March 26, 2008
Ignorance: Powerful Political Tool
A few months ago, I called one of my sisters who asked: “How can a Muslim think he can be president after 9/11?” I did my best to inform her that none of the prominent candidates for president are Muslim. My hope was to get her to understand that in the land of freedom of religion, there is nothing wrong with a Muslim running for president, but, that was a bridge too far.
Ilya Somin, a Cato Institute contributor, wrote an article which bears witness to political ignorance in America, in which it states:
Decades of research show that most citizens know very little about politics and public policy. Ignorance goes beyond lack of awareness of specific issues. Even more alarming is that most citizens lack basic background knowledge about political leaders, parties and the structure of government.The article goes on to make some pretty ignorant statements of its own such as:
For example, the majority of Americans don't know the name of their congressman, which branch of government is responsible for which issues and the basic differences between liberalism and conservatism.
Acquiring significant amounts of political knowledge so as to be a more informed voter is, in most situations, simply irrational. But the rational decisions of individuals create a dysfunctional collective outcome in which the majority of the electorate is dangerously ill-informed.
Professor Somin makes the argument that increasing education quality will not likely change ignorance of American government and politics, as voters choose ignorance. That assumption underlies one of the most concerted, bipartisan sanctioned, unspoken rules in American politics:
Do not educate the electorate, for an educated electorate may take an interest in what politicians do and hold them accountable.
It is a long standing assumption of Americans that education is primarily useful for acquiring a job and making a living, and politics is best left to the political professionals. However, Democracy (power derived from the people) and government performance depend upon the quality of education, intelligence and responsibility of the voter. (Responsibility here defined as the ability to respond appropriately at the election polls.) In this day when political parties have abandoned good governance for the simple acquisition of power in office, is it any wonder our future looks bleaker than our past?
Some Democratic super delegates are more concerned with the candidate that can beat McCain than they are with promoting the best of the two nominees for America's future. Some Republican supporters fear McCain will continue the Iraq occupation in perpetuity destroying any chance for fiscal responsibility, yet, cannot bring themselves to vote for a Democrat who would end the occupation. Winning is everything; governance is an afterthought.
I received in my email box recently one of the most apparently hateful, uneducated and ignorant pieces of spam I have ever seen. The author claims that Obama's father was abusive, drunken, and Islamically radical, and Obama is the product of that upbringing and hides it well in order to get elected; but once elected, watch out. He says Obama could be America's Adolph Hitler venting his childhood insults, not on the Jews, but on all White persons.
I used the word "apparently" in the above paragraph for the following reason. That email was not written by an ignorant and uneducated individual. The author likely knew full well, that the email would fail to convince most Americans of the validity of its claims. But, that was not the email's intent. The intent was to raise a seed of doubt and suspicion, which, in a tight race, could make all the difference in the outcome. The email was written and sent by a very politically savvy campaign supporter of an Obama opponent.
I grew up with the kind of ignorance, lack of education, and fear which was the content of the email I received. A fear of anything and anyone outside my father's physical control dominated his life and actions. I grew up under a father who sang Adolph Hitler's praises, and under a mother who adamantly supported my achieving education, understanding, and compassion far beyond that of her husband behind his back. The end result was that I committed myself to be everything my father wasn't. It remains a guiding commitment to this 58th year of my life.
The point being made here is that if the email author's information about Obama's father is correct, my own experience indicates Obama is nothing like his father. Since, the email author's intent is clearly to appeal to the fears of ignorant and prejudiced voters who might have considered supporting Obama based on his record and speeches, one has to recognize that this email will have its intended effect for many recipients in America. This calculated and carefully crafted email seeks to elevate irrelevant information to the level of President maker / breaker campaigning.
There are folks in the Obama campaign who have taken such cheap shots at Clinton. There are members of Clinton's campaign debasing informative politics by elevating race and age to the level of voter choice criteria. And then there are McCain supporters heralding POW experience and torture victim as the great qualifiers for U.S. President which no Democrat can match.
When the likes of James Carville insist Gov. Richardson is a Judas for having made a candidate choice which isn't Carville's choice, it is plain to see that such swiftboating campaign tactics know no political party bounds, nor are they shunned by even the highest level campaigners for presidential candidates. Even the candidates themselves are not beyond playing fast and loose with the truth in an appeal to the ignorant, uneducated, and gullible American voters, like my sister.
Barack Obama has attempted to elevate American political decision making for the office of president to the level of vision, judgment, communication, and issues. If he fails to move McCain's and Clinton's and his own supporters to this new level of discussion and debate, one must ask: will the best candidate of the people be chosen? If lies, misrepresentation, distortion of fact, and appeals to the fears of the electorate determine the next president of the United States, will America's future be served, her problems solved, her ideals fulfilled? The answer is, only by fluke if at all.
The greatest enemy of a politician is a voter who is informed, educated enough to critically assess the politician's performance in office, and motivated to vote on that basis. For such a person's vote cannot be swayed at reelection time by deceptive persuasion, fear, or misdirection. And as we are all witness to in this election, deceptive persuasion, fear, and misdirection are the craft and tool bag of political campaigns, regardless of Party or candidate. Therefore, the argument is made logical that political power brokers have a vested interest in fighting American education, critical thinking skills in voters, and an informed electorate. It is thus not surprising that America's educational quality continues to fall against other modern nations and misinformation has become a multi-billion dollar industry.
One could easily predict from this dependency on ignorance at election time that the original intent of the H-1B Visa program in which intellect, education, and critical thinking skills are imported from abroad for several years, and then allowed to return to their homeland would be a politician's dream. Recipients of H-1B Visas can't vote. But, because the fearful, uneducated, and undiscriminating segments of our electorate play such a decisive role in selecting our politicians, the H-1B Visa program has not functioned as it was designed to import the best and brightest, and upon recognizing that it fails its objectives, our politicians are seeking to expand it.
From Obama to Clinton to McCain, one will not hear any utter the words, 'national education system'. A national education system that insures quality standards and resources to meet those standards so that American citizens of the future are capable of democracy and intelligent voting based on political performance, is anathema to the goals and objectives of political power brokers and politicians. Americans can be self-reliant, independent of foreign goods when necessary, and independent of foreign political arm-twisting, but, only if the people are educationally able to elect the best and brightest to public office and hold public officials accountable to that vision nearly every parent holds for their child or children in the future.
So, will the Democratic nominee in 2008 be selected on the basis of whether or not enough people fear Barack's middle name or his father's Kenyan history? Will the nominee be selected on whether or not Hillary chose to take her only child into a hostile fire fight zone considered too dangerous for her President husband, which proved be an exaggeration to say the least? Will the President be elected in November based on voter's fears of Bill Clinton's reference to McCain becoming the oldest president in history?
Or, will the next president be selected on the people's assessment of who is best able to continue America's history of becoming stronger, better, and brighter for each new generation? The balance of informed and educated voters versus the ignorant and uninformed, will determine which way this election goes. I personally hope we discontinue leaving such weighty matters as this to chance and ignorance.
We should choose the best quality education our nation can muster. We should promote citizen involvement in government and politics as if our lives and our children's lives depended on it. We should expect and assist our new and young voters in becoming intelligent voters as opposed to red team - blue team voters. We should ourselves hold politicians responsible for results and role model that behavior for our children. We should insure our future will be better than our past with these measures.
Posted by David R. Remer at March 26, 2008 02:43 AMDavid
What part of this do you find ignorant?
“Acquiring significant amounts of political knowledge so as to be a more informed voter is, in most situations, simply irrational. But the rational decisions of individuals create a dysfunctional collective outcome in which the majority of the electorate is dangerously ill-informed.”
What they are explaining is a variation of the classic “tragedy of the commons” concept. It is good if we are all well informed, but each of us benefits from being a free rider and just benefiting from the work of others. The article clearly doesn’t make this an normative statement; it simply offers an explanation re why the public remains ignorant.
In any case, a truly educated public would understand the limits of political action and ask much less of politicians in general. Politics is very nearly a zero or even a negative sum proposition. It should be used sparingly. A democracy will never produce outcomes that much more than half of the population considers optimum. In fact, given the nature of required compromises, it will almost always do much worse than that.
That is the primary argument for limited government. You and I probably cannot agree on even which direction to take our government on many vital issues. Since government by its nature must create laws that apply to all, that means the one of us has to lose. Systems outside government can be much more pluralistic and flexible. We can choose very different lifestyles, products and forms of recreation and we can both get what we think is best.
American society is much more than its politicians or its government. Most people spend their time doing more useful and productive things than engaging in politics.
Re Obama – I don’t fear his name or his Kenyan ancestry. In fact, those things are a plus as far as I am concerned. It would be good PR in world events. However, my informed and educated opinion is that his policies would be disastrous for our country. I understand that many informed and educated people come to the opposite conclusion. We may decry the presence of ignorance, but to the extent that ignorance is mostly random, it probably does not change the outcomes.
The only place where we suffer from ignorance is when there is a systematic bias to the ignorant choices. I think we DO see this in terms of a too strong belief in the efficacy of government. Ignorant people cannot handle the nuance of a modern pluralistic where decision making is diffuse and decentralized. They tend to think some individuals are responsible for whatever woes they suffer and they believe some individuals can make it right.
They might recall one of the principles of systems thinking – sometimes things are screwed up BECAUSE of our best efforts, NOT in spite of them.
