[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[djperkins at americanisp.net]

> * 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. :-)

Maybe we should ask why the founders wrote the constituion, each part and 
amendment.  They were well aware of the power of arms and militia.  After all, 
they had fought a war for independence a few years before.  Like it or not, 
this amendment also allows us to rebel against a corrupt government.  It would 
be much harder to do today.  It didn't work when the South tried in 1860.  Hmm, 
I didn't mean to imply that the Union govt was corrupt at the time.

The Bill of Rights is there because some people feared that the govt would try 
to take away our rights.  Others didn't see that this would happen.  It was 
also argued that a Bill of Rights implied that these were our only rights and 
others rebutted that the govt only has the authority granted in the 
constitution.  We have drifted quite a bit from that position as original 
intents were forgotten, we adjusted to changing times, etc.

> > 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. :-)
> 

The constitution was meant to be a working document, not a philosophical 
exercise.  The extent that it was revolutionary, in my opinion, is how it 
differed from European countries.  It is built largely along the model of 
colonial legislatures with some ideas from philosophers.

Personally, I doubt I would want to see a constitutional convention called to 
write a new constitution.  I think we were exceedingly lucky in what those men 
did.  There were enough statesmen among the politicians who drafted the 
constitution.  A lot of the upper class at that time believed they had a duty 
to serve and many were influenced by philosophers like Locke.  Today's 
politicians are influenced by PACs.

You can see compromises in the constitution if you know where to look.  The 
bicameral legislature was due to a conflict between big and small states.  The 
president takes the place of a king in govt functions, but I doubt that they 
intended a president to become so powerful.  I'm not sure why they didn't adopt 
a parliamentary format instead.  Did they feel that it had shortcomings or is 
this merely a result of the way the colonial legislatures worked?

They never intended the Supreme Court to become the official interpreter of the 
constitution or to have as much power as it does.  Read about Chief Justice 
Marshall's struggles.

They never intended for the federal govt to have as much power as it does.  
There was opposition to Lincoln taking a lot of power during the war.  Take a 
look at how the country worked as we entered the Civil War.  States sent their 
militia to fight and they were led by their own leaders.  This caused a lot of 
problems in fighting as the militia did not always work well with the
army.