Keep in mind Arjen that this is not personal. It is the argument rather than the person that is under question. I appreciate your comments and the conversation in general. If I come off as harsh, it is becuase I think you apt and mindful to the criticisms within the confines of the discussion.

1) I'm saying that your supposition about constitutions in general is biased. Your line of reasoning is flawed in that you base an entire argument of a wild and unsubstantiated assumption. If it were a bit more substantiated, I could give it the benefit of the doubt.

2)The need to validate a constitution with another document is... well... redundant. A constitution is a "starter" document to begin with. That is what is implied in a "fundamental" constitution. The mentioning of ignoratio elenchi is hilarious in that the fundamental meaning is to essentially to change the subject.

3)I disagree with what you say here. The things you say do make sense, and given some assumption, I would then be inclined to agree with them. But I think you misinterpret the meaning of what a constitution is. But many people do, hence the need for constitutional lawyers. Nothing wrong with this though.

A constitution is a system for government, often codified as a written document, that establishes the rules and principles of an autonomous political entity. In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government. Most national constitutions also guarantee certain rights to the people. Historically, before the evolution of modern-style, codified national constitutions, the term constitution could be applied to any important law that governed the functioning of a government.

4) that is not a paradox.

5) There are few problematic parts of this point. First, axiom = notion of election. This is first time the notion has been introduced into the argument. To suppose and insert a fact unstated is essentially an axiomatic statement. Again, axiomatic statements should be avoided in order to add credibility to your argument. I also like your usage of the term "rulebase," which is essentially a widely interpreted phrase which means everything and nothing within confines of the conversation. Your logical chain is faulty to say the least. Furthermore, the quote to Aristotle does not lend any weight or relevancy to your position.

But I do thank you for the warning about axiomatic statements. I will try to avoid them in the future as well as avoid using big words in the wrong context. Truly, I would not like to engage in an argument ignoratio elenchi.

Just bouncing the ball back. Why do you think I was being 'assertive' (in lack of a better word) when I merely used the words you used in my entire post? Perhaps you shoul dconsider yu own intentions.

The fact that no such document is validated and expresses the intent to punish those not following its 'rulebase' is unsubstantiated?????
Pleased do compare the workings in your mind with the workings in the world.

Don't you think that a document which is supposed to validate other documents needs to be validated itself? If that is not done it carries the same amount of weight in any proof as religious documents. Things are not true because they are written down in some work that is supposed to have authority. They are true regardless of it being written down or not. Hence the ignoratio elenchi: it ignores the issue.

Let's agree on the thought that the only causa sui that can possibly exist is 'God'.

Bron: Wikipedia

That basically proves my point, don't you think? It shows that apparently no validation is needed for bullying the populace around. The contents of the constitution is irrelevant. I am actually quite surprised that you think the decorations are more to the core of this argument than what keeps the decorations up.

A paradox is the confusion of two levels into one level, thus creating the apparant refutation. Hence, it is a paradox.

a) Elections within democracies leave the constitution intact, proving that the state itself was not dissoved, and elections are used to fill the seats of the public offices. The democratic state therefore has a different foundation than elections: the rulebase.
b) The 'rulebase' is that which dictates the rules in a state: the constitution. The use of the word 'rulebase' is quite common for teleological ethics....as any goverment is (rule-utalitarianism). I would think you knew of it in this context.
c) The paraphrase of Aristotle is not used as a petitio, it is merely used to show that for something to be 'legitimate' it would actually have to be facilitated by something legitimate. Seeing as that does not exist the entire farce is exposed. Aristotle used this thought to show monarchies are bollocks and I used it to show that democracies are bollocks. The same goes for the validity of documents by the way.

As said:
I hope you will refrain from using axiomatic assumptions.
I have yet to see a convincing argument aside from axioms and misplaced suppositions leading to faulty conclusions. Your counter arguments do not hold water. I would also caution against using big words in the wrong context.

Really.....you have done nothing but in this discussion.

VideCorSpoon,
2) Constitutions are an expression of a dictatorship because of the fact that it is in no way validated, nor does it strive to do so. It merely exists to validate the 'rulebase'. That shows a dictatorship.

Actually a constitution is validated because it is a contract between the people and the government--in theory anyway.

The Constitution of the USA exists to impose limits upon a government to protect people.