Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Foxfyre]

I think some are arguing something other than social contract here. Let's review the OP once again, what the topic is, and let's focus on that okay?

 

[Foxfyre]

The U.S. Congress. Many of the state and city governments. Some of the special interest groups who want to use government for their own advantage and at the detriment of others. We could go on and on.

Whenever a decision is made that impedes my personal liberties or property or demands participation and/or contribution from me without giving me any say or power in the matter, that is violation of the social contract.

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

Other than Obamacare, you have strayed into areas of constitutional law, administrative law, and more. YOur post here is all over the map and for practical argument far to generalized. Your post in general is a view of liking nothing about modern American society and government

You offer a very incorrect opinion about what my post is especially in areas of modern American society and government. The topic however is not constitutional law, administrative law, or any rules or regs associated with those.

The topic is whether the law does or does not meet the requirements of social contract and what we should do about it, if anything, when it does not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

Obamacare was enacted by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Executive, and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

What exactly do you have an issue with here if any?

The issue that the Constitution as it was intended gives Congress and the President no authority to impose something like that on the people. SCOTUS did not approve Obamacare but only approved Congress's authority to tax people to implement it. In the opinion it was stated that the Constitution's commerce clause would not support a requirement to force people to buy a product or service, but the government has the authority to tax people to provide healthcare. And four of the nine Justices disagreed strongly with that opinion.

Given how many Supreme Court decisions are split 5 to 4 certainly raises the question with me how much of the law or decisions it reviews are within the scope of intended social contract.

The people had absolutely no say of any kind in all that. Had it been put to a public vote, it almost certainly would have crashed and burned.

The Constitution itself was NOT intended. When the Convention met they initially had no orders to write a new constitution. The delegates were sent to 'fix' the Articles of Confederation.

The Supreme Court did rule Obamacare constitutional. Your argument appears to be confusing on what was argued before the Court, which itself is all the Court ruled on. Two arguments were made by the Executive. Roberts Court ruled one unconstitutionally valid and the other constitutionally valid.

and as far as your intent arguments keep going: allow Scalia to school us all on the law and any intent:

“It revokes the promise of affordable care for millions of Americans,” Verrilli said. “That cannot be the statute that Congress intended.”

“Of course it could be,” responded Justice Antonin Scalia. “I mean it may not be the statute they intended. The question is whether it’s the statute that they wrote.”

Supreme Court justices split in key challenge to Obamacare subsidies - The Washington Post​

 

[Foxfyre]

Let me put it more simply.

When a President changes, via executive order, changes or refuses to enforce a law that Congress passed and he signed into law, is that a violation of social contract?

When Congress votes itself benefits that are not authorized via the Constitution, is that a violation of social contract?

When Congress and the President pass laws that obligate some of us to give our property and labor to others without compensation, is that a violation of social contract?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Given how many Supreme Court decisions are split 5 to 4 certainly raises the question with me how much of the law or decisions it reviews are within the scope of intended social contract.

The people had absolutely no say of any kind in all that. Had it been put to a public vote, it almost certainly would have crashed and burned.

actually, the history of the Court contradicts your premise. The Court early on under Chief Justice Marshall had agreed to vote in unanimity in order to keep above the kind of reproach you are engaging in. There were most likely always splits that just were kept behind the closed doors in order to keep the republic fro tearing apart.

Arguments that foster distrust and division contribute to tearing the republic apart even when they can be hidden behind the facade intent and unity

 

[Foxfyre]

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

Obamacare was enacted by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Executive, and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

What exactly do you have an issue with here if any?

The issue that the Constitution as it was intended gives Congress and the President no authority to impose something like that on the people. SCOTUS did not approve Obamacare but only approved Congress's authority to tax people to implement it. In the opinion it was stated that the Constitution's commerce clause would not support a requirement to force people to buy a product or service, but the government has the authority to tax people to provide healthcare. And four of the nine Justices disagreed strongly with that opinion.

