CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

If the Koch Bros. philanthropic and betterment of society initiatives ever crowded out the efforts of their critics to demonize them, who would be adopted as the new villains? And why is it that some seem to think that small, efficient, effective limited government somehow benefits people like the Koch Bros?

I think Jonah Goldberg really nailed the spirit of the dichotomy in points of view:

. . .In recent years, I've had the good fortune to get to know some famous .001-percenters. Guess what? Not only do they not run the country, but they're often desperate to find out who does.

For instance, listening to the Democratic Party or, say, the editors of the New York Times (tomayto-tomahto, I know), you'd think the Koch brothers owned America. Of course, if they did, they wouldn't be spending so much money on elections, would they? Also, if the Kochs were half as evil and powerful as some claim, nobody would be criticizing them.

Meanwhile, for every rich conservative out there, there's a rich liberal cutting checks, too. In other words, the one-percenters who supposedly run everything aren't some homogenized class of economic overlords; they are, in fact, at war with each other. And, trust me, Charles and David Koch, Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess no more think they are running the country than liberal super-donors Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and Tom Steyer do.

The notion that there's a class or group of people secretly running things is ancient. It was old when the Roman consul Lucius Cassius famously asked, "Cui bono?" ("To whose benefit?")

The reason is that we seem to be hard-wired to assume there are no accidents, that the world is the way it is because people -- hidden people -- want it that way. The more extreme expressions of this cognitive reflex take many forms, whether anti-Semitic (Who benefits? The Jews!) or Marxist (Who benefits? The ruling classes!) or comedic ("Colonel Sanders with his wee beady eyes!").

Today, on the left, such thinking has become institutionalized. When the champions of social justice can't find an actual culprit, the villain becomes systemic racism or sexism or white privilege. But there is always evil intentionality lurking somewhere, like a ghost in the machine. The right has its bugaboos, too. For instance, there are many who think the mainstream media is biased (it is) and that its bias is somehow centrally orchestrated like a scheme by some Bond villain (it isn't).

I think some people are scared of the idea that nobody is in charge, in part because they want someone to blame for their problems. Others don't like this notion because they have an outsized faith in the power of human will. If villains aren't to blame for our ills, then some problems cease to be problems and simply become facts of life. . . .
Who really runs the government Jonah Goldberg - GoErie.com - Erie PA
​

 

[Derideo_Te]

If the Koch Bros. philanthropic and betterment of society initiatives ever crowded out the efforts of their critics to demonize them, who would be adopted as the new villains? And why is it that some seem to think that small, efficient, effective limited government somehow benefits people like the Koch Bros?

I think Jonah Goldberg really nailed the spirit of the dichotomy in points of view:

. . .In recent years, I've had the good fortune to get to know some famous .001-percenters. Guess what? Not only do they not run the country, but they're often desperate to find out who does.

For instance, listening to the Democratic Party or, say, the editors of the New York Times (tomayto-tomahto, I know), you'd think the Koch brothers owned America. Of course, if they did, they wouldn't be spending so much money on elections, would they? Also, if the Kochs were half as evil and powerful as some claim, nobody would be criticizing them.

Meanwhile, for every rich conservative out there, there's a rich liberal cutting checks, too. In other words, the one-percenters who supposedly run everything aren't some homogenized class of economic overlords; they are, in fact, at war with each other. And, trust me, Charles and David Koch, Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess no more think they are running the country than liberal super-donors Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and Tom Steyer do.

The notion that there's a class or group of people secretly running things is ancient. It was old when the Roman consul Lucius Cassius famously asked, "Cui bono?" ("To whose benefit?")

The reason is that we seem to be hard-wired to assume there are no accidents, that the world is the way it is because people -- hidden people -- want it that way. The more extreme expressions of this cognitive reflex take many forms, whether anti-Semitic (Who benefits? The Jews!) or Marxist (Who benefits? The ruling classes!) or comedic ("Colonel Sanders with his wee beady eyes!").

Today, on the left, such thinking has become institutionalized. When the champions of social justice can't find an actual culprit, the villain becomes systemic racism or sexism or white privilege. But there is always evil intentionality lurking somewhere, like a ghost in the machine. The right has its bugaboos, too. For instance, there are many who think the mainstream media is biased (it is) and that its bias is somehow centrally orchestrated like a scheme by some Bond villain (it isn't).

