The U.S. Constitution Versus the Dictates of Conscience

[McBell]

If your mind is incapable of grasping that a national referendum on the abortion issue is a much faster, and much better, solution on the question, then I'll concede that there's nothing I can say to prove my argument to you.

So basically, in a nut shell, you do not have anything to show how your proposed proposal is anything other than wishful thinking on your part, right?
I mean, if you had anything you thought was legit, you would simply present it.

However, I don't make arguments in this forum to prove anything to my opponents. I write for impartial readers should any happen by.

Ah, you are merely fishing for followers.
Got it.

Fly on home and claim your victory.

 

[joe1776]

So basically, in a nut shell, you do not have anything to show how your proposed proposal is anything other than wishful thinking on your part, right?
I mean, if you had anything you thought was legit, you would simply present it..

I gave you the simple and easy part, national referendums on moral issues, and you were either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the obvious wisdom in that. So, giving you more on the non-moral issues, a far more complex topic, would be wasting my time.

 

[McBell]

I gave you the simple and easy part, national referendums on moral issues, and you were either unwilling or unable to acknowledge the wisdom in that. So, giving you more on the non-moral issues, a far more complex topic, would be wasting my time.

If your "far more complex topic" is the same as your "simple and easy part" then you are right, you are wasting your time.
Bold empty claims are not the least bit impressive, so merely adding a bunch more bold empty claims to make it more complex is not going to be impressive either.


Like I said, fly on home and claim your victory.

 

[sun rise]

Our evolution doesn't determine what kind of government we choose. That's a product of reasoning minds.

Donald Trump is a product of our governing system. You are arguing that it could be worse, but not allowing that a better system could replace it.

I think that, given contemporary knowledge on decision-making systems, it would be difficult to do worse than the one we have.

North Korea
China
Russia
various dictators in Africa
Venezuela
A very replete history of bad systems

And that's just off the top of my head with almost no thought

 

[joe1776]

North Korea
China
Russia
various dictators in Africa
Venezuela
A very replete history of bad systems

And that's just off the top of my head with almost no thought

I wrote that it would be difficult for us to do worse (than our current system). I didn't say that you couldn't cherry-pick some bad systems out of the 200 or so that currently exist.

When it was created more than 200 years ago, our governing system was an advance, better than any that had been tried before. Do you think we're not capable of the kind of visionary thinking it would take to repeat that sort of effort or do you not recognize that the current decision-making system is old, abused and malfunctioning?

 

[McBell]

I wrote that it would be difficult for us to do worse (than our current system). I didn't say that you couldn't cherry-pick some bad systems out of the 200 or so that currently exist.

When it was created more than 200 years ago, our governing system was an advance, better than any that had been tried before. Do you think we're not capable of the kind of visionary thinking it would take to repeat that effort or do you not recognize that the current system is old and malfunctioning?

Can you answer that, please?

False dichotomy.

Made comical by your inability to produce anything other than a repeated bold empty claim and tons of whitewash to support it.

 

[joe1776]

False dichotomy..

I'll bet you can't explain why it's a false dichotomy.

 

[PureX]

I agree with your well-stated analysis of what is needed. However, it doesn't sound like we'd agree on a solution.

You concluded that: "The problem is that our founders did not spell these goals out clearly enough. They left too much room for loopholes and endless debate."

It's not possible to write a law that makes it impossible for lawyers to find loopholes. That's what their clients pay them to do when they find the law inconvenient. Moreover, there are unique situations that arise that legislators couldn't foresee, and stupidly, unless specifically prohibited, the act will be allowed even if it's clearly opposed to the law's intent.

Another problem is that judges will try to interpret laws based on the original intent of its authors at the time it is written. This makes sense logically but the older the law, the more morally out-of-date it's likely to be. For example, the Founders were guided by now out-of-date 18th Century morality.

The document I'm suggesting is not a law, but a statement of the intent of government, and it's mechanism, from which laws and policies are to be determined and interpreted. No system will ever be perfect, but one could be devised that serves the humans that engage in it far better than those we've devised so far.

 

[McBell]

I'll bet you can't explain why it's a false dichotomy.

More distraction from you.
Sad really, that you already know your proposed proposal is crap, but still push it like its the bestest best idea since sliced bread.

 

[Kenny]

When the Constitution was written, its authors lived in a society that condoned the existence of legal slavery. An amendment was required to bring the law morally up to date.

Conscience is moral intuition, we feel wrongness emerge from the unconscious. Slavery was abolished when enough free, fair-minded humans imagined themselves owned as property. Empathy enabled them to feel the wrongness.

Equality, with all humans being equal in value, has been a theme for the dictates of conscience:

• equality for slaves
• equality for women
• equality for homosexuals
• equality for the insane
• equality for the handicapped
• equality for all races
• equality for the children of the poor
• equality for all groups, religious or non-religious

Most of the moral advances in our nation required constitutional amendments, a time-consuming process. So, I'm wondering why we feel obliged to be guided by a document written by men who lived in a time of immature 18th Century morality in the first place. The authors of the Constitution were good men, but they weren't gods and they didn't own crystal balls.

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” -- Carl Sandburg

I think Constitutional laws are only useful when the facts are against you as they are with the NRA, for example.

If we dumped the Constitution, and our decisions on policy were made on the current dictates of conscience, we could make swifter progress toward a better society.

If you disagree, and I expect most people will, please support your opinion with reasons.

As a Republic, we are a nation of laws. Yes, I am so happy that we fixed

• equality for slaves
• equality for women
• equality for homosexuals
• equality for the insane
• equality for the handicapped
• equality for all races
• equality for the children of the poor
• equality for all groups, religious or non-religious

The amendments were created because we were "guided by a document written by men who lived in a time of immature 18th Century". I would argue the word "immature" in as much as they knew that there would have to be amendments.