Given how many Supreme Court decisions are split 5 to 4 certainly raises the question with me how much of the law or decisions it reviews are within the scope of intended social contract.

The people had absolutely no say of any kind in all that. Had it been put to a public vote, it almost certainly would have crashed and burned.

The Constitution itself was NOT intended. When the Convention met they initially had no orders to write a new constitution. The delegates were sent to 'fix' the Articles of Confederation.

The Supreme Court did rule Obamacare constitutional. Your argument appears to be confusing on what was argued before the Court, which itself is all the Court ruled on. Two arguments were made by the Executive. Roberts Court ruled one unconstitutionally valid and the other constitutionally valid.

and as far as your intent arguments keep going: allow Scalia to school us all on the law and any intent:

“It revokes the promise of affordable care for millions of Americans,” Verrilli said. “That cannot be the statute that Congress intended.”

“Of course it could be,” responded Justice Antonin Scalia. “I mean it may not be the statute they intended. The question is whether it’s the statute that they wrote.”

Supreme Court justices split in key challenge to Obamacare subsidies - The Washington Post​

The topic is not Obamacare. The topic is whether Obamacare meets the test of social contract.

I am coming from the point of view that a Presidential executive order and/or a bill passed by Congress and/or a ruling by SCOTUS may or may not meet the test of social contract. For sure, the fact that a law exists is not a good argument for something being classified social contract.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.

The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.

This insistence mimics an argument made on USMB by another member which always goes back to equality.

The focus on social contract is not an issue. What is an issue is the use of the phrase or term and how it is being used

 

[Foxfyre]

Given how many Supreme Court decisions are split 5 to 4 certainly raises the question with me how much of the law or decisions it reviews are within the scope of intended social contract.

The people had absolutely no say of any kind in all that. Had it been put to a public vote, it almost certainly would have crashed and burned.

actually, the history of the Court contradicts your premise. The Court early on under Chief Justice Marshall had agreed to vote in unanimity in order to keep above the kind of reproach you are engaging in. There were most likely always splits that just were kept behind the closed doors in order to keep the republic fro tearing apart.

Arguments that foster distrust and division contribute to tearing the republic apart even when they can be hidden behind the facade intent and unity

SCOTUS is no more infallible than are any other humans. This is evident in the many SCOTUS rulings that would be considered unconscionable in today's society and culture.

So the issue is not SCOTUS but whether the law, ruled on or not by SCOTUS, meets the test for social contract.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Jefferson did not violate the letter of the law. Jefferson can be accused of that as a matter of opinion. If it was true he violated the law he would have been brought up on impeachment charges.

What most every sentient being agrees is that Jefferson violated his own principles and his personal view of the spirit of the law

We are speaking rhetorically here. In his mind he almost certainly was. He did not act without the consent of the Senate to the treaty with France or without the consent of Congress to take possession of the land and obligate the United States for payment for it.
Century of Lawmaking The Louisiana Purchase Legislative Timeline -- 1803-1804

The Louisiana Purchase was not done via executive order and Jefferson was in no way liable for it other than to give his consent and sign the bill into law. And by the time it was signed into law it had broad public support as well. So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people.

Evenso it did not totally remove the act from the slippery slope consequence argument.

Huh?

The Congress, both the Senate and the House, approved everything. Your own link states this clearly. And it delves into the Slave Issue. Remember? The probable main motivation for Jefferson, The Great Llama of the Little Mountain. going back on his principles, principles he would hold everyone else to.

I don't understand what argument you are making here. I was clear that the Louisiana Purchase was done with the full consent of Congress AND the President and there was no constitutional challenge so we don't know how SCOTUS might have ruled on that.

I am discussing the principle of social contract within all that. The people did not see it as a breach of social contract as most approved of the purchase. But was it within the authority given to government via the Constitution? Technically no. The people should have voted their consent and that didn't happen. And that is what was a breach of social contract.

There is no argument that we are better off because the Congress authorized the Louisiana Purchase. But there is also a valid argument that it would give others license to do something similar.

