Professor Barnett definitely won for me. He showed that the Constitution has issues and that there's a way for those issues to be fixed. They aren't fixed by judges on the bench. They aren't fixed by our feelings. They aren't fixed with unconstitutional legislation. They are fixed by properly amending the Constitution to right the wrongs. I loved the line about the Constitution governing the people who govern us. The "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" line was also fantastic. That's what applies to the people. We can do absolutely anything that we want to do. The government's job isn't to dictate what we can and cannot do. It's to ensure that the liberty of all of us stays intact. It's to ensure that our rights are not infringed. I'm not a lawyer, a judge, or a professor. I'm just a normal dumb guy but it doesn't seem difficult to me. Anyone who fights for and argues the opposite of the above is questionable in my book. They are arguing against our liberty.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing,or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or it is powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist" -Lysander Spooner
"Shall Not Be Infringed" means all gun regulations are unconstitutional. It means pass an Amendment to the Constitution if you want to make a change. The Supreme Court decisions on this need to be overturned.
2VNews #1 If they do that, because North Carolina and Rhode Island had said they wouldn't ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights protecting their citizens could succeed from the Union because at that time the federal government would be breaching this agreement. Maybe even possibly every state that joined after 1791 would have that right as well?
2VNews #2 The right to bear arms is considered an unalienable right. Meaning it was given to us by our creator. The 2A doesn't "give" us the right to bear arms, it protects it. Even an animal will defend itself when attacked.
2VNews #3 The 2A basically guarantees us the right to fight tyranny and oppression. So even if they were able to amend the constitution abolishing the right to bear arms, the people would have 3 options: A) Submit B) Rise up and rebel against our government until they fixed it by reinstating the right to bear arms the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments. C) Instead of rebelling with an overhaul in mind, rebelling to overthrow our government all together and start from scratch with a NEW government and a NEW Constitution. The framers of the Constitution wrote the 1st & 2nd Amendments because they remembered where they came from! That's why they are attacking our 1st Amendment as well. If we can't organize then we can't fight.
There appear to be no US Constitutional police who uphold the law by charging elected and appointed officials and getting criminal convictions. The voters might be able to choose people who actual uphold the US Constitution and support the USA, but that seems less likely.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. -Lysander Spooner
That's funny because the amendments are really the issue and the people put that in so blame the constitution or blame people that dont uphold the constitution is the question.
I think Dorf's strongest argument, which Barnett didn't refute, was that originalists have a "mushy" definition of the Constitution themselves. It's just a different mode of interpreting it, not that different from the "living Constitution" perspective, that it is malleable. I kept wishing Barnett would refute that point by saying the point of originalism is not to say there is one "correct" way to interpret the Constitution. Obviously people having different perspectives will have variation in the way they interpret even the original public meaning of the wording--and originalists, such as himself, disagree with each other about the interpretation, as Barnett gave a few examples. However, having knowledge of the original public meaning, and caring to honor it, *constrains* the possible interpretation. It provides boundaries to how it can be interpreted. Barnett gave a version of this saying it provides a point of comparison. I don't see that as strong of a concept as what I've laid out here. A "living Constitution" mode of interpretation allows judges to come up with whatever meaning they wish, as they think practical circumstances dictate, or that of their own personal whims, that satisfies their own personal version of "justice." It is unmoored from any standard that the public attempted to establish through law via. legislation and political activism, when it was written. It leaves judges free to say that that activity is entirely irrelevant to their jurisprudence, but the result of their labor is useful to present circumstances. It's a way of saying to past generations who fought hard to gain certain protections, "Thanks, but go jump in a lake. What was your fight is not *my* fight." Maybe the law was meant to protect what people fight for today, but judges don't have to consider that with "living constitutionalism," because in effect your fight becomes something that *they* get to either take ownership of, or become yet another opponent of, just because they don't like what you stand for. True, originalist justices can be subject to the same bias. They may not like the cause you fight for, but being faithful to some standard of what the law meant when it was fought for means you still have a chance with them, because it gives them the chance to do their job, which is to interpret the law faithfully, regardless of their personal biases. Living constitutionalism does not provide that opportunity, because it provides no constraints, except for what modern politics might motivate them to hold back on. Again, it's for the convenience of the justices, not for the citizenry. Secondly, Dorf seemed to keep making the point that, "Originalists feel forced to change the original meaning when they try to adapt what they perceive as the original meaning to present circumstances." I think that's a false premise, and unfortunately, Barnett let it slip by. Just because circumstances change does not mean that the original meaning of the law becomes irrelevant. Just because we communicate electronically now does not mean that the original meaning of freedom of speech or freedom of the press is irrelevant, because we no longer use printing presses and paper. There are principles behind the law, derived from the original public understanding of it, that still apply, because the principles underlying those activities are still with us. What originalists should say is, "Don't attach law to form. Attach it to principles of action or inaction, but derive the principles from what were contemporary circumstances and forms, and what people understood legal terms to mean." As Barnett said, if we don't like what our understanding of the original public meaning of the law is, we should change the law via. legislation, or the amendment process. One of the canards that originalists should stamp out forcefully is the notion that Dorf implied, which is that, "According to originalists, once it's in law, we're stuck with its original meaning, no matter how impractical, forever and ever."
