In which I respond to readers

Reg:

On this site, I have been called simple, have been told that because I am simple no one wants to answer my questions. But may this simple person ask your indulgence, as I question one point in your blog today.

You said, "We would not be one nation under God, we would be 50.  I apologize up front for taking this out of context.

This past election I was determined to be more involved than ever.  Before that I was simply a back seat driver, and now I wanted up front, in the driver's seat.  I devoured all that was the election.  

Reg, I didn't like what I saw from the good seat.  Primaries a shamble - some cities have open, some have closed.  Large amounts of voters kept out. In the general some have caucases, and others regular voting.  In Texas, you had the Texas two step in the same day.  Some states were not even sure of the vote totals in the caucases. We have some states voting on one day, some on another, and yet others on another day.  One state not even counted!

And then there is states rights.  Gay marriages are okay in some states - not in others.  Health insurance programs different in some.  Looming illegal alien problems in many states, not so in others.  Huge deficits in some states - not so in others.  And then there are those "bastions of intolerance".

Not to bore you, but I think you see what I mean.  Maybe under God we are one (and even that is a stretch), but under the govenment and its laws, are we really one?  How can we have such differences and yet be the same?  How can we be One Nation Under God?

This must be some kind of coincidence.  Me?

For the record, I see great value in your engaging in Mr. Kelly.  To you and to him.  I'd do it if I were you.  I do tire a little of hearing the same old issues debated everywhere, and fairly familiar positions dutifully delivered.  I hope you guys have a unique, original conversation.  See if you can get him to sound off on the city.

I doubt it, Bram.  Kelly is one of those people for whom local issues are apparently too small to bother with.  He's too busy parroting talking points on national issues.  There are more intelligent and original right-wing thinkers out there--some of them contribute to PG blogs.  I'm not sure why the PG couldn't hire someone better.

"Jimmy Carter coming back for a third term?"

You mean I was asleep for four years, à la Rip Van Winkle, during a second Carter term?  Uh-oh.

One of the humorous pleasures of blogging is to see absolute certitude nullify itself.

Titan Lee is quoted as writing: "There is nothing, nothing, more frightening than a liberal telling us what the Constitution says. The entire principle of Democracy is founded on the idea of a market place of ideas, in which the best rise to the top by merit. This demands of citizens that they respect and listen to all points of view so that the best ideas rise by merit, not demagoguery. If Mr.  (Ms.?) Lee truly believes that anyone, Liberals included, have no insights to the Constitution worth considering rationally, then he (she?) is a very poor American indeed.

No doubt the Founding Fathers recognized the danger to Democracy represented by this sort of ignorant arrogance, and it was their “original intent” in establishing the Electoral College to prevent it from influencing important decisions. I suppose I would agree with most people that the Founding Fathers were human, and their original intent could sometimes be wrong; therefore the liberal idea of allowing even the most unqualified to vote is probably a good thing. Nonetheless people who can write what Titan Lee did make us appreciate their original wisdom.

Reg,

I would certainly hope that I'm one "who can hand it out and also take it".  I could have proved it, had you "given" it to me.  I've read this response several times, and each time I fail to see exactly where you told me I was wrong in my response to your previous blog.  I did notice the somewhat weak attempt at being condescending.  In deference to you, I will limit my remarks, other than to say "they" have also extended "a little learning is a dangerous thing" (directed at me) with "but a lot of ignorance is just as bad" (you figure out who that's directed at)

Your statement that the Federal government, if I were correct, would only be responsible for the national defense, I'm sure was a slip of the keyboard.  You, of course, must know that the Constitution spells out in exact wording what the Federal government is authorized to do and it is more than national defense.  It does not include health-care.  It does not include Social Security.  It does not include Medicare.  I'm sure you know your history well enough to know HOW Roosevelt got SS through. This is not a question of whether programs are "good" or what is "needed". All Americans agree on what we would "like" to have. We are a nation of "laws".  Liberals think we're a nation of "suggested ideas" (to clarify, I don't think "liberals" equal Democrats, anymore than I think "conservatives" equal GOP--with JFK and GWB being the perfect examples).

Your question on the blog dealt with was health-care was legal under the Constitution.  The fact that you don't like the answer, doesn't mean the answer is wrong.  It isn't.  Period.  The debate about a national health-care insurance bill being "ethical" and "needed" has nothing to do with the Constitutional legality.  That is a separate debate.  You know it.  I know it.  And I guarantee this Congress and Administration know it too.  I also doubt you would want to get into a "dueling quotes" battle from the founders.  Your hoped for "centralized government" is exactly what they didn't want.  Other than liberals, no one does.

