Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

The Constitution IsThe Supreme Law ofThe Land

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 4:52:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land then how come all the unConstitutional laws override it?

For example, if I'm sitting in my car munching on some magic mushrooms and a cop tries to arrest me under an unConstitutional law, how come the cop won't leave me alone if I whip out my Constitution?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 5:01:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 4:52:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land then how come all the unConstitutional laws override it?

For example, if I'm sitting in my car munching on some magic mushrooms and a cop tries to arrest me under an unConstitutional law, how come the cop won't leave me alone if I whip out my Constitution?

Because the constitution is nothing but a piece of paper.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 5:01:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 4:52:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land then how come all the unConstitutional laws override it?

For example, if I'm sitting in my car munching on some magic mushrooms and a cop tries to arrest me under an unConstitutional law, how come the cop won't leave me alone if I whip out my Constitution?

Because you're in public. He's not arresting you under an unconstitutional law if you're in public.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 5:02:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 4:52:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land then how come all the unConstitutional laws override it?

For example, if I'm sitting in my car munching on some magic mushrooms and a cop tries to arrest me under an unConstitutional law, how come the cop won't leave me alone if I whip out my Constitution?

Disregarding the 14th amendment:

Under the constitution.. States can pass laws outlawing shrooms.

Any Federal laws about such are, under a reasonable interpretation of the constitution, Unconstitutional.... But states are free to pass such laws.

However... the 14th amendment Really screws up the tenth, and our whole Dual level government set-up pretty good too.

Read properly, I'd say, given the 10th amendment, the 14th amendment makes it so the states can do No More than the Feds... making laws of Most stripes illegal.

That interpretation isn't really what the people who wrote/supported the 14th amendment wanted though, or what most people want now..

so the sensible interpretation is dropped, and instead they basically completely forget about the 10th amendment, and make it so the Feds can establish whatever limits they want (w/o constitutional change), and the states have to follow sway.

Though of course such an interpretation is nonsense.. so it's not really mentioned explicitly ;)

the 14th amendment should be revised.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 5:11:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
eh, perhaps I give the 14th amendment too much credit..

the "Privileges and Immunities" of Citizens of US does not mean that they are so numbered as those "rights" which the Fed's must respect of citizens.

it's not a Privilege to speak freely.. it's a Right of a person which the Feds Cannot abridge. Nowhere (including the 14th) is it said that the State's can't.

the constitution should be revised to make sure the states don't abridge certain rights..

but the idea behind the State/Federal setup that was made manifest through the constitution was that the States would have more powers over the people than would the Feds..

read reasonably the 14th shouldn't do away with that.

and, read reasonably the 14 does not conflict with the tenth.

and the tenth limits the Feds to the powers listed in the constitution.

so.. Federal laws on shrooms are (on a sensible reading) unconstitutional.. State laws are Not.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 5:23:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 5:01:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
Because the constitution is nothing but a piece of paper.

This.

And more specifically, because the government gets to be the arbiter in its own cases. In a series of decsions, most notably Gonzalez v. Raich and Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court decided that the interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to do pretty much whatever the hell they want.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 5:35:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 5:01:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/25/2011 4:52:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land then how come all the unConstitutional laws override it?

For example, if I'm sitting in my car munching on some magic mushrooms and a cop tries to arrest me under an unConstitutional law, how come the cop won't leave me alone if I whip out my Constitution?

Because the constitution is nothing but a piece of paper.

Irrelevant. We are not arguing the legitimacy and power of paper. We are assuming that such paper does possess power/authority.

The Constitution holds the framework for how this country operates.

If the Constitution is held to be authoritative over all other laws (pieces of paper as you call it) then why is it not recognized or treated as such?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 6:19:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 5:35:58 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/25/2011 5:01:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/25/2011 4:52:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land then how come all the unConstitutional laws override it?

For example, if I'm sitting in my car munching on some magic mushrooms and a cop tries to arrest me under an unConstitutional law, how come the cop won't leave me alone if I whip out my Constitution?

Because the constitution is nothing but a piece of paper.

Irrelevant. We are not arguing the legitimacy and power of paper. We are assuming that such paper does possess power/authority.

I don't make that assumption. And looking around at the world and how it works, not making that assumption appears to be correct.


The Constitution holds the framework for how this country operates.

If the Constitution is held to be authoritative over all other laws (pieces of paper as you call it) then why is it not recognized or treated as such?

If it is held to be that, then it should, but it isn't. That's the point. I would love to see a government step up and say "hey people, we are going to obide by the constitution 100%," you would see it repealed so damn fast it would make the lizard people's heads spin.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 6:23:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Lands do not have laws. Men do not have laws. They only have their individual preferences. Legalism is just modern divine command theory.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 6:33:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 6:19:58 PM, OreEle wrote:
If the Constitution is held to be authoritative over all other laws (pieces of paper as you call it) then why is it not recognized or treated as such?

If it is held to be that, then it should, but it isn't.

It is held to be..

when it's not followed it's NOT b/c those who decide cases say "To hell with the constitution"...

it's not followed b/c of bullsh*t interpretations.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 6:51:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 6:23:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
Lands do not have laws. Men do not have laws. They only have their individual preferences.

I would tend agree with that.

Legalism is just modern divine command theory.

That's not always the case. Aristotle says that "The law is reason unaffected by desire" and that even "monarchs" and statesmen are held accountable to the law and cannot be decided by their whims (divine command theory).

It's called Natural Law as supported by Hobbes, Lock, and Aristotle.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2011 8:32:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 6:51:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Legalism is just modern divine command theory.

That's not always the case. Aristotle says that "The law is reason unaffected by desire" and that even "monarchs" and statesmen are held accountable to the law and cannot be decided by their whims (divine command theory).

Reason unaffected by desire is an oxymoron. All reasoning is purposeful, and therefore must be caused by desire, even if it is the desire to be logical for its own sake.

Divorce from desire is even more impossible when you factor in the fact that "law" must always be applied by another man. So desire manifests itself again.

His discourse on monarchs and statesmen being held to the law is even sillier. In what court does the king stand trial? The king's court? There is no judge who auto-applies objective law. This is why legalism is on par with DCT - they both assume metaphysical intervention.

It's called Natural Law as supported by Hobