Just to clarify: quotes prove what people thought. And thats it (and in many cases they don’t even do that since you can take them out of context, or the person may have said contradictory things.)
Some people did not agree.
Rather than hijack this thread, I figured that I’ll start one here, for us to continue this discussion.
Additionally, in the case of Thomas Jefferson, I basically laugh at anyone that thinks that quoting him even makes an impression. The guy was a major hypocrite. For example, he believed in Strict Construction, yet spearheaded the Louisiana Purchase, which he admitted was unconstitutional. He opposed ratifying the constitution, yet he became president of a government he hadn’t wanted to exist. He championed freedom, yet owned slaves.
More to the point: many of our most revered sources of quotes tend to have lived in totally different worlds. While the study of their lives and writings may yield valuable information, I don’t believe it is ever possible to rely on a single quote, or even a few of them, to be a complete argument, or an argument at all.
Well, my experience is that many of the appeals to the FF’s appear in threads about the constitutionality of things (or other similar or related legal issues), and in that context such citation is totally appropriate.
“THOUGHT proves things” – in law, your thoughts (which is to say, opinions), without more, prove jack-shit. You may say it is constitutional to enter a person’s house in the middle of the night to arrest him or her without a warrant, and I may disagree, and at that point we have duelling opinions and nothing more.
Constitutionality largely devolves down to how the Supreme Court currently and historically interprets the constitution. In other words, it says what they say it says. In trying to determine what it says, it is entirely appropriate to look at what the drafters – the FFs – intended it to say. After all, they drew it up.
Personally, I think the idea that we should abandon centuries of logic and thought – not just on this subject but on many subjects – because the thinkers “lived in different worlds” is ridiculous. There are very few disputes or questions that haven’t come up before. Why should we be expected to reinvent the wheel every time? Moreover, I might not give a rat’s ass what Poster X’s opinion is on a given topic, knowing nothing about him/her and having no reason to respect what he/she says. I may feel differently about Albert Einstein or Mahatma Ghandi or Galileo. Or Thomas Jefferson.
Lastly, I find little logic in the idea that the value of a person’s opinions on any and all topics is in any way related to him or her having lived a perfect and blameless life. A man may be an asshole and still know his stuff.
Jodi - last time I checked the SDMB’s decisions were not legally binding. By “prove,” I mean, within the debate, to show your opinion to be superior by explaining it. By “thought” I meant actually considering an issue, analyzing its pros and cons, its moral considerations, etc. For example, if a congressman wants a bill to be passed, he/she should explain what it will do, and why that is good. He should not simply say “George Washington would have wanted campaign finance reform.” (for example) and expect that to suffice as a reason.
WRT “original intent” this is a flawed concept. The constitution was made by many people, who disagreed on different issues. It would be foolish and incorrect to say that there was a clear “intent” in the constitution. As different people wanted different things. The Constitution is a bundle of compromises. To try to come away with a clear intent would be misleading. Especially, if one were to only look at a few lines that these people said. Furthermore, there are things that the Framers believed in, but deliberatly left out. For example, while all the Framers were Christian, as far as I know, they did not mention god, or create a state religion. Also, in other areas original intent is outdated. For example, original intent would probably be interpreted in favor of slavery.
If you reread my post, I think you’ll see that I’m not trying to “abandon centuries of logic and thought.” Look at my last paragraph. However, individual excerpts cannot possibly be considered “centuries of logic and thought” in and of themselves.
Who said they were? But when discussing the “legality” of anything, it is reasonable to avail oneself of the arguments of whether or not that thing is or is not legal in the real world, and why. This includes understanding precedent and citing to it (or quoting it) when necessary. And – surprise! – constitutional precedent not infrequently includes inquiry into what the FFs thought and did, and why, since they’re the guys who wrote the thing.
The problem with this, in the realm of the Constitution, is that constitutionality without citation or precedent is nothing more than a matter of opinion – and largely uninformed opinion at that. Should every person be entitled to own the gun of his or her choice, without regulation or limitation? Regardless of whether you say “yes” or “no,” it’s merely a “sez you” moment here on the Board. There is no “proving” something is constitutional or not simply by arguing opinions – certainly such “proof” is impossible if one does away with citing to or quoting legal authority.
