yep.
Bricker asks me:
Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! It is unconscionably evil and utterly anti-American! I’ll say it again: That possibility is as depraved and repulsive a crime against America and American ideals as any I can imagine!
You write:
(emphasis mine).
Indeed I do, just as the founders did. It shocks me to the core that you would imagine and claim otherwise!
You continue:
Whose “complete lack of understanding of the founders”? Sacred excrement, Bricker, are we even talking about the same country and the same founders??
I repeat: How on earth can you not grasp the very, very basic notion – as repeatedly emphasized by both Enlightenment political philosophers and our Founders alike – that a numerical majority of voters could actually establish or rescind the rights a numerical minority can exercise is easily the most powerfully compelling argument against democracy imaginable? Can’t see that this is precisely the most important reason the Founders adamantly renounced democracy for our system of government? Don’t realize that they emphatically rejected “the concept of sovereignty held, completely and utterly, by the people” (as you put it) as but the intolerably monstrous “tyranny of the majority”?
Are you fucking kidding me?
Here’s a very typical example of the Founders’ view on the subject from a letter to Jefferson from Adams:
Over and over again, the Founders utterly repudiated your outrageous and despicable notions and claims, Bricker. The very last thing they wanted was to grant sovereignty, completely and utterly, to the people! That is just what they feared most; they clearly understood that there is absolutely no difference between a king or other autocrat oppressing a minority and a numerical majority doing so: they’re all intolerably unjust and evil.
That is exactly why they created the United States as a constitutional republic rather than a democracy! Your assertion that the Founders granted absolute power to the people is not only factually false, it is utterly repugnant to the very concept of human liberty. The vileness of your view boggles the mind.
The Declaration of Independence need not have any legal standing in order to reflect the manifest desire of the Founders to protect the minority – even a minority of one – from the majority, by referencing the essentially universal Enlightenment concept of “inalienable rights”. According to your arguments, no such rights exist and the Founders never intended to protect such rights against majority rule! Incredible!
Do I really need to cite The Federalist, wherein Madison and others wrote so eloquently and passionately to directly oppose the loathsome position you’re taking? Do I really need to explain to you that their arguments prevailed and were thus enshrined in the Constitution? Surely I don’t need to explain the extraordinary importance of Marbury v Madison to an attorney!
I submit that Hamilton was entirely correct in Federalist No. 84 in warning of the profound dangers inherent in creating a bill of rights. That danger has been entirely realized! The Ninth Amendment has been nothing but ignored or spat upon by the courts, and the 13’th, 15’th, & 19’th Amendments and those like them are but foul abominations whose very existence should produce not admiration but deep and abject revulsion and shame!
You’ve asked me questions, Bricker, but now it’s time for me to ask you one:
You keep asserting that the Founders granted complete and utter sovereignty to The People, from which it follows that the Founders had to have held that individuals or groups of individuals possess absolutely no intrinsic and inalienable rights whatsoever. Justify that by citing the Founders’ actual words and how that concept is enshrined in our Constitution, or admit your repeated assertions and arguments to that effect in this thread are entirely unjustified.
When you’ve done that we can proceed to other issues, such as precisely where the Southern Poverty Law Center’s amicus curiae brief (pdf) relating to same sex marriage errs in its legal reasoning.
And yet:
And where do the Congressmen get their positions?
And:
And the legislatures of the several states?
Your repeated and quite contemptible evasions will not do, Bricker. I am not fooled by your politician’s ploy of “answering” your own question rather than the question I actually asked you.
Again, here’s the question I actually put to you: You keep asserting that the Founders granted complete and utter sovereignty to The People, from which it follows that the Founders had to have held that individuals or groups of individuals possess absolutely no intrinsic and inalienable rights whatsoever. Justify that by citing the Founders’ actual words and how that concept – that individuals or groups possess absolutely no intrinsic and inalienable rights whatsoever – is enshrined in our Constitution, or admit your repeated assertions and arguments to that effect in this thread are entirely false and unjustified.
Since you’ve once again deliberately evaded the many points I’ve made and/or you keep pretending they have no logical probity or relevance to the root issue of whether the Founders intended to – and did – actually enshrine complete and utter power in The People, as you insist, or whether they held that individuals and groups of individuals possessed inalienable rights that could never be voted away, it’s clear I’ll have to employ the Socratic method more rigorously and present everything as a question for you to answer:
(1): Did the Declaration of Independence correctly reflect the fact that the American Founders held that humans inherently possessed certain unalienable rights – defined as rights that are in no way contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government and which could thus never be revoked or repealed by a vote – including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or did it not? Yes or no.
(2): If your answer is no, please prove to us that the signatories did not represent the the predominant philosophical view of the Founders yet dishonestly signed the document anyway.
(3): Was the Ninth Amendment an attempt to address the very real fear of many thinkers at the time, such as Hamilton in Federalist 84, that, without it, the Constitution and the rest of the Bill of Rights could be wrongly seen to represent the horrifically evil and Anti-American view you keep espousing that individuals or groups of individuals possess no intrinsic, unalienable rights that are not explicitly specified therein and which cannot be usurped by a vote of The People? Yes or no.
(4): If your answer is no, please prove to us that the authors had no such intent.
