ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Vincent Butler]

That is why your arguments are terrible. Original Intent is asking for the Constitution to be followed according to the Founding Fathers. Leaving aside the fact that there is never one intent for any part of the Constitution, the Constitution as written does not give the Supreme Court Constitutional Interpretation. The Supreme Court gave themselves that power 14 years after the Constitution was ratified. Asking for original intent is asking for a SCOTUS that does not decide what the Constitution says. Therefore according to original intent, anything is Constitutional as long as it is passed by Congress.

Not even the Founding Fathers wanted original intent:



Btw, the state is denying rights to homosexuals if they allow for private individuals to exclude from from commerce. Homosexuals have to live in a society which restricts their choices but heterosexuals do not receive the same treatment from homosexuals, so they live in a fundamentally different society and standard of living from homosexuals. That's unequal protection under the law. When you have a society that persecutes a minority group, state inaction is equivalent in practical manners to denying rights through law.

That is an interesting word, usufruct. I have never heard it before. Your argument by Jefferson is being taken out of context. The next generation can change the law, but the interpretation of the law as written does not change. As long as a bill does not violate the Bill of Rights (which acknowledged, not granted, those rights), yes, passing it would be constitutional if it was in the bounds of what Congress was constitutionally allowed to do. If not specifically granted Congress, and not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the states or people could decide on it.
As to denying homosexuals services, remember our founding fathers deemed homosexuality a crime, and thus their rights would have been forfeit. In fact, Jefferson advocated dismemberment as a punishment for sodomy. Several states had the death penalty for it. Therefore, homosexuals would not have been defended. And homosexuals are welcome to deny service to heterosexuals, have you heard of a gay bar? I saw an article not long ago that one just refused a man for being dressed like a woman, not that that is really relevant to this conversation, just something I found amusing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That is an interesting word, usufruct. I have never heard it before. Your argument by Jefferson is being taken out of context. The next generation can change the law, but the interpretation of the law as written does not change. As long as a bill does not violate the Bill of Rights (which acknowledged, not granted, those rights), yes, passing it would be constitutional if it was in the bounds of what Congress was constitutionally allowed to do. If not specifically granted Congress, and not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the states or people could decide on it.
As to denying homosexuals services, remember our founding fathers deemed homosexuality a crime, and thus their rights would have been forfeit. In fact, Jefferson advocated dismemberment as a punishment for sodomy. Several states had the death penalty for it. Therefore, homosexuals would not have been defended. And homosexuals are welcome to deny service to heterosexuals, have you heard of a gay bar? I saw an article not long ago that one just refused a man for being dressed like a woman, not that that is really relevant to this conversation, just something I found amusing.

You did not respond to my argument and you did not read the Jefferson quote entirely.

Let me point out the last two sentences of what Jefferson said to make it clear:
"Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right."

Jefferson is explicitly saying, the Constitution should not apply after 19 years. That it should be completely scrapped for the next generation to rewrite. So why are you arguing about the interpretation of the law when Jefferson clearly states that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should have been done away with completely 206 years ago?

Secondly, let me point out my argument again, and tell me if you don't understand it:
Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You did not respond to my argument and you did not read the Jefferson quote entirely.

Let me point out the last two sentences of what Jefferson said to make it clear:
"Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right."

Jefferson is explicitly saying, the Constitution should not apply after 19 years. That it should be completely scrapped for the next generation to rewrite. So why are you arguing about the interpretation of the law when Jefferson clearly states that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should have been done away with completely 206 years ago?

Secondly, let me point out my argument again, and tell me if you don't understand it:
Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

Yet Jefferson was also the primary voice of the following:

...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--

He was not saying that any Constitution must be discarded, only that it's continuance should be based on the sufferance of the polity -- that any Constitution, as a mutually agreed upon social contract -- did not somehow thereby gain a life of its own superseding the agreement of polity. Jefferson was by no means an ardent opponent of the Constitution, though he disagreed with some of it, and his discussion of its ratification suggests that he thought the Constitution would hold sway for more than a single generation.

[Vincent Butler]

You did not respond to my argument and you did not read the Jefferson quote entirely.

Let me point out the last two sentences of what Jefferson said to make it clear:
"Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right."

Jefferson is explicitly saying, the Constitution should not apply after 19 years. That it should be completely scrapped for the next generation to rewrite. So why are you arguing about the interpretation of the law when Jefferson clearly states that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should have been done away with completely 206 years ago?

Secondly, let me point out my argument again, and tell me if you don't understand it:
Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?

