Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Did CP raise a good point?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    Intent has a lot to do with it. Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter. It's the difference between lying and being deluded. Freedom of speech is not free from this either, as there are still points at which it becomes illegal to say certain things (inciting a riot, for example).
    Lack of intent can be a mitigating factor, making the culprit less culpable (murder vs manslaughter), but that's very different from claiming that intent itself makes a crime (or eliminates a right).

    Intent is not the relevant factor in inciting a riot either, I think. Inciting the riot would be the crime, I should think, not the intent.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
      What makes your interpretation superior to that of the Supreme Court?
      Because the Supreme Court did not even attempt to explain how the language of the 13th Amendment leaves an exception for the draft. They made a claim without argument, a claim that appears to be obviously false. They simply denied, without argument, that a draft is involuntary servitude (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/) even though it is clearly involuntary and is clearly servitude.

      Originally posted by Joel
      The Nuremberg trials prosecuted based on "crimes against humanity" which was not any existing standing international law. It was a recognition of Law existing apart from human invention of legislation.
      I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure this is not true. Do you have evidence? What is law if not a creation of government?
      Which part of what I said do you think is not true? Do your own searching for "crimes against humanity" in connection with the Nuremberg trials. I have heard college professors say what I said.

      If [the Constitution is] a binding contract, how have laws been made that go against it?
      They are made in breach of the contract. In violation of the "supreme law of the land".
      Also such legislation, being illegal, are not valid laws.

      (And, as I said, if it isn't a binding contract, it delegates no authority at all to the federal government.)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Joel View Post
        Because the Supreme Court did not even attempt to explain how the language of the 13th Amendment leaves an exception for the draft. They made a claim without argument, a claim that appears to be obviously false. They simply denied, without argument, that a draft is involuntary servitude (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/) even though it is clearly involuntary and is clearly servitude.
        Fair enough.

        Which part of what I said do you think is not true? Do your own searching for "crimes against humanity" in connection with the Nuremberg trials. I have heard college professors say what I said.
        Weren't they charged with crimes outlined in the Nuremberg Charter?

        They are made in breach of the contract. In violation of the "supreme law of the land".
        Also such legislation, being illegal, are not valid laws.

        (And, as I said, if it isn't a binding contract, it delegates no authority at all to the federal government.)
        If the contract has been breached, who is responsible for enforcing it? If your answer is "the people", aren't they are the ones who breached it?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
          Weren't they charged with crimes outlined in the Nuremberg Charter?
          After the fact. (ex post facto)

          If the contract has been breached, who is responsible for enforcing it? If your answer is "the people", aren't they are the ones who breached it?
          If the breach is unconstitutional legislation, then it is the Federal government, specifically Congress (specifically members of Congress that voted for it) that breached. As agents of the people (or of the states) these representatives violated their duty and oath (to the people/states) by breaching the contract. Arguably those Congressmen who voted for the legislation could personally be charged with violating the "supreme law of the land." Though I don't think that has ever been done. (Also if an agent commits a crime on the direct instructions of his principal, then I'd think the principal is culpable too.)

          Who enforces it? There are different possibilities. In some sense the contract claims to be among the people ("We the people") and in other ways seems to be a contract among the state governments. It seems likely that the parties to the contract have the right to enforce it. Difficulty arises in the case of disagreement about whether a breach has occurred. Typically the disagreement is brought before the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. (Though it could be argued that federal courts are part of (or agent of, in the employ of) the defendant and thus not impartial and can rule badly and biasedly, as in the case with the 13th Amendment.) There are some other options recourses if the courts fail.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Joel View Post
            After the fact. (ex post facto)
            So what does "It was a recognition of Law existing apart from human invention of legislation." mean?

            If the breach is unconstitutional legislation, then it is the Federal government, specifically Congress (specifically members of Congress that voted for it) that breached. As agents of the people (or of the states) these representatives violated their duty and oath (to the people/states) by breaching the contract. Arguably those Congressmen who voted for the legislation could personally be charged with violating the "supreme law of the land." Though I don't think that has ever been done. (Also if an agent commits a crime on the direct instructions of his principal, then I'd think the principal is culpable too.)