So to summarize, I am right.  You are wrong.  If you can't accept it, shame on you.

Ike,

It might be a good idea if you would read the Constitution from this country.

Titan, nothing in Ike's post suggests he has not read the US Constitution.  For you to imply otherwise is incivil.

Let's not forget the "General Welfare Clause" of the US Constutition.

This quote is taken from another site, but here is what the clause states (Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution)...

"To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Obviously "general welfare" can be interpreted in many different ways, but if Congress feels that Medicare and Social Security are considered vital to the "general welfare" of the nation, than it is certainly not unconstitutional.

Taken from:  eh.net/.../0887

S-dub87, you rock!

myreply:

You asked how there could be such differences in one nation.  You described two types:  in approach (caucus, primary, open, closed, two-step), and in execution (things done well (you omitted examples), excluded voters, incomplete tallies, more).  The second (failures in execution) breaks down into intentionally and not.

Differences in approach are another way of trying things, as someone said recently about elections themselves.  One state or municipality will ban peanut butter, or require the teaching of alchemy, and others get to see how that works out before jumping on the bandwagon.  Does New Hampshire’s model of not voting for anyone until he’s had coffee in your kitchen make any sense?  Does the attention the media give to New Hampshire?  Probably not.  But I’d kind of like to vote there.

In theory, if these are all tests, we should eventually settle on a best way.  But maybe there is none; maybe each is good enough.  Maybe diversity is a strength.

Do we bungle the execution?  Lots.  I don’t know what you meant by “up front,” but most of the people involved are probably grassroots volunteers wanting to be involved.  You keep fixing what you can, trying to make it better, and hope that the mistakes come close to averaging out.  

Malfeasance?  Fraud?  Scream your head off!  (Proof helps.)  Tolerate none of it and hope that it’s not affecting the outcome.  That’s a tough one.  Sometimes it does.  Remember, too, that while it’s the Republicans who have been the most blatant, shameless, underhanded and dastardly of late, “Vote early, vote often” was a popular dig at a *Democratic* political machine . . . the one that gave us the administration that gave us the Moon landings, but that’s not the point.

Everyone:

All political arguments end.  You convince me, or we compromise, or we agree to disagree.  If there’s a deadline, the decider decides.  We also understand that one-on-one discussions can become pointless and need to be broken off.  We should do that reluctantly, but it is no affront to the greater search for truth.

What I have suggested, quite apart from whether I agree with whomever or not, is that we are being played.  There is true and proper political discourse underway, and there is a concerted, knowing effort to corrupt it:  an effort, as a coordinated whole – overall, total, cumulative effect – to keep opponents distracted (engaged) while manipulating the base with distortions and lies.  

“Whatever works,” and it’s working.

A rule of formal debate is that the first side to mention the Nazis loses.  I’ve done it right here.  But it wasn’t to say that a particular group was as evil as the Nazis; it was to say they are as proficient and slick as the Nazis.  (Maybe I should have called them the political equivalents of Bernie Madoff.)  In Doonesbury just this week, Havoc draws the parallels and asks how Afghanistan isn’t Vietnam all over again.  Young Jeff answers:  “Not sure.  My college didn’t offer history.”

We are being professionally propagandized by people who do not have our interests at heart.  I will be the first to admit that this is not something to get worked up about, because we also know from exposure to advertising and such that persuasion techniques never work – that everyone seeks, sorts and tests information from a variety of sources and comes to his or her own well-reasoned conclusion.  

Obviously troubling:  Who gets to decide who should *not* be listened to?  

For me, me.  And I get to say why.  Others then get to say that we should reach out, that all ideas should be heard, and that the good ones will prove themselves.  Who could disagree?  It clearly sounds better than “stop listening.”

Maybe I’m doing more harm than good.

thescarletpumpernickel:

“Intellectually elusive” . . . man of mystery.  I like that.

According to sdub:

"Obviously "general welfare" can be interpreted in many different ways, but if Congress feels that Medicare and Social Security are considered vital to the "general welfare" of the nation, than it is certainly not unconstitutional".

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way sdub.  Congress can pass whatever kind of law they wish to, but that in itself does not make it Consitutional.  They are mandated to follow the Constitution, but often they don't.  Questions about the Constitutionality of a law are decided by the Supreme Court.  If you want to accept that a Supreme Court decision is "final" and not to be questioned, then you should be willing to accept this statement from a Supreme Court justice that validated a law, based on their "interpretation of the Constitution:

"Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney (the SC Justice) reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

That is the same exact reasoning that can be used to "interpret" "promote the general welfare" to include programs such as Soc Sec, Medicare and health-care.