Posted by: Jack at March 26, 2008 06:07 AMJack, I read your comment. I understand what you would like others to take from it. However…
This is what I see in your comments.
1) You rationalize that government is inherently messed up, and therefore must be sparingly applied. What I read however, is that your voting choices for Republicans resulted in the most buggered up government in living American’s history, and therefore, it must be government itself that is so messed up, not those responsible for running it. Pure rationalization.
2) You still defend the current president, though logically and factually that is an irrational act. Therefore, it is predictable that no matter what candidate the Democratic Party put forward, you would oppose that candidate. If the Democrats put Ronald Reagan up for president by another name, you would oppose his candidacy.
3) Because of 1 and 2 above, your commentary reads to me as firmly based in team sport politics, where thinking and information are only required to support a foregone decision to always defend anything labeled GOP, failed or not. Appears closer to religion than democracy to me, but, then that religion is apparent in both the major parties.
Fortunately, growing numbers are giving up that religion and choosing Independent evaluation regardless of party. I find hope for America’s future in that registration and polling data.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2008 07:33 AMDavid
This paragraph is the best paragrapg written by you in a long,long time:
”.. will the next president be selected on the people’s assessment of who is best able to continue America’s history of becoming stronger, better, and brighter for each new generation? The balance of informed and educated voters versus the ignorant and uninformed, will determine which way this election goes. I personally hope we discontinue leaving such weighty matters as this to chance and ignorance.”
Everyone agrees with this..even us over on the right side.
The question, rather ,is how best to achieve this?
Here we have now 3 candidates flawed in some way.
Hillary played soccer at a high school that did not have a soccer team, was named after Sir Edmond Hillary but was born BEFORE he did anything, and dodged bullets in Bosnia.
Obama sat in a pew for 20 years in a church that espoused Black Liberation Theology.
McCain is a middle of the roader.
The question is who of the three will carry forth this nation as you suggest.
Hillary? The answer is yes if you think that unbridled political aggression, win at all cost,and deceit are in your defination.
Obama? Again the answer is yes if inexperience,alienation of the white blue colar vote,and left of left center liberalism are you fancy.
McCain? Again the answer is yes if your view of the war on terror coinsides with his.
Thus the dilema.
Three completely points of views,threecompletely philosophoies (and two of them are within the same political party,by the way)
Meanwhile, the enemy gets stronger day by day. They watch as America rips itself apart.
This debate is what the intelligent are supposed to be focused on.
Check the stories in the MSM the last several weeks….Wright..Bosnia..Judas…and tell me exactly who of the two is the uniter..
Heck, what we are watching is fratricide by those lustful for power,and let America be damned, I think.
In their own way, both Obama and Hillary are saying what Jerimiah said.
Posted by: Sicilia Eagle at March 26, 2008 07:38 AMJack, as to what in the quote is ignorant? This: “But the rational decisions of individuals create a dysfunctional collective outcome in which the majority of the electorate is dangerously ill-informed.”
Rational decisions by definition will not lead toward the destruction of a nation and society. Rational means weighing, and in the realm of democracy and political election decisions, this means weighing what is in one’s best interests and the interests of one’s children, and their children.
He is corrupting the word for his own purpose, which is his implied subscription to the political ideology that more taxes and public effort spent on education will be a waste of his tax dollars and government’s resources.
He obviously subscribes to private boutique education where parents based on their ignorance and prejudices or, strengths and abilities can send their children to schools designed to cater the parent’s preferences, instead of their children’s needs as future citizens and workers in a declining America. A kind of autistic school system in which some schools will focus on evangelical Christian education and others will focus on racism and their student’s superiority and tactics and strategy to exert such superiority, etc. etc. etc.
The students will be really well trained in the prejudices and biases of the parent’s choosing. Boutique private education is the wave of the Cato Institute’s American future of true liberty, freedom, and anarchy for all. Of course the opposite extreme is the public school system advocated by the FREC’s (fundamentalist right-wing evangelical Christians) in which all the nation’s children would be brainwashed with their own particular brand of FREC religion and conformity that would rival the Hitler Youth in Nazi Germany.
America needs a far better education system than it has now K-12 and something in the middle of the FREC and CATO extremes.
Often, ideological writers must be read in full context and between the lines they proffer to understand the direction of and purpose of their writing. So, it has always been, so it will always be. One can hardly grasp Plato given the literal interpretation of his words. The fact that Socrates was gay is missed by most who read Plato. Not surprising given the quality of American education.
Your taking the quoted writer’s thesis on face value reminds me of all those Republican ‘scholars’ who faked reading Wealth Of Nations with Cliff Notes, and say, “Never heard of it” in reply to: ‘Have you read the Theory of Moral Sentiments’? Cherry picking knowledge and information out of context has become a Republican and Democrat art form.
No wonder both party’s elected officials now create far more problems for America than they solve.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2008 07:49 AMSicilian Eagle, thanks for you comments. I agree with the thrust of what you say.
I have a different read though on your comment: “Meanwhile, the enemy gets stronger day by day. They watch as America rips itself apart.”
The enemy out there is not nearly so threatening as the enemy within our electorate and political system. The willful delegation to others what we are responsible for overseeing and correcting ourselves. This government is ours to oversee and correct. This future for our nation is our, the voter’s responsibility. Meaning the ability to respond appropriately to our choices in leadership and correct those choices when they are in error.
GW Bush’s reelection was a complete abrogation of that responsibility by the electorate. There simply is no other way for me to see the election of 2004. I look back at my writings here on WB in 2003 and 2004 in the run up to the election, and I still am left in awe at the willful ignoring of fact and information relevant to Bush’s first 4 years, that allowed his reelection.
It is amazing to watch this schism in the Republican Party, this Jeckyl and Hyde personality that decries the Bush years among Republican intellectuals in intellectual circles, but, defends the entire machinery and Party that chose him for two terms and now chooses John McCain for a 3rd Bush term. McCain is as average an intelligence and education as one could possibly find in the U.S. Senate. Yet, I watch Republicans drawn inexorably to his support and defense.
It defies responsibility for America’s future and it defies a future in which our children will be at least as well off in a static America if not living in a better, stronger, and more ideal America.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2008 08:21 AMIllinois has 21 electoral votes with a population of about 12 million. The seven smallest states also have 21 electoral votes, with a population just over 5 million. The real election is in December, and some votes count for a lot more than others. When GWBush speaks about “us”, I do not honestly believe that I am a part of the “us” that he is talking about. Anyone will be an improvement over him, but one that gets elected in the same way will seem just as illegitimate.
Posted by: ohrealy at March 26, 2008 08:50 AMDavid,
The key point you make is this- “Do not educate the electorate, for an educated electorate may take an interest in what politicians do and hold them accountable.”
That is utterly and devastatingly true. What politicians and parties want and educate us for is a public that can be led with innuendo and sound-bytes, defenseless against the clever twist of a word or phrase.
Modern political science is not about statesmanship- the process of leading people at-large to a deeper understanding of their responsibilities as citizens- but is about dividing us into groups and magnifying our differences so we can be exploited for what divides us.
Let’s face it, from an evolutionary standpoint we in the public are seen by the political class as a resource to be exploited. It serves their interest poorly to take steps which would make us less compliant, more combative, more inquisitive. And, like the Morlocks of H.G. Wells Time Machine, politicians are not themselves much inclined to see the light.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2008 10:14 AMDavid,
Politicians depend on the relative “innocence” of the American voter. It tends to make the voter more pliable when an incident such as Sept. 11th comes along.
Politicians also depend on our fear of the “other” guy when seeking our approval during elections, or for policy such as “Homeland Security”.
Homeland Security has such a wonderful ring to it, but really, what does it do, or better yet, what does it actually accomplish?
It certainly seems to do little to secure the homeland.
I think the average American voter is only truly reminded of what our government does once a year on April 15th, or during an election cycle. Other than at these times, if it doesn’t affect us personally, we usually just go blithely on with our lives, blinded to what actually happens in DC.
We Americans, as a people, are too lazy to do our own homework, and have been so pounded by the incecent Media noise machine, that we tend to tune out anything that makes us uncomfortable. As a result, we tend to belive only what we are told, without taking the time ourselves to find out what is the actual truth.
This election cycle is a perfect example of the lack of truth.
If we were to belive only what we have been told, all of the current crop of candidates are completely unworthy of being elected, yet we will, once again, have to elect one of these unworthy to lead this country.
This is, I believe, a first. I find myself in agreement with ohrealy, Lee Jamison, and Rocky all in the same article in the same column. I think I will have a beer and toast your good names.
Rocky, a bit of a chicken and egg dilemma? Which must come first for better governance and brighter future, political forces backing electorate education of fact and information, or the electorate holding the politicians responsible at the polls to improve electorate education and information by voting increasing numbers of incumbents who didn’t, out of office and their challengers in?
I suspect both have move toward each other in order for a nexus to form. I hope I am witnessing that happen in this election. Time will tell.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2008 12:43 PMDavid, good article.
Of course, it’s liable to ruffle a few feathers.
David R. Remer wrote: Ignorance: Powerful Political ToolYes, it is a very effective thing to exploit.