When law can be interpreted to any end, then there is no law. This is wrong because it is no longer like a contract. Some really bad laws are laws that let others write laws, like letting bureaucrats write regulations, which are laws. In the State of Illinois, there is a bill to allow communities to decide if gun shops should exist or not, this is not a contract, it is arbitrary, not dissimilar to the lawlessness of royalty and dictators.
Good point. I remember years ago my parents wanted to build a shed in their backyard. (I was like just put it in other neighbors have sheds) Apparently their homeowners association required anyone to submit the request to ALL the neighbors so they could vote on it. 🙄 *anyways... they got the "approval". Smh I guess some people would rather ask forgiveness than permission😅
Excellent debate! Thank for helping make this possible. Also the 2nd Amendment could not be more clear. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms *shall not* be infringed”
Noah Danielson "a well regulated militia" should be kept in the context of its time to better understand it. While a militia even at that time was understood as a lower part of the military mainly used for defense, it was also understood at the time that a militia was both armed civilians as well as a locally created and maintained military force seperate from the central government. Also "well regulated" basically meant "properly trained" in arms (which included all weapons even military weapons such as warships, cannons, melee weapons etc)
The 2nd Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. Moreover, militia consists of ordinary people. If the government dictates the terms of a militia specifically what it considers to be "well-regulated", that defeats the whole purpose of the amendment. On that ground, the government can proceed to outright ban guns because it can just claim that no one is "well-regulated".
If we follow the constitution, we could have "originalists" rewrite the constitution to make all of the vague language "clear as originally intended" (good luck with that!) and get rid of all that we've since obsoleted by amendments, incorporate all amendments into the new text, and then propose this new constitution via a convention. If it can't pass, then modify it to incorporate the objections and try again. If we can't even agree on what the constitution says/means, we clearly have no obligation to obey it.
That seems to be the goal of some short-sighted folks who would lose the ensuing civil war. The path paved by the Russians is pointing folks in directions they don't understand the end-results of - it won't be all love, peace and happiness.
A major good reason for a federal government is for common defense against foreign enemies. ... Sometimes I question how many foreign enemies have gotten into the federal government under FDR, under Obama, in colleges and universities.
I love these debates but you guys really need to fix the audio. Its often very unbalanced and difficult to hear in many sections. This was unfortunately one of the worst on that front despite being one of the best debates in substance.
The ONLY Amendment that is subject to current popular opinion IS the 8th Amendment! It was written to be a "Living Amendment". I'm a originalist, but even I must concede that "Cruel and unusual punishment" is solely dependant on what the public perceives to be "cruel and unusual". Back when the public supported branding a horse thief's face at a time when our country was mostly desert and wilderness, therefore stealing someone's horse could be fatal due to being at the mercy of the elements, it was CONSTITUTIONAL. Today, the concensus of public opinion would be that branding someone's face would be considered "cruel and unusual".
May as well argue that the North Star is arbitrary. It is after all only one amongst thousands of points of visible light in the night sky. Despite its seemingly arbitrary position, its consistent occupancy of that position can provide guidance. Similarly any seemingly arbitrary law when applied consistently can provide stability.
It is interesting to note that ReasonTV appears to not support the intellectual rights with regards to software, but appears to support the US Constitution.
One of the problems with Dorf is confusing the principle with people, saying that people who call themselves originalists don't follow originalists, then claim that originalism is bad. Instead the principle is that each individual must be evaluated on each of their works. ... Dork calls himself a "pinko". Part of that may be having dictators and lawlessness. His confusing principles with people who say they uphold that principle but don't, may be showing a type of support for lawlessness and dictators.
