Gendanken's Constitutional VAGINA Gotcha, no VAGINA. Now, say you were trying to define the word ‘law’. It would not serve you to flip around for Webster’s opinion, that’s easy. What is not is thinking about what one means when saying ‘law’. Now say you were stuck at an impasse. Say a friend of yours decides for himself that laws are only laws if enforced within that society where the word ‘illegal’ is used to describe a breaking of them. Drinking under the influence is illegal. Heroin and pot found on your person too is illegal. Yet Karl Rove leaking a CIA operative’s name to the press and federal courts demanding the source be revealed is not termed illegal but ‘unconstitutional’. The Paladin press trial or the 2000 elections (fuck bush) also bring about this word ‘unconstitutional’. Why the distinction? Does using ‘unconstitutional’ in place of ‘illegal’ translate to saying that the Constitution therefore is not a legal document, a law making body, but something other? If all federal and local laws must consult with this document and not the other way round…….is the Constitution not more of an advice column than a collection of laws? You know, a Dear Abby. Are the constitution of the United States, England, France, Portugal, Germany laws at all? That, fellow readers, is the question. You’re now stuck with trying to define what one means by law. One person, believing any codified statement set down to adjust via limits or allowances any state of any one thing at any place in time, would write the following definition as Law. Person A: “ A statement written with the purpose to govern is a statement concerned with control. To want to control or to govern something, is to want to condition it. If you want to condition something, you must first establish a set of limits and allowances to impose on that which you seek to condition. To establish limits is to set parameters. And to set parameters is to construct a codified outline by which you exert that control. ” Which is law. The founding fathers sought to control the new union, because only via control can one establish a new order. So the founding fathers had to condition the populace by setting down what the new government would allow and not allow, from which branch had the power to collect taxes and duites to what rights Citizen Joe was entitled to. The founding father’s endeavors, therefore, yielded a codified outline by which to exert that control: The Constitution. Sovereign or not, amended or not, it was intended and therefore written as law. Now person B, believing this document to be not laws but a collective of “artificial traditions” on which all laws are based, and further NOT law because of the fluid nature of its makeup would write: “ Laws, of the type of which we speak, cannot be autonomous abstracts. By this, I mean that they require some context or setting for them to have any weight or meaning. As a consequence of this, outside of that setting, the laws thereof have no meaning. In simpler terms, without a society, laws are pointless. Within the society, laws have the sole purpose of, much as you said, creating limits that members of said society must abide by. The society, in turn, is created, generally, by social mores, which are typically collected from the ethical and religous atunements of the society's members. Under normal conditions, this is an almost automatic happening. Not so with modern governments. Whereas more basic societies are based around tradition, modern nations, the US especially, which encompass many smaller groups (or sub societies), must lay a ground work for the greater society to function upon. Basic rights granted to all members of the over society regardless of which sub-society the originate from. In addition to this, it must also create an artificial set of traditions upon which to form the basis of government. These artificial traditions and basic rights may then be enforced within this new society by laws, which are based off of this newly created set of traditions. However, for the society to be able to grow and function in the larger world, and with respects to time, it must not be concrete. These artifical traditions must be able to be changed, should the need arise. This isn't something that should be done lightly, however. On the other hand, these new traditions should not be so restrictive or all encompassing as to remove or encroach upon the longer standing traditions of the sub societies. Thus, they must be absolutes, but only the barest minimum thereof. This allows these smaller groups to retain individual identity. In other words, the constitution acts as our traditions, and is therefore the basis of our society's government (and as such it outlines how said government should be formed and opperated) yet is fluid enough to be changable. This government then creates laws that govern the members of it's society, primarily laws that reinforce these traditions. It also allows any smaller unit of society, such as states and cities, the power to create their own laws so long as those laws do not violate any federal laws or traditions. laws are meaningless without the society in which they are based. The constitution is the basis for our society, and as such, laws are made to uphold it. If it were law in and of itself, we would not need the laws that upheld constitutional guidlines, as they would already exist. Also, it (the constitution) would have no meaning if our society fell. However, if our society were to disapear tomorrow, the document would still have meaning and could be used to recreate our society. ” In other words, the Constitution is a guideline of broadened ‘artificial traditions’ far removed from the simple mores of the tribe, and there it is floating above one’s society as something other than law. Sure, it’s the fountainhead of each local and federal law. Sure, it determines which actions by either government or the people are right or wrong. Sure, it systemized a new order called American Democracy, but should we think of them only as “artificial traditions” because of the logic up there referring to its own use of ‘artificial traditions” in place of “law”? This is like using Mathew’s gospel to prove the claim of virgin birth is true. Which is Matthew’s gospel. Lastly, in the 200 years or so of its existence, this document has been amended 27 times. Are we to think this vulnerability to change any reason to not think of the Constitution as law? All laws are guilty of this, throw scientific law in there as well. Alabama, for example, has a law forbidding interracial marriage. Spain and Canada have now made it legal for homosexuals to marry. And Deuteronomy and Leviticus, in this author’s personal opinion one of the most juvenile attempts at codified law, would have everyone on the planet fry in hell were it not for the amendments of monsieur Jesus given in the New Testament. All laws change in response to place and time. And do we not refer to them as laws? So. Occams’s razor. Person A sounds tautological, could be the claim. Person B sounds tautological, could be the claim. Yet which one would you side with as closer to the truth?
