[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Jed S. Baer (thag at frii.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:17:31 -0700
> "Timothy C. Klein" <teece at silverklein.net> wrote:
> > True, I wasn't saying that we should ignore it.  But if someone argues
> > that the Constitution is wrong, I say one who feels that the
> > Constitution is correct  must argue why the Constitution is *right.*  It
> > is not simply enough to point to the Constitution and say 'look see, it
> > says.'  I am not accusing you of that, but many ardent defenders of the
> > Second Amendment do nothing more than that.  For their argument to be
> > effective, at least in my mind, you have argue why the Constitution is
> > correct.
> 
> Ah, but now you're heading of into the pure philosophical territory of
> what determines whether a govt. and/or a society is fair, just, etc. And,

Ah, exactly where I wanted to be. :-)

> in point of fact, even the authors of the Constitution didn't really try
> to say that it was "right", in and of itself, in regards to individual
> liberties. What it does do is recognize rights inherent in the human
> condition, and guarantee that the state would not infringe thereon. IOW,
> they started from a certain philosophical position, which they held for
> various reasons, such as basis in common law, religious belief (deist, not
> Christian). To whatever extent these preconditions were debated,
> nonetheless they are taken as "givens", as far as the Consitution goes.
> However, within the arena of U.S. law, the Constitution is, by definition,
> *right*, even if we argue about what a particular clause might mean. And
> that's a difficult definition of *right*, but it's what we have.

Sure, in legal terms, the Constitution is by definition right, but that
is not what I am talking about.  That is very boring.  I mean if we are
going to debate the merits of the Constipation and the protections and
rules it lays out, one *can't* start form the assumption that it is
right.  That is begging the question: what, then would be the point of
the debate?  The Constitution is amendable, and if we want to amend it,
we must present reasons why.  And if we want to talk among ourselves
about the quality of the Constitution, we must do the same. :-)

Tim
--
==============================================
== Timothy Klein || teece at silverklein.net   ==
== ---------------------------------------- ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings... ==
==============================================