position. Simply saying “you’re wrong because some other method disagrees with you” just doesn’t cut unless it can be shoen that that method is more valid than mine.
Some might consider interpreting constitutional provisions in ways that are completely at odds with the clear intent of the authors and ratifiers to be intellectual dishonesty.
I suppose I have presented no logical justification for believing that what people mean is more important in interpreting what they say than the mere words themselves. As you said, it is a question of values. And since you have presented no logical justification for believing that the mere words themselves are more important than what people mean, I feel no need to revise my values on this question.
If a plain reading of the words, divorced from all context, is the sole determining factor, then a suspect who tells police “I ain’t got no gun” is guilty of obstructing justice if he is found to have no firearm. A plain reading of the double negative sentence shows he is claiming to have a gun. The fact that context clearly shows he meant the opposite would be irrelevant under the standard you propose.
The issue under consideration is your contention that words divorced from all context are more important than intentions in determining meaning. To imply that you have demonstrated that with anything remotely approaching a mathematical proof of the value of pi would be breath-takingly arrogant if it weren’t so risible.
If you say so then it must be true
Nor does it mean that it is.
By this point, I hope it will not surprise you to learn that, if there is clear evidence of their intent, I believe it should be evaluated under that.
To me common sense in this case is not saying something different than the other two criteria. The fact that the authors and ratifiers of the 13th amendment simultaneously supported conscription and jury duty while enacting the amendment seems to me to require that common sense conclude they were not covered by the amendment.
Let us be precise here Ryan- I value what the people who wrote and ratified it meant. I also do not know if there is anything you can say to change my values, but I do know that if such exists I have not yet seen it.
mbh said:
I agree with both a plain reading and an in-context interpretation of this.
What gives your criterion its special status? I don’t recall a general consensus granting it a priviledged position. Why is the burden on others to establish the importance of their criteria and not on you to establish the priority of yours?
I do not see any theoretical reason to object to new amendments clarifying the meaning of the the 13th or other amendments. As a practical matter, I’m a bit leary of allowing politicians to start such a project since I fear they may succumb to temptations to change, rather than clarify, meanings. I do not see many people clamoring for such clarifications; most seem to be coping fine with the knowledge that the 13th amendment, despite its wording, does not prohibit the draft, jury duty or mandatory education. Thus I feel no great need to risk letting the pols loose on the constitution.
That’s what Supreme Court rulings do, in essence. Of course, it’s true that later rulings can overturn this, so you ask: why not literally change the wording?
Well, to do so, would presumably require and Amendment to the Constitution. We can’t just go in and change the wordings to what current opinion believes to be the intent of vague statements, without actually amending it. If we want to just do it as a “quick fix” that clarifies it without and Amendment, then that’s what the SC does. If we want a permanent fix, we need an Amendment, which happens to be rather hard to get passed–even in the most clear-cut cases. I guess our legislators feel it isn’t worth the effort for most of the obvious cases of intent.