I did too go over the entire article, specifically that section, and I stand by what I said, it appears the difference is in our interpretation. I responded by giving my interpretation, showing why I believed yours to be incorrect. Anyway, back to Original Intent, a law is to be interpreted based on how it lines up with the Constitution. If it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and not specifically a power given to Congress, the states and people have power to decide. Original intent says that the states and people get to decide, see Tenth Amendment. Congress gets certain powers. If they pass a law that they do not have given jurisdiction to pass, and it does not relate to things in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court should strike it down as unconstitutional. The goal of the Constitution was limited government, especially limited federal government.
Pannonian, sorry, I forgot to reply to your last post. The people get their will passed through the legislature and the ballot box. A court overruling a law that the state legislature passed or the people voted on, if that issue was not mentioned in the Constitution, the court cannot say it is unconstitutional. No, I would not like a democracy overruling a republic just because I don't like what is wrong with the republic. No law will make everybody happy, just take the bad with the good, and vote how you want things. Just don't start rioting when things don't go your way, not saying that is what is causing riots, just noticing that riots are becoming the fashion lately.

[Pannonian]

Yet Jefferson was also the primary voice of the following:

He was not saying that any Constitution must be discarded, only that it's continuance should be based on the sufferance of the polity -- that any Constitution, as a mutually agreed upon social contract -- did not somehow thereby gain a life of its own superseding the agreement of polity. Jefferson was by no means an ardent opponent of the Constitution, though he disagreed with some of it, and his discussion of its ratification suggests that he thought the Constitution would hold sway for more than a single generation.

In any case, AFAIK when amendments supersede items of the constitution, the amendments hold sway. Unless VB still holds by the old reckonings of representation of the inhabitants of the US.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yet Jefferson was also the primary voice of the following:



He was not saying that any Constitution must be discarded, only that it's continuance should be based on the sufferance of the polity -- that any Constitution, as a mutually agreed upon social contract -- did not somehow thereby gain a life of its own superseding the agreement of polity. Jefferson was by no means an ardent opponent of the Constitution, though he disagreed with some of it, and his discussion of its ratification suggests that he thought the Constitution would hold sway for more than a single generation.

It does not deter the bigger point that I make which is that Jefferson would not be a fan of original intent. In fact that even makes my point. I'm mistaken about the US Constitution in particular, but Jefferson was a person who felt that governments should be approved by its current inhabitants, or reformed at their whim.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I did too go over the entire article, specifically that section, and I stand by what I said, it appears the difference is in our interpretation. I responded by giving my interpretation, showing why I believed yours to be incorrect. Anyway, back to Original Intent, a law is to be interpreted based on how it lines up with the Constitution. If it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and not specifically a power given to Congress, the states and people have power to decide. Original intent says that the states and people get to decide, see Tenth Amendment. Congress gets certain powers. If they pass a law that they do not have given jurisdiction to pass, and it does not relate to things in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court should strike it down as unconstitutional. The goal of the Constitution was limited government, especially limited federal government.

One last time, the Supreme Court under original intent can't strike down laws because the constitution doesn't give them the power under original intent. Original intent is impossible to implement. Under original intent, there is no interpretation to be made.

[Vincent Butler]

It does not deter the bigger point that I make which is that Jefferson would not be a fan of original intent. In fact that even makes my point. I'm mistaken about the US Constitution in particular, but Jefferson was a person who felt that governments should be approved by its current inhabitants, or reformed at their whim.

Pannonian, the Constitution was called the Great Compromise, not everybody was happy. Until they started their sessions with prayer, for the first five weeks, nothing was getting done. And still not everybody got what they wanted, Patrick Henry did not even want a federal government. And yes, the new amendments hold sway. Else why make the provision for new amendments, I guess if new things come up.
ACIN, the Constitution was allowed to be changed, that is why there are amendments. But if the law keeps changing, your country has issues. And Jefferson was considered a liberal for his day, too.
EDIT: ACIN, I see what you mean, the Supreme Court is never given the power to rule on constitutionality, I just looked in my Constitution. Interesting point, I will have to study that one. I do know that the Constitution says that it is the rule by which all laws in the country must be judged (not quite in that wording). The point is, who judges if a law follows the Constitution? That warrants looking into. Interesting.

One last time

Agreed, I think this topic has been beaten to death. Besides, my homework beckons.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...EDIT: ACIN, I see what you mean, the Supreme Court is never given the power to rule on constitutionality, I just looked in my Constitution. Interesting point, I will have to study that one. I do know that the Constitution says that it is the rule by which all laws in the country must be judged (not quite in that wording). The point is, who judges if a law follows the Constitution? That warrants looking into. Interesting....