Let's pretend the "all men are created equal" statement is in the Constitution.  Most people would argue that Taney's view about the role of slaves in America does not contribute to the general welfare of the US.  

But back to the clause,

The clause basically says "Congress, you are allowed to collect taxes for national defense and whatever else you feel is best for America."

It says right in the text that Congress can do, taxation-wise, whatever contributes to the general welfare of the nation.  We're not always going to agree with that taxation (health care), but the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit any interpretation of "general welfare."

It's the same principle that drives the American education system.  The Constitution does NOT guarantee or mandate education standards across the nation.  However, the General Welfare Clause allows Congress to make laws regarding education all the time (No Child Left Behind, anyone?)  

"When I was a child, I spake as a child"

When the bible was written, it was written with the limited scope of the writers.

When the bible was written, it was also written with the limited scope of the writers.

These notions do not make null and void of either, but certaiinly lends question to both.

My apologies:

The third line should have read:

Wthen the Constitution was written,

That was pretty wild, Titan--comparing the reasoning in the Dredd Scott decision to the legitimacy of Social Security.  

It is up to the Congress and the courts to determine how far the 'general welfare" clause can be stretched without violating the Constitution.  Your contention would be that every president, and a lot of laws and decisions since the (Teddy) Roosevelt administration's "trust-bustin" are illegitmate.  

Regis,

Scott and SS are dead on.  The SC held that not only were blacks not citizens, but then compounded it by using the 5th Amendment to say the owners of the slaves were entitled to own them as their property.  This was the SC.  "Interpreters of the Constitution".  This was based on their interpretation.

Social Security and the majority of other federal government controlled agencies were also created by twisting an interpretation.  So yes, I do question the legitimacy.  Not only do I question them, I believe they ARE unconstitutional.  Saying that, what President, Congressman, or politically appointed SC Justice is going to do something about it?  None of them.  It won't happen, but that doesn't mean new programs should continue to be added.

By the way, saying SS, Medicare, Medicaid are unconstitutional DOES NOT mean we want the elderly, the handicapped and the ill dying in the streets to save money.  That's a sick way for someone to justify their inability to use common sense or dispute the facts.

callsigntourist  -

Yeah, I kind-of chukled at that.

Note Reg said "elusive intellectual" and not "effusive intellectual".

Nonetheless, I'm easily sweet-talked.

Man of mystery? Groovy baby!

Oh, yes. Forgot.

"Who gets to decide who should *not* be listened to?"

Guess we all have to use the same good judgement that we *all* use when deciding what to read on the internet.

Yeah. That'll work.

Scarlet:

We always have the decision of who or what point to listen to, or read, or watch.  It is simply the turn of a dial or the tap of the remote.  

The problem is what you do with the information you choose to listen to, watch or read.  And that Scarlet is wholely up to you.

@Titan

Here's how I see it. Tell me if I'm wrong...

You want to do things by the book (aka the U.S. Constitution). For better or worse, that's the way they (our Founding Fathers) wanted us to do it. If I'm wrong, stop reading this and let me know.

I believe the others to be spot on. First and foremost, those who framed our Constitution were not perfect, just as our current and past government officials are/were not perfect. Thus, it would be irresponsible to carry on an imperfect document without carefully considering (1) its contents, (2) its fundamental intents, and (3) its effect on a constantly changing society. This is where the framers had the right idea by allowing us to add Amendments to the Bill of Rights, because they knew they couldn't forsee the future welfare of the nation.

Second, the wording of the Constitution in many ways is very clear. However, in some ways it is not. I would rather not get into a debate about the following, but rather to use it as an example. The Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") has been long debated over the years, because it can be interpreted in more than one way. What exactly do they mean when they say "respect"? That word alone has more than one meaning that can change the purpose of the clause. My point: it's not always that cut and dry.

Third, while I certainly enjoyed callsigntourist's response, myreply had some very good questions about the solidity of our nation vs the individuality of our states. We need to strike a balance, and we can't take the truism of the 10th Amendment out of the complete context of the Constitution or the current state of our nation. The federal government should not usurp the rights of the states, which I believe it has in cases (e.g. No Child Left Behind). However, leaving the States to their own devices can lead to a division of our society that is not good for the whole.

