Re: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution
If I may interject briefly, I saw a very timely political cartoon the other day: A bunch of founding father-looking dudes are gathered round a writing desk, where another is seated with quill in hand. One of the fellows on his feet asks, Are you sure everyone will know we're being ironic? On Jan 9, 2013 7:51 PM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.org wrote: Hi Jason From another old bit of parchment: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun wait... that was in the bible? i always presented it as a logical argument- had reasoning and eveything. :-) Why shouldn't it be logical? It's from Ecclesiastes. Careful, or I'll post the whole thing, I love it! I'm far from the only one, eg: Ecclesiastes has had a deep influence on Western literature: American novelist Thomas Wolfe wrote: [O]f all I have ever seen or learned, that book seems to me the noblest, the wisest, and the most powerful expression of man's life upon this earth - and also the highest flower of poetry, eloquence, and truth. I am not given to dogmatic judgments in the matter of literary creation, but if I had to make one I could say that Ecclesiastes is the greatest single piece of writing I have ever known, and the wisdom expressed in it the most lasting and profound. Admittedly it doesn't have a lot in common with the rest of the Bible. crap... anyways, i'm not saying he's wrong, i'm saying what good ol' mark twain did so long ago history might not repeat, but it certainly rhymes. its not the constitution, per se that is causing the problems, it's the fact that we didn't go right ahead and do what was suggested those 236 years ago, and re-write it every twenty-five years. Ah, yes. Instead of that it got 10 times older than its use-by date, and in the meantime the political system gained such a Gothic accumulation of patches and fixes and add-ons and excrescences that it's hard to see how it could possibly hope to achieve anything at all, let alone stuff like democracy and progress. Obese and senile. On the other hand, The Founding Fathers Versus The Gun Nuts, which I just posted, has something to say for it. i just about guarantee my kids have little or no connection to the social/political environment of even my parents, let alone that of 1776. Safe bet. shit happens, rules get outmoded, people die, and so on, ad infinitum. :-) Sounds like a New York version of Ecclesiastes. I like it! Bartleby's version: Ecclesiastes http://www.bartleby.com/44/4/**1.htmlhttp://www.bartleby.com/44/4/1.html Regardds Keith Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 20:47:05 +0200 To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.**sustainablelists.orgsustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org From: ke...@journeytoforever.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution Hi Jason giving up on the constitution would just give the US a new constitution. tradition and respect? that's all well and good, but somebody's going to want to write it down sometime or another, and it'll be the same rusty old arguments with a different piece of parchment two hundred years from now... there's no such thing as new. Paper shredders? :-) Sorry... He does have a point though, more than one, IMHO. From another old bit of parchment: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Would that it were still so. Until not very long ago, people were born, and not long after that they'd die, and between the two events very little changed, if anything. Now, for many or most of us, change is about the only thing you can rely on (seven billion humans ain't new?). The Bible is a wonderful book to go cherry-picking in. I suspect it's the same with the other great religions. And I think the US Constitution is often just the same - I posted a recent article explaining the crucial difference between what it actually says and what most Americans think it says about gun rights, for instance. Too often, it's just dogma. You don't need it. Other countries don't even have a constitution, like the UK, for instance. Literal, or legalistic, interpretations of the past aren't always the best guide to dealing with today's problems, let alone tomorrow's. Things do change: And a genocide, and a civil war, over slavery. The interesting thing for me is that slavery was not a problem for Jesus (I'm not sure about most other major religions but I think this is true of them also), and nowhere does He mention democracy, equal rights, or any of the current cornerstone concepts we take for granted as truth. That is a surprise to me, and I wonder why, and I wonder what deep and complex lessons that might have for us, and what it tells us about our new thinking
Re: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution
Hi Jason From another old bit of parchment: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun wait... that was in the bible? i always presented it as a logical argument- had reasoning and eveything. :-) Why shouldn't it be logical? It's from Ecclesiastes. Careful, or I'll post the whole thing, I love it! I'm far from the only one, eg: Ecclesiastes has had a deep influence on Western literature: American novelist Thomas Wolfe wrote: [O]f all I have ever seen or learned, that book seems to me the noblest, the wisest, and the most powerful expression of man's life upon this earth - and also the highest flower of poetry, eloquence, and truth. I am not given to dogmatic judgments in the matter of literary creation, but if I had to make one I could say that Ecclesiastes is the greatest single piece of writing I have ever known, and the wisdom expressed in it the most lasting and profound. Admittedly it doesn't have a lot in common with the rest of the Bible. crap... anyways, i'm not saying he's wrong, i'm saying what good ol' mark twain did so long ago history might not repeat, but it certainly rhymes. its not the constitution, per se that is causing the problems, it's the fact that we didn't go right ahead and do what was suggested those 236 years ago, and re-write it every twenty-five