Steve,

I understand your comparison with Newton, but the issues with F=MA are different. Although 'F' was then only an outcome, it still worked on a highly predictable level, and still does.

Ditto with gravity. Philosophically, in terms of epistemology, one might say that using left-siders as outcomes without explaing 'what it really is 'incomplete' . But again, it works, which offers us a strong 'coherentist' argument that overcomes 'foundationalist' shortcomings,

Jefferson  got it right because he employed standard Enlightenment phrasiology that had been around at least since Locke if you're English, Montaigne if you're French, Spinoza if you're Dutch, Salamanca School if you're Spanush...etc...The Dof I was meant to reflect these values to the extent that England was siad to act inconsistent with the values she espoused. This, precisely was the rhetorical value of the Dof I-- not it's 'discovery' of principles.

In any case, I see the Constitution as different. Although you might say that the values of the Enlightenment were imbedded into the text, they're embedded into every other constitutional text, as well. But all constitutions vary in content, yes? Therefore, holding 'enlightenment values' might be necessary, but is hardly sufficient to explain, say, one's opposition to slavery.

In this particular, Lincoln was not opposed to slavery on enlightement grounds. Rather, his party as a platform in 1860 wanted to keep in in the south. His argument was that because the institution would devalue free labor, it cannot be permitted into terratories in which the fed govt claimed jurisdiction. hence his rebuttal to Tanney's Dred-Scott.

Racism always involves accounts of people being less-than-human, therefore not equally endowed'...ditto with sexism, of course. Enlightennemnt equality only involves those who are a priori deemed 'equal' to begin with.

So since there's institutional racism and sexism in the southren states (where I used to live), it would imply that their legislation would naturally follow this course.  Hence we have the task of necessary federal intervention by an interpretation of the constitution with which you do not agree--14th Amendment.

Re 'Eva': as distinguished from my own Sweet Pickles who tries to read and then signs off on my posts, I do remember some nasty exchanges back in January that involved an 'Eva', to which I gave a follow-up. Then I quit participating because, again, I'm not here for three-stoogery, only for discussion, and I refuse to wade thru the bullshit.

So as to who 'Eva' is, I neither care nor have sufficient time to find out. I therefore leave this effort of discovery to those who have nothing of content to offer--stooges, all. 

But still, I'm a bit vexed as to how the moderator can get bogged down in such 'who he is' nonsense by permitting the aforesaid three stoogery to appear on line. At the same time, I'm in 'moderation' for having written only of content, and having stuck faithfullyto the subjct-line.

A friend of mine--who is not a Libertarian like myself--recommended me to this site with the dire warning that 'Objectivites' can get rather personal, rather quickly. That I employ his Atlanta-based protocol was advised, because if you say something 'wrong', they'll try to track you down. So while this email goes to Atlanta, I can be found nestled beachside in Jupiter, Fla.

Lastly, a quick thought: perhaps, in order to stop all this investigative nonsense, we should all just post anonymously?

WH

Will,

We disagee on the constitution totally. You haven't had said what you want as a mechanism to ensure liberty if we don't use the constitution.  You don't comment on my description of constitutionality.  You make fuzzy comments about all constitutions having 'enlightenment values' and then you say that constitutional content varies in all constitutions, and then conclude that enlightenment values don't really line up with, "say, opposition to slavery." You didn't answer my arguments. There is no reason to discuss this issue any further.

You claim that Lincoln's opposition to slavery had nothing to do with equality under the law for all humans - which contradicts everything that I know about his deepest beliefs.  His attempt to keep slavery out of the new territories was his political attempt to keep slave states from becoming a majority in congress. Why? Because he opposed slavery.  Why?  Because he believe in equality under the law.

-----------------

Racism always involves accounts of people being less-than-human, therefore not equally endowed'...ditto with sexism, of course. Enlightennemnt equality only involves those who are a priori deemed 'equal' to begin with.

So since there's institutional racism and sexism in the southren states (where I used to live), it would imply that their legislation would naturally follow this course.