A careful consideration of these issues is needed, and no one on this forum will be the deciding voice in history (or so I believe). But such a discussion will help us all in changing what we can and making ourselves better citizens of this great nation. To me, our greatest problem right now is not Health Care or the economy... it's getting people to talk to each other about issues in a sane and productive manner. Most of the time we might just remain on opposite sides of the fence, but hopefully we can at least learn to understand the other side and make concessions to avoid becoming stagnant in our approach to things that require attention. (Apologies in advance for this last paragraph... I wandered off topic.)

fhornplayer83:

But for a quibble at the end so stretched it’s almost embarrassing, I could not agree with you more.  And what you call for, you clearly embody.  Elsewhere a few days ago, your first comment was at least in part a thoughtful response to an individual who had commented above you.  His direct answer to you was then, in its entirety:  “Are you really serious?”  I might or might not have come back with no more than, “Yes.”  You’re better than I am.  You continued to engage him, constructively, and to develop the discussion.  I commend you.

“[O]ur greatest problem right now is . . . getting people to talk to each other about issues in a sane and productive manner,” you oh-so-rightly say.  To put the next four words in your mouth:  “because if we don’t . . . .”  

I have already asked if anyone has a scenario for how this ends.  I do.  Several.  None is pretty.  I want desperately to be wrong – to be shown another.  Yet I see very few thinking in those terms.

The quibble – I know what you meant, do not say you’re wrong, and have truncated the context – is with your statement that “no one on this forum will be the deciding voice in history (or so I believe).”   That just *sounds* wrong.  The spirit is wrong.  “My vote doesn’t matter.”  (No, no.  You didn't say that either.)

If not us, who?  If not now, when?  If not here, where?

We have one more day before Mr. Henry returns and takes back his humor blog.

Let me ask this question in a different way:

Do any of you believe, that because the Constitution was written by men (only men), in a time far removed from now, with limited educations and vision as to how the world would look over 200 years later - that these ammendments can and must be open to interpretation?  Do you also believe that there will and must be changes made to the Constituion?

myreply:

I hope for no changes – individual amendments – in the foreseeable future.  In the present climate, I would fear a Constitutional Convention most of all.

The ambiguity in the Constitution’s prescriptions and proscriptions is its brilliance.  That is what has allowed us to simultaneously follow it and understand it differently as we have grown.

The Founders’ vision is unmatched today.

@myreply

I'm on track with what callsigntourist said. I could only imagine what kind of Amendment(s) would result from this type of power struggle between the parties.

That said, I do think that we need to keep the amendments open to interpretation. To me, it's not so much the syntax or the semantics; rather, it's understanding the fundamental ideologies of our nation that is important. These core beliefs should help us to define our path as the country goes through changes in local, state, national, and international spheres.

@callsigntourist

I suppose that statement did come across that way, though it was unintended. And, yes, my ability to ramble is a weakness. Perhaps I should clarify.

I only meant to say that this forum is not a place where major changes in the world will occur. But it is important, because in our nation of the people, the collective voice is more powerful than just one. Conversations like these help us (hopefully) to better understand each other and where we, as a society, our headed. One would hope that it also helps us make better personal decisions in the future.

Just a note on my statement: "I do think that we need to keep the amendments open to interpretation."

I hope it's obvious that I mean this in a limited sense. There are many parts of the Constitution that have been fairly solidified through the centuries; however, there are other parts that provide us with some "wiggle room." (Yes, that's a technical term...)

Certainly the constitution and ammendments are interpreted, but that doesn't mean that all interpretations are correct. In the case of the often referenced 10th ammendment,John Adams said this about the language 'general welfare' :

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one...."

The tone and wording of this statement seem clearly intended to convey that the term "general welfare" is not to be taken as carte blanche by Congress to reach and over-reach into every aspect of our lives.This qualification, while not a part of the document itself, certainly sheads light on what the intention of the framers was or was not in this case.

The Constitution includes within it a method of ammendment. This is satisfactory for the changing times that have always been with us while providing  stability of guidance. It should be troubling to everybody that so many people dismiss it as a document not relavent to our times with intent that must be reinterpreted to fit whatever transient need presents itself.That men and women choose to ignore the method of ammendment reflects not that the document itself is flawed but that the method of ammendment presents too much difficulty.Callsigntourist has a concern about ammendments that I share, and if a constitutional convention were called for now I believe we might lose our nation forever. These changes should not be undertaken lightly or accomplished easily. The constitution itself is a brilliant piece of work set in place by men who were aware that there were situations to arise that they couldn't predict. When our actions contradict our constitution we should not ask "what's wrong with our constitution?" but rather, "what's wrong with us?"'