I think some people are scared of the idea that nobody is in charge, in part because they want someone to blame for their problems. Others don't like this notion because they have an outsized faith in the power of human will. If villains aren't to blame for our ills, then some problems cease to be problems and simply become facts of life. . . .
Who really runs the government Jonah Goldberg - GoErie.com - Erie PA
​

The term gullible springs to mind. No critical thinking involved, no comparing the reality to the words of the extreme rightwing propogandists. Just blind acceptance that this must be the "gospel truth" because it fits into the Libertarian Utopian ideology mindset.

What kind of cognitive dissonance manages to swallow this while simultaneously believing that politicians are "extorting" wealthy donors? Would the Libertarian Koch bros hand over huge checks if the legislation in question wasn't going to make them much richer by deregulating or eliminating taxes?

Instead the tu coque finger is pointed at the "evil lib'ruls" as a means to distract attention from the Libertarian agenda that is destroying the future for hardworking Americans.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suppose the CEOs and/or those close to them and/or others who have been milked for big donations are the 'gullible' ones as it is their testimony that Peter Schweizer drew on for his information. So far the media has substantially ignored his expose', but I haven't seen a single rebuttal of the information he has presented. Nor has any of the politicans named, GOP or Democrat, or any of the 'extorted' company people expressed any protest.

Just not wanting to believe something doesn't really wash in the real world of debate. Schwiezer's argument includes almost as many pages of footnotes and references to back up his arguments as there are pages of argument. Those who don't want to believe him really do need more than an emotional knee jerk response to rebut him in any credible way.

On that thread I expressed that the reforms I suggested might not deal with that form of corruption. But as I thought about it more I think that those reforms would make a difference. If the federal government was restricted from passing any laws or extending any benefit to any entity that was not extended to all, the politicians wouldn't have nearly as much to threaten the businesses with or to grant or withhold as quasi bribes.

But mostly I think the reforms I suggest would dismantle the Permanent Political Class and we again would be electing people who had the best interest of the country at heart rather than what would benefit themselves the most.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I suppose the CEOs and/or those close to them and/or others who have been milked for big donations are the 'gullible' ones as it is their testimony that Peter Schweizer drew on for his information. So far the media has substantially ignored his expose', but I haven't seen a single rebuttal of the information he has presented. Nor has any of the politicans named, GOP or Democrat, or any of the 'extorted' company people expressed any protest.

Just not wanting to believe something doesn't really wash in the real world of debate. Schwiezer's argument includes almost as many pages of footnotes and references to back up his arguments as there are pages of argument. Those who don't want to believe him really do need more than an emotional knee jerk response to rebut him in any credible way.

On that thread I expressed that the reforms I suggested might not deal with that form of corruption. But as I thought about it more I think that those reforms would make a difference. If the federal government was restricted from passing any laws or extending any benefit to any entity that was not extended to all, the politicians wouldn't have nearly as much to threaten the businesses with or to grant or withhold as quasi bribes.

But mostly I think the reforms I suggest would dismantle the Permanent Political Class and we again would be electing people who had the best interest of the country at heart rather than what would benefit themselves the most.

They are ignoring him because he is incapable of using the English language correctly. The term is not "extortion" but "exploitation". That you flip-flopped to defend him and abandoned the tu coque article shows the ephemeral nature of Libertarian Uptopians. There is no foundation, no solid basis to the Libertarian Uptopia. Just a fairy tale of how "wonderful" everything will be once the "evil guv'mint" is "drowned in the bathtub" once and for all.

 

[Olde Europe]

That's part of the point of calling for a new constitution. They're doing it wrong.

Ah. So Legislative power shall no longer be vested in Congress?

I see you didn't come up with a link or something demonstrating that accepting a job offer paying less than minimum wage is a crime? Shall we add that to the pile of things you've been making up to suit your... say, argument?

Right. I think this nails the core difference in our ideologies. Government should serve the will of the people, not the other way around.

Yeah, that's libertarian simplicity written on the sky, in neon. Legislators owe their constituents their best judgement, and are supposed to act in their constituents' best interest. That's quite distinct from the simplistic and misleading two-bit alternative to which you've attached yourself. And that's setting aside that the "will of the people" is for the most part hardly discernible, and the egregious policies your Constitution would mandate would never find a majority (in fact, huge majorities oppose the proposal to abolish a mandated minimum wage, for instance), demonstrating that your concern for the so-called "will of the people" is just so much empty verbiage, behind which you try to hide your dog-eat-dog-world agenda.