However, “ignorance” is actually only one of 5 categories of human traits (with a little over-lap) that are cleverly exploited by incumbent politicians, but “ignorance” is the correct place to start:
- (1) ignorance;
- (2) greed and selfishness;
- (3) misplaced loyalties;
- (4) apathy, complacency, habitualness, and laziness;
- (5) fear, prejudices, and hatred;
Today, the incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly have created a very clever and effective control system that capitalizes on all of those human traits above:
- (a) the two-party duopoly and electoral system (unlike proportional voting systems), which is actually un-democratic by effectively shutting out any other parties, and reduces the voters choices to only two choices.
- (b) and the two-party-lever/button (i.e. to vote straight-party-ticket) which helps to ensure the security of the incumbent politicians’ cu$hy incumbency.
The system is extremely effective, because it:
- cleverly taps into the voters’ ignorance by undermining education, transparency, and accountability.
- cleverly taps into the voters’ prejudices by emphasizing minor differences, rather than major similarities; rather than encouraging unity.
- cleverly taps into the voters’ complacency, apathy, and laziness, by making it easy and fast to vote (i.e. vote straight-party-ticket), effectively accepting all of the party’s candidates and policies, instead of doing the work and research to scrutinize each candidate’s voting record individually.
- cleverly taps into the voters’ desire to belong. Party identification is encouraged. Independent voters are often considered with disdain (even hatred). Main party loyalists refuse to see how the two-party duopoly and electoral system (unlike proportional voting systems) are un-democratic by effectively shutting out any other parties, and reducing the voters choices to only two choices.
- cleverly taps into the voters’ fears and prejudices by capitalizing on the blame game, and encourages voters to believe that the nation’s problems are the fault of the OTHER party (despite those 10 abuses that have been created and perpetuated by incumbent politicians in BOTH parties).
- cleverly taps into the voters’ fear and prejudice by focusing the voters’ disdain and hatred at the OTHER party, rather than THEIR own incumbent politicians’ malfeasance and irresponsibility. Many incumbent politicians understand this all too well, and capitalize on it by fueling the circular, distracting, partisan warfare; pitting voters against each other, rather than the voters’ focusing on THEIR their own incumbent politicians’ malfeasance and irresponsibility. And some voters are all to happy to wallow in the partisan warfare, because it is easier to blame the OTHER party, than admit THEIR own party is little (if any) better.
- cleverly taps into the voters’ loyalties by convincing the voters that the enemy is the OTHER party, distracting the voters from scrutinizing THEIR own party.
- cleverly taps into the voters’ selfishness with empty promises. One-issue voters are easy to bribe with their own tax dollars.
- cleverly taps into the voters’ prejudice against the other party. While voters may not like THEIR party’s candidates, they will NEVER vote for a challenger in the OTHER evil party; once again, ensuring high (93%-to-99%) re-election rates and the security of the incumbent politicians’ incumbencies.
- cleverly taps into the voters’ loyalties and money, despite the sad fact that 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters make 83% of all federal campaign donations.
- cleverly taps into the voters’ habitualness and loyalties. Some voters will always vote Republican (straight-party-ticket) until the day they die. Likewise with Democrats.
- cleverly perpetuates the two-party duopoly and high (93%-to-99%) re-election rates (one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm).
Most (if not all) incumbent politicians know all of that, and work it to their advantage.
Therefore, much more education and information is required.
Then, perhaps someday, the voters will choose wiser.
At any rate, the voters will receive their education either the smart way, or the hard and painful way.
If voters allow government to grow increasingly irresponsible and unaccountable, they will most certainly get their education the hard and painful way.
Today, voters say the economy is ISSUE # 1.
If that is true, the voters should learn more about it.
The first casualty of those 10 abuses above will be the economy, and many economic factors are not looking very rosy:
- (01) Total government debt is larger now (in size and as a percentage of GDP, when including the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching).
- (02) Personal nation-wide debt is MUCH larger now (both in size and as a percentage of the $13.9 Trillion GDP).
- (03) Total nation-wide debt ($53 Trillion) has never been larger (both in size and as a percentage of the $13.9 Trillion GDP).
- (04) Real median household incomes have actually been falling since year 1978 (when also including the fact that there are more workers per household, more regressive taxation, and the disappearing 40-hour work week).
- (05) Illegal immigration is worse, costing American citizens an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion annually in net losses. The problem has quadrupled since the amnesty of year 1986. California is now laying off teachers in the public school system and closed 84 public over-run hospitals, rather than deal with the illegal immigration problem. Thus, the system simply decays and gets worse for everyone; especially American citizens footing the bill. The politicians capitalize on it 3 ways: (a) by dividing the voters, (b) by pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other to depress wages, and (c) by pandering for votes;
- (06) The wealth disparity gap has never been larger since year 1930. It changed direction and has been growing larger since year 1976.
- (07) Taxation has been regressive since year 2000.
- (08) Home equities have never been lower (below 50%) since year 1945.
- (09) Average savings rates are negative (since year 2005), and at the lowest rate (-0.5%) since 1933.
- (10) Energy vulnerability: oil and energy prices have never been higher ever (both in nominal price and adjusted for inflation; now higher than the spike in year 1981 (one-simple-idea.com/OilPrices20080320.gif”).
- (11) Some reports show home ownership increased, but it actually decreased for lower and income groups.
- (12) The federal government has never been larger, and continues to grow to nightmare proportions. There are now more jobs in government than all manufacturing nation-wide.
- (13) Jobs are leaving the nation; a trend that started in the early 1970s, and helps to explain why real median household incomes have actually been falling since year 1978.
- (14) Medicare and Social Security have never been in such dire straits and it will get worse before it gets better, because $12.8 Trillion was borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching (that’s 13,175 new recipients per day!; www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html#2).
- (15) Global competition has never been stronger. Trade deficits have never been larger (see China: www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2008). Transnational corporations want cheap labor. At this rate, when Americans are poor enough and cheap enough, the transnational corporations may return? WageStagnation + CheapLabor = BigProfits
- (16) While inflation was higher in the mid-to-late 1970s and early 1980s, we have had positive inflation since year 1956. 3% to 5% inflation doesn’t sound bad, but when it is every year, it becomes exponential (i.e. 3% this year is really more than 3% of last year, which is more than 3% the year before, etc., etc., etc.). Thus, a 1950 U.S. Dollar is now worth less than 11 cents (one-simple-idea.com/USD_Falling.htm).
- (17) Other exacerbating problems are 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, skyrocketing health care costs, declining quality and rising costs of education, election system problems, lawlessness, and crime rates are on the rise again, after falling for many years.
David R. Remer wrote: Do not educate the electorate, for an educated electorate may take an interest in what politicians do and hold them accountable.Of course!
Do the people that employ those clever tactics above want their victims to understand how they are used and exploited?
Thus, education is the first key step to address the ignorance. Otherwise, ignorance will be exploited (along with the other cleverly exploited traits above: greed, selfishness, misplaced loyalties, apathy, complacency, habitualness, and laziness, fear, prejudices, and hatred).
At any rate, the voters will have the government that the voters elect.
If the voters don’t like it, they only have themselves to thank for it.
If the voters think one person (the Presidente) is going to fix everything, they truly are ignorant (however, that does not minimize the harm one president can do; especially with a complicit/do-nothing Congress).
Regardless of who the next president is, voters should not forget about Congress, which has enjoyed 95% re-election rates (on average) since year 1980 (one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm).
That is, do you want to sabotage your choice for president by saddling the next president with the same FOR-SALE, do-nothing Congress?
If so, pull the party-lever and see what changes.
Continue to habitually pull the party-lever, and the only change you are likely to see is the worsening of those 10 abuses (which did not all come about by mere coincidence).
David R. Remer wrote: We should choose the best quality education our nation can muster. We should promote citizen involvement in government and politics as if our lives and our children’s lives depended on it. We should expect and assist our new and young voters in becoming intelligent voters as opposed to red team - blue team voters.That’s a tough order to fill. Many have already been thoroughly indoctrinated to one party or the other, and people have a strong desire to belong to something (another thing cleverly exploited).
Little do they yet know that everything is much less complicated when they don’t have to constantly twist themselves into a pretzel to rationalize or explain THEIR party’s position.
David R. Remer wrote: We should ourselves hold politicians responsible for results and role model that behavior for our children.Yep. And repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% re-election rates isn’t working. But that’s because voters and politicians seem more preoccupied with winning and retaining seats in Congress, rather than actually solving any problems.
David R. Remer wrote: We should insure our future will be better than our past with these measures.Yes. But it won’t be easy.
On the bright side, there is a built-in self-correction mechanism (a sort of a self-preservation mechanism).
True reforms, and increased responsibility and accountability will probably come about (eventually) when the lack of them finally becomes too painful.
When all else fails, pain and misery is a good motivator and educator too.
To Anyone Who Would Doubt The Ignorance Of The American Electorate:
Give your friends and neighbors the following quiz. (Answers below).
1.) Is the right to privacy in the body or in the amendments to the Constitution?
2.) Where in the Constitution is your right to vote located?
3.) Where in the Constitution are your rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness?
4.) Recite the first 15 words of the preamble of the Constitution.
5.) The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedoms of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly and to Petition the government for redress of grievances. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. What does the 3rd Amendment address?
6.) Who is responsable for ratifying treaties?
7.) If the President, Vice President and Speaker of the House are blown up in a terrorist attack, who would be the President?