Who gives a fuck? Fry us all and be done with it. If you will shoot me, I will let you. I will thank you. We could do it in a way that you may not be caught. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Could be fun for both of us.
"Who gives a fuck?" I do, its why I wrote it. Know what's more irritating than knowing we breathe the same air? Clicking on my thread to find the reply's an empty, churlish one liner. You know, like the name they wrote on your birth certificate. Serious posts from now own, motherfuckers.
An interesting pair of opinions. You're interested in a simple answer? A or B? Is the constitution law or tradition? Well. I'd have to say that it's a law. But the talk of tradition is rather interesting, but it could only be an informal understanding. The Constitution is the foundation of Law. If a thing is unconstitutional then it is illegal. But. Just because a thing is illegal doesn't make it unconstitutional. Right? For instance. Growing pot isn't unconstitutional. George Washington himself was a pot farmer. I tend to think of the term 'unconstitutional' more along the lines of a 'meta'. In other words, one tries to pass a law but it's deemed 'unconstitutional'. To pass that law, one would have to change the constitution. So. Really, it depends on what criteria one wishes to judge the argument with, I suppose. A is literal. B is figurative. I find B interesting in that it neatly synchs with what I've been reading recently. At the risk of being called a name dropper, let me find the quote: Underneath all the phenomena of society is the great terra firma of custom, that bedrock of time-hallowed modes of thought and action which provides a society with some measure of steadiness and order through all absence, changes, and interruptions of law. Custom gives the same stability to the group that heredity and instinct give to the species, and habit to the individual. It is the routine that keeps men sane; for if there were no grooves along which thought and action might move with unconscious ease, the mind would be perpetually hesitant, and would soon take refuge in lunacy. A law of economy works in instinct and habit, in custom and convention: the most convenient mode of response to repeated stimuli or traditional situations is automatic response. Thought and innovation are disturbances of regularity, and are tolerated only for indispensable readaptations, or promised gold. When to this natural basis of custom a supernatural sanction is added by religion, and the ways of one's ancestors are also the will of the gods, then custom becomes stronger than law, and subtracts substantially from primitive freedom. To violate law is to win the admiration of half the populace, who secretly envy anyone who can outwit this ancient enemy; to violate custom is to incur almost universal hostility. For custom rises out of the people, whereas law is forced upon them from above; law is usually a decree of the master, but custom is the natural selection of those modes of action that have been found most convenient in the experience of the group. Law partly replaces custom when the state replaces the natural order of the family, the clan, the tribe, and the village community; it more fully replaces custom when writing appears, and laws graduate from a code carried down in the memory of elders and priests into a system of legislation proclaimed in written tables. But the replacement is never complete; in the determination and judgment of human conduct custom remains to the end the force behind the law, the power behind the throne, the last "magistrate of men's lives." --Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. I.I like how B's concept of the Constitution being a sort of 'artificial' set of traditions by which a nation of disparate elements can be bound together. However. Come to think of it... The Declaration of Independence, I believe, would fit more into that category. Consider also that the nation wasn't really a 'melting pot' at the time of the Revolution. There wasn't really much of a need for 'artificial tradition' at the time as normal custom would have sufficed quite well. The largest split, at the time, was between North and South. But, back then the split was not as prominent as it would become in a hundred years. Another split would be between the various religions. But, they were all Christian and had the same basic base of custom. So. Nah. A. I'll go with A. But B is definitely interesting and worth exploring more deeply.
Gendanken, And. I guess I really should mention that this is the second or third time you've lured me into a thread with the promise of bare anatomy. That's really not fair. Cottontop, Heh. You a funny guy. Shoo.
Cottontop3000: Strike one. Invert: Of course, both points are valid. The contention simply is over whether something like The Constution is a legal document or not. What B is saying is in so many words Durant's theme: Decrees are more like absorptions of underlying custom, and rained back down on the people as Law. By this definition up there, isn't the Constitution the decree? And thereby, law? Good point. And, well damn. Should have thought of it.