Originalism doesn't mean correct for sure. Intent matters not. It means we interpret it by the words written. We are free to modify it, clarify it, etc. That's is the only correct path forward as we are not stuck in antiquity, but we shouldn't presume that it changes meaning based on the personal views of the reader.
There is no penalty for not following the oath to the US Constatution for a politician ether because it does not exist or because it is NEVER enforced.
How can we have tiered taxation, or taxation on some things but not others, and claim equal protection. Clearly, some are declared winners compared to others that are losers.
The constitution should be replaced. Not reinterpreted, not renegotiated, not merely reworded or slightly updated, but replaced in its entirety. It was written a very long time ago by people who had very different lives than now: Most owned slaves. Most didn't expect to live past 65. The most effective infantry weapon was a 30 shot air rifle that cost more than a house. Communication was ridiculously slow, the telegraph wouldn't come around for several decades which meant a single rider on a horse was about the fastest you could get a letter cross country. The entire population was under 3 million, today it's over 350 million. There was no population disparity like California vs Wyoming. This makes California's senators impotent and Wyoming's ridiculously powerful. To learn anything you had to invest a bunch of time and effort, today you ask Siri. Immigration wasn't much of a problem back then. It was super expensive and dangerous to cross the ocean and Mexico wasn't really a border country. I'm sure I could go on but if you're still curious I suggest you do some research on your own. The new document should combine the Bill of Rights and the constitution and should clearly define rights and the role of government. Rough example: All humans are equal and have equal rights. No individual, group of individuals, religious organization, or business may own a human. Genetic information belongs to those beings it is expressed in (this could be worded better, basically I don't want anyone but me to own my DNA). No unlawful search or seizure. Clear, expressible probable cause is needed to search any private domicile, house, vehicle, bag, browser history, phone, computer, person, clothing, and so on. All humans will have access to adequate healthcare. No preaching from the podium or politicking from the pulpit. Keep your religion out of my politics and my politics out of your religion. While I agree with the idea of intelligent, reasonable, rational, people being allowed to own guns I don't think I could word that properly. Anyone may say anything in any format as long as it is not a direct call for violence (if stupid ideas like racism can stand up to the scrutiny of the masses then as a democracy we should allow it despite the problems it causes). Freedom of assembly. Freedom from legal action based solely on being a member of a group. There shall be at least three political parties in government. Every citizen gets 1 vote only. Every citizen is required to vote on at least one issue per year. Create a holiday for voting in presidential elections. Each state gets 1 representative per 100,000 people in the state. State law can overrule Federal Law except where it directly affects other state's law. Any person or organization in a position of authority who knowingly lies to a public audience must (pay an exorbitant fine, be removed from office...?). Internet access will be available to all humans. The internet shall be equal. No slowing or speeding up access to specific sites for any reason (could be worded better). Obviously this needs lots of work, it's a back of the napkin bill of rights. However the idea is sound, and we really need an updated document like this.
The constitution must be enforced based upon the original meaning of the text- or else we have amended the constitution without ratification of the states. this is by virtue of the fact that any "updated meaning" is in fact an amendment to the original meaning and text.
Whether the CONstitution means one thing or another, this much is certain. It has either allowed for such a government as we have had, or it's powerless to prevent it. In either case, it's unfit to exist. Lysander Spooner
why do you blame a 250 year old document that limited goverment it is our fault for not holding our politicians accountable the day they gave themselves permission to classify documents we lost control
Tyler James I don't know why you're on about classified documents but as far as the Constitution itself, I don't blame it for anything. I blame the people who believe that its legitimate. I have no idea how people believe that a 250 year old document has anything to do with them. I had no hand in drafting to the thing, and I definitely never consented to being beholden to it.
If you think it's unfit, gather enough support to amend it. The Constitution explicitly allows for the possibility of change. What you don't want is arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution to impose political agenda and tyranny. The biggest reasons why the Constitution has failed to limit the government is Congress' powers to collect taxes and regulate commerce and the Necessary and Proper clause. These have justified more expansive governmental measures than anything else.
"I had no hand in drafting to the thing, and I definitely never consented to being beholden to it." As Randy Barnett points out, it's not The People who are beholden to the Constitution, it's everyone who takes an oath to follow the Constitution.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Given what they said, yes, there is no judge who follows the US Constitution all the time, which is wrong, but I will take those judges who follow the US Constitution more often than not.
We don't need a government to be worried about us, to implement their concerns for our well being. They just need to let it be so long as there are no victims as a result of my actions. Being sad, poor, angry, uplifted are human. Liberty and equal protection is sufficient.