years. Ah, yes. Instead of that it got 10 times older than its use-by date, and in the meantime the political system gained such a Gothic accumulation of patches and fixes and add-ons and excrescences that it's hard to see how it could possibly hope to achieve anything at all, let alone stuff like democracy and progress. Obese and senile. On the other hand, The Founding Fathers Versus The Gun Nuts, which I just posted, has something to say for it. i just about guarantee my kids have little or no connection to the social/political environment of even my parents, let alone that of 1776. Safe bet. shit happens, rules get outmoded, people die, and so on, ad infinitum. :-) Sounds like a New York version of Ecclesiastes. I like it! Bartleby's version: Ecclesiastes http://www.bartleby.com/44/4/1.html Regardds Keith Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 20:47:05 +0200 To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org From: ke...@journeytoforever.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution Hi Jason giving up on the constitution would just give the US a new constitution. tradition and respect? that's all well and good, but somebody's going to want to write it down sometime or another, and it'll be the same rusty old arguments with a different piece of parchment two hundred years from now... there's no such thing as new. Paper shredders? :-) Sorry... He does have a point though, more than one, IMHO. From another old bit of parchment: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Would that it were still so. Until not very long ago, people were born, and not long after that they'd die, and between the two events very little changed, if anything. Now, for many or most of us, change is about the only thing you can rely on (seven billion humans ain't new?). The Bible is a wonderful book to go cherry-picking in. I suspect it's the same with the other great religions. And I think the US Constitution is often just the same - I posted a recent article explaining the crucial difference between what it actually says and what most Americans think it says about gun rights, for instance. Too often, it's just dogma. You don't need it. Other countries don't even have a constitution, like the UK, for instance. Literal, or legalistic, interpretations of the past aren't always the best guide to dealing with today's problems, let alone tomorrow's. Things do change: And a genocide, and a civil war, over slavery. The interesting thing for me is that slavery was not a problem for Jesus (I'm not sure about most other major religions but I think this is true of them also), and nowhere does He mention democracy, equal rights, or any of the current cornerstone concepts we take for granted as truth. That is a surprise to me, and I wonder why, and I wonder what deep and complex lessons that might have for us, and what it tells us about our new thinking. And if democracy was not mentioned as a system of government, then what was, and why? They had the Roman Empire on one hand and kings and priests on the other, there probably wasn't much left to discuss. But then they didn't argue about healthcare either, nor women's rights, or racism, the environment, libraries, education. We do make progress, we humans, we have a much better class of problems now. All best Keith Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:54:37 +0200 To: sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution
giving up on the constitution would just give the US a new constitution. tradition and respect? that's all well and good, but somebody's going to want to write it down sometime or another, and it'll be the same rusty old arguments with a different piece of parchment two hundred years from now... there's no such thing as new. Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:54:37 +0200 To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org From: ke...@journeytoforever.org Subject: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33506.htm Let's Give Up on the Constitution By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution
Hi Jason giving up on the constitution would just give the US a new constitution. tradition and respect? that's all well and good, but somebody's going to want to write it down sometime or another, and it'll be the same rusty old arguments with a different piece of parchment two hundred years from now... there's no such thing as new. Paper shredders? :-) Sorry... He does have a point though, more than one, IMHO. From another old bit of parchment: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Would that it were still so. Until not very long ago, people were born, and not long after that they'd die, and between the two events very little changed, if anything. Now, for many or most of us, change is about the only thing you can rely on (seven billion humans ain't new?). The Bible is a wonderful book to go cherry-picking in. I suspect it's the same with the other great religions. And I think the US Constitution is often just the same - I posted a recent article explaining the crucial difference between what it actually says and what most Americans think it says about gun rights, for instance. Too often, it's just dogma. You don't need it. Other countries don't even have a constitution, like the UK, for instance. Literal, or legalistic, interpretations of the past aren't always the best guide to dealing with today's problems, let alone tomorrow's. Things do change: And a genocide, and a civil war, over slavery. The interesting thing for me is that slavery was not a problem for Jesus (I'm not sure about most other major religions but I think this is true of them also), and nowhere does He mention democracy, equal rights, or any of the current cornerstone concepts we take for granted as truth. That is a surprise to me, and I wonder why, and I wonder what deep and complex lessons that might have for us, and what it tells us about our new thinking. And if democracy was not mentioned as a system of government, then what was, and why? They had the Roman Empire on one hand and kings and priests on the other, there probably wasn't much left to discuss. But then they didn't argue about healthcare either, nor women's rights, or racism, the environment, libraries, education. We do make progress, we humans, we have a much better class of problems now. All best Keith Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:54:37 +0200 To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org From: ke...@journeytoforever.org Subject: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33506.htm Let's Give Up on the Constitution By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution
From another old bit of parchment: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun wait... that was in the bible? i always presented it as a logical argument- had reasoning and eveything. crap... anyways, i'm not saying he's wrong, i'm saying what good ol' mark twain did so long ago history might not repeat, but it certainly rhymes. its not the constitution, per se that is causing the problems, it's the fact that we didn't go right ahead and do what was suggested those 236 years ago, and re-write it every twenty-five years. i just about guarantee my kids have little or no connection to the social/political environment of even my parents, let alone that of 1776. shit happens, rules get outmoded, people die, and so on, ad infinitum. Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 20:47:05 +0200 To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org From: ke...@journeytoforever.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution Hi Jason giving up on the constitution would just give the US a new constitution. tradition and respect? that's all well and good, but somebody's going to want to write it down sometime or another, and it'll be the same rusty old arguments with a different piece of parchment two hundred years from now... there's no such thing as new. Paper shredders? :-) Sorry... He does have a point though, more than one, IMHO. From another old bit of parchment: The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Would that it were still so. Until not very long ago, people were born, and not long after that they'd die, and between the two events very little changed, if anything. Now, for many or most of us, change is about the only thing you can rely on (seven billion humans ain't new?). The Bible is a wonderful book to go cherry-picking in. I suspect it's the same with the other great religions. And I think the US Constitution is often just the same - I posted a recent article explaining the crucial difference between what it actually says and what most Americans think it says about gun rights, for instance. Too often, it's just dogma. You don't need it. Other countries don't even have a constitution, like the UK, for instance. Literal, or legalistic, interpretations of the past aren't always the best guide to dealing with today's problems, let alone tomorrow's. Things do change: And a genocide, and a civil war, over slavery. The interesting thing for me is that slavery was not a problem for Jesus (I'm not sure about most other major religions but I think this is true of them also), and nowhere does He mention democracy, equal rights, or any of the current cornerstone concepts we take for granted as truth. That is a surprise to me, and I wonder why, and I wonder what deep and complex lessons that might have for us, and what it tells us about our new thinking. And if democracy was not mentioned as a system of government, then what was, and why? They had the Roman Empire on one hand and kings and priests on the other, there probably wasn't much left to discuss. But then they didn't argue about healthcare either, nor women's rights, or racism, the environment, libraries, education. We do make progress, we humans, we have a much better class of problems now. All best Keith Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:54:37 +0200 To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org From: ke...@journeytoforever.org Subject: [Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33506.htm Let's Give Up on the Constitution By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Let's Give Up on the Constitution
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33506.htm Let's Give Up on the Constitution By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN January 02, 2012 NY Times -- AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation's fate? Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official - say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress - reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination? Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures. No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency - the purchase of the Louisiana Territory - exceeded his constitutional powers. Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation - 150 years ago tomorrow - he justified it as a military necessity under his power as commander in chief. Eventually, though, he embraced the freeing of slaves as a central war aim, though nearly everyone conceded that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to disrupt slavery where it already existed. Moreover, when the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements. (The Southern states were denied representation in Congress on the theory that they had left the Union, yet their reconstructed legislatures later provided the crucial votes to ratify the amendment.) In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation. In 1954, when the court decided Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Robert H. Jackson said he was voting for it as a moral and political necessity although he thought it had no basis in the Constitution. The list goes on and on. The fact that dissenting justices regularly, publicly and vociferously assert that their colleagues have ignored the Constitution - in landmark cases from Miranda v. Arizona to Roe v. Wade to Romer v. Evans to Bush v. Gore - should give us pause. The two main rival interpretive methods, originalism (divining the framers' intent) and living