8.) Where in the Constitution is the provision for seperation of church and state?
ANSWERS:
1.) Neither. It is an implied right ruled into existance by the SCOTUS.
2.) Nowhere. The 15th Amendment says that the right to vote shall not be abridged on account of race, color or previous condition of servatude. The 19th Amendment says that the right to vote cannot be abridged on account of sex. Nowhere specifically does the Constitution guarantee the right to vote in federal elections.
3.) The right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness is not in the Constitution. You’ll find that in the Declaration of Independance. “Of course”, you say…”Anybody knows that!” Don’t tell that to Bill Clinton. He blew it when addressing an elementary school class, but was roundly given a pass on it by the press, while Dan Quayle was crucified for spelling “P-O-T-A-T-O-E”.
4.) “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…”
5.) The prohibition of quartering of troops in a private household (in time of peace) without the permission of the owner.
6.) The Senate.
7.) Robert Byrd…the President Pro Tempore.
8.) Nowhere. Once again, this is an implied provision ruled into existance by the SCOTUS.
Now, how did you do on this test? How will your friends and neighbors do? Do you think they will do well? Just remember one thing…
According to the National Geographic:
…85% of young Americans (18-24) cannot identify Iraq, Afghanistan or Israel on an unmarked map. 56% cannot find the Indian subcontinent, dangling there so conspicuously into none other than the Indian Ocean. Only 19% can name four countries that acknowledge having nuclear weapons.
Jim T. gave a wrong answer in saying: “1.) Neither. It is an implied right ruled into existance by the SCOTUS.”
It is both an express right in the 4th Amendment below and an implied right in many other Amendments.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Jim, you are batting 2 for 2 wrong. Your second answer is also ignorant of the Constitution. Article One, Section Two specifically states: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”
The amendments expand on this to include universal suffrage from the original white, male, landowners of the several states. And you overlooked Art. 1, Section 4:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.”
And you way overlooked the 19th Amendment, which is by definition a part of the U.S. Constitution as all its amendments are. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Shall I go on, or is this sufficient to motivate a reread of the Constitution for understanding of its contents?
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2008 02:01 PMJim T. got to set you right on your 3rd answer too, which is partly included in the Preamble of the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Liberty, and general welfare, a prerequisite to happiness, are indeed included in the Constitution. Domestic tranquility insures the right to life is not taken unjustly as establishing justice is clearly stated as a primary goal.
Rather ironic to criticize other Americans for Constitutional ignorance while demonstrating it in the same comments, don’t you think? Perhaps it was intentional and the reason will be later revealed.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2008 02:08 PMDavid,
This recent “outrage” over a preacher/mentor of a candidate for president is only the tip of the iceberg. We don’t want the truth, we want what fits our very narrow perception of reality.
IMHO, a person that never leaves the town/city of their birth, has little clue of what the rest of the country, let alone the rest of the world is truly like.
To expand on Jim T’s post above, I would venture a guess that given a map of the US, without the cities marked, a goodly portion of today’s American population couldn’t point out most of the major cities in this country that they didn’t live in.
Innocence is cute in a toddler, innocence is ignorance in a teen or adult.
That there are many in this country that choose to ignore the truly awful things done in the name of this country, both here, and abroad, that have led America to where we are today, is abhorrent.
To recognize only the charitable things that we have done, without understanding that there are grievances, is ignorance.
That was the gist of Pastor Wright’s “hateful” message.
The problem is that we are only spoon-fed the message, over, and over, and over, without bothering to inform ourselves about the context of the message.
As to our elected officials;
They are us. We cannot expect responsibility from our elected officials, if we don’t take the responsibility to elect them. We have been lax in our responsibility.
50% voter turnout is irresponsible.
This isn’t a chicken and egg thing.
We, the American voter, are responsible for our collective mess, and we can’t expect anyone but ourselves to get us out of it.
The complacency in DC is in direct response to our own complacency.
Thanks d.a.n. for your comments. It is indeed a very tall order standing before the American people.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 26, 2008 02:18 PMAlso, number (6) is wrong too:
While the United States Senate here must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate, the Senate does not actually ratify treaties. Once the Senate has given its advice and consent to ratification, the President of the United States ratifies the treaty by signing an instrument of ratification. This requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the U.S. than in other democracies to rally enough political support for international treaties. The United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all.
Also, number (8) is debatable:
While it states no where in the Constitution exactly “separation of church and state”, the 1st Amendment states that:
- Amendment1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”
Rocky,
“The complacency in DC is in direct response to our own complacency.”
I don’t think they are complacent. Their agenda and ours are simply not compatible. They want to be powerful and wish not to have to deal with the inconvenience of answering to us for it. Thus is it expedient to have inferior programming in undergraduate programs in History in the finest Ivy League schools, programs that actually leave non-history majors in those institutions knowing LESS truth about history after graduation than typical high school seniors! (And remember children, G.W.Bush was a Yale History major.)
College undergraduate programming generally is so inferior here that most American science undergraduates can’t compete with foreign students in American graduate schools.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2008 03:01 PMIt is interesting how Jim T gets almost all of his own questions wrong and then attempts to mock people for not being smart enough to know the answers… Priceless!
BTW, Jim T, the Right to Privacy is found in the 9th and 14th amendments, as determined by the Supreme Court. Meaning, they always existed but were just not part of American law until the issue was brought before a judge…
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 26, 2008 04:06 PMDavid,
OH GOD…I am Sooooo glad you decided to chirp right in. I simply KNEW I could count on you!
OK…here we go.
The right to privacy. You wrote:
“It is both an express right in the 4th Amendment below and an implied right in many other Amendments.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
You see, you have the explicit right to be secure from “unreasonable searches and seizures”…but nowhere…nowhere…does it say that you have the explicit right to privacy. Nowhere does it say “The public shall have the right to privacy.” It is only an IMPLIED right, and then ONLY because SCOTUS ruled that way. Were we to take the Constitution literally, we wouldn’t have the Roe v Wade decision. Nowhere is the right to privacy specifically enumerated. Nowhere.
That’s OK. I’ll accept your apology.
Now…on to #2.
You said…
“Your second answer is also ignorant of the Constitution. Article One, Section Two specifically states: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.””
Once again, please point to the section of the Constitution that says, “The public shall have the right to vote for (insert House or Senate, etc.)”
Now…the Constitution specifically says who CANNOT be denied voting privilages, but nowhere in the entire Constitution…nowhere…does it say that the populace has the right to vote. Once again, it is IMPLIED…but it is not specifically defined. Yes, we’ve been voting since the Constitution was ratified, but, once again, the Constitution does not say specifically that you have the right to vote. Nowhere.
This is fun. Let’s keep going, shall we?
You wrote:
“Jim T. got to set you right on your 3rd answer too, which is partly included in the Preamble of the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.””
That is the Constitution. Nowhere does it say “Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness”. Nowhere. It ain’t there. Maybe if you hold the Constitution up in front of a REALLY strong light…
However, let’s check the exact text of the Declaration Of Independance. It says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Score ANOTHER one for Jim T.
Let’s pick on d.a.n. now. d.a.n. said:
“While the United States Senate here must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate, the Senate does not actually ratify treaties.”
Well, d.a.n., since I am being so very picky about wording, I’ll give you that point. The Senate must “advise and consent” (which amounts to ratification…but doesn’t specifically say “ratify”) and I agree. But also without the advice and consent of the Senate, no ratification.
But you’re right on that one.
d.a.n. also said:
“Also, number (8) is debatable…”
FINALLY! My point EXACTLY!!! THANK YOU, d.a.n.!!
Nowhere does the Constitution say that you (specifically) have the right of privacy, the right to vote, the right to an abortion and that there will be a separation of church and state. Absolutely NOWHERE are those specifically enumerated. Nowhere. My point exactly.
And now, to wrap this up…
David said:
“Rather ironic to criticize other Americans for Constitutional ignorance while demonstrating it in the same comments, don’t you think? Perhaps it was intentional and the reason will be later revealed.”
As fas as declaring my Constitution ignorance, may I suggest a mirror would be the best tool to shed light on that opinion.
As to the second part of your opine, yes, it was intentional…to start this very debate.
The debate on what the Constitution actually does and, more importantly, does not say.
The debate on what the Constitution IMPLIES is for another day and time.
Posted by: Jim T at March 26, 2008 04:23 PM
Rocky wrote: The “complacency” in DC is in direct response to our own complacency.True (in a sense). The incumbent politicians clearly do not have the voters’ best interests in mind.
However, it could be stated more accurately that the irresponsibility and corruption in Wasthington D.C. is in direct response to the voters’ “complacency” (and apathy, fears, selfishness, misplaced loyalties, greed, laziness, and ignorance).
But, you are correct.
There is a direct relationship.
As voters become more complacent, government becomes more irresponsible, corrupt, and unaccountable.
“Complacency” is probably the major factor with all voters (in general), since 40%-to-50% of all 200 eligible million voters that do not bother to vote at all.
Then, for the 50%-to-60% of voters that do vote, many of those voters are cleverly exploited in various ways by a system of control mechanisms that have been finely honed over many years.
As a result …
- 90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (and the main stream media is notorious for exacerbating this).