I don't even think you have to be much of an originalist or "living document" there are some blatant things that are being ignored. Article 1 section 8 "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". no standing armies for more than 2 year. There should only be state militias. Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States. General welfare means general wellbeing not the "welfare" we have now and it was wellbeing of the United States not of the individual.
Dorf right out of the gate: "I'm gonna make this about RANDY." Around 37:00 Dorf essentially admits that an ERA SHOULD have been passed because the Constitution and previous amendments make clear that they don't fully apply to both sexes. Dorf makes points about how people are inconsistent in their application of originalism but NOT how they are wrong. Dorf has no apparent interest in truth or accuracy. He is purely debating and trying to score points. Hence his pleas for people to vote him the winner (rather than actually AGREEING with him) at around 53:30.
Killing 1 person to save 5 people is not necessarily utilitarian. It's not as simple as just comparing the numbers 1 and 5. You would have to argue that if the principle was applied, that is, if anyone is allowed to 1 person to save 2 people or more, then the society would be better off. I think you'd find it almost impossible to defend this proposition.
Blitzerchen I think when he was saying "ad hominem" he was referring to your use of the word "autistic"... Calling someone a joke isn't really ad hominem so much as it is proclaiming that they cannot be taken seriously.
NA NA could you flesh out exactly why there's a difference? I don't see one. Is calling one person a joke different than calling two people a joke? Ten people? When does it begin to be "not the same"?
Yep. I've used the example of the song "I Feel Pretty" from the 1961 movie "West Side Story." When Maria sings, "I feel pretty. Oh so pretty. I feel pretty, and witty, and gay!" is she saying she's ecstatic, because she's in love with a man, or is she coming out of the closet as a lesbian? You decide... Which interpretation are you going to go with, the meaning of those words in 1961, or the meaning of those words now? And we're not even talking about something that was sung 100 years ago. This I think is the conundrum that we must face between the notions of originalism and living constitutionalism. Our meanings of words change over time, but if we apply modern meanings to legal terms that had different meanings when they were written, whenever it suits us, it can give us extremely different meanings, which pervert law that was meant to preserve our freedom.
Dorf [sp?] loses credibility when he says that the equal rights amendment was not necessary because women's equality was accepted. The equal rights amendment was more likely voted down because democracy is not founded on, and cannot function effectively by having, equal rights. The genders, like other classes, are sometimes dissimilarly situated, leaving equal "protection" of the laws the proper requirement.
The US Constitution has not lost its meaning. It has been misinterpreted and disregarded by many, if not all to a greater or lesser extent, by those in power. Some of these people just want to exercise powers not granted in the US Constitution. Former president Obama called the US Constitution negative liberties. Well those negative liberties protected the people from being abused by those in power.
Government will never overcome the Conflict of Interest problem pretending separation of powers works when all of the powers depend on each other to continue to exist is delusional. Thinking the few choices presented to elect will represent anyone to a sufficent degree to be of a majority is delusional further compounded by zero punitive commitment to campain promises.
The education is too damn high and now those that no longer think critically for some reason act as if we're not noticing their mental illness regarding the human mind. They have no right to tell us anything, we all went to civics.
Professor Barnett definitely won for me. He showed that the Constitution has issues and that there's a way for those issues to be fixed. They aren't fixed by judges on the bench. They aren't fixed by our feelings. They aren't fixed with unconstitutional legislation. They are fixed by properly amending the Constitution to right the wrongs.
I loved the line about the Constitution governing the people who govern us. The "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" line was also fantastic. That's what applies to the people. We can do absolutely anything that we want to do. The government's job isn't to dictate what we can and cannot do. It's to ensure that the liberty of all of us stays intact. It's to ensure that our rights are not infringed.
I'm not a lawyer, a judge, or a professor. I'm just a normal dumb guy but it doesn't seem difficult to me. Anyone who fights for and argues the opposite of the above is questionable in my book. They are arguing against our liberty.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing,or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or it is powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist" -Lysander Spooner
"Shall Not Be Infringed" means all gun regulations are unconstitutional. It means pass an Amendment to the Constitution if you want to make a change. The Supreme Court decisions on this need to be overturned.
2VNews #1 If they do that, because North Carolina and Rhode Island had said they wouldn't ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights protecting their citizens could succeed from the Union because at that time the federal government would be breaching this agreement. Maybe even possibly every state that joined after 1791 would have that right as well?
2VNews #2 The right to bear arms is considered an unalienable right. Meaning it was given to us by our creator. The 2A doesn't "give" us the right to bear arms, it protects it.