__________________________________________________

They are ignoring him because he is incapable of using the English language correctly.

Schweizer? Yeah, the guy's worth a lot of chuckles. Editor-at-large at the most distinguished Breitbart. Boehner's spokesman ripped him a new one, to the tune of "the buffoon doesn't even understand the legislative process". I'd say, it's plainly stupid to react to such ankle-biters. Others were smarter than Boehner (which, admittedly, isn't saying much).

 

[dblack]

That's part of the point of calling for a new constitution. They're doing it wrong.

Ah. So Legislative power shall no longer be vested in Congress?

I see you didn't come up with a link or something demonstrating that accepting a job offer paying less than minimum wage is a crime? Shall we add that to the pile of things you've been making up to suit your... say, argument?

If you like, sure. Score yourself a point. The job itself is still criminalized, however, and people who need to work and can't measure up to your standards are forced underground. Your fixation on the minimum wage law is clearly an attempt to avoid the actual argument I'm making. All these "great society" regulations sound right and proper to suburbanites who don't want to see people dealing with poverty, but they only make life harder on those in the midst of it.

Right. I think this nails the core difference in our ideologies. Government should serve the will of the people, not the other way around.

Yeah, that's libertarian simplicity written on the sky, in neon.

It's quite subtle actually, and takes some thought to fully appreciate. The key is in our understanding of what it really means to serve the "will of the people".

Legislators owe their constituents their best judgement, and are supposed to act in their constituents' best interest. That's quite distinct from the simplistic and misleading two-bit alternative to which you've attached yourself. And that's setting aside that the "will of the people" is for the most part hardly discernible, and the egregious policies your Constitution would mandate would never find a majority (in fact, huge majorities oppose the proposal to abolish a mandated minimum wage, for instance), demonstrating that your concern for the so-called "will of the people" is just so much empty verbiage, behind which you try to hide your dog-eat-dog-world agenda.

I did promise earlier to point out when someone here equates the will of the people with majority rule, although I didn't expect you to provide the first example (bolded portion above). As I said, protecting the will of the people means protecting the will of ALL the people, not just a majority, not just special interest groups. It means government that, first and foremost prevents people from forcing their will on others, rather than facilitating it. In other words, government should protect our freedom to act on our will. It shouldn't used as a tool for some to force their will on others, regardless of whether such coercion is supported by the majority, or is claimed to be in the "best interests" of those being coerced.

 

[Olde Europe]

I did promise earlier to point out when someone here equates the will of the people with majority rule, although I didn't expect you to provide the first example

You seem not to have appreciated my argument: I first allege that the "will of the people" is hardly ever discernible, and then provide one example as to how your proposals would run counter to the will of most people. That doesn't make one the definition of the other.

Your attempt at re-defining the will of the people as the will of every single person is noted, with some consternation. For as long as we don't all live each in our own cave, with hundreds of square miles for every single one to go hunting without encountering anyone else, that definition won't apply. Particularly will it not lend itself to anything like the conception of a modern state. The Founders recognised that almost 250 years ago, and chose another model. Wisely, I would say.

 

[dblack]

I did promise earlier to point out when someone here equates the will of the people with majority rule, although I didn't expect you to provide the first example

Your attempt at re-defining the will of the people as the will of every single person is noted, with some consternation. For as long as we don't all live each in our own cave, with hundreds of square miles for every single one to go hunting without encountering anyone else, that definition won't apply. Particularly will it not lend itself to anything like the conception of a modern state. The Founders recognised that almost 250 years ago, and chose another model. Wisely, I would say.

Thank you. I appreciate that you're actually reading what I post.

I think it's debatable whether my take on 'we the people' aligns with the founders' or not, but it's fair to say that I'm pushing for a different understanding of the concept than the prevailing interpretation. And you're absolutely right to point out that there's no way to perfectly ensure everyone's will in a pluralistic society. That's why we need government; to resolve disputes when wills come into conflict. That's what "libertarian utopians" want to government to focus on. We want a government that seeks to maximize everyone's freedom to act on their own will, and not one that functions as a tool for some people to force their will on others.

