Sunday, April 17, 2005
More constitution in exile thoughts:
AA,
Aren't you just playing with definitions? Under your view, there are dozens if not hundreds of constitution-in-exile movements, right?
This is a placeholder for a response.
Think of it as vectors. Different groups, different agendas, various levels of effort of efficacy, but what they have in common is an attempt to enforce some aspect of constitutional rights not currently being enforced.
Add up these vectors into one big vector, and they show a trend.
I am not expert on movements, or on sociology, but there may be some critical mass to a movement, that some of these efforts would not have by themselves. Collectively, it's a movement. There can be errors in looking at things this way. In a glass of water subject to brownian motion (april 1905 paper by einstein observed sugar diffusing in a glass of tea, from which he derived the size of the sugar molecule, and soon thereafter discovered brownian motion.)
if we look at all the molecules moving up and to the left, and ignore those moving down or to the right, we see a movement where there is really just randomness.
But I hold that there is a movement to restore the lost constitution.
Next post will discuss restoring lost plays of Euripides et al.
Those of us who are lawyers or have been government employees take an oath to support the state and federal constitution.
My views on the obligation this entails are not widely held.
Most of my law school classmates probably think of that as meaningless cermonial mumbo-jumbo, not a pact or promise.
Others, somehow, have dumbed down the obligation to mean "except when following orders" or only applying when some judge specifically finds statute x is unconstitutional.
My view is that an oath to uphold the constitutions creates an obligation, unless one wishes to be known an an oathbreaker, to uphold the constitutions, all of it.
And that the constitution means what it says, to each reader. That is, a person who takes an oath to uphold the constitution is swearing to uphold what they think the constitution means.
Thus a cop, for example, unless they are a dirty crooked cop, would be obligated to to not try to enforce rules which infringe on the bearing of arms.
This might result in getting fired, but that's a risk one assumes upon taking the oath.
Those who fail to honor their oaths create an appearence, and a reality, of corruption. For example, congressman mike castle is an oathbreaker, and corrupt, by sponsoring a stand by your ad rule for the internet.
Now, I'm coming at all this from a strong libertarian POV. I'm interestd in restoring the constitution specificly because the document confers rights. I wouldn't particularly care about restoring the 16th or 17th amendments - those don't confer rights.
What I would really like to restore is the declaration of independence, which states that the only legitimate function of our government is to protect rights, that anything else is tyranny (and thus bad.)
Again, it's not as thought that document is magic for historical reasons - I'm, interested in it because it confers rights and limits government.
Unlimited government is the biggest threat to my life and the life of the planet.
During the 20th century, some 100 million people were killed by governments.
I'm not a fan.
I can put up with limited government; that would be acceptable.
I could put up with no government; that would be acceptable.
The declaration and the constitution and the state constitutional bills of rights are excellent examples of attempts to limit government to something that won't become a monster and kill us all. Seems worthwhile.
So when sophist lawyers and judges go around pretending tha tbig hunks of the constitution just aren't there, or don't mean what they say, or can be ignored by some level of scrutiny, I get upset.
I seek to restore the lost constitution, the constitution in exile.
I do not hearken back to some golden age - well ok I do, but it's the asimovian one - "the golden age of science fiction is twelve."
I am aware that there has never been a time when all of the constitution was enforced. I came of age in the brennan-marshall era, when it seemed like steady progress was being made in that direction. The Rehnquist court cut back on much of that trend of progress, but I'm still pleased at most of the outcome of most of the cases the Supreme Court handles. What I've come to be discouraged by is a growing realization that the Supreme Court is a sideshow - for every case it takes and gets right, 100 or a thousand fall between the cracks. The high court can't restore the constitution by itslf. The system only works if those who sear to uphold it actually do so, more often than not.
AA,
Aren't you just playing with definitions? Under your view, there are dozens if not hundreds of constitution-in-exile movements, right?
This is a placeholder for a response.
Think of it as vectors. Different groups, different agendas, various levels of effort of efficacy, but what they have in common is an attempt to enforce some aspect of constitutional rights not currently being enforced.
Add up these vectors into one big vector, and they show a trend.
I am not expert on movements, or on sociology, but there may be some critical mass to a movement, that some of these efforts would not have by themselves. Collectively, it's a movement. There can be errors in looking at things this way. In a glass of water subject to brownian motion (april 1905 paper by einstein observed sugar diffusing in a glass of tea, from which he derived the size of the sugar molecule, and soon thereafter discovered brownian motion.)
if we look at all the molecules moving up and to the left, and ignore those moving down or to the right, we see a movement where there is really just randomness.
But I hold that there is a movement to restore the lost constitution.
Next post will discuss restoring lost plays of Euripides et al.
Those of us who are lawyers or have been government employees take an oath to support the state and federal constitution.
My views on the obligation this entails are not widely held.
Most of my law school classmates probably think of that as meaningless cermonial mumbo-jumbo, not a pact or promise.
Others, somehow, have dumbed down the obligation to mean "except when following orders" or only applying when some judge specifically finds statute x is unconstitutional.
My view is that an oath to uphold the constitutions creates an obligation, unless one wishes to be known an an oathbreaker, to uphold the constitutions, all of it.
And that the constitution means what it says, to each reader. That is, a person who takes an oath to uphold the constitution is swearing to uphold what they think the constitution means.
Thus a cop, for example, unless they are a dirty crooked cop, would be obligated to to not try to enforce rules which infringe on the bearing of arms.
This might result in getting fired, but that's a risk one assumes upon taking the oath.
Those who fail to honor their oaths create an appearence, and a reality, of corruption. For example, congressman mike castle is an oathbreaker, and corrupt, by sponsoring a stand by your ad rule for the internet.
Now, I'm coming at all this from a strong libertarian POV. I'm interestd in restoring the constitution specificly because the document confers rights. I wouldn't particularly care about restoring the 16th or 17th amendments - those don't confer rights.
What I would really like to restore is the declaration of independence, which states that the only legitimate function of our government is to protect rights, that anything else is tyranny (and thus bad.)
Again, it's not as thought that document is magic for historical reasons - I'm, interested in it because it confers rights and limits government.
Unlimited government is the biggest threat to my life and the life of the planet.
During the 20th century, some 100 million people were killed by governments.
I'm not a fan.
I can put up with limited government; that would be acceptable.
I could put up with no government; that would be acceptable.
The declaration and the constitution and the state constitutional bills of rights are excellent examples of attempts to limit government to something that won't become a monster and kill us all. Seems worthwhile.
So when sophist lawyers and judges go around pretending tha tbig hunks of the constitution just aren't there, or don't mean what they say, or can be ignored by some level of scrutiny, I get upset.
I seek to restore the lost constitution, the constitution in exile.
I do not hearken back to some golden age - well ok I do, but it's the asimovian one - "the golden age of science fiction is twelve."
I am aware that there has never been a time when all of the constitution was enforced. I came of age in the brennan-marshall era, when it seemed like steady progress was being made in that direction. The Rehnquist court cut back on much of that trend of progress, but I'm still pleased at most of the outcome of most of the cases the Supreme Court handles. What I've come to be discouraged by is a growing realization that the Supreme Court is a sideshow - for every case it takes and gets right, 100 or a thousand fall between the cracks. The high court can't restore the constitution by itslf. The system only works if those who sear to uphold it actually do so, more often than not.
Comments:
Post a Comment