It obviously does not suffice as a reason. But you’re talking about something different – creating new (statutory) law to have a proactive (from here into the future) effect. That is not the same as attempting to interpret the meaning and breadth of a document already existing. In such cases, it is reasonable to ask what the drafters intended the document to mean. This is true with any and every written document, but it just so happens that your complaint cited particularly the FFs, and IME they tend to come up in questions of constitutionality – and, as I have explained, rightly so.
Sure they did. But they compromised and agreed insofar as drafting and ratifying the constitution was concerned. It is a single document representing the unified statement of rights and law of the disparate people that drafted it; inquiring into their intent in drafting and ratifying it is not “foolish” or “misleading” it is a necessary predicate to figuring out what the thing means. You, apparently, would interpret it in a vacuum, or only by light of what you think it should mean (opinion), without taking the obvious step of asking what it has historically meant (precedent, often quoted) or was intended to mean. In some cases, the intent of the framers cannot be discerned (the Fourth Amendment; the Eleventh Amendment) ; in some cases (the First Amendment), it can. And these are not people left only “a few lines” to document what they were thinking or arguing, or seeking to accomplish; to the contrary, they left lots of documents on those subjects. In particular, James Madison left a complete and illuminating record of the Constitutional Convention.
By which we can discern a specific intent not to follow England’s example in the creation of a state religion – discern, that is, if we look beyond the constitution itself. In other words, this is something we know not because of it is in (or out of) the constituiton, but because of other writings left by the FFs in which they relate their distaste for state-sanctioned religion – precisely the sort of proof you would apparently dismiss as irrelevant or “misleading.”
Again, we know that the Constitution provision that a black man would be counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of calculating population was itself a compromise between those who would count the enslaved as people for purposes of representation (the Southern states) and those who would insist they be treated as people if they were going to be counted as people (the Northern states). Again, the constitution tells us nothing of this. If we looked only at the constitution, we’d never know why that provision was written as it was, and we’d certainly never know how close to being a “deal-breaker” the entire issue of slavery was.
Well, you may not want to abandon it, but it certainly sounds like you want people to refrain from citing to it. So what is it you expect people to do? Post entire books, or nothing at all? Quotations from source materials, used judiciously, may explain my point better than I do myself. And, as I’ve already pointed out, it may be more persuasive for being from (a) someone who is an expert or (b) someone who was actually there.
I am not saying that one should abandon one’s own argument to simply cut, paste, and quote. That’s annoying and I’ll be the first to admit it. But to argue against quotes because “who cares what Thomas Jeffereson says? That was 200 years ago” is IMO extremely short-sighted. And to say original sources have (can have) no relevance is IMO simply wrong.
And I should explain that this issue is a bit of a personal bugaboo to me, at least insofar as the constituiton is concerned. That is because there have been countless times when people have posted that something is unconsitutional – without quotation of or citation to supporting material – when in fact that something really is not unconsitutional, and what the poster means (and ought to say) is that he or she thinks it ought be unconsitutional (based on his or her interpretation of the constitution, and nothing more). Meanwhile, I know that out here in the real world - the world of precedent and citation – the thing (whatever it is) is not unconstitutional, because the people who decide that – the Supreme Court – have said it is not. Exhibit A: In God We Trust. The motto is not unconstitutional (meaning, it has not thus far been held to be by those who decide such things – the Supreme Court) and those who post that it is unconstituional are posting opinion only (not law or fact) and are, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong.
But without citation or quotation, without discerning how the religion clauses have been interpreted in the past, and how the Founders intended them to be taken, the constitutionality of IGWT or anything is difficult to establish, because you say it is and I say it ain’t, and there we sit. Who’s right? I submit we’ll never know without somes sources and some quotes.
Aristoteles Dixit, or as someone already mentioned “appelation to authority”. It is a classic fallacy the contrary (if I remember my logic) is “attack ad hominem” (attack the man).
My opinion they don’t prove anything but if Aristoteles said it better give a good argument against.
But thats just it. Just because Founder X may or may not have personally liked having “In God We Trust” doesn’t make it constitutional. What makes things constitutional are the supreme courts decisions, and the words of the constitution. Thus, in that case quoting the Supreme Court decisions regarding that would be appropriate provided that: the context was explained, and that the quote was accurate. Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that issue.
