New US Constitution (here you go, 2sense)

Great Debates
41

waterj2:

Thanks, dude. But don’t really think of me as back. I’m still pretty damn busy. Mainly just getting a little time to lurk every now and then. Maybe I’ll start being able to really participate some later. Glad to see libertarians still scrapping in here.

[/hijack]

-VM

42

Myster Jones:

I wasn’t really complaining. It was in jest.
In general I find that I tend not to agree with Mr Jefferson’s writings; not that I am overly familiar with them. It is nice that this is not the case here but when I read it I kept hearing that “frequent blood on the tree of liberty” wish of his.

ACLU - Membership: Greater than 275,000. aclu.com
NAACP - Greater than 500,000. britannica.com
NRA - Membership: More than 3 million. britannica.com
NARL - I admit that I am not one of the people who knows what this is.
I googled but could find nothing that fit.

These numbers aren’t that impressive considering the population of the USA. I concede that there are people that continue to be concerned with rights, but I don’t see that there are that many of them. Anecdotally I would think that you are familiar with people who prattle about their Constitutional Rights but don’t really have an idea of what they are or how they are maintained. At least, I am familiar with this type. Perhaps this is just my subjective opinion. I am sure that it hasn’t been your experience that people IRL are as knowledgeable as the posters here. I hope that most of the TM are voters but even here I wouldn’t want to bet on it.

Your summary of my position is accurate, except that I wouldn’t use the term “nuances” to refer to SC decisions. If they rule that the government can “quash my political opinions” then it can. Also, you leave out the inverse side of my argument. It is even more difficult to legislate and then protect new rights.

The example that you gave was plausible. Whether or not I would object to the ( over ) reactions or not is moot. A flexible government is going to pass bad laws. People will need to learn that knee-jerk reactions are a bad idea. They are responsible for the decisions of the government and they will no longer be shielded from their ignorance. I believe that this will improve the conduct of our citizenry.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that the same problem couldn’t occur under the current system. Algore is proposing governmental oversight of the entertainment industry. American police do not have a reputation as sticklers for either the letter or the spirit of the law. I have had my rights casually violated by the cops.

As for my opinion on your example, I agree with the rights that are stated in the Constitution ( even the 2nd amendment ) and have no wish to see them thrown out the window. It is how they are stated I dislike.

A final point in reference to your reply to muppetsoup:
As the Regional Distributor of the Crittenden Compromise for Beaver County, I have to ask if you considered this noteworthy proposal in your thinking.
:smiley:

43

Smartass:

It’s good to hear from you. I hope you find the time to rejoin the debates. You are the first “blast from the past” that I have enjoyed on the SDMB. I am used to thinking of myself as a newbie. It was weird to actually know someone who returned after an absence.

Thanks for the word of encouragement.

44

2sense said:

Yeah…what’s your point? Oh, wait, that wasn’t for me.

Ah, but keep in mind that I just listed a few organizations off the top of my head–and I didn’t list every one I can think of. You also need to consider those who are sympathizers but don’t join, such as myself.

In point of fact, if the number of members were the whole story, not even the largest of these organizations–NRA, which had about 3.6 million members last time I checked–would have all that much clout. But that’s not the case. NRA swings a lot of political and legal clout. ACLU is constantly battling in court. NAACP was the driving force behind *Brown v. Board of Education,*which upended the settled constitutionality of so-called “separate but equal” segregation approved of in Plessy v. Ferguson. It’s not just a numbers game.

Ok…I’m going to use abortion as an example. Let us say that in the near future the Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade–we’ll ignore that the Supremes rarely operate that way. Let’s even say it’s a 9-0 opinion that Roewas mistaken. Does that mean abortion is now illegal in the United States?

No, it does not–by itself, overruling Roedoes nothing. Congress or the individual state legislatures would have to act–presumably one of them already has, for the case to have been before the Court to begin with. This is going to be true of any issue before the Supremes. Are you with me so far?

But this just means the matter is back in the political arena, subject to the politics and constituent pressures that you advocate as being the best safeguard of our rights anyway.

A firearms analogy–as I see it, you are arguing that the gun shouldn’t have safeties, in hopes the user will learn to operate it properly and not fire when he shouldn’t. I think that’s a wonderful idea…but I think the safeties are a damn good idea too.

Again, an example of the political process you want to protect our rights…but without the Constitution, maybe it would actually happen.

Sink or swim, you mean–you want everybody to sink or swim. This is all well and good, but they’re liable to drag me down with them–that’s why I want my innertube and rubber ducky.

I swear, I’d strangle Crittenden if he wasn’t already dead. That’d teach him.

45

**MysterEcks **:

My point about people being concerned with rights is that too few are from an electoral standpoint. The legal actions that you cite weren’t won because most people approved of them but because the organizations had good cases and good lawyers. I don’t think that a courtroom is the place to decide these questions.

Your abortion example supports my position nicely, thank you.
The Constitution cannot defend our liberty from the government because, as you demostrate, the Justices may interpret the document as they see fit and Congress would then be free to outlaw abortion. Also, the Court is part of the government. The SC can halt represive legislation, but there is no guarantee that they will. Our rights are not inviolate in their hands.
Why should we trust them?

I agree that the Constitution may stop Algore from censoring the movies. It also stops us from passing [insert your favorite issue here] legislation. Slowing down all legislation is not a good way to prevent bad legislation. What this does is turn small problems then into big problems now.

This has been a good discussion.
Good thread Myster.

46

You’re trying to drive me crazy, aren’t you, 2sense? It won’t work, you know–I’ve been crazy for years, so no one would notice.

2sense said:

We are talking, but are we communicating?

Again, if the Supremes did such a thing, then the issue falls back into the hands of the elected officials, at which point we are where you wanted to go in the first place. I don’t get why you think this is worse than leaving such things in the hands of the elected officials to begin with.

Our rights would certainly be no more inviolate in the hands of Congress or state legislatures–why should we trust them?

Here we have a fundemental disagreement on the proper scope of government that may–or may not–be beyond the scope of this thread, and we certainly aren’t going to change each other’s minds. Suffice it to say that I don’t believe in making it easier for the government at any level to “do something about______,” (your term here) since in many cases the government should notdo something about ______. As the old saying goes (I don’t recall who said it, and this is a paraphrase), “No one’s life, liberty, or property is safe when the Legislature is in session.”

47

I think that we have pretty much taken this thread as far as it can go. A final point in my postition that I would like to clear up.

“No one’s life, liberty, or property is safe when the Legislature is in session.”

I agree; however, these are not safe at any other time either.
I do not favor an unrestrained government. My problem with judicial restraint of the legislature is that the court is part of the government.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who is restraining the court?
A government must be restrained by the citizenry.

For this reason I favor a constitution that does not marginalize the voice of the people.