Even an animal will defend itself when attacked.
2VNews #3 The 2A basically guarantees us the right to fight tyranny and oppression. So even if they were able to amend the constitution abolishing the right to bear arms, the people would have 3 options:
A) Submit
B) Rise up and rebel against our government until they fixed it by reinstating the right to bear arms the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.
C) Instead of rebelling with an overhaul in mind, rebelling to overthrow our government all together and start from scratch with a NEW government and a NEW Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution wrote the 1st & 2nd Amendments because they remembered where they came from! That's why they are attacking our 1st Amendment as well. If we can't organize then we can't fight.
There appear to be no US Constitutional police who uphold the law by charging elected and appointed officials and getting criminal convictions. The voters might be able to choose people who actual uphold the US Constitution and support the USA, but that seems less likely.
Lawrence Miller
The idea "we can use government to fix government" is like believing "we can use cancer to cure cancer."
Ridiculous.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
-Lysander Spooner
That's funny because the amendments are really the issue and the people put that in so blame the constitution or blame people that dont uphold the constitution is the question.
Great question Dr Woods.
I find Barnett won the proposal.
I think Dorf's strongest argument, which Barnett didn't refute, was that originalists have a "mushy" definition of the Constitution themselves. It's just a different mode of interpreting it, not that different from the "living Constitution" perspective, that it is malleable. I kept wishing Barnett would refute that point by saying the point of originalism is not to say there is one "correct" way to interpret the Constitution. Obviously people having different perspectives will have variation in the way they interpret even the original public meaning of the wording--and originalists, such as himself, disagree with each other about the interpretation, as Barnett gave a few examples. However, having knowledge of the original public meaning, and caring to honor it, *constrains* the possible interpretation. It provides boundaries to how it can be interpreted. Barnett gave a version of this saying it provides a point of comparison. I don't see that as strong of a concept as what I've laid out here. A "living Constitution" mode of interpretation allows judges to come up with whatever meaning they wish, as they think practical circumstances dictate, or that of their own personal whims, that satisfies their own personal version of "justice." It is unmoored from any standard that the public attempted to establish through law via. legislation and political activism, when it was written. It leaves judges free to say that that activity is entirely irrelevant to their jurisprudence, but the result of their labor is useful to present circumstances. It's a way of saying to past generations who fought hard to gain certain protections, "Thanks, but go jump in a lake. What was your fight is not *my* fight." Maybe the law was meant to protect what people fight for today, but judges don't have to consider that with "living constitutionalism," because in effect your fight becomes something that *they* get to either take ownership of, or become yet another opponent of, just because they don't like what you stand for. True, originalist justices can be subject to the same bias. They may not like the cause you fight for, but being faithful to some standard of what the law meant when it was fought for means you still have a chance with them, because it gives them the chance to do their job, which is to interpret the law faithfully, regardless of their personal biases. Living constitutionalism does not provide that opportunity, because it provides no constraints, except for what modern politics might motivate them to hold back on. Again, it's for the convenience of the justices, not for the citizenry. Secondly, Dorf seemed to keep making the point that, "Originalists feel forced to change the original meaning when they try to adapt what they perceive as the original meaning to present circumstances." I think that's a false premise, and unfortunately, Barnett let it slip by. Just because circumstances change does not mean that the original meaning of the law becomes irrelevant. Just because we communicate electronically now does not mean that the original meaning of freedom of speech or freedom of the press is irrelevant, because we no longer use printing presses and paper. There are principles behind the law, derived from the original public understanding of it, that still apply, because the principles underlying those activities are still with us. What originalists should say is, "Don't attach law to form. Attach it to principles of action or inaction, but derive the principles from what were contemporary circumstances and forms, and what people understood legal terms to mean." As Barnett said, if we don't like what our understanding of the original public meaning of the law is, we should change the law via. legislation, or the amendment process. One of the canards that originalists should stamp out forcefully is the notion that Dorf implied, which is that, "According to originalists, once it's in law, we're stuck with its original meaning, no matter how impractical, forever and ever."
When law can be interpreted to any end, then there is no law. This is wrong because it is no longer like a contract. Some really bad laws are laws that let others write laws, like letting bureaucrats write regulations, which are laws. In the State of Illinois, there is a bill to allow communities to decide if gun shops should exist or not, this is not a contract, it is arbitrary, not dissimilar to the lawlessness of royalty and dictators.