            Who enforces it? There are different possibilities. In some sense the contract claims to be among the people ("We the people") and in other ways seems to be a contract among the state governments. It seems likely that the parties to the contract have the right to enforce it. Difficulty arises in the case of disagreement about whether a breach has occurred. Typically the disagreement is brought before the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. (Though it could be argued that federal courts are part of (or agent of, in the employ of) the defendant and thus not impartial and can rule badly and biasedly, as in the case with the 13th Amendment.) There are some other options recourses if the courts fail.
            What if those representatives are following the will of their constituents? One part of their job conflicts with the other, like what may happen with police officers or soldiers. If the people (or at least the majority) don't acknowledge the Constitution's authority, then who is to uphold it? You said that the Supreme Court has violated the Constitution before, so I don't think they would qualify.
            Last edited by Psychic Missile; 03-20-2014, 12:07 AM.

            Comment


            • If the people (or at least the minority) don't acknowledge the Constitution's authority, then who is to uphold it?
              The Sovereign. He who does not forget. Him what recognizes the fact that the laws of men are corruptible and open to attack at certain weak points, and who receives his moral inspiration from something that is neither law nor his own thin life experience.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
                The Sovereign. He who does not forget. Him what recognizes the fact that the laws of men are corruptible and open to attack at certain weak points, and who receives his moral inspiration from something that is neither law nor his own thin life experience.
                Besides that last part, which makes no sense, that seems to apply to everybody.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                  Besides that last part, which makes no sense, that seems to apply to everybody.
                  At one point in America's history, it almost did. Democracy and equality seems best, and often are best, among people who do in fact share a common history, religion, ethnicity, life experience, and understanding. It is a tragedy when the people no longer share those things, and an abuse-filled abomination when it's still being invoked as an inspiration when the population are manifestly unequal to anyone with eyes and brains in their head.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
                    The Sovereign. He who does not forget. Him what recognizes the fact that the laws of men are corruptible and open to attack at certain weak points, and who receives his moral inspiration from something that is neither law nor his own thin life experience.
                    Habemus papam!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      Habemus papam!
                      Those are even hotter than jalapenos!
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                        So what does "It was a recognition of Law existing apart from human invention of legislation." mean?
                        It means that this was not a case of inventing a law and then later someone breaks the previously invented law and is prosecuted.
                        Rather, it was a rational recognition after the action, that the action was horribly unjust and deserving of punishment, even though it wasn't a breaking of previously codified human-invented legislation. It could be argued that it was a response to recognition of Natural Law, rather than positive law.

                        What if those representatives are following the will of their constituents?
                        As I said, "if an agent commits a crime on the direct instructions of his principal, then I'd think the principal is culpable too."
                        The problem (perhaps insurmountable) is that you'd have to be able to identify those particular constituents on whose instructions the agent acted. All the people in his state/district are not a homogeneous mass.

                        One part of their job conflicts with the other, like what may happen with police officers or soldiers.
                        "I was acting under orders" is not a valid excuse for an agent, police officer, or soldier.
                        There is a duty to disobey an unlawful/unjust order.

                        If the people (or at least the majority) don't acknowledge the Constitution's authority, then who is to uphold it? You said that the Supreme Court has violated the Constitution before, so I don't think they would qualify.
                        Injustice can arise in the case of any contract. Party X might aggress against party Y by breaching a contract between the two. What if X is physically stronger and the general population sides (unjustly) with X?

                        For an extreme case, for much of history some people were enslaved by other people, with the support of most of the population, thus putting the victims in a hopelessly unjust situation. Such things are, unfortunately, possible.

                        But we should try to do justly. The point of putting rights down in legal print in a democratic/representative government is to protect minorities from majorities. If the majority always prevails, that means they are free to trample on all minorities. Hopefully we are able to prevent that. Codifying separation of powers and checks and balances is intended to help with that. The Supreme Court is a part of those (but not necessarily the only part).