- 99.85% of all 200 million voters are VASTLY out-spent by a very tiny 0.15% of all voters that make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more)
- Since year 1980, the voters have repeatedly rewarded the incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly with 96.5% (on average) seat-retention rates.
- Incumbent politicians have many unfair advantages (one-simple-idea.com/FAQ.htm#UnfairAdvantages).
- Most voters don’t even know who their state and federal senators and representatives are, much less their voting records (OnTheIssues.org).
- Too many voters pull the party lever; many not even knowing who they are voting for, much less the candidates’ voting records.
- Many voters think THEIR politician is grand. Most voters believe MOST politicians are crooked, but many think that THEIR politician is great, such as the voters that re-elected Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA).
- Many voters don’t like THEIR Congress person or THEIR party’s candidate, but they will NEVER vote for a challenger which is almost always in the OTHER party. This helps to maintina the incumbent politicians 95% re-election rates.
- too many voters are one-issue voters, making them easy to manipulate; most voters are easily bribed with their own tax dollars; especially the older voters lobbying for entitlements; too many voters have fallen for the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else.
- Most voters don’t know the size of the National Debt, much less the total federal debt, or the Social Security debt and liabilities, or the nation-wide personal debt (all nation-wide debt is about $53 Trillion).
- Many voters fall for the blame-game and partisan warfare, because it is easier to blame the OTHER party than work to solve problems; foolishly emphasizing minor differences rather than working on unity to solve the many things most of us all already agree upon (the problem and the solution).
- Few (if any) can name 10, 20, 50, 100, or 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable. But then, perhaps that’s because there aren’t any? So, why repeatedly reward them with re-election?
- Many voters whine and complain and give Congress a low approval rating, most voters think the nation is on the wrong track (www.pollingreport.com/right.htm), but most voters repeatedly re-elect and reward the same incumbents, giving them cu$hy 93% to 99% re-election rates.
We can only hope enough voters can see the impending and painful consequences of years and decades of malfeasance and corruption, and can replace enough irresponsible incumbent politicians with some that will earnestly attempt to finally address the nation’s problems, growing in number and severity.
But we may not have much time left, and some unavoidable economic pain and misery is already in the pipeline.
Especially with $53 Trillion in nation-wide debt, and no one able to tell us where the money will come from to pay the interest on the $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the principal $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt (3.81 times the $13.9 Trillion GDP), when that money does not yet exist, and 80% of the U.S. population owns only 17% of all wealth?
Not a good sign … especially when the U.S. Dollar has already plummeted against all major international currencies since year 1999 (one-simple-idea.com/USD_Falling.htm).
Posted by: d.a.n at March 26, 2008 04:43 PMRhinehold.
Annnh! Wrong answer!
You said:
“BTW, Jim T, the Right to Privacy is found in the 9th and 14th amendments, as determined by the Supreme Court. Meaning, they always existed but were just not part of American law until the issue was brought before a judge…”
What was that? “…as determined by the Supreme Court”? You mean…it WASN’T in the Constitution?
Thank you very much for proving my point beyond any reasonable doubt.
As for the 2nd part…”Meaning, they always existed but were just not part of American law until the issue was brought before a judge…”
Does that mean that it is now a part of the Constitution? Nope? Well, I guess that means ANOTHER SCOTUS could overturn it, huh? Since it is not SPECIFICALLY emunerated in the Constitution, it is not law. It is an OPINION. An inference. Nothing more…and can be overturned at any time.
You also said…
“It is interesting how Jim T gets almost all of his own questions wrong…”
Would you like to rephrase that now…or would you like to think about it a while?
Posted by: Jim T at March 26, 2008 04:54 PMJim T. wrote: Does that mean that it is now a part of the Constitution? Nope? Well, I guess that means ANOTHER SCOTUS could overturn it, huh?
Perhaps some amendments to the Constitution are in order.
But good luck with that, since Congress has decided it can flagrantly violate Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution (among other constitutional violations: one-simple-idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations.htm).
Since Congress won’t do their job, it is way past time for the voters to do their job and vote out as many irrepsonsible incumbent politicians as possible (about 467 of 535 would do fine).
Or, continue to reward Congress with 95% re-election rates, and wonder (again and again) what went wrong.
Posted by: d.a.n at March 26, 2008 05:03 PMRhinehold,
Far and away the most dangerous form of “right” is that kind that was undetectable before it was “brought before a judge”, no matter where they found it.
d.a.n. wrote:
“Perhaps some amendments to the Constitution are in order.
But good luck with that, since Congress has decided it can flagrantly violate Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution…”
d.a.n. is absolutely 100% correct.
Don’t you think it’s time to enumerate all the opinions of rights and assumptions of meanings of the Constitution? Don’t you think it’s about time we defined “right to privacy” and put it into the Constitution? Don’t you think it’s about time we defined “separation of church and state” and put it into the Constitution?
The time for an Article 5 Constitutional Convention is long overdue.
David
Is there a time when you recall the government running efficiently? I have never seen or even heard of a government that has run efficiently. I suppose the best in the world is a little place like Singapore, but they are somewhat less enthusiastic about some political rights.
I am not defending our current government. It is screwed up. The Republicans when they got into power acted like Democrats.
Government has fundamental structural problems, as does private business, as do NGOs. Each part of society has its place, but when one gets too big it causes troubles. The Federal Government has gotten too big and intrusive. I will NOT defend the current administration on this. Government GREW in the last eight years. But the Dems are promising to make it even bigger.
Re the idea of individual choice being rational but leading to irrational consequences, I don’t know how to start to explain this. You probably are familiar with the tragedy of the commons ideas, where everyone makes a rational individual choice that leads to an irrational common choice. You may have also heard about the free rider problem. These types of things apply even in the animal kingdom as individuals maximize their individual results by trying to consume or take advantage of common resources.
As I said, the CATO study is not normative, but it is descriptive.
BTW – Socrates was bisexual to some extent, although it does not apply to the way we use the terms in the modern world. That latter fact is missed by people who do not read classical Greek. I studied classical Greek in college, and read the Apology and many other dialogues in the original but I certainly would not advocate making everybody do that. However, I do not believe one can grasp the interpretation of Plato unless you have some familiarity with classical Greek.
There are many ways to interpret anything. As you know, the “correct” interpretation is not always the author’s original intent and most classics have benefited from frequent reinterpretations. One benefit of education is to understand this.
Finally re Adam Smith – Smith described a system he saw developing. Most conservative appreciate his insights, however we do not feel bound by what the man wrote hundreds of years ago. We are more pragmatic than that. Liberals tend to love dogma and I could never explain to them that the free market has no founder in any way comparable to someone like Marx in communism.
Jack wrote: The Republicans when they got into power acted like Democrats.That’s right.
There’s really not that much difference between the two, based on actions and votes.
And the few things and votes the two parties differ on are not that important.
For instance, many Republicans want a law to make flag burning illegal. Democrats do not.
I say we’ve got bigger fish to fry.
Many Republicans want to end abortion.
Democrats don’t.
I say it is futile to try to legislate it.
How about working to make a world where women don’t feel like that is their only option?
Republicans want border security.
Democrats want amnesty.
Both despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and/or votes.
By the way, McCain voted for the first amnesty of 1986.
The Republicans claim to be fiscally responsible.
The Democrats don’t.
The fact is, neither are fiscally responsible.
While our troops were risking life and limb, Congress was giving itself its 9th raise in 10 years (between 1997 and 2007).
The similarities go on and on.
And repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with 95% re-election rates will only make them worse. But I know that is falling mostly on deaf ears, and the voters will simply have to learn the hard and painful way (again).
And that may not be far away.
By the way, I don’t think anyone is expecting perfection, or anything even remotely close to it.
Most voters would be happy with mediocre.
No, it is now more serious. The corruption, irresponsibility, and malfeasance is rampant.
The truth is, politicians in BOTH parties don’t get it. And the only thing that ensures the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies is that too many voters don’t get it either. But they will.
Hence the title of this thread:
- “Ignorance: Powerful Political Tool”
No right to privacy, no right to vote, and no separation of church and state in the constitution, from Jim T, just exactly what kind of country do you think you are living in?
“Rather ironic to criticize other Americans for Constitutional ignorance while demonstrating it in the same comments, don’t you think?” and DRRemer scores a 3 pointer.
“G.W.Bush was a Yale History major”, from Lee Jamison, seriously, how embarrassing for Yale, you’d think they would have eliminated legacies by now, but the money keeps rolling in.
” I suppose the best in the world is a little place like Singapore, ” by Jack. I had to read it over and over just to make sure my eyes were working, but I get the point about smaller being better. Scotland (before Culloden) and the Dutch Republic had more liberties than larger England at the time of the Revolution.
Ignorance is certainly politically useful, and historically, politicians used to have to pretend that they were ignorant too, in many places, in order not to seem elitist among the tobacco spitting fried food eaters in the bucktooth states.
There is still much functional illiteracy in our country, a much larger proportion of the population than people think, and it has actually been getting worse since “no child left behind” succeeded the “war on drugs” as the latest attempt to help people, that actually seems to do the opposite of what was intended.
Posted by: ohrealy at March 26, 2008 07:23 PMLee,
If “stay the course” isn’t complacency, what is it?
Posted by: Rocky at March 26, 2008 11:15 PMJim T, your posts about all of this have been fantastic—well done.