However, the outside personal attitudes of the Framers. Posting a quote by Alexander Hamilton that says “I love ‘In God we trust’” does not in any way change the status of that enscription. Nor should the Supreme Court, in my opinion, base it on these types of personal feelings. Rather it should look at what the constitution actually says.
Lets look at a real life example. After a recent campaign finance reform bill passed, George W. Bush stated that he questioned its constitutionality. Now, when the Framers wrote the constitution, elections were not the way they are today. There weren’t party war chests, and huge special interests groups. No TV ads. Basically, the campaigns were rather low key by today’s standards. So, if Bush was to question its constitutionality by saying “Well, the framers didn’t like it” he would be totally incorrect. The framers had no idea what would happen. Thus, we cannot claim that they had an opinion on it. However, there’s a good chance that we could dig up some quote by one of the framers that somehow says something to that effect, if we remove it from context.
Almost every issue has changed since the ratification. How can Thomas Jefferson possibly have anything to say about internet anti-child porn laws. In his lifetime, there were no cameras, no computers, no internet. Thus, citing why Thomas Jefferson would/would not have liked anti child-porn laws is misleading.
But this is circular reasoning, because what you are failing to realize (or failing to acknowledge) is that the supreme court decisions are themselves not infrequently based on the Court’s determination of original intent – which is not to say such factors are overriding and dictate the result, but certainly the Court takes original intent into consideration. So you are simultaneously (a) rejecting looking at the Framers’ intent while (b) conceding the Supreme Court determines constitutionality – while ignoring or overlooking that they do precisely the thing that you reject.
But why would you reject an analysis of original intent and the Framers’ beliefs and historical positioning, when the Court (whose authority you acknowledge) does not reject them?
The problem is that we can all determine what the Constitution says – the words are written down for anyone to read – but it is very difficult to determine what the Constitution means. So it becomes simply another ambiguous document and – as with any ambiguous document – it is entirely reasonable to inquiry what the writer(s) or originator(s) meant by it.
Issues of constitutionality are obviously fact-driven, but they are not fact-specific. The fact that the Founders did not concern themselves with campaign finance reform – or indeed campaigning – does not mean they did not concern themselves with free speech, which is the underlying issue vis-a-vis campaign finance reform. So, again, it would arguably be appropriate to consider the parameters of free speech, and what the Founders intended those parameters to be, when determining the application of free-speech provisions in issues such as this one.
No, it is not. There is no mention of pornography in the Constitution. Would you then argue that the Constitution does not apply at all to that issue? Because that appears to be your argument. In fact, when we seek to apply and preserve the right to free speech, it is entirely appropriate to determine whether the framers’ conceived of that right as being a very narrow one, or a very broad one.
Asserting that Thomas Jefferson would or would not have approved of anit-porn laws is misleading; asserting that the framers had specific opinions on the parameters of free speech is not.
But there was no one opinion prevailing through all the founding fathers. Hamilton might have liked porn Jefferson might not. (This is assuming that they are capable of passing judgement on something they’ve never heard of.) Depending on whose writings you quote you can get a totally different intent.
I think that the framers’ writings were done with the assumption that their private words would not be considered law. Perhaps Franklin didn’t write about some issue in his private letters, in his diary, or in his publications because he didn’t think it mattered. Had the founding fathers known what would result from their unguarded words, I think their writings would be different. By “original intent” less prolific or expressive founding fathers would be/are snubbed of the power to rule from beyond the grave simply because they didn’t realize that their unofficial words would one day be considered law.
George Washington said, “Do not ever let anyone claim to be a true American Patriot, if they ever attempt to separate religion from politics.” Does this mean that we should allow, and actually encourage in-school prayer, and begin the presidential addresses with a mandatory prayer? I certainly hope not. This is (one of many reasons) why when the Supreme Court considers consitutionality, it should not consider this kind of stuff.
In my opinion, the Constitution is (or should be) just like any other legal document. Anything said about it without legal weight is mere commentary. Once it’s passed, it’s out of the legislators’ hands, except to edit it by another legal document. “The Federalist Papers” are not legal documents, and should not be treated as such simply because they give three (important) men’s opinions.