 

[Olde Europe]

Thank you. I appreciate that you're actually reading what I post.

I think it's debatable whether my take on 'we the people' aligns with the founders' or not, but it's fair to say that I'm pushing for a different understanding of the concept than the prevailing interpretation. And you're absolutely right to point out that there's no way to perfectly ensure everyone's will in a pluralistic society. That's why we need government; to resolve disputes when wills come into conflict. That's what "libertarian utopians" want to government to focus on. We want a government that seeks to maximize everyone's freedom to act on their own will, and not one that functions as a tool for some people to force their will on others.

Thanks! I guess, we're all doing the best we can.

And no, the difference between your views and the Founders' is stark, as you are completely forgetting the "General welfare", "Pursuit of Happiness", and the egalitarian impetus of "We, the People". It would appear that you, having presumably never lived under a oppressive government, do no have a true measure of the extensive liberties you enjoy. In turn, you ache for dismantling those government powers that aim to protect liberties that aren't quite as visible as, say, the liberty to do as one pleases with one's own property. Your proposals limit liberties to those who can afford to exercise them, and greatly extends the number of those whose liberties are extremely curtailed. For if you can't trust your own drinking water, or can't afford the bus fare to the library, or are in ill health without healthcare, there is no liberty. All in all, your proposals, I trust, would be obnoxious to the Founders, and even more so to anyone with some sense of decency living in this 21st century. Hence I reject these proposals wholesale, for they would lead to a Hobbesian world of lives of the nasty, brutish, and short variety, in which predators and the powerful - with government mostly out of the picture - force their will on the overwhelming majority of others. Apparently that's okay with you. It isn't government, after all, that does the forcing.

 

[Foxfyre]

OE, if you could find a single line of mine that even hints that I support welfare going to anybody at the federal level or a single line of mine that I resent 'every dime going to the poor', I would acknowledge that I said that. But you won't be able to find it and I do insist that you acknowledge that you misrepresented my point of view in a way unacceptable to the CDZ.

Here:

Re the welfare programs on your first list, I would prohibit the federal government from getting involved in each and every one.

Yeah, I admit I should have made explicit that I meant "every federal dime." My apologies for the sloppy expression.

That's part of the point of calling for a new constitution. They're doing it wrong.

Ah. So Legislative power shall no longer be vested in Congress?

I see you didn't come up with a link or something demonstrating that accepting a job offer paying less than minimum wage is a crime? Shall we add that to the pile of things you've been making up to suit your... say, argument?

If you like, sure. Score yourself a point. The job itself is still criminalized, however, and people who need to work and can't measure up to your standards are forced underground. Your fixation on the minimum wage law is clearly an attempt to avoid the actual argument I'm making. All these "great society" regulations sound right and proper to suburbanites who don't want to see people dealing with poverty, but they only make life harder on those in the midst of it.

Right. I think this nails the core difference in our ideologies. Government should serve the will of the people, not the other way around.

Yeah, that's libertarian simplicity written on the sky, in neon.

It's quite subtle actually, and takes some thought to fully appreciate. The key is in our understanding of what it really means to serve the "will of the people".

Legislators owe their constituents their best judgement, and are supposed to act in their constituents' best interest. That's quite distinct from the simplistic and misleading two-bit alternative to which you've attached yourself. And that's setting aside that the "will of the people" is for the most part hardly discernible, and the egregious policies your Constitution would mandate would never find a majority (in fact, huge majorities oppose the proposal to abolish a mandated minimum wage, for instance), demonstrating that your concern for the so-called "will of the people" is just so much empty verbiage, behind which you try to hide your dog-eat-dog-world agenda.

I did promise earlier to point out when someone here equates the will of the people with majority rule, although I didn't expect you to provide the first example (bolded portion above). As I said, protecting the will of the people means protecting the will of ALL the people, not just a majority, not just special interest groups. It means government that, first and foremost prevents people from forcing their will on others, rather than facilitating it. In other words, government should protect our freedom to act on our will. It shouldn't used as a tool for some to force their will on others, regardless of whether such coercion is supported by the majority, or is claimed to be in the "best interests" of those being coerced.

The Constitution was designed to prevent both a tyranny of a minority (or small ruling elite) or a tyranny of the majority that would run roughshod over the rights of everybody else.