"So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people."

this makes absolutely no sense. The Constitution has no intent. It is a legal contract. There can be argued an intent in the ratifying of the contract/Constitution, but in and of itself is has no intent in the way you are claiming.

The only social contract an elected representative of the people has is to represent what they think is the best interests of the people. From the first days of the Constitutional Convention the representatives did what they saw as their duty. They did not take polls or ask for ballot initiatives to make law. That would be popular democracy.

Give me a rationale for your statement that the Constitution 'has no intent' please.

I will, after you
Give me the name(s) of your segment of society that has called for the destruction of the social contract.

I asked first and on more than one occasion

 

[Foxfyre]

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know

Well I am just arrogant to think that I read the founding documents they left for us and am right in that they would have disapproved of any dictate from the central government even suggesting how people must live their lives.

And there was intent in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was clearly intended, based on those founding documents, to create a working nation and authorize the central governmen to recognize and secure our rights, and then have government back off and leave us alone to live our lives and organize ourselves into whatever sorts of societies we wished to have.

And that is the social contract implied in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

We are speaking rhetorically here. In his mind he almost certainly was. He did not act without the consent of the Senate to the treaty with France or without the consent of Congress to take possession of the land and obligate the United States for payment for it.
Century of Lawmaking The Louisiana Purchase Legislative Timeline -- 1803-1804

The Louisiana Purchase was not done via executive order and Jefferson was in no way liable for it other than to give his consent and sign the bill into law. And by the time it was signed into law it had broad public support as well. So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people.

Evenso it did not totally remove the act from the slippery slope consequence argument.

Huh?

The Congress, both the Senate and the House, approved everything. Your own link states this clearly. And it delves into the Slave Issue. Remember? The probable main motivation for Jefferson, The Great Llama of the Little Mountain. going back on his principles, principles he would hold everyone else to.

I don't understand what argument you are making here. I was clear that the Louisiana Purchase was done with the full consent of Congress AND the President and there was no constitutional challenge so we don't know how SCOTUS might have ruled on that.

I am discussing the principle of social contract within all that. The people did not see it as a breach of social contract as most approved of the purchase. But was it within the authority given to government via the Constitution? Technically no. The people should have voted their consent and that didn't happen. And that is what was a breach of social contract.

There is no argument that we are better off because the Congress authorized the Louisiana Purchase. But there is also a valid argument that it would give others license to do something similar.

"So it did violate social contract via letter and intent of the Constitution but did not violate social contract with the people."

this makes absolutely no sense. The Constitution has no intent. It is a legal contract. There can be argued an intent in the ratifying of the contract/Constitution, but in and of itself is has no intent in the way you are claiming.

The only social contract an elected representative of the people has is to represent what they think is the best interests of the people. From the first days of the Constitutional Convention the representatives did what they saw as their duty. They did not take polls or ask for ballot initiatives to make law. That would be popular democracy.

Give me a rationale for your statement that the Constitution 'has no intent' please.

I will, after you
Give me the name(s) of your segment of society that has called for the destruction of the social contract.

I asked first and on more than one occasion

I already did. Did you miss that? I am not interested in sidetracking the discussion of whether this specific group or that specific group are doing whatever. I am interested in the thread topic and will rather insist that we stay focused on that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Given how many Supreme Court decisions are split 5 to 4 certainly raises the question with me how much of the law or decisions it reviews are within the scope of intended social contract.

The people had absolutely no say of any kind in all that. Had it been put to a public vote, it almost certainly would have crashed and burned.

actually, the history of the Court contradicts your premise. The Court early on under Chief Justice Marshall had agreed to vote in unanimity in order to keep above the kind of reproach you are engaging in. There were most likely always splits that just were kept behind the closed doors in order to keep the republic fro tearing apart.

Arguments that foster distrust and division contribute to tearing the republic apart even when they can be hidden behind the facade intent and unity

SCOTUS is no more infallible than are any other humans. This is evident in the many SCOTUS rulings that would be considered unconscionable in today's society and culture.