Good point. I remember years ago my parents wanted to build a shed in their backyard. (I was like just put it in other neighbors have sheds) Apparently their homeowners association required anyone to submit the request to ALL the neighbors so they could vote on it. 🙄 *anyways... they got the "approval". Smh
I guess some people would rather ask forgiveness than permission😅
Excellent debate! Thank for helping make this possible. Also the 2nd Amendment could not be more clear. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms *shall not* be infringed”
Noah Danielson "a well regulated militia" should be kept in the context of its time to better understand it. While a militia even at that time was understood as a lower part of the military mainly used for defense, it was also understood at the time that a militia was both armed civilians as well as a locally created and maintained military force seperate from the central government. Also "well regulated" basically meant "properly trained" in arms (which included all weapons even military weapons such as warships, cannons, melee weapons etc)
Guns for ex-cons. Grenades for 5 year olds. Nerve agents at your corner store. Yep. Seems pretty clear.
The 2nd Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. Moreover, militia consists of ordinary people. If the government dictates the terms of a militia specifically what it considers to be "well-regulated", that defeats the whole purpose of the amendment. On that ground, the government can proceed to outright ban guns because it can just claim that no one is "well-regulated".
if this is excellence i shit excellence
Dave Smith was hilarious! I wish more comedians were like that: political but without the excess idiocy that you get with most other comedians lol
your entitled to your opinion it sure as hell is not mine i just fast forward his silly nonsense
I enjoyed him more this time than last time
I hadn't heard of him before this video. Compared to other comedians he's a breath of fresh air.
guess you are entitled to your opinion. i thought he was just another silly ass who thinks he is witty
About 4 minutes after the ink was dry.
Un-Named Trucker lol
The debate starts at 13:09
If we follow the constitution, we could have "originalists" rewrite the constitution to make all of the vague language "clear as originally intended" (good luck with that!) and get rid of all that we've since obsoleted by amendments, incorporate all amendments into the new text, and then propose this new constitution via a convention. If it can't pass, then modify it to incorporate the objections and try again. If we can't even agree on what the constitution says/means, we clearly have no obligation to obey it.
Based on this debate the Constitution should be abolished and the federal government dismantled.
That seems to be the goal of some short-sighted folks who would lose the ensuing civil war. The path paved by the Russians is pointing folks in directions they don't understand the end-results of - it won't be all love, peace and happiness.
A major good reason for a federal government is for common defense against foreign enemies. ... Sometimes I question how many foreign enemies have gotten into the federal government under FDR, under Obama, in colleges and universities.
Yes. Yes it has. Next question please.
I love these debates but you guys really need to fix the audio. Its often very unbalanced and difficult to hear in many sections. This was unfortunately one of the worst on that front despite being one of the best debates in substance.
The ONLY Amendment that is subject to current popular opinion IS the 8th Amendment! It was written to be a "Living Amendment". I'm a originalist, but even I must concede that "Cruel and unusual punishment" is solely dependant on what the public perceives to be "cruel and unusual".
Back when the public supported branding a horse thief's face at a time when our country was mostly desert and wilderness, therefore stealing someone's horse could be fatal due to being at the mercy of the elements, it was CONSTITUTIONAL.
Today, the concensus of public opinion would be that branding someone's face would be considered "cruel and unusual".
Government will never get over the conflict of interest problem. The power addicts will never limit their intake of power.
Power corrupts.
Okay, I honestly cannot understand how anyone can watch this debate and not come to the conclusion that law is completely arbitrary.
Pretty much. You can just cherry pick whatever you want if you sit on the bench.
I can't understand how anyone can possibly think of the law as anything but arbitrary because the law is literally just fucking arbitrary.
May as well argue that the North Star is arbitrary. It is after all only one amongst thousands of points of visible light in the night sky. Despite its seemingly arbitrary position, its consistent occupancy of that position can provide guidance. Similarly any seemingly arbitrary law when applied consistently can provide stability.
Q B
Your words are completely arbitrary.
David Ducette
No, they were selected and ordered for precisely their meanings.
It is interesting to note that ReasonTV appears to not support the intellectual rights with regards to software, but appears to support the US Constitution.
One of the problems with Dorf is confusing the principle with people, saying that people who call themselves originalists don't follow originalists, then claim that originalism is bad. Instead the principle is that each individual must be evaluated on each of their works. ... Dork calls himself a "pinko". Part of that may be having dictators and lawlessness. His confusing principles with people who say they uphold that principle but don't, may be showing a type of support for lawlessness and dictators.