The Republican form of government designed via three separate branches of government, each with its own designated powers, was to recognize and protect the rights of all and not just the majority.

The concept of limiting federal powers was to prevent a small ruling elite from highjacking the government for its own purposes.

One reason we need some reform in the existing Constitution is because it has been corrupted by all three branches of government and the lines between those three branches of government have become blurred.

The President was never intended to be able to bypass Congress with executive edicts.

The Congress was never intended to assume authority that belonged to the states or local communities.

And the Supreme Court was never intended to legislate from the bench and/or dictate to the White House or Congress what the law must be. Or the lower courts for that matter.

 

[dblack]

And no, the difference between your views and the Founders' is stark, as you are completely forgetting the "General welfare", "Pursuit of Happiness", and the egalitarian impetus of "We, the People".

I certainly don't see it that way at all, but it's moot. Outside debating the intent of the existing Constitution, it really doesn't matter. All we can do is move forward, and it's what we want government to be in the future that matters.

... you ache for dismantling those government powers that aim to protect liberties that aren't quite as visible as, say, the liberty to do as one pleases with one's own property. Your proposals limit liberties to those who can afford to exercise them, and greatly extends the number of those whose liberties are extremely curtailed. For if you can't trust your own drinking water, or can't afford the bus fare to the library, or are in ill health without healthcare, there is no liberty.

Liberty isn't the same as capability, and protecting liberty isn't the same as empowering people to utilize it. You're hijacking the term to argue for a caretaker government that concerns itself with seeing to peoples wants and needs. That's explicitly what I'm rejecting.

Hence I reject these proposals wholesale, for they would lead to a Hobbesian world of lives of the nasty, brutish, and short variety, in which predators and the powerful - with government mostly out of the picture - force their will on the overwhelming majority of others. Apparently that's okay with you. It isn't government, after all, that does the forcing.

I think you know I'm adamantly against predators and the powerful (anyone, really) forcing their will on others. But that's not really what you're talking about is it? Aren't you really talking about people refusing to help others as you think they should? That may be justly considered selfish and shortsighted, but it doesn't amount to them forcing their will on others. There's a distinct categorical difference there that you can't deny.

 

[Olde Europe]

Liberty isn't the same as capability, and protecting liberty isn't the same as empowering people to utilize it. You're hijacking the term to argue for a caretaker government that concerns itself with seeing to peoples wants and needs. That's explicitly what I'm rejecting.

Of course, protecting liberty is, at least in large part, "empowering people to utilize it". For otherwise you'd have to declare a slave to be at liberty to choose between beatings and working harder.

I think you know I'm adamantly against predators and the powerful (anyone, really) forcing their will on others. But that's not really what you're talking about is it? Aren't you really talking about people refusing to help others as you think they should? That may be justly considered selfish and shortsighted, but it doesn't amount to them forcing their will on others. There's a distinct categorical difference there that you can't deny.

I am convinced you think you are "adamantly against predators and the powerful", but in effect you aren't. Your proposals, and particularly your refusal to empower those without power to use their liberty, perpetuate the developments of the recent decades, that is, the predators taking an ever bigger slice of the national pie, whilst workers' compensation has been stagnating (at best) for forty years in real terms, despite exploding productivity during that time. That is in large part the effect of how the powerful predators have been forcing their will on the rest, that is, on the large majority of Americans. Your policy stance amounts to declaring a negotiation between cat and mouse about their mutual relationship fair, and you refuse to see the mouse could use some empowerment so that it doesn't get eaten. Frankly, if the current, and growing, levels of inequality do not concern you, and if you can't see them as an urgent call to action, you are following a depraved concept of "liberty", and should be barred from using the term.

_________________________________________________

The President was never intended to be able to bypass Congress with executive edicts.

The Congress was never intended to assume authority that belonged to the states or local communities.

And the Supreme Court was never intended to legislate from the bench and/or dictate to the White House or Congress what the law must be. Or the lower courts for that matter.

So, the President was not meant to direct his Executive staff, and prevented from instructing them how to go about their work? You got a link to demonstrate how that's true? (not some right-wing propaganda site, please)

Sadly, the bright red line between Federal and State authority is not existing, other than the one drawn by your anti-Federal venom. Otherwise, reasonable people can reasonably disagree where the Federal authority ends, and the States' authority starts.