Speak for yourself cottontop. Anyway... Let me start with my impression of what law is: Law is what an organization dubbed "a government" deems to be rejectable behavior or mandates of its people or their resources. The government may impose this on its constituents. So the constitution is law.
Gendanken, Exactly. I was just thinking the same thing, but thought I'd let you respond first before editing it in. If the Constitution were an attempt to push an 'artificial' custom on the people, then it would be identical to Law. Pushed down from above. Were you B? I would have sworn you were A. Interesting.
let's go straight to three. How soon can you get to West Texas? I'll show you my definition of law. Nobody's perfect.
Wesmorris: 1 for A. "Government" being any collective- small or large- of authority. The Levites Arron and Moses were a government. Another for A. That's 2 so far casting a ballot for A. Cottontop: Strike two.
..someone can do something against the spirit of constitution but getaway through the loopholes in the law.
True enough. But. Can't someone break a law and get away with it through a loophole in other laws? Neither set of laws having anything whatsoever to do with the constitution (other than being ultimately based upon it.)
The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the citizens' rights to life, liberty and property. Its enforccement prevents the government, or agents thereof from violating those rights. A cop (government agent) who takes your property without due process is violating the Constitution. Johnny Thug who steals your wallet is breaking the law. Perhaps one can say that laws protect people from people, the Constitution protects people from the government.
I see the second as saying something along the lines of this: The laws based upon the constituion and the legal system that inforces them would be meaningless if not placed in the context of the society that the constitution creates. The constitution would still have meaning as it exists outside of that system. It acts as a set of instructions for setting up that society and legal system that would give those laws meaning. As such I can see how the constitution could be viewed as not a legal document.
Chunky, Interesting interpretation. And one that seems to go back to my idea of the term 'unconstitutional' being a 'meta'. In other words, it is about laws rather than being law itself. It's the law of the law. However, while the recursive structure makes the Constitution a meta-law, it would still be closer to A than to B. Mephura, A valid point, yes. But could that be more than an informal understanding of the situation? It could be viewed as not a legal document. But it is a legal document nonetheless. Perhaps the only way to view it as not a legal document would be to remove it from society and look at it on its own somewhere. Like the Magna Carta. The society in which the Magna Carta had significance is no more. So. One could build a new society based upon the Magna Carta. But, is this likely to happen? And what changes would have to take place? Both in the document itself and within the society being formed. The US Constitution was written in a specific time, in a specific place. The likelihood of it being used by a people to create a new society is neglible. It could be used as the basis or inspiration for such an undertaking. But to do so, it would be interpreted and altered to fit the precepts of the new society. Even if that society were the people that now make up the United States themselves. If we were to form a new country today, the likelihood of us accepting the identical Constitution as its premier legal document is neglible. This is why I brought up the Declaration of Independence as more indicative of what Gendanken was saying about artificial tradition to glue a society together. The Declaration has no literal power. It's words. And words only. But it's words that stir men's souls. An American who hears those words, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union,...." That speaks directly to you. It lifts you up and joins you with your neighbor. We the people. It's that ties. And it does so in an informal manner. It is not a law being pressed down from above. But rather words uttered by a man. By one of the People. And accepted by the others in near-unanimous consent. Even the exact words don't matter as it's not a legal document. It's the sentiment behind the thing that binds. The Constitution is a legal document as it's wording matters. The precise nature of the words matters precisely. It is pored over by teams of legal experts every day. In any use of the constitution outside of its legal use, the exact wording would no longer be necessary. And thus, in forming a new society, the exact wording would change to suit the times. To suit the People. See?
Everno: And dogdge that law with a crack in another one. And then doge that law with a loophole in another one. Ask yourself why this coutnry is crawling with Mexicans. Chunkylover: Good point. But isn't property infringement by a cop or a common criminal both penalized by a code we call law? Irregardless of one being held to federal standards and the other to local ones. They're both checked by standards codified as Law. That’s what this whole...affair...is about. Does saying “unconstitutional” instead of “illegal”, for example, mean one of them is not technically law? The term ‘unconstitutional” is also most commonly used when debating a proposal, for example, where the nation determines its legitimacy based off the Constitution. Its only after a proposal becomes a bill and then passes as law that we use the term ‘illegal’. The label has changed, but what is hasn’t. Someone's compared this to pickles and cucumbers. They're both the same vegetable but once processed, something else. Yet they're the same vegetable. Yet processed, become something else. But still are both the same vegetable. Or am I insane?
Or am I insane? For the sake of the sane I certainly hope so.... As for law.. The only laws I obey are my own. By some strange twist of fate, however, they coincide for the most part with those laws enforced by the local judiciary. With some notable exceptions, of course. I happen to live in a place with an unwritten constitution. Can't you tell? Just another pointless ejaculation but thats me all over. Dee cee