Originalism doesn't mean correct for sure. Intent matters not. It means we interpret it by the words written. We are free to modify it, clarify it, etc. That's is the only correct path forward as we are not stuck in antiquity, but we shouldn't presume that it changes meaning based on the personal views of the reader.
There is no penalty for not following the oath to the US Constatution for a politician ether because it does not exist or because it is NEVER enforced.
How can we have tiered taxation, or taxation on some things but not others, and claim equal protection. Clearly, some are declared winners compared to others that are losers.
The constitution should be replaced. Not reinterpreted, not renegotiated, not merely reworded or slightly updated, but replaced in its entirety.
It was written a very long time ago by people who had very different lives than now: Most owned slaves. Most didn't expect to live past 65. The most effective infantry weapon was a 30 shot air rifle that cost more than a house. Communication was ridiculously slow, the telegraph wouldn't come around for several decades which meant a single rider on a horse was about the fastest you could get a letter cross country. The entire population was under 3 million, today it's over 350 million. There was no population disparity like California vs Wyoming. This makes California's senators impotent and Wyoming's ridiculously powerful. To learn anything you had to invest a bunch of time and effort, today you ask Siri. Immigration wasn't much of a problem back then. It was super expensive and dangerous to cross the ocean and Mexico wasn't really a border country. I'm sure I could go on but if you're still curious I suggest you do some research on your own.
The new document should combine the Bill of Rights and the constitution and should clearly define rights and the role of government. Rough example:
All humans are equal and have equal rights. No individual, group of individuals, religious organization, or business may own a human. Genetic information belongs to those beings it is expressed in (this could be worded better, basically I don't want anyone but me to own my DNA). No unlawful search or seizure. Clear, expressible probable cause is needed to search any private domicile, house, vehicle, bag, browser history, phone, computer, person, clothing, and so on. All humans will have access to adequate healthcare. No preaching from the podium or politicking from the pulpit. Keep your religion out of my politics and my politics out of your religion. While I agree with the idea of intelligent, reasonable, rational, people being allowed to own guns I don't think I could word that properly. Anyone may say anything in any format as long as it is not a direct call for violence (if stupid ideas like racism can stand up to the scrutiny of the masses then as a democracy we should allow it despite the problems it causes). Freedom of assembly. Freedom from legal action based solely on being a member of a group. There shall be at least three political parties in government. Every citizen gets 1 vote only. Every citizen is required to vote on at least one issue per year. Create a holiday for voting in presidential elections. Each state gets 1 representative per 100,000 people in the state. State law can overrule Federal Law except where it directly affects other state's law. Any person or organization in a position of authority who knowingly lies to a public audience must (pay an exorbitant fine, be removed from office...?). Internet access will be available to all humans. The internet shall be equal. No slowing or speeding up access to specific sites for any reason (could be worded better).
Obviously this needs lots of work, it's a back of the napkin bill of rights. However the idea is sound, and we really need an updated document like this.
This was answered definitively by Lysander Spooner before any of us were born.
The constitution must be enforced based upon the original meaning of the text- or else we have amended the constitution without ratification of the states. this is by virtue of the fact that any "updated meaning" is in fact an amendment to the original meaning and text.
Read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner
Whether the CONstitution means one thing or another, this much is certain. It has either allowed for such a government as we have had, or it's powerless to prevent it. In either case, it's unfit to exist.
Lysander Spooner
Edward Agora Feenman Spot on.
why do you blame a 250 year old document that limited goverment it is our fault for not holding our politicians accountable the day they gave themselves permission to classify documents we lost control
Tyler James I don't know why you're on about classified documents but as far as the Constitution itself, I don't blame it for anything. I blame the people who believe that its legitimate.
I have no idea how people believe that a 250 year old document has anything to do with them.
I had no hand in drafting to the thing, and I definitely never consented to being beholden to it.
If you think it's unfit, gather enough support to amend it. The Constitution explicitly allows for the possibility of change. What you don't want is arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution to impose political agenda and tyranny. The biggest reasons why the Constitution has failed to limit the government is Congress' powers to collect taxes and regulate commerce and the Necessary and Proper clause. These have justified more expansive governmental measures than anything else.
"I had no hand in drafting to the thing, and I definitely never consented to being beholden to it."
As Randy Barnett points out, it's not The People who are beholden to the Constitution, it's everyone who takes an oath to follow the Constitution.
For the record, there _IS_ an equal rights amendment to the Constitution. It's called the Fourteenth Amendment.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
Oh hey turns out I'm like one of eight people to post this.