And other than in right-wingers' talking points the Supreme Court does not legislate from the bench, and the Justices' work is pretty much to say whether a law violates the Constitution (or not), thus to check the Legislature in its law-making authority.

 

[dblack]

Liberty isn't the same as capability, and protecting liberty isn't the same as empowering people to utilize it. You're hijacking the term to argue for a caretaker government that concerns itself with seeing to peoples wants and needs. That's explicitly what I'm rejecting.

Of course, protecting liberty is, at least in large part, "empowering people to utilize it". For otherwise you'd have to declare a slave to be at liberty to choose between beatings and working harder.

I'm afraid I don't see the logic in that at all. What do you mean?

I am convinced you think you are "adamantly against predators and the powerful", but in effect you aren't.

I'm not against the powerful. I'm against them forcing their will on others. And I think it's the job of government to prevent that.

Frankly, if the current, and growing, levels of inequality do not concern you, and if you can't see them as an urgent call to action, you are following a depraved concept of "liberty", and should be barred from using the term.

What I'm concerned with is the extent to which the economic inequality is created and perpetuated via political power rather than voluntary exchange.

Economic inequality that is the result of free trade is the truest expression of the "will of the people". When no coercion is involved, we give our money to those who provide us with what we want and need. That kind of economic inequality is a good thing. We want those who are doing the best things for society to have the most control over our economy and free trade is how we give them that power.

But when we aren't free to spend our money as we wish, when it is taken from us by force, we aren't accurately expressing our values, and the wrong people amass economic power. I AM concerned about that a great deal, and there's a lot of it going on right now.

 

[Olde Europe]

Economic inequality that is the result of free trade is the truest expression of the "will of the people". [...] But when we aren't free to spend our money as we wish, when it is taken from us by force, we aren't accurately expressing our values, and the wrong people amass economic power.

Yeah, I guess that's it then. I had already wondered how long it would take for your Ayn-Rand fantasy to reveal itself in all its delusional splendor, and here we have it. Of course, people desiring nothing more than to work for slave wages unencumbered by evil government interference was a good, not quite first sign, but in effect sanctifying monopolies as the truest expression of the will of the people, and making avoiding taxation ("taken from us by force") and buying slaves ("spend our money as we wish"), with not a hint of a concern for the common good, the corner stones of "expressing our values" just seals the deal.

Really, dblack, you really want to run with that simplicity that falls apart even upon the slightest scrutiny?

 

[dblack]

Really, dblack, you really want to run with that simplicity that falls apart even upon the slightest scrutiny?

Do your worst.

 

[Foxfyre]

The President was never intended to be able to bypass Congress with executive edicts.

The Congress was never intended to assume authority that belonged to the states or local communities.

And the Supreme Court was never intended to legislate from the bench and/or dictate to the White House or Congress what the law must be. Or the lower courts for that matter.

So, the President was not meant to direct his Executive staff, and prevented from instructing them how to go about their work? You got a link to demonstrate how that's true? (not some right-wing propaganda site, please)

Sadly, the bright red line between Federal and State authority is not existing, other than the one drawn by your anti-Federal venom. Otherwise, reasonable people can reasonably disagree where the Federal authority ends, and the States' authority starts.

And other than in right-wingers' talking points the Supreme Court does not legislate from the bench, and the Justices' work is pretty much to say whether a law violates the Constitution (or not), thus to check the Legislature in its law-making authority.

The President was never intended to be able to bypass Congress with executive edicts.

The Congress was never intended to assume authority that belonged to the states or local communities.

And the Supreme Court was never intended to legislate from the bench and/or dictate to the White House or Congress what the law must be. Or the lower courts for that matter.

So, the President was not meant to direct his Executive staff, and prevented from instructing them how to go about their work? You got a link to demonstrate how that's true? (not some right-wing propaganda site, please)

Sadly, the bright red line between Federal and State authority is not existing, other than the one drawn by your anti-Federal venom. Otherwise, reasonable people can reasonably disagree where the Federal authority ends, and the States' authority starts.

And other than in right-wingers' talking points the Supreme Court does not legislate from the bench, and the Justices' work is pretty much to say whether a law violates the Constitution (or not), thus to check the Legislature in its law-making authority.[/QUOTE]

What phenomenon allows a person to translate 'bypass Congress' to 'the president instructing his executive staff?' It is really difficult to have a conversation when there is such disconnect or possibly intentional dishonest translation.