So the issue is not SCOTUS but whether the law, ruled on or not by SCOTUS, meets the test for social contract.

I don't buy your premise of what constitutes the social contract. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. Or are we a nation of social contracts?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think some are arguing something other than social contract here. Let's review the OP once again, what the topic is, and let's focus on that okay?

I respectfully suggest it is you who are misconstruing how any social contract binds people and/or their government

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

Other than Obamacare, you have strayed into areas of constitutional law, administrative law, and more. YOur post here is all over the map and for practical argument far to generalized. Your post in general is a view of liking nothing about modern American society and government

You offer a very incorrect opinion about what my post is especially in areas of modern American society and government. The topic however is not constitutional law, administrative law, or any rules or regs associated with those.

The topic is whether the law does or does not meet the requirements of social contract and what we should do about it, if anything, when it does not.

What requirements of what social contract? An abstract one or one you can point to?

 

[Foxfyre]

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

Other than Obamacare, you have strayed into areas of constitutional law, administrative law, and more. YOur post here is all over the map and for practical argument far to generalized. Your post in general is a view of liking nothing about modern American society and government

You offer a very incorrect opinion about what my post is especially in areas of modern American society and government. The topic however is not constitutional law, administrative law, or any rules or regs associated with those.

The topic is whether the law does or does not meet the requirements of social contract and what we should do about it, if anything, when it does not.

What requirements of what social contract? An abstract one or one you can point to?

The requirements implied via social contract. Any social contract. Or if you want a specific one see my Post #171.

 

[Foxfyre]

Given how many Supreme Court decisions are split 5 to 4 certainly raises the question with me how much of the law or decisions it reviews are within the scope of intended social contract.

The people had absolutely no say of any kind in all that. Had it been put to a public vote, it almost certainly would have crashed and burned.

actually, the history of the Court contradicts your premise. The Court early on under Chief Justice Marshall had agreed to vote in unanimity in order to keep above the kind of reproach you are engaging in. There were most likely always splits that just were kept behind the closed doors in order to keep the republic fro tearing apart.

Arguments that foster distrust and division contribute to tearing the republic apart even when they can be hidden behind the facade intent and unity

SCOTUS is no more infallible than are any other humans. This is evident in the many SCOTUS rulings that would be considered unconscionable in today's society and culture.

So the issue is not SCOTUS but whether the law, ruled on or not by SCOTUS, meets the test for social contract.

I don't buy your premise of what constitutes the social contract. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. Or are we a nation of social contracts?

What part of the explanation in the OP do you not understand?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Let me put it more simply.

1) When a President changes, via executive order, changes or refuses to enforce a law that Congress passed and he signed into law, is that a violation of social contract?

2) When Congress votes itself benefits that are not authorized via the Constitution, is that a violation of social contract?

3) When Congress and the President pass laws that obligate some of us to give our property and labor to others without compensation, is that a violation of social contract?

1) No it is not. It may or may not be your opinion, but neither is a truth.

2) This question assumes an ignorance of what Congress can and cannot do.

3) No. It is the power to tax you are referring to?.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think some are arguing something other than social contract here. Let's review the OP once again, what the topic is, and let's focus on that okay?

I respectfully suggest it is you who are misconstruing how any social contract binds people and/or their government

You'll have to offer something more than simply saying 'I'm misconstruing' before you will convince me that I do not understand how social contract binds people and/or their government.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The topic is not Obamacare. The topic is whether Obamacare meets the test of social contract.

I am coming from the point of view that a Presidential executive order and/or a bill passed by Congress and/or a ruling by SCOTUS may or may not meet the test of social contract. For sure, the fact that a law exists is not a good argument for something being classified social contract.

OF course any law passed by Congress, signed into law by the President (all duly elected) and ruled Constitutional by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court meets every single aspect of what would constitute a social contract. More specifically it meets any social contract we the people of the USA have.