Given what they said, yes, there is no judge who follows the US Constitution all the time, which is wrong, but I will take those judges who follow the US Constitution more often than not.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt the Younger
We don't need a government to be worried about us, to implement their concerns for our well being. They just need to let it be so long as there are no victims as a result of my actions. Being sad, poor, angry, uplifted are human. Liberty and equal protection is sufficient.
I don't even think you have to be much of an originalist or "living document" there are some blatant things that are being ignored. Article 1 section 8 "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". no standing armies for more than 2 year. There should only be state militias.
Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States. General welfare means general wellbeing not the "welfare" we have now and it was wellbeing of the United States not of the individual.
Barnett won the question about the 2nd Amendment because these rights are for the people, individuals starting with the first.
Dorf right out of the gate: "I'm gonna make this about RANDY."
Around 37:00 Dorf essentially admits that an ERA SHOULD have been passed because the Constitution and previous amendments make clear that they don't fully apply to both sexes.
Dorf makes points about how people are inconsistent in their application of originalism but NOT how they are wrong.
Dorf has no apparent interest in truth or accuracy. He is purely debating and trying to score points. Hence his pleas for people to vote him the winner (rather than actually AGREEING with him) at around 53:30.
Killing 1 person to save 5 people is not necessarily utilitarian. It's not as simple as just comparing the numbers 1 and 5. You would have to argue that if the principle was applied, that is, if anyone is allowed to 1 person to save 2 people or more, then the society would be better off. I think you'd find it almost impossible to defend this proposition.
It's such a joke that Randy "lost" this debate.
Blitzerchen
Gary is/was a joke
Blitzerchen
Ad hominem
Blitzerchen
Elaborate
Blitzerchen I think when he was saying "ad hominem" he was referring to your use of the word "autistic"... Calling someone a joke isn't really ad hominem so much as it is proclaiming that they cannot be taken seriously.
NA NA could you flesh out exactly why there's a difference? I don't see one. Is calling one person a joke different than calling two people a joke? Ten people? When does it begin to be "not the same"?
Guy 1: words have meaning!
Guy 2: words can mean whatever I want them to!
Yep. I've used the example of the song "I Feel Pretty" from the 1961 movie "West Side Story." When Maria sings, "I feel pretty. Oh so pretty. I feel pretty, and witty, and gay!" is she saying she's ecstatic, because she's in love with a man, or is she coming out of the closet as a lesbian? You decide... Which interpretation are you going to go with, the meaning of those words in 1961, or the meaning of those words now? And we're not even talking about something that was sung 100 years ago. This I think is the conundrum that we must face between the notions of originalism and living constitutionalism. Our meanings of words change over time, but if we apply modern meanings to legal terms that had different meanings when they were written, whenever it suits us, it can give us extremely different meanings, which pervert law that was meant to preserve our freedom.
Dave Smith: 3:02
Youth's rights ARE human rights. #youthrights #ENDforcedSchooling #yoIamStillTheSameMofoingPersonAsIwasBackThen
Dorf [sp?] loses credibility when he says that the equal rights amendment was not necessary because women's equality was accepted. The equal rights amendment was more likely voted down because democracy is not founded on, and cannot function effectively by having, equal rights. The genders, like other classes, are sometimes dissimilarly situated, leaving equal "protection" of the laws the proper requirement.
The US Constitution has not lost its meaning. It has been misinterpreted and disregarded by many, if not all to a greater or lesser extent, by those in power. Some of these people just want to exercise powers not granted in the US Constitution. Former president Obama called the US Constitution negative liberties. Well those negative liberties protected the people from being abused by those in power.
Government will never overcome the Conflict of Interest problem pretending separation of powers works when all of the powers depend on each other to continue to exist is delusional.
Thinking the few choices presented to elect will represent anyone to a sufficent degree to be of a majority is delusional further compounded by zero punitive commitment to campain promises.
If it's regularly "misinterpreted" by "many," then it has lost its meaning.
The constitution has not lost it's meaning----activist judges, lawyers, and some politicians have attempted to manipulate and reject it's meaning.
The education is too damn high and now those that no longer think critically for some reason act as if we're not noticing their mental illness regarding the human mind. They have no right to tell us anything, we all went to civics.
I can't believe anyone would try to interpret it any other way....
Barnett obviously won this debate. To think otherwise you'd have to miss some subtle errors in Dorf's arguments.
Well-regulated militia.
Means they have standards not that they answer to any government.
I lick toes