And it is impossible to have a conversation when referring to the intended division between the federal and state government is translated 'anti-Federal venon.'

We are unlikely to even agree on what 'legislating from the bench' even means, much less on the incidents in which it has happened. But whether or not it has happened, I will stand by my statement that the Constitution never intended for the courts to make laws.

But, in summary, all this does illustrate the difficulty that would be involved in reforming a Constitution that has here and there become blurred and at times confusing in modern day society. When you have one large faction of Americans who have no interest in discussing topics or considering solutions for problems, but rather focus almost entirely on accusing or blaming or hating other Americans, we could very well be screwed.

 

[Olde Europe]

What phenomenon allows a person to translate 'bypass Congress' to 'the president instructing his executive staff?' It is really difficult to have a conversation when there is such disconnect or possibly intentional dishonest translation.

Look, you are - of course - free to invent things like "executive edicts", something that turned out not to exist in the U.S. of A., last I checked. You should, however, expect to be called on your invention. I do agree, though, that having a "conversation" between you and your invented "reality" and those who stick with real things may, at times, be rather difficult, and that's before I even entertain the thought that your invention might be motivated by disingenuousness.

 

[Foxfyre]

What phenomenon allows a person to translate 'bypass Congress' to 'the president instructing his executive staff?' It is really difficult to have a conversation when there is such disconnect or possibly intentional dishonest translation.

Look, you are - of course - free to invent things like "executive edicts", something that turned out not to exist in the U.S. of A., last I checked. You should, however, expect to be called on your invention. I do agree, though, that having a "conversation" between you and your invented "reality" and those who stick with real things may, at times, be rather difficult, and that's before I even entertain the thought that your invention might be motivated by disingenuousness.

And what is it that prompts some to focus on a word or a spelling or somebody's definition intead of the concept presented? I have in the past referred to that as it must be something in the water they drink, but I was advised that is not an acceptable metaphor to use.

I swear if some the folks actually WERE at a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of agreeing on revisions or additions to the Constitution we would never get around to discussing a single concept. All the time would be spent flinging ad hominem and personal insults at the bogeymen and women they seem to see in all directions and who they blame for all or most of the nation's problems - or - we would be eternally bogged down in what word, term, or phrase was acceptable to use to discuss the concepts.

The concepts themselves? Well that seems something the same folks seem totally blind to or unable to comprehend sufficiently to actually consider the pros and cons in any kind of open minded or objective manner.

 

[Foxfyre]

To follow up my previous post could I ask some questions?

Yes, precise language in which everybody agrees on what it means should be required for any Constitutional provisions, and for any legislation passed at any level of government. The courts should not be filled with cases in which they try to interpret the language rather than the intent of the law.

But is it really important to nitpick the worlds and spellings used in order to discuss concepts, ideas, principles, or what we consider important? Is it unreasonable to ask somebody precisely what they mean by the term 'corporate welfare' or 'presidential edict' rather than derail the thread with objections to the terms used?

We are not crafting legislation here nor are we writing amendments to the Constitution. Is the language we use all that important to discuss ideas and concepts?

Was it too much to ask that participants on this thread refrain from ad hominem and personal insutls as is intended in the CDZ? Or should I just ask that the thread be closed because nobody can be expected to follow that kind of expectation?

 

[Olde Europe]

We are not crafting legislation here nor are we writing amendments to the Constitution. Is the language we use all that important to discuss ideas and concepts?

Yes, the language we use is enormously important in any discussion. That isn't overly surprising, since all we have to grasp ideas and concepts is, in fact, language. When words are being introduced that have meanings that don't quite line up with reality, that discussion of ideas and concepts is distorted and goes off the rail. "Edict" has a very specific meaning, that is, an exercise of supra-Constitutional law-making power by a king or pope, and no such thing as an executive edict has ever happened in the history of the U.S. That the term is inadequate can be understood, quite easily, since executive orders may be subject to judicial review. So, the term is used to discredit the legitimate use of executive orders with which the speakers disagree. Just as one example:

‘Cannot Let One Executive Edict Erase Laws of Entire Nation’

You, I find, should refrain from using such language, as well as personal invective, in case you want your complaints about invective be taken seriously.