You are conflating views where people are seen to have unequal value based upon race or sex, with the concept of equal under the law.

I too have lived in the South.  And I saw people who were racist but still believed in equal rights under the law. And "institutional racism and sexism" no longer exist to any significant degree in the South... except in the minds of Progressives.

Why would you say I disagree with the 14th amendment?
- Section 1 was just the attempt to ensure citizenship for emancipated blacks and their children.
- Section 2 (apart from the exclusion of American Indians which I disagree with) just ensured the one person, one vote. It should have been men and women.
- Section 3 just said that if people had sworn an oath of allegiance to the constitution and then violated it by fighting against the US of A, they were not eligible to hold office. Congress could override this with a 2/3rds vote on an individual basis. Sounds reasonable to me.
- Section 4 was just to ensure that the debts incurred by the confederate states in fighting the Union would not be assumed by the US of A.
-----------------

I don't believe what you are saying regarding Eva and past posts.  Asking me to believe your denials is pretty close to insulting.  I see way too many similarites to believe in a Will F Harraway who has no Internet foot print.

I have no idea who is who in all of this mess (you there, Marotta?).

You suggested, "... a quick thought: perhaps, in order to stop all this investigative nonsense, we should all just post anonymously?" How about we all post honestly, not pretending to be part of a group we aren't in agreement with, and not post anonymously at all?

Steve,

Our differences are not about liberty as such. Rather, it's that I'm skeptical that any  written document can ensure freedom, which is how we behave.

* Our constitution's assurances are no different than those of others whose real-life freedoms have, indeed been violated.

* Out FF's were not demi-gods who saw beyond their present. Rather, they were intelligent and well-intentioned humans who reflected the hightest values and aspirations of their age. For this, we can be thankful. Spain, for example deserved as much, which is to say that not all European countries accepted The Enlightenment.

* To say that the Jeffersonian draft of the Dof I is imbedded in the Constitution is true, but thin. In other words, the articles themselves could have been different with the same Jeffersonian intent. In philosophy, this is the 'necessary but insufficient' rider.

* Many philosophers, from Negri to Godel, have commented that the constitution is strictly procedural; it's a doctrine of pure immanence in which the real freedom lies in its ability to say nothing of real content. Rather, we are free to make any sort of laws we want, assuming we follow the procedural guidelines.

The hero here is Spinoza's vision of democracy in which we collectivize to the extent that we understand (or assume!) to do more as a team than as individuals. the document permits us that freedom.

To this end, i'll be happy to listen to your understanding as to how the constitution should be interpreted. Moreover, with all due respect, I still can't derive any real hands-on sense from your employ of 'return to constitutionality'. To me, it's like saying ,"The fish returned to water".

Lastly, my belief that 'constitutional fidelity' is a canard is based upon the fact that it says nothing of real-life behavior and attitudes. Although these must change in many cases to make life better, they must also stay the same in terms of how we respect each others' right to speech. This, in essence, is what protects us--far more than a scrap odf paper.

WH

Steve,

Your approach to the texrt is 'formalist', while mine is 'realist'.

'Formalism' means deriving an understandung from the text in question by a meaning of the words themselves, assuming that they're both clear and understood.

Realism, oth, is about two related issue:

* Context. How can the Second Amendment be understood in light of the fact that the key referent, 'militia', no ;longer exists?

* What are the consequences of understanding a phrase in a certain way? Were the FF's concerned with criminal or injuns?  Or rather, did they understand the necessity of a frontier life that no longer exists? 

I deny that any text older than a good bottle of wine can be directly understood as the author intende it to be.

This isn't 'relativiism', btw--rather a statement as to how things are. To see virtues in both textual formalism as well as realism would be relativist. But formalism is utter nonsense because it doesn't work.

Wow?

How touching Eva...

Fissile 

Hey Joe, yes I saw the post "it" made on The Daily Bell.  What a horrible excuse for a human.  Galt help us all if people like that ever get into politics.  Ahh crap, too late we already have Obama!