The Supreme Court has lost its mind

Remove all ads!

Heh, I was just about to post an article from a daily investment newsletter that I receive but it is pretty much the same as the one that The Great Snook posted.

You have to love it. The article in the newsletter was entitled "BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU
"VOTE" FOR BECAUSE WITTY AND WISE PEOPLE MAY BE WATCHING".

 

The ironic power of that article floors me. Too funny. We'll see how this guy responds to the situation -- if he has any decency he'll take it in stride and won't fuss a bit -- that would be the classy thing to do.

 

LMAO Great Snook. It would serve that guy right for not standing up for the people but selling out for corporate greed...

 

ROTFLMAO!

 

The people are speaking. The Politicians are listening. You mean that democracy may actually work?

 

I think the point is that the politicians at the state level are listening, but he court is out of touch with the roots of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and the people. Additionally, I would also say that the politicians at the federal level are out of touch with their constituency, but for some reason we keep re-electing them to office.

So while "democracy" (I HATE that word) seems to work fairly well at the local and state levels, at the federal level it seems to currently only be marginally successful.

 

When you read the constitution you're well advised to have studied time before it was drafted before. If you haven't it is very easy to ignore in opposition to what the founding fathers formulated their demands and eventually the constitution, and misunderstand the constitution.

That once again struck me today when I read a text by Wilhelm von Humbold about the role of the state. His stance on economics was that he preferred the free play of the forces; it only started to make sense when I recalled the lack of self-determination a citizen and businessman had to suffer in the age of mercantilism and absolutism.

Wanting the free play of forces doesn't make von Humbold a Manchester capitalist, though. Considering how much emphasis von Humbold placed on human dignity, purpose of life and free will, he certainly would have been repulsed by the later exesses of Manchester capitalism.
After all he writes that those who work, much more own a factory than the owner who lives a lazy life from his profits.

As often, people do not write up the things self-evident at the time of writing.

When one Friederich the Great famously said that everyone should be happy following whatever religion he choses, he didn't by that embrace as equal Islam, Satanism or Hinduism. He is clearly referring to the vast religious conflict of only 100 years ago that wiped out half of the German population, and only talking about protestants and catholics.

Reding the constitution, like every historical or legal document, is one thing. Understanding it requires keeping in mind the historical context. Especially when a constitution is 200 years old.

It could well be that these judges are much more in touch with the constitution than the polpulists - I won't give a verdict about the population.

Just my two cents.

 

Hehe, probably not. At least not without fair compensation.

Anyway, interpreting a constitution is a difficult thing. And to only cling to the wording will lead you nowhere, that's just a first step.

That's all I wanted to say.

 

Well, I would not want to disappoint my colleague, DMC. But Darkwolf has just summed up, almost exactly, Jefferson's view on good government:

Unfortunately, Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. So, he is not much help here regarding the Constitution. BTW, DW, you can always use the terms "self-government" or "representative government" if Democracy is that scary for you. But what the framers really crafted was a Republic. And Franklin said as much, and it is one of my favorite Franklin quotes:

The Convention proceedings were in secret. There was a lot of growing apprehension, as the public waited for the results of the Convention, and after it ended, Franklin, with a group of others, emerged from Independence Hall. A lady came immediately up to Franklin and asked: "What kind of government have you given us?" To which Franklin quipped: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

And unfortunately for that particular argument, the founders who were at the Convention had mostly one objective - to strenghten and craft a more powerful Federal government at the expense of the states and local government. Hence the term "Federalists."

The struggle after the ratification of the Constitution, for Jefferson and his "Republicans," was to regain the principles of 1776, which they felt had been lost during crisis of 1787. Jefferson and Madison (who was one of the main architects of the Constitution) succeeded in this in the election of 1800, and their more radical form of republicanism became what we call today, "democracy." By 1800-1804 almost all white males, regardless of economic or social status, had gained the right to vote. And some of the early requirements for selecting electors, even some listed in the orginal Constitution, had been swept away. The principles for this form of "radical republicanism" had its promise in the Declaration of 1776, not in the Constitution and the creation of the American government in 1787. Nevertheless, the terminology is confusing because they were all Republicans in a sense, and most, still Federalists in another.

[ July 21, 2005, 05:37: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Mhm. Also important to note how language has changed since then. If, for example, the Framers had included a "right to privacy", well, um, that would have meant the right to empty one's bowels (if my memory isn't failing, anyway). At the same time, the right of people to be secure in their "persons, propery, and possesions" is what we would call the "right to privacy" (again, if my memory isn't screwing with me).

 

Here is a disgusting update