Well done, ACIN, well done. You have pushed him to embrace the first step to wisdom.

Take THAT all of you who say internet forums are nothing but intellectual Onanism.

[Vincent Butler]

Well done, ACIN, well done. You have pushed him to embrace the first step to wisdom.

Take THAT all of you who say internet forums are nothing but intellectual Onanism.

I believe I have resolved the issue. It was a valid point, and needed to be resolved, partly for my own curiosity. I remember this actually coming up a while back in a conversation I had with my somebody, I think my mother, and I had forgotten about it. The Constitution is the guideline for the law. If a law is deemed unconstitutional by a court, or any body, really, it cannot strike it down, it is up to Congress to change the law if indeed it is unconstitutional. Indeed, if it is against the Constitution, it is not a law. I just saw a quote by William Jasper, a Revolutionary War hero, stating that a Supreme Court decision is not a law. Now I know he is not a founding father, but he is right, judges cannot legislate from the bench, the Constitution clearly gives Congress and Congress alone power to make law. As resolution, here are some statements from America's early history regarding the supremacy of the Constitution. Oh, and Seamus, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, so I am still struggling with that first step. I am done on this topic.

Now can somebody please return this thread to topic? ISIS needs their tails kicked, preferably by Iraqis, but anyone is fine. It'll be funny if they pick on Russia. (Russian Accent) Boris, I hear ISIS is attacking us.
Hang on, Ivan, I am almost done with this nuke.

[Hax]

It's already happened.

As for a nuke in the Middle-East: yeah, that's hilarious, I'm sure they can handle one devastating act of war more.

EDIT: lrn2url

[HopAlongBunny]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...139774596.html

[Seamus Fermanagh]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...139774596.html

He's coloring the discussion for his agenda, but his points cannot be dismissed outright -- there is an element of truth to his take.

[HopAlongBunny]

Coloring?
The US did create the context.
The terror prisons did create a core of jihadis and radicalized the population.
The imposed regime certainly did not act to "win friends and influence people"; it was more narrowly focused than Saddam's old gov't.
And, finally the West did ignore the terror being perpetrated against the local populations until ISIS went on a land grab.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Coloring?
The US did create the context.
The terror prisons did create a core of jihadis and radicalized the population.
The imposed regime certainly did not act to "win friends and influence people"; it was more narrowly focused than Saddam's old gov't.
And, finally the West did ignore the terror being perpetrated against the local populations until ISIS went on a land grab.

All good points he made. He is glossing over the common tendency for all nation-states to pursue their interests somewhat haphazardly in response to shifting public opinion and perceived saliency. He's calling for a consistency that never really happens.

This doesn't undercut his point, I am just offering a comment.

[HopAlongBunny]

I liked the article for its concise summation of the situation.
The failing it has...like almost all opinion on the matter...is the complete lack of a discussion on the way forward.
Removal of ISIS is a distraction; it won't "solve Iraq!"; I would like to see something coherent about how to chip the way forward to a solution.

[rory_20_uk]

For borders to be "solved" in the middle east would require the countries in the middle east to put what the people want in front of their own wants - and that would mean we'd see a couple of new states and Turkey, amongst others, loosing a large amount of land.

I very much doubt this is going to happen - and external players will only make things worse by becoming hated by everyone.

Africa is another land mass that needs to redraw borders from the arbitary colonial ones which replaced the arbitary ones that preceeded them.

ISIS is the latest and nastiest creation from this area. Not the last and as long as the loonies from elsewhere decide to fight (and hopefully die) there they'll not be here.

[HopAlongBunny]

The gift that keeps on giving, indeed

[Rhyfelwyr]

Redrawing borders isn't always going to cut it. Centuries, or even just decades under centralizing states has meant that populations that were once geographically divided are now relatively intermixed. Without resorting to ethnic cleansing, people are going to have to learn to live with each other.

[rory_20_uk]

Redrawing borders isn't always going to cut it. Centuries, or even just decades under centralizing states has meant that populations that were once geographically divided are now relatively intermixed. Without resorting to ethnic cleansing, people are going to have to learn to live with each other.

But indulging in ethnic / religious genocide / mass exodous oes appear to be the preferred approach with several minorities being displaced or culled.

[HoreTore]

But indulging in ethnic / religious genocide / mass exodous oes appear to be the preferred approach with several minorities being displaced or culled.

How many years have those minorities lived there without any of that happening?

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the current state of affairs is the natural state of affairs.

[rory_20_uk]

But once they're gone, often they're gone. Given that Sunnis view at least two groups in the area as Devil worshipers or Apostates it doesn't really fill me with hope.