But I can’t really agree with you about the desirability of an Article V Constitution.
Our current Constitution is a most excellent bulwark against the stupidity and incompetence of our government officials and their desire for ever greater amounts of power over our lives.
It never ceases to amaze me that people who can correctly recognize that our leaders are stupid, incompetent, and power-hungry propose as a solution to this problem letting these same stupid, incompetent, and power-crazed individuals rewrite our Constitution. No thanks!
To me the suggestion is akin to fighting organized crime by asking the mafia to rewrite the laws.
Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 27, 2008 12:08 AMFar and away the most dangerous form of “right” is that kind that was undetectable before it was “brought before a judge”, no matter where they found it.
Then our founding fathers were very dangerous people, since that is how they designed this country, and why they added the 9th amendment…
I thought you were a Constitution supporter?
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2008 12:46 AM“BTW, Jim T, the Right to Privacy is found in the 9th and 14th amendments, as determined by the Supreme Court. Meaning, they always existed but were just not part of American law until the issue was brought before a judge…”What was that? “…as determined by the Supreme Court”? You mean…it WASN’T in the Constitution?
No, it was in the Constitution. It just wasn’t specifically listed in the constitution since the Constitution is not where are rights are defined. The document is a listing of limits that the federal government can operate within, not a ‘giver’ of rights.
Thank you very much for proving my point beyond any reasonable doubt.
*laugh* If your point was that you are wrong and continue to be wrong because you are anti-abortion, then you’ve made it quite clear. Perhaps you should read the writings of the people who wrote the Constitution and specifically the 9th amendment before you go on with your ignorant Republican talking points?
As for the 2nd part…”Meaning, they always existed but were just not part of American law until the issue was brought before a judge…”Does that mean that it is now a part of the Constitution? Nope? Well, I guess that means ANOTHER SCOTUS could overturn it, huh? Since it is not SPECIFICALLY emunerated in the Constitution, it is not law. It is an OPINION. An inference. Nothing more…and can be overturned at any time.
Yes, another SCOTUS could overturn it, just as another SCOTUS could overturn freedom of religion if they interpret the Consitution in a way that would allow that. That doesn’t mean that it is about to happen anytime soon because both decisions are right and sound based on what the Constitution says.
You also said…“It is interesting how Jim T gets almost all of his own questions wrong…”
Would you like to rephrase that now…or would you like to think about it a while?
Nope, I think it is pretty accurate.
I have two questions for you, I’m curious if you will answer them…
Where do citizens get their rights from?
What does the 9th amendment mean when it says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I will await your Republican anti-abortion talking…. err, I mean your well thought out answers to those two questions…
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2008 12:57 AMJim T. offered the following hollow retort:
You see, you have the explicit right to be secure from “unreasonable searches and seizures”…but nowhere…nowhere…does it say that you have the explicit right to privacy. Nowhere does it say “The public shall have the right to privacy.”
So, your argument is that unless the Constitution is written in YOUR words, it means whatever you want it to mean? Rather dictatorial, don’t you think? The rioght to one’s personal papers and privacy from entry at home and right to personal property are all part of privacy. If you are looking for an absolute right to privacy amongst 300 million people, you won’t find it in reality or in the Constitution.
But, privacy rights are defined in the Constitution, as I have quoted you, and others here have referred. Your reading level appears not up to their discovery. But if you wish to persist in making ignorant comments in defense of previous comments which are demonstrably in error, I understand. My dad gave me lots of practice to develop an understanding of willful and intentional ignoring of fact and reality.
This is a likely a futile gesture in education but, Sup.Ct. rulings become part and parcel of the law of the land which extends from the Constitution, that too is in the Constitution, but written in a way as to be obscured from your comprehension level, perhaps?
Your comments are living proof of the old addage, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink. Accepting other’s right to not drink from the pool of understanding and reality is one of the more taxing rights for liberty lover’s to bear.
To summarize your reply’s argument ‘The Constitution doesn’t say things the way I insist they be said, nor with the exact words I would use, and therefore, anyone who reads into the Constitution’s words something I don’t recognize as in my words, is talking through their hat.’
Unbelievable, but, that is your argument. Thanks for the chuckle.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2008 01:16 AMRhinehold asked: “Where do citizens get their rights from?”
I will bite. :-)
From two places actually. First they get their rights from the violent taking of them from those who previously deprived them of them. We witnessed this with the Revolutionary War.
And with the advent of the establishment of a government delineating rights, and for as long as that government is tolerated by the people through an approximation of justice in protecting and defending commonly agreed upon rights of the people, the people for the duration of their government derive their rights from that government with the protections of them afforded by it.
In short, our founders derived their rights through violence and war overthrowing the external definers of their rights (England). Today, we derive our rights from the common acceptance of their definition in our Constitution, Legislation, Court interpretation, and varying capacity of the courts to administer justice in the protection of those rights.
The Founding Fathers waxed poetic about the Creator and certain unalienable rights, but, the reality was, King George defined their rights and overthrowing King George’s rule in the colonies permitted the founders to define their own rights for themselves. The creator was not a participant in the Revolutionary War as far as I have read, though luck and providence have been well argued as participants in the outcome of that war.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2008 01:41 AMDavid, Jim T has never denied that Supreme Court rulings carry the weight of law.
Or that notions like “privacy”—when applied to matters like unreasonable search and seizure—are absent from the Constitution. He’s talking about the tendency to extrapolate from such a right and interpret it more broadly than its wording in the Constitution. To create, for example, a “right of privacy” that can be applied to abortion because we have a right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Don’t blame or ridicule Jim if you find even moderately nuanced reasoning too difficult to keep up with. It’s not fair to hold the comments of some posters responsible for the limitations in the reasoning abilities of others.
Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 27, 2008 01:42 AMRhinehold asked also of this passage: “What does the 9th amendment mean when it says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.””
We have a common understanding I think until reaching the words ‘retained by the people’. Then we have disagreed in the past. Perhaps this time will be different.
I believe the word ‘retained’ does not imply a bank in which undefined rights are deposited until withdrawal sometime in the future. I believe the word retained refers to the People’s right to assert such other rights in the future as may yet be undefined, either through the legal process or another revolution.
Hence, I view unenumerated rights as undefined rights and therefore, no rights at all until asserted by the People. Once asserted by the People, however, they become defined by the People’s behavior. A good example is the plethora of medicinal marijuana now found in stores in S. California. The law says they have no right to it. The people have nonetheless asserted their right to it, and in such numbers as to make enforcement of the law, arbitrary, capricious, and unrealistic if applied equally to all offenders of the law.
Ergo, despite the law depriving the people of the right to marijuana, the people have asserted the right in such numbers as to have, for all intents and purposes, defined the right as legitimate and defined the prohibiting law as unjust and in violation of the equal application and protection premises of the law. The law against marijuana now stands in opposition to other laws regarding equal enforcement, and therefore is rendered an unjust law.
The Sup. Ct. may uphold the unjust law, but, that will NOT change the fact that the right to MJ has been asserted and defined by the People. It is to this very kind of situation I believe the word in the quoted Constitutional text ‘retained’ refers.
Since the government in the U.S. derives its legitimacy from the people, and the people derive their rights from the government, in a clash between the government and the people over a right, it is likely the people shall define the right in the long run, not the government. Prohibition of alcohol was another such example.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2008 01:58 AMLoyal Opp said : “David, Jim T has never denied that Supreme Court rulings carry the weight of law.”
Hate to burst your bubble their guy, but you must have missed Jim T.’s comment above where he said:
“Since it is not SPECIFICALLY emunerated in the Constitution, it is not law. It is an OPINION. An inference.”
Note that Supreme Court rulings are not specifically enumerated in the constitution, and therefore, Jim T. claims such rulings are just opinions and not law.
You gotta keep up Loyal Opp, if you don’t want to find your own comments refuted demonstrably.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2008 02:04 AMThe reason the Constitution was different than other agreements between the government and the citizenry, like the Magna Carta, is that it was written as a limitation of what government can do, not as a document listing the rights the citizens retained. That is the purpose of the 9th amendment, to ensure that people did not forget this fact, which apparently has failed since so many are ignorant to this very important point.
If the government acts within the constrained limits of the constitution, it does not violate those rights that the citizens retained by simply being human beings. The enumerated rights were put in place to placate those who wanted it made very clear that there were rights that the citizens had not had when under English rule. But those writing the documented also wanted to make sure that people didn’t come along some day and say ‘it’s not listed as a right so it doesn’t exist’.
I know this is one area where we disagree, David, but as I have stated before history is well on my side on this one. The writings of the founding fathers are still around and can be looked up. They were not ambiguous about what the 9th amendment meant.
If a society gives up a right in order to enter the violation of that right into a social contract, they can do so, but it has to be done with the rules of the document that governs that social contract, in other words with a Constitutional Amendment.
Locke, Paine, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams… These people were very clear on what they meant and the creation of our government was founded on these beliefs.
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. … They…consequently are instruments of injustice.The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
And more importantly, Hamilton wrote:
It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John…It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. “We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government….Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2008 02:10 AMI go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
David,
Alcohol and Marijuana are a great example…
In order for the sale of alcohol (remember, it was not illegal to make your own alcohol or to drink alcohol at the time) to be illegal required a constitutional amendment.
