Loopholes in the constitution

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Arjen
 
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 05:30 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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'.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

4) that is not a paradox.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

Really.....you have done nothing but in this discussion.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 08:09 am
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
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.


LOL! And then I will toss the ball right back to you! Two more players and we can play basketball! Listen... I'm more interested in the topic at hand than bickering. Hilarious though it may be, lame it appears to the rest of the forum. Lets try to keep the conversation to the topic at hand.

Arjen wrote:

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.


All that is really required for your position is more substantiation. The "fact" that no document is valid etc. ect. is an axiom. I'm sure the idea is actually quite good, but that the same as saying the moon is made of cheese. I could say it til the cows come home, even provide a logical chain that it appears to be of a cheesy nature. But where would we be under that line of inquiry. Factual substantiation...that's all.

Arjen wrote:

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'.


No. Because the constitution is inherently a "starter" document. But I see where you are coming from. You feel like the document itself should be legitimated before it itself is legit. I actually agree with you... in fact, it would not be a legitimate constitution without it. At this point, I think it is a "my bad" on my part becuase I assumed you knew this. In order for any constitution to be legal, from the American constitution to the constitution of Athens three thousand years ago, you need ratification. Ratification is a self implied verification of the documents authenticity. Simply... the document does it itself. So I do agree that some validation is necessary... only if it were done by another document... it would be redundant.

Arjen wrote:

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.


Unfortunately, that snippet does not include anything of ratification, the sefl implied verification of the document itself. The piece that you have taken from wiki underlines the fact that a constitution is basically a document with rights and privileges to the people. But someone would really want to change that wiki entry, becuase rights and privileges are not given to "the people" in general, but to the citizens of the constitution it substantiates. This bit does not imply that "the man" is just making the constitution to push the peons around, only that the citizen has rights. BIG QUESTION: Why would a dictatorship go out of its way to give people inalienable rights that would, if violated, nullify any sense of loyalty or commitment to the state???

Arjen wrote:

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


Though some of your definition of a paradox is agreeable, the fact is that what you said in post #19 was not really a paradox.

Arjen wrote:

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.


There is a lot that is wrong with this statement. Take (A) for example. Elections in a democracy do not leave the constitution intact. That is only a fraction of the 12th amendment of the u.s. constitution. There are other deal-breakers. How then say elections leave the constitution intact and then prove the the state is undissolved is... well...puzzling to say the least.

I could go on. I think my main issue with what you say is the faulty logical chain you use. Substantiation... substantiation.

Arjen wrote:

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.


LOL! Though I suppose at this point that you believe this statement is entirely too clever, I will for all intensive purposes suppose that it was.

Arjen wrote:

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


I have. Thank you!
 
Arjen
 
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 03:27 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon,

To sum up what I am saying and what you have been trying to contradict:

1) A state constitues from a constitution and a populace thinking it has authority. Tis shows itself during elections because the 'rulebase' (laws) are still in effect. Elecdtions take the same place as the changing of monarchs. Changing of monarchs does not disband the monarchy, nor do elections disband a democracy.

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.

3) The constitution itself is a paradox because it facilitates itself and the 'rulebase' at the same time, thus showing the two levels.

4) The 'rulebase' in questions proves the rule-utaliarianism, thereby teleology and therefore the absence of universalism, thus proving the dictatorship again.

If these things are in any way unclear to you, feel free to ask what I mean. If indeed you have the idea that some of these thoughts are not correct, please city the entire theory wqhich shows that they are incorrect and show that that theory is valid because it has a foundation in the real world. I think I have done so and have given sufficient theoretical and factual proof of my reasoning so that it may survive any such claim.

I will no long reply to 'jabs' at my words or character from you. I will no longer reply to unfounded words from you and I will no longer reply to mere speculation from you. If indeed you wish to contest my words and lay a claim to any form of truth you are going to have to show it and just 'assume' it, use axioms or petitio's. Your words are going to have to hold water.....perhaps you should refrain from using any of the 'big words'?
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 08:42 am
@Arjen,
Arjen, keep in mind that we are conversing on the concept at hand... loopholes in the constitution. I am still eager to continue a good conversation about it if you are.

Though I disagree with your assumptions... and you can disagree with mine as well. This could be the basis for a very good discussion.

Unfortunately, I think the conversation has run dry. I will leave it at that.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 08:50 am
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
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. Sure, it is easy to argue that it doesn't work this way, but that is because people continue to vote for far too many people that could care less about them.

Anyway, a dictatorship is a form of absolute power and authority. The fact that the a constitution can be updated as necessary shows that--in theory--the will of the people is the absolute power and authority rather than the governing body.
 
Mr Fight the Power
 
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 01:18 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
Actually a constitution is validated because it is a contract between the people and the government--in theory anyway.


1. How can an abstract structure like a government enter into a contract?

2. When were you ever a party to this contract?

3. If you were a party to this contract, at what point were you in a fair bargaining position, i.e. free of physical coercion?

4. What are the methods for my termination of a contract that I do not believe has been fulfilled by the other party, the government?

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


The constitution provides the framework for a liberal form of government. The authors of the constitution understood that the protection of the people lay with the people themselves, not this paper.

With a background in revolution, these men were quite firm in the opinion that people could cast off government if it has lost their consent. From this, I can only surmise that the constitution was developed more as a framework for a government that people would not want to abandon, rather than one that the people would be protected from.

This is the terrible shift in thinking that occurred and was entrenched by the Civil War. No longer was government meant to be one of consent and therefore necessarily serve the wellbeing of the citizenry. Now the US government is thought of as a necessary and constant controller that people are only justified in limiting, rather than abandoning altogether.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 03:49 pm
@Mr Fight the Power,
Theaetetus,

I agree with your sentiments about the constitution. It seems more an imposition of limits on the government rather than an expression of dictatorship. And your point about the fact that the constitution contains its own provisions for amendments does indeed imply that the people have the power in the document rather than individuals conspiring in a dictatorship. Good points.

Mr. Fight the Power,conception in state
 
Arjen
 
Reply Tue 21 Oct, 2008 02:54 am
@VideCorSpoon,
 
Poseidon
 
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 07:59 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Very good point Arjen.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 11/26/2020 at 01:38:10