Re: [CTRL] The Living Constitution - Manifesto for the total State
-Caveat Lector- On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:44:34 -0600 K [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Caveat Lector- The Living Constitution by David Dieteman One of the most nefarious influences in the minds of Americans is the notion that the federal constitution of 1787 (the "U.S. Constitution") is a "living" document. Gotta agree here. Thus, despite the fact that the Fifth Amendment states that "No man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," the United States Supreme Court once found it "unconstitutional" for states to have capital punishment. It is beyond rational dispute that a document which states that a man may be "deprived of life" following the "due process of law" does not itself outlaw executions. Right here I skipped down and sure enough Mr. Dieteman is a lawyer. The fly in the ointment is "due process of law". Due Process has become what ever the lawmakers define it as. That is the problem. As we have seen over and over (and will continue to see), lawyers (and district attorneys, a particularly vile form of lawyer) write the laws in 'special' language. They then 'interpret' the laws. The result is a system that has no relation to common sense, a jury of your peers, or justice for all. Common sense has been replaced by legal trickery, a jury of your peers is often instructed on how they "must" find, and justice for all has become justice for all that can afford it. Laws written in plain language that the average person can understand, freedom for a jury to make whatever findings they feel are appropriate, and a cleansing of the court process are direly needed. Imagine for a moment that the speed limit was a "living" speed limit. It should be. Outside of urban areas, speed limits are merely a way for local governments to fatten the public coffers. Imagine that the laws against rape are "living," and this game is no longer funny. Not funny is the 17 year old who is currently doing a manditory 20 years for having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. It is of the utmost importance, however, for citizens of a republic such as the United States, and for citizens of the states and cities, to realize that when you do not like the law, the way to change it is not to pretend that it is not the law. Don't confuse the Constitution with the "law". The Constitution defines what the Government can and cannot do to the people. The "Law" is a continually growing modifier of the Constitution. Since the "Body of Law" has grown so oppressive, the only viable alternative is for people to, for the most part, just ignore it. If all the laws on the books were enforced equally, every one of us would be in jail. Instead, they are selectively applied according to the whims of the government. This is not a system of justice, but a thinly disguised oppressive government. The concept of a constitution is of a document (or a group of unwritten concepts and some written documents, as in the English constitution) which serves as a skeletal structure for the body politic. Rather than being a functional law which sets the speed limit, for example, a constitution sets the shape of the regime which will then make the laws which help us get through everyday life. That is the way it should be. However, I maintain that, in the U.S. we have allowed our legal system to get so far out of hand as to make the Constitution irrelevant to everyday life. (Stop laughing that is the theory) (I'm not laughing. I think you are serious...and that is scary but understandable considering the investment you have in maintaining the current system) The trouble in the United States is that certain Americans, in their super-hero like zeal to "make things right," lost patience with the law. They chose to operate outside the legal process "to get results." Guess what: your mother was right. This choice has consequences. The same choices we made in 1776? Are the consequences the same too? I hope so. Whereas American law in the 1950s and early 1960s may have been too slow to adapt to social changes, the pendulum has now swung fully to the other side. Today, no change can come fast enough, and the notion that the law presents any real limits on political action is nearly lost. On political action I would agree. However, on the social front we are far too controlled by "The Law". snip the anti Clinton rant To be fair, the American disrespect for the law is not only the product of zealous do-gooders striving to overturn unjust laws. It is also the product of misguided legislators and citizens who, to be fair, are zealous do-gooders as well who have given America a severe case of hyperlexis (that's Latin for "too much law"). OK, I agree profoundly with that. TOO MUCH LAW!!! St. Thomas Aquinas famously writes in his Summa Theologica that the law should not require more of a people than they are able to do, as they will lose respect for the law. I think the quote I use regularly is far more
[CTRL] The Living Constitution - Manifesto for the total State
-Caveat Lector- The Living Constitution by David Dieteman One of the most nefarious influences in the minds of Americans is the notion that the federal constitution of 1787 (the "U.S. Constitution") is a "living" document. What exactly does this mean? It is supposed to mean that, rather than having the meaning of the words on the paper, the federal constitution means whatever it ought to mean at a given time. It necessarily follows from this that it will not mean the same thing at different times. Thus, despite the fact that the Fifth Amendment states that "No man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," the United States Supreme Court once found it "unconstitutional" for states to have capital punishment. It is beyond rational dispute that a document which states that a man may be "deprived of life" following the "due process of law" does not itself outlaw executions. Yet the Supreme Court thought so. The reason for this is that a "living" constitution is no constitution at all it is in fact nothing. Imagine for a moment that the speed limit was a "living" speed limit. Rather than be bound by the posted 65 (in Pennsylvania) or 70 (in Michigan), you could tell the officer who pulls you over that the traffic law is "a living thing," and that for your high-performance car, on this flat, straight, dry road, such a law drawn up by dead white males (who probably smoked tobacco and were heterosexuals, and were at least related by skin color to persons who might have owned slaves) can have no application to you. Imagine that the laws against rape are "living," and this game is no longer funny. I do not contend that it is the role of citizens to sheepishly slave under whatever tyrannical dictates are handed down from above. A sustained gripe campaign ultimately ended Richard Nixon's "gas- saving" 55 mile per hour speed limit (yes, it was originally enacted in response to an "energy crisis," but hung on so long in part because of "safety" concerns). It is of the utmost importance, however, for citizens of a republic such as the United States, and for citizens of the states and cities, to realize that when you do not like the law, the way to change it is not to pretend that it is not the law. The concept of a constitution is of a document (or a group of unwritten concepts and some written documents, as in the English constitution) which serves as a skeletal structure for the body politic. Rather than being a functional law which sets the speed limit, for example, a constitution sets the shape of the regime which will then make the laws which help us get through everyday life. (Stop laughing that is the theory. Anarcho-capitalism, i.e. a purely private social order, is the subject of another essay.) The trouble in the United States is that certain Americans, in their super-hero like zeal to "make things right," lost patience with the law. They chose to operate outside the legal process "to get results." Guess what: your mother was right. This choice has consequences. Whereas American law in the 1950s and early 1960s may have been too slow to adapt to social changes, the pendulum has now swung fully to the other side. Today, no change can come fast enough, and the notion that the law presents any real limits on political action is nearly lost. One notable example of American disrespect for the law is the Clinton administration's response to court rulings over the powers of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD, for short. After HUD overstepped its bounds, a federal district judge issued a ruling to that effect. In reply, the Clinton administration instructed the regional HUD offices to ignore opinions of U.S. Circuit Courts the federal appeals courts which are one step below the Supreme Court. The HUD offices were told only to abide by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. This course of action shows a complete lack of respect for the law (it may also show that Clinton has not fulfilled his oath not surprising for a perjurer to uphold the Constitution and execute the laws of the United States). To be fair, the American disrespect for the law is not only the product of zealous do-gooders striving to overturn unjust laws. It is also the product of misguided legislators and citizens who, to be fair, are zealous do-gooders as well who have given America a severe case of hyperlexis (that's Latin for "too much law"). St. Thomas Aquinas famously writes in his Summa Theologica that the law should not require more of a people than they are able to do, as they will lose respect for the law. Despite the fact that St. Thomas lived from 1225 to 1274, our "experts" in Washington (who would be ousted by term limits) have not learned this lesson. Thus, the Congress passes its share of burdensome laws the tax code, for one while spawning other federal agencies with "rule-making" powers that are effectively legislative powers. Between EPA and OSHA, try