Now, we have Marijuana, which is very similar but the government ignored the limits placed upon it and has stepped outside of its bounds to violate the right we have as human beings to live our lives in liberty. That’s not a platitude, but a specific meaning.
That it has continued to occur is not because we derive our rights from the government, but because we have not actively stopped the violation of the government in stepping outside of its bounds. The body that is charged with ensuring that this doesn’t happen has failed in its duty so it is left to the people to put the government back into its constitutoinal limits legally if possible and through violating an unjust law or even revolution if it comes to that.
If, however, you believe that rights are handed out like candy from the government, then Jim starts to make a point that the government CAN decide that we don’t have a right to privacy and take it away from us. The fact that we have the power to push back and prevent those abuses is evidence enough that the ultimate power of what rights the citizens have comes from the citizens, not government.
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2008 02:20 AMWe have a common understanding I think until reaching the words ‘retained by the people’. Then we have disagreed in the past. Perhaps this time will be different.
The problem is that you are trying to interpret what the passage means. I, on the other hand, go to the person who wrote the passage and read what he meant when he wrote it. In this aspect, I consider that my view to be the more accurate one, unless we aren’t interested in what it actually means but how it fits within the views of who is reading it…
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2008 02:25 AMRhinehold, I agree entirely with your first paragraph of reply.
I have to disagree with the opening sentence of your second: “If the government acts within the constrained limits of the constitution, it does not violate those rights that the citizens retained by simply being human beings.”
The government was NEVER meant, and was specifically designed to NOT be constrained to the original text of the Constitution, by the 1)Amendment process, 2)the power granted to the Courts to resolve legal question disputes, and 3)the power of the people to add additional constraints, prohibitions, and liberties through their Congressional representatives. The instant these provisions were set to ink in the Constitution, it introduced the potential of infringing upon individually perceived rights and what you might call unenumerated rights, through the human condition of fallibility.
The founders contemplated a ‘more’ perfect union, not a perfect union. Some of the founders expressed grave reservations over the survivability of this new government given the fallibility of those who would empower it, the people, and those who would run it, the politicians.
And as I argued, simply being a human being entails no rights. A single human being on the Savannah of Africa eaten by a lion suddenly does not even have the perception of rights, let alone any natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness free from the threat of lions on the Savannah.
In fact, a single human being on a deserted island has no need for even the concept of rights. Nature will interact with that human being as it will, and the human being with nature as (s)he will. Rights have no meaning in such a context.
It is only when more than one human being must coexist with another human being, (religion excluded for obvious reasons), that the word ‘rights’ has any need for being introduced into language and thought at all. Therefore, the definition of rights is whatever the people define for themselves.
There is nothing inherent or intrinsic to the human individual that ushers forth the concept of rights. That occurrence of the concept of rights is brought about by the need for rules when multiple human beings are congregated to interact.
Even in primitive societies, where numbers make might, and might makes right, there was a form of democracy at work in which rights were defined by the people as needed to preserve the interests of the majority (might).
This is one of the significant differences between primitive societies and civilizations. In primitive societies might acts on behalf of the people. In civilizations, might is prone to act on behalf of the minority elite. By contrast, France and the U.S. altered that pattern in civilization by attempting to insure that might would be applied equally to protect both the majority (the people) and the elite minorities (government officials, corporation execs, etc.)
Rhinehold, our founders were not infallible gods. They were men in an historical context, full of flaws and ignoble ends. Their references though poetic and religiously based in order to appeal to the sensibilities of the people to be governed by their creation, nevertheless, when religious context is removed, are illogical on their face. As my discussion herein demonstrates. Remove religious reference, and the individual human being has no need nor cause for even the concept of ‘rights’. It is the interaction of people and their goal of civil non-warlike interaction, that creates the need for a concept like ‘rights’ to be defended in all cases for the greater good of all.
You simply must separate the religious context from the logical and rational when attempting to understand this notion of rights. The founders made provisions for slavery in order to create a more perfect union. They were wrong to do so on ethical grounds and on grounds that such provisions would inevitably fail posterity’s needs.
Their concept of enumerated rights was derived from the definitions they, and the people themselves assented to in the ratification. The unenumerated ‘rights’ retained by the people, are meaningless UNTIL asserted and defined by the people. The logic is inescapable and irrefutable and demonstrable by asking the simple request: “enumerate the unenumerated rights to which the founders refer.”
It is a logical impossibility. Hence, unenumerated rights are unenforceable, and have no meaning whatsoever outside a religious context. Only when they are enumerated are they potentially enforceable and protectable.
The founding fathers would no doubt recognize the logic inherent in my words and accede to it as far as it goes, for they were eminently logical the most of them; but with the counter argument that it is the religious context of rights endowed by a creator which need no enumeration to retain their status as rights.
If you wish to pursue the religious context for unenumerated rights, that’s fine, but that is a whole other matter with a whole other plethora of inherent problems as you and I both well know.
Religious context aside, it is impossible for you or the founding fathers to ‘enumerate the unenumerated rights’, and therefore, they are not rights at all until enumerated, for they cannot take on the mantle of protection and enforcement UNTIL they are enumerated. And logically, rights without protection or enforcement are no rights at all. The Supreme Court has been eminently logical and explicit on this point on a host of occasions, many stemming from the Civil Rights struggle.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2008 03:03 AMRhinehold said: “In order for the sale of alcohol (remember, it was not illegal to make your own alcohol or to drink alcohol at the time) to be illegal required a constitutional amendment.”
Not at the state and local level. State and local laws prevail today as in ‘dry’ counties despite the federal redaction of prohibition. At the federal level, alcohol consumption and production were an asserted and defined right exercised by the people, and yes, you are right, an amendment was required to take away that asserted right defined by the people participating in its production and consumption.
But, too, because the ‘right’ to consume alcohol had already been defined and asserted by the people, the federal government was way over its head in trying to enforce a legal prohibition. The right to alcohol was defined and asserted by the people. There was nothing unalienable about the right to make and consume alcohol. Just as there is nothing unalienable about the right ingest THC. It is a defined right by the people and an asserted right by the people, and therefore, no law can stop it.
Unenumerated rights are meaningless outside of a religious context, except in reference to future rights which the people may define and assert, as the 9th Amendment references.
You make the illogical error, as I see it, in trying to define unenumerated rights as predefined, when clearly, the 9th Amendment refers to the people as the definer of such rights, which logically has to be a future unrealized event precisely because the definition of unenumerated means not yet defined.
I am sure this is the fulcrum of our disagreement.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2008 03:26 AMRhinehold said: “The problem is that you are trying to interpret what the passage means. I, on the other hand, go to the person who wrote the passage and read what he meant when he wrote it.”
But you are failing to also read the context in which it was written. There isn’t one logic for the 18th century and another for the 21st. There is but one logic, and the difference if any is historical context.
But, this is not our difference. The founders wrote what they wrote, and if they conferred an illogical or religious definition to what was written, in their individual explanations, those individual explanations of meaning and intent are subject to the same rules of logic which apply today. They weren’t gods, Rhinehold, they were fallible, and in many cases foggy in their vision and understanding. After all, there were few texts upon which to rely as a map in this experiment of creating a form of government the likes of which civilization had yet never witnessed before.
Sure they built upon models generally described in the classics of their day, but, those texts were vague and not very detailed when it came to mapping out the kind of Constitution and structure of government and its interactions as they sought to bring about with consensus from their disparate visions and imaginings.
Errors were made Rhinehold. There is no escaping the logic that unenumerated rights are undefined and being undefined, await the future to become enforceable and protectable rights. It is meaningless to say one has a ‘right’ which is unenforceable and unprotectable. That is not a right in any real sense at all.
Without definition, uneumerated rights are but a place holder for future events used to reference a yet unknown future definition. When understood this way, the 9th Amendment is very plain, and has the added benefit of being useful and practical as well as a guide for future action.
When understood as something predefined which is not yet defined, such reference lacks comprehension and usefulness and leads to endless misunderstanding as you and I have well demonstrated.
Posted by: David R. Remer at March 27, 2008 03:44 AMBorrowing from David’s post earlier- Rhinehold said: “In order for the sale of alcohol (remember, it was not illegal to make your own alcohol or to drink alcohol at the time) to be illegal required a constitutional amendment.”
It should be remebered that the first major test of George Washington’s leadership was his taking federal troops, in person to enforce taxes on the production of alcohol. Taxes represent a restriction, so, obviously the freedom to engage in this unenumerated right was not absolute.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 27, 2008 10:10 AMI should have said his leadership as president
Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 27, 2008 10:11 AMJim T,
Are you sure you exist? After all, the constitution doesn’t explicitly say it.
BTW, I have yet to know of anyone who the Constitution has actually spoken to…
This message was brought to you by Neanderthal Literalism.
Posted by: googlumpus at March 27, 2008 12:22 PMWhile the Constitution has several ambiguous portions, there are numerous unambiguous violations of the Constitution that most Americans are totally unaware of.
Lawlessness can only lead to more of it.
Crime rates are rising (after falling for many years).
Illegal immigration is rampant, which is one huge and obvious violation of existing laws, and the result is what we are seeing now in California. Hundreds of overrun hospitals are closing (84 or more in California alone), public school teachers are being laid off, and Medical and other numerous burdens are costing American citizens an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion in net losses annually. That could buy a lot of health care and education for American citizens. For some reason, it appears many Americans have more compassion for illegal aliens than their own children and fellow citizens. So be it. That’s fine. But don’t complain afterwards about closing hospitals, teacher layoffs, declining education, crime, and the other numerous net losses to American citizens.