The locals might still be getting on with each other as well as they ever had, and it is persons from elsewhere in the world coming into the area that are doing these things - with modern communication making this so much easier.

Alexandria was a centre of Christianity for a long time - then was razed to the ground in a very short time.

[Fragony]

How many years have those minorities lived there without any of that happening?

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the current state of affairs is the natural state of affairs.

Wouldn't call it a natural state of afairs, insanity would be a better word, but IS is just doing what their holy book tells them to do. That there are some disputes on how and what doesn't change that. I doubt the Shia's would be any less barbaric.

[HopAlongBunny]

How many years have those minorities lived there without any of that happening?

But now you have people with plans for the population/area and the people with plans have guns.
So...ya fer us or ag'in us!
Think carefully.
Mao had some appropo comments about this.

[HoreTore]

Wouldn't call it a natural state of afairs, insanity would be a better word, but IS is just doing what their holy book tells them to do. That there are some disputes on how and what doesn't change that. I doubt the Shia's would be any less barbaric.

If they are, the middle east christians would have been wiped out 1500 years ago.

Mao is actually relevant(for once). A hundred years ago, who would've thought China would be this unified?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...A hundred years ago, who would've thought China would be this unified?

I have to say, while not the greatest student of Chinese history, I cannot recall reading about ANY other period where they were both this unified and had this degree of personal freedom and prosperity at the same time. I realize they are not free in the sense that Europe is, but it is pretty impressive how far they have come. I might not concur about Mao's role....but that would be for the Monastery.

[Pannonian]

I have to say, while not the greatest student of Chinese history, I cannot recall reading about ANY other period where they were both this unified and had this degree of personal freedom and prosperity at the same time. I realize they are not free in the sense that Europe is, but it is pretty impressive how far they have come. I might not concur about Mao's role....but that would be for the Monastery.

Deng Xiaoping was probably the most effective and liberal ruler they've had since Kang Xi. His technocratic dynasty has been changing chairmen with hardly any noticeable differences.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Deng Xiaoping was probably the most effective and liberal ruler they've had since Kang Xi. His technocratic dynasty has been changing chairmen with hardly any noticeable differences.

"So long as it hunts mice" eh? Strikes me as he, more than Mao, may have helped engender the shift away from peasant communism.

[Pannonian]

"So long as it hunts mice" eh? Strikes me as he, more than Mao, may have helped engender the shift away from peasant communism.

That's why I think Deng Xiaoping has been incredibly liberal by Chinese standards, even with the Tiananmen Square massacre on his record. Chinese dynasties have tended to start with mass bloodshed followed by a period of stability while the memory of said bloodshed was still fresh in everyone's mind, with periodic upheavals with each succession. Deng managed to recover from the poverty and stagnation of the Mao period (probably as low as China had ever been without being at war), and lift the country to a level where, for the individual Chinese who doesn't aspire to electing the national government, life is comparable with that of westerners in liberal democracies. And what's more, most of this was achieved long after he was dead, whilst following the direction he'd set. A quite remarkable administrator.

I read an American paper a while back (I found it whilst looking for Glantz's study of the Soviet offensive in Manchuria) examining the Sino-Vietnamese war, where PLA traditionalists wanted to demonstrate the validity of their ideas. Deng's faction disagreed and favoured a more slimline, modernised army, but gave the traditionalists their way against the Vietnamese. The PLA got thrashed by the Vietnamese reservists, without ever achieving their tactical aim of forcing the regular Vietnamese army regiments to commit and get pinned down. A regular unit did get involved late on because they got bored and wanted some of the action before it was over. In the end, the Chinese did reach their objectives and declared victory, the Vietnamese inflicted punishing losses on the Chinese with minimal losses and minimal risk without risking any of their regular army and declared victory, while Deng achieved complete political victory over his dissidents but didn't bother declaring it. As a point of interest, the Chinese declared their objectives beforehand, together with their intention not to use their air force, so as to reassure everyone (not least the Vietnamese) that this was to be a limited operation. Basically they stated their objective and their intention to use land forces only, pushed forward with exorbitant losses until they reached the objectives, declared victory and returned home, all for the purpose of settling an internal debate in the Chinese government. Hilariously incomprehensible to our western perspectives.

[drone]

Obama had the chance to force the Republican hawks in Congress to put up/shut up on extended action against ISIS and he either blew it or just doesn't want to give up his ill-gotten extended executive powers. Fails as both a Chicago politician and a Constitutional scholar.

Relevant thread ambience.