I don’t know why you’re so adamant about proving yourself either incredibly stupid or a bald-faced liar, Bricker. Will you not drop this pretense, sir? You’ve engaged in enough deception already. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
You’re not in the Pit. Leave off the insults and accusations of lying, please.
twickster, elections forum mod
The rules in this forum are the same as in Great Debates. Do not call other posters liars, and do not insult them. [Also, please don’t overload my sense of irony by calling annother poster stupid or a liar and then appealing to his sense of decency.]
I will heed your cautionary note, twickster. I trust in your sincerity and I am not skeptical of the positive nature of your motivation behind it.
I must ask, however, for you to re-examine the context and then carefully re-evaluate whether or not my comments:
“I don’t know why you’re so adamant about proving yourself either incredibly stupid or a bald-faced liar” and "Will you not drop this pretense, sir?
are semantically equivalent to:
“You ARE either stupid or a bald-faced liar”.
I submit that a contextually just reading of my remarks simply cannot appropriately and deservedly lead to the interpretation that I called Bricker a liar or stupid. The only just interpretation of my words is such that I was actually expressing frank puzzlement about why Bricker – who is plainly not at all stupid or a wanton liar – would choose to engage in the pretense that he actually is those things. My comments only make sense in the context of my understanding and acknowledgment that he is no such thing.
My words can only properly be understood as a criticism of the disingenuousness and evasiveness in some of Bricker’s replies and arguments. My target is not Bricker, it is the pretense involved in his arguments and statements to the effect that the Founders rejected the universal Enlightenment concept that people intrinsically possess unalienable rights that can never be stripped away by any authority whatsoever, not even “The People”, contrary to his repeated assertions.
Such is not against the rules, nor should it be. I appeal to you to reconsider.
*(Interior struggle ensues… Can’t… can’t… win! Argh! No… hope. Vanity?.. power-mad?..
Polycarp… believes… … gotten over it.*
Ow! *Must… heed… lissener’s… counsel… Reading comprehen… *ouch! What was I thinking! *Ludovico device needs… re-tuning…
… er, oh yes: tone… sniff butts… lower gaze… keep place…)*
Why, hello there, Marley23! Nice day for it, eh? Let me just slowly come up behind you there and…
My, that really does have a fine bouquet!
You know, I just can’t take my eyes off those fine new shoes of yours. Seriously, someone sagely advised me that I just shouldn’t look away from them if I know what’s good for me.
What’s that? Really? No, I wasn’t aware that the Italians made dayglo orange Crocs: You’re always schooling me on the finer things in life, and believe me, I’m dosh-garned grateful for the privilege.
Just as I’m deeply honored that you took the extra time and trouble to give me a happily gratutious kick after twickster had already made the exact same point. I feel so special, even singled-out. And what better way to demonstrate your generosity of spirit than by thoughtfully adding a not-at-all insulting or condescending editorial cherry on top?
I’ll just be standing way over here admiring your shoes some more… Yessiree, nice shoes, alright…
The evasional nature of your replies will not do, Bricker. I am not fooled by any politician’s ploy of “answering” their own question rather than the question I actually asked…
Since you’ve once again deliberately evaded the many points I’ve made and/or you keep pretending they have no logical probity or relevance to the root issue of whether the Founders intended to – and did – actually enshrine complete and utter power in The People, as you insist, or whether they held that individuals and groups of individuals possessed inalienable rights that could never be voted away, it’s clear I’ll have to employ the Socratic method more rigorously and present everything as a question for you to answer:
(1): Did the Declaration of Independence correctly reflect the fact that the American Founders held that humans inherently possessed certain unalienable rights – defined as rights that are in no way contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government and which could thus never be revoked or repealed by a vote – including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or did it not? Yes or no.
(2): If your answer is no, please prove to us that the signatories did not represent the the predominant philosophical view of the Founders yet dishonestly signed the document anyway.
(3): Was the Ninth Amendment an attempt to address the very real fear of many thinkers at the time, such as Hamilton in Federalist 84, that, without it, the Constitution and the rest of the Bill of Rights could be wrongly seen to represent the horrifically evil and Anti-American view you keep espousing that individuals or groups of individuals possess no intrinsic, unalienable rights that are not explicitly specified therein and which cannot be usurped by a vote of The People? Yes or no.
(4): If your answer is no, please prove to us that the authors had no such intent.
I don’t know why you’re so adamant about pretending that you don’t know far better, Bricker. Will you not drop this pretense, sir? You’ve engaged in enough disingenuousness already. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
Just as a housekeeping matter, it does seem to me that it will be very difficult to have a forum devoted to discussing and debating the issues and personalities involved in any popular elections if the participants are not allowed to call each other names. Like it or not, a fair number of the actual participants in the elections , their supporters, financers, supporters and running dogs are in fact liars, fools, scoundrels and provocateurs, and sometimes all of that. Just as you can’t talk about manure management with out talking about bull shit, It doesn’t seem possible to discuss popular politics without invective.
Just saying…
I call them “Freedom Judges.”
Objection. Compound question.
- Did the Declaration of Independence claim that humans inherently possessed certain unalienable rights?*
Yes.
Was that claim correct?
No.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, calls for conclusion.
That view was held by some of the Founders. But the Declaration’s purpose was to lay out a legal justification for separating the American colonies from Britain, and not to create or define legal rights for the people living in the colonies, or the powers of the new government in the colonies.
Thirteen years separated the Declarationof Independence and the ratification of the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence is not a source today of any substantive law.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, conclusory, argumentative.