Thus, the result is that those systems (hospitals, public education, etc.) are increasingly screwed-up for everyone. Everyone loses.
And many teachers who are now complaining about those teacher layoffs were the same teachers that think we should educate illegal aliens. Well, compassion is nice, but not when it leaves your own children and your own citizens without those tax-payer services (i.e. education, healthcare, welfare, Medical, Medicaid, etc.) that are abused by tens of millions illegal aliens.
The voters (based on polls) are saying the ECONOMY is ISSUE # 1.
However, do they not understand that lawlessness, illegal immigration, regressive taxation, 2 wars, election problems, declining quality of education systems (while rising in cost; largely due to illegal immigration), usuruious and inflationary monetary policies, and massive nation-wide debt ($53 Trillion), and rising health care costs (also exacerbated by illegal immigration) all affect the ECONOMY ?
I just heard Obama say something revealing.
Paraphrasing, Obama said the many abuses hurting most Americans did not come about by mere accident.
That’s right. These many abuses hammering most Americans did not all come about by mere accident.
But what is it voters expect to be done about the ECONOMY, if the voters are unaware and unwilling to look at the 10 abuses hurting the ECONOMY ?
But what is it voters expect to be done about the ECONOMY, if the voters are unwilling to stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% re-election rates?
It simply makes no sense to complain about the ECONOMY, and then ignore the things hurting the ECONOMY.
At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect.
Posted by: d.a.n at March 27, 2008 12:27 PMFirst, I want to apologise for not replying earlier. I have some creditors that prefer that I work and make money to pay them. Don’t know whyyyyyy…
Second, I’d like to clear up some misconceptions and assumptions that have been made about me.
1.) I’m not a Republican nor am I pushing a Republican agenda. Get that out of your heads. It AIN’T right. I am a Conservative (true). I am an ex-Republican (true). I am a Libertarian (true). For all of you who dismiss my arguments as “Neo-Con” or Republican agenda stuff, you’re doing yourself and others a disservice.
2.) I’m not a “pro-lifer”. I am absolutely for women being able to do whatever they want with their bodies. If they want to have an abortion, that’s their choice. If they want to use abortion as a birth control, go for it (and the taxpayers SHOULD have to pay for it). Less “knee-biters” around, the better. Better for our collective nerves in crowded eateries and better for the environment. No people = no human caused global warming. At least whatever species of animals that are left won’t have to sweat or be uncomfortable.
3.) The interpretations of the SCOTUS (opinions) have the force of law. Even notice when the media reports on rulings of the SCOTUS, they say things like, “in a 5 to 4 decision, it is the OPINION of the court that…” and, “The Supreme Court’s OPINION effects…”. Hummmm? Ever notice that? That’s what the SCOTUS does. It hands down OPINIONS. The SCOTUS does NOT make laws. It decides whether the subject at hand is covered by the Constitution and then renders its OPINION on how the subject at hand is covered or not covered in the Constitution. Once again, to be absolutely clear, their opinions have the force of law (for the moment), until their opinions are overturned or confirmed by a future SCOTUS.
Now, to answer individual comments:
ohrealy wrote:
“No right to privacy, no right to vote, and no separation of church and state in the constitution, from Jim T, just exactly what kind of country do you think you are living in?”
I’m living in the United States of America and looking at the Constitution and I STILL haven’t found the explicit rights to privacy, the vote or seperation of church and state. They aren’t there. They are IMPLIED…inferred if you will…but they aren’t there in black and white. They simply
do not exist. If they were there in black and white, they couldn’t suffer the fate of being overturned by a future SCOTUS.
Consider this argument:
A future SCOTUS says that prayer will be allowed in school. You say, “No! There is a seperation of church and state!” The SCOTUS says, “Point it out to us. Where does it say that there will be a seperation of church and state?” You won’t be able to, as seperation of church and state is an IMPLIED interpretation, rather than it being EXPLICITLY stated in the Constitution.
You want the concept of seperation of church and state in the Constitution? Article V Convention.
ohrealy then wrote:
“Rather ironic to criticize other Americans for Constitutional ignorance while demonstrating it in the same comments, don’t you think?” and DRRemer scores a 3 pointer.”
Nope. Not even close. David has yet to point out specific wording in the Constitution that secures unto the citizenry the rights to vote, privacy and seperation of church and state. And you know something? He won’t be able to…because specific wording does not exist that guarantees us those rights or concepts. The only thing that David, Rhinehold or anyone else can do is to point to implied wording in articles or amendments.
As an example:
In the Amendments to the Constitution, your right to vote cannot be abridged because of race or sex. It never said that you have the right to vote in the first place…only that your right to vote cannot be abridged because of race or sex. Who gave you the right to vote? Certainly NOT the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution are any words to the effect of “Hey…you have the right to vote.” Nowhere. It’s not there. Please look for those words in the Constitution, but please don’t be disappointed when you don’t find them. They…aren’t…there. They are only implied.
David wrote:
“…The unenumerated ‘rights’ retained by the people, are meaningless UNTIL asserted and defined by the people.”
Well, why don’t we define some? Not all, because, as you astutely observed, that would be an impossibility.
Do you think that the right to privacy is important? Well, let’s define it and put it in the Constitution. Article 5 Convention.
Do you think that the concept of seperation of church and state is a good concept? Well, let’s define it and put it into the Constitution. Article 5 Convention.
Do you think that there should be an equal rights amendment? Article 5 Convention.
Do you think that Congress should be required to deliver a balanced budget? Article 5 Convention.
Do you think that Representatives and Senators should have a term limit like the President does? Article 5 Convention.
I’m not saying that an Article 5 Convention is the be-all and end-all for all our problems, but you must admit it would clear up some vague parts of the Constitution and define some parts that desperately need to be defined. Parts that need to be defined on a permanent basis…not just defined until another SCOTUS under politically different times overturns “rights” or “concepts”.
Remember, there is no specific wording in the Constitution for our right to privacy…it is only implied.
There is no specific wording in the Constitution for seperation of church and state…it is only implied.
There is no specific wording in the Constitution providing your right to vote…it is only implied.
Enough for now, I have to get back to work.
Posted by: Jim T at March 27, 2008 01:14 PMI’m not saying that an Article 5 Convention is the be-all and end-all for all our problems,That’s right. It isn’t.
Besides, Congress won’t allow it (despite 38 states (more than the 34 states (i.e. two-thirds) that have submitted applications for a BALANCED BUDGET amendment).
The voters must first do their job, since Congress won’t do its job, and repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 95% re-election rates ain’t workin’ !
But, it’s up to the voters, and if the voters like Congress the way it is, then it is their choice to repeatedly reward it with 95% re-election rates. But it doesn’t make much sense to give Congress dismally low 11-to-18% approval ratings, and then reward incumbent politicians with 95% re-election rates does it?
Just think, maybe we wouldn’t have a $9.4 Trillion National Debt, and $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security (leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching) if the Congress had obeyed the Constitution and allowed the states the chance (as required by Article 5) to ratify a BALANCED BUDGET amendment?
Posted by: d.a.n at March 27, 2008 01:44 PMJim T, I noticed you completely ignored the two questions I had for you, as I expected.
Had you seriously thought about the questions you might not appear so ignorant about constitutional law…
Perhaps you should go and read the decision of the court in Roe V Wade and see where they saw a clear right to privacy in the 9th amendment with the 14th amendment enforcing it through state laws as well as federal…
Posted by: Rhinehold at March 27, 2008 02:15 PMThe government was NEVER meant, and was specifically designed to NOT be constrained to the original text of the Constitution, by the 1)Amendment process, 2)the power granted to the Courts to resolve legal question disputes, and 3)the power of the people to add additional constraints, prohibitions, and liberties through their Congressional representatives. The instant these provisions were set to ink in the Constitution, it introduced the potential of infringing upon individually perceived rights and what you might call unenumerated rights, through the human condition of fallibility.
I have never once suggested that the constitution was not to be altered or changed through the years. And yes, if the constitution goes through the amendment process it can be altered. Though I disagree with the ways it can be altered, the laws made by the people with a simple majority in congress cannot alter the limits that are placed on government in the constitution, that can only take a Constitutional Amendment (which requires much more than a simple majority). The powers can be ‘expanded’ by the SCOTUS, but then it really isn’t expanding but clarifying where the limits are.
And as I argued, simply being a human being entails no rights. A single human being on the Savannah of Africa eaten by a lion suddenly does not even have the perception of rights, let alone any natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness free from the threat of lions on the Savannah.
I would disagree. Any human has the rights, but they may not be able to enforce them. This is no unique to natural rights, if a government decides not to enforce other rights that are expressly enumerated, it is the same issue.
Having a right and having that right guaranteed are two different things. And contrary to your assertion, basic human rights, natural rights as they are called, do not require religion to be involved in any way. It is simply the natural state of things.
This is where get crossed up, IMO. I have a right to live my life without interferrence as long as I am not violating the rights of others to the same. BUT, if someone comes along with a large enough force, they can violate those rights. That doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, only that they cannot or are not being enforced effectively.
In f