Do you have a cite for the idea that Jefferson and Hamilton had never heard of pornography? It seems to be a well-established fact that pornographic art and literature has existed basically ever since people were capable of producing art and literature. I also seem to recall reading an interview with Ron Jeremy where he mentioned that pornography is usually the first genre in art to take advantage of new technology. For example, it was some of the first material to be released on video, and holographic porn has already been produced. Jefferson died in 1826; when was photography invented? I think in the 1820s, but I’m not sure about that. But of course, the exposure times were many hours long, and I doubt you could get anyone to hold, um, certain poses that long. But in any case, pornographic art and literature were definitely around. The Marquis de Sade was producing his prolific output at around the same time that Jefferson and Hamilton were building our government.
As for quotations…
“I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
Quotes dealing with philosophical, social or political matters are mainly just opinions. Jefferson, for example, expressed about a dozen conflicting opinions on the matter of slavery and the status those held as slaves in the US.
On the other hand, in some cases, a quote from an expert can settle an issue. For example, in well settled chemistry a quote from Linus Pauling would carry considerable weight. On matters on the outskirts of chemical knowledge Pauling’s opinion is worth serious consideration but should be accepted only tentatively. On the value of massive doses of whatever vitamin he was pushing as treatment for the common cold, his opinion probably isn’t worth all that much.
[quote] Some people did not agree.
[quote]
As a matter of fact, a number of those who were active in the Constitutional Convention and helped create the document disagreed so violently that the refused to sign it. I think as contributors to the document, they were just as much “founding fathers” as those who signed.
If you take the founders as a group, I’m sure you can find a quote in their collective writings to support any position you care to take on any issue you care to raise.
And, by the way, much of the "original intent’ baloney is based on the record of the Constitutional Convention that was written by one man - James Madison. So that, at least, should be called the “intent of James Madison.”
Only if the authority in question is not an authority on the subject matter under discussion.
I feel obligated to point this out. Some SDMB posters have been quick to dismiss any quote as committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. Clearly, this stems from a grave misunderstanding of what the fallacy actually means.
After that vague appeal to authority I might add to the clarification of the same. It is not a fallacy of rhetoric to use an appeal to authority when the quote has immediate bearing on a specific statement. For instance; in reply to the statement “The Brits counted on that the Russians would enter the war already in 1939.” It is perfectly adequate to reply:
Given that Winnie was the PM of the nation in question and the date of the quotation it is acceptable as proof that statement one is moot.
It is also acceptable to borrow another’s well phrased argument to make a point as in; "I find it reprehensible how many people live with cognitive dissonans, or as Sir Winston put it; “Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.”
Last but not least, the most useless form of quotations would be the ones that are apocryphal, misattributed or just downright wrong, or once again as Sir WLSC put it;
already in use: Sorry, didn’t realize porn was around back then. Just substitute some other thing there in place of “porn,” which the founders would not have heard of, “nuclear weapons” for example.
David Simmons: I agree with you on the Linus Pauli type of example. I should have clarified in my OP that I was talking about in matters of opinion.
Sparc: Your “well phrased argument” isn’t actually an argument. Its a witty statement. An observation. Saying “This is true” is not an argument. Nor is “Joe Smith said this is true.”
My utmost appologies for taking for granted that I didn’t have to give a full rendering of an argument as an example. In my haste and idiocy I took for granted an imlpicit understanding by the readership that my example would be part of a more serious and well founded exploration of the phenomena of cognitive dissonans with cites et al.
Hence I will rephrase; Using the wit of others through quotes can be an effectful way to underline a point in an argument as in my previous example which however still needs for more logical foundation and/or support from independent and verifiable sources.
Better so?
After all rhetoric is not only the art of being fail proof it is also the art of making ones point in a convincing an appealing matter, but it is also the art of showing the arguing oppositions error, as Qwertyasdfg showed that my argument made no sense since I commited an audiatur et altera pars.
Anyone that doesn’t have a short list of logical fallacy at hand might find this useful, there is a list of the main fallacies you can commit halfway down the page, with explanations. Argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority as we are here discussing is also explained (please ignore the fact that it’s an atheist web site, the page I link to is quite useful inedependent of what your religious belief is).