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Joel View Post
                          It means that this was not a case of inventing a law and then later someone breaks the previously invented law and is prosecuted.
                          Rather, it was a rational recognition after the action, that the action was horribly unjust and deserving of punishment, even though it wasn't a breaking of previously codified human-invented legislation. It could be argued that it was a response to recognition of Natural Law, rather than positive law.
                          That seems immoral, but I understand you now.

                          As I said, "if an agent commits a crime on the direct instructions of his principal, then I'd think the principal is culpable too."
                          The problem (perhaps insurmountable) is that you'd have to be able to identify those particular constituents on whose instructions the agent acted. All the people in his state/district are not a homogeneous mass.
                          It doesn't seem like the contract can be enforced, then.

                          "I was acting under orders" is not a valid excuse for an agent, police officer, or soldier.
                          There is a duty to disobey an unlawful/unjust order.
                          The problem is that if there is overt disobedience, they can lose their livelihood at best and face punitive measures at worst. Whether disobedience is valid is judged by democracy and delegates, who may very well rule against the individual, rightly or wrongly. To disobey orders under these conditions would be supererogatory.

                          Injustice can arise in the case of any contract. Party X might aggress against party Y by breaching a contract between the two. What if X is physically stronger and the general population sides (unjustly) with X?

                          For an extreme case, for much of history some people were enslaved by other people, with the support of most of the population, thus putting the victims in a hopelessly unjust situation. Such things are, unfortunately, possible.

                          But we should try to do justly. The point of putting rights down in legal print in a democratic/representative government is to protect minorities from majorities. If the majority always prevails, that means they are free to trample on all minorities. Hopefully we are able to prevent that. Codifying separation of powers and checks and balances is intended to help with that. The Supreme Court is a part of those (but not necessarily the only part).
                          When it comes to codification, the Constitution seems to trail behind other laws. Your argument seems to come down to the idea that the Constitution is important because it should be, and I agree, but that doesn't mean it is. Was there ever even a period of time in US history where not one part of the Constitution was being violated?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                            It doesn't seem like the contract can be enforced, then.
                            It can still be enforced on the agents.
                            Consider, if the states are the parties to the contract, and Congress is violating the contract, surely they can at a minimum insist that the violation be stopped.

                            The problem is that if there is overt disobedience, they can lose their livelihood at best and face punitive measures at worst. Whether disobedience is valid is judged by democracy and delegates, who may very well rule against the individual, rightly or wrongly. To disobey orders under these conditions would be supererogatory.
                            I don't think that argument carried much weight at Nuremberg.

                            When it comes to codification, the Constitution seems to trail behind other laws.
                            I'm not sure what you mean here. If you mean it's harder to amend the Constitution than to pass other laws, yes, that's as it should be. It should be harder to repeal the 1st amendment than it is to pass a law infringing the freedom of the press. And then then such a law should be struck down, by reason of the 1st amendment.

                            Your argument seems to come down to the idea that the Constitution is important because it should be, and I agree, but that doesn't mean it is.
                            No, my argument is that the Constitution is important insofar as it is a binding contract.

                            Was there ever even a period of time in US history where not one part of the Constitution was being violated?
                            Don't know. The unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Acts were passed early on (by the 5th Congress).

                            Was there ever a period of time in history when not one injustice was committed (or not one contract was breached)? Does that mean we should stop striving for justice as a ideal/goal. Was there ever a period of time in history when not one person was sick or injured? Does that mean we should shut down the efforts that go on in hospitals, as being a lost cause?

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                            16 responses
                            162 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post One Bad Pig  
                            Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                            53 responses
                            400 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Mountain Man  
                            Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                            25 responses
                            114 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rogue06
                            by rogue06
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                            33 responses
                            198 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Roy
                            by Roy
                             
                            Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                            84 responses
                            379 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post JimL
                            by JimL
                             
                            Working...
                            X