Are we more "mature" now? Yes, in some cases, but just as immature in others. I would argue that somehow we are better now with sex-slavery in full swing. The continue reverse discrimination of race. The removal of parental authority.. The slow deterioration of equality of all groups, religious or non-religious. Not to mention all the other problems we are facing that the original people did not deal with like an unbalanced budget.

 

[joe1776]

The document I'm suggesting is not a law, but a statement of the intent of government, and it's mechanism, from which laws and policies are to be determined and interpreted. No system will ever be perfect, but one could be devised that serves the humans that engage in it far better than those we've devised so far.

I agree that we could be doing far better. I have different ideas on how that might be done, but this thread was only to find out how many posters agreed that we have a problem.

 

[joe1776]

More distraction from you.
Sad really, that you already know your proposed proposal is crap, but still push it like its the bestest best idea since sliced bread.

So, you tried to find the false dichotomy that you asserted and discovered there wasn't any. Now, instead of admitting your error, you're just throwing up more claptrap hoping it will annoy me?

 

[McBell]

So, you tried to find the false dichotomy that you asserted and discovered there wasn't any. Now, instead of admitting your error, you're just throwing up more claptrap hoping it will annoy me?

oh yes.
That is surely what it is.

couldn't possibly be that you are nothing more than a plaything to relieve boredom since your credibility on this topic is now less than zero.

nope, you have hit the nail on the head.

Fly on home and claim your victory

 

[joe1776]

As a Republic, we are a nation of laws. Yes, I am so happy that we fixed

• equality for slaves
• equality for women
• equality for homosexuals
• equality for the insane
• equality for the handicapped
• equality for all races
• equality for the children of the poor
• equality for all groups, religious or non-religious

The amendments were created because we were "guided by a document written by men who lived in a time of immature 18th Century". I would argue the word "immature" in as much as they knew that there would have to be amendments.

Are we more "mature" now? Yes, in some cases, but just as immature in others. I would argue that somehow we are better now with sex-slavery in full swing. The continue reverse discrimination of race. The removal of parental authority.. The slow deterioration of equality of all groups, religious or non-religious. Not to mention all the other problems we are facing that the original people did not deal with like an unbalanced budget.

Ken, it takes many years to get the Constitution changed. It took almost a century before we had an amendment ending slavery and it took a bloody war to get that. Then, it took another century for the descendants of slaves to get equal rights. It should not take two centuries for citizens to gain equality under the law.

My opponents in this thread argue that the high degree of difficulty in making changes is a good thing because only the best ideas prevail. I think that's nonsense. It's shameful that it took 200 years to correct injustice.

We don't have an amendment giving homosexuals equal rights as yet. That may take another century.

Enforcing those laws fairly, as you point out, is another problem.

 

[McBell]

My opponents in this thread argue that the high degree of difficulty in making changes is a good thing because only the best ideas prevail. I think that's nonsense. It's shameful that it took 200 years to correct injustice.

At best a strawman.
At worse a bold faced lie.
Now seeing as you are so fond of bold empty claims....

 

[joe1776]

At best a strawman.
At worse a bold faced lie.

Wrong again.

"Indeed! That is, in fact, why good constitutions are so hard to change -- but yet able to be changed. It forces all who would make changes to consider those changes with great care. "--- Evangelicalhumanist Post #8

 

[McBell]

Wrong again.

Indeed! That is, in fact, why good constitutions are so hard to change -- but yet able to be changed. It forces all who would make changes to consider those changes with great care. Evangelicalhumanist Post #8

more bold empty claims.

At least you are consistent

 

[Kenny]

Ken, it takes many years to get the Constitution changed. It took almost a century before we had an amendment ending slavery and it took a bloody war to get that. Then, it took another century for the descendants of slaves to get equal rights. It should not take two centuries for citizens to gain equality under the law.

This is true. I think there will always be pro's and con's no matter which way one goes. I do think that, as time goes on, the time differential between decision and implementation is greatly reduced. Maybe because of electronic advances.

The con of making it easier is that every whim is being addressed. I think difficulty was engrained for this very reason. For an example

Constitutional rights to pigs, Florida's initiative

So... here we are making a Constitutional amendment for pigs. Making it a little more difficult prevents frivolous and emotional amendments.

My opponents in this thread argue that the high degree of difficulty in making changes is a good thing because only the best ideas prevail. I think that's nonsense. It's shameful that it took 200 years to correct injustice.

Addressed above... although it isn't about "the best idea" IMO, but rather preventing frivolous amendments - or amendments that are biased.

We don't have an amendment giving homosexuals equal rights as yet. That may take another century.

This I don't quite understand.

Enforcing those laws fairly, as you point out, is another problem.

Yes!!! That is always a problem. In many cases the mantra has been "There are already laws concerning that... why don't we just enforce what we have instead of creating another law?"

 

[metis]

So... here we are making a Constitutional amendment for pigs.

Pig's Rights Matter!

[sorry-- couldn't resist the temptation-- my bad]

 

[joe1776]

Yes!!! That is always a problem. In many cases the mantra has been "There are already laws concerning that... why don't we just enforce what we have instead of creating another law?"

Right. I see the Constitution as part of the problem but an even greater problem is enforcement of the laws that are already on the books. For example, I regard myself as a progressive, but the "defund the police" initiative fails both as policy and as a slogan.

In the 50 states, we can bet that there are a few of the 17,000 federal, state and local law enforcement agencies efficiently unloading their bad apples. What we need is not new laws but a way of spreading and implementing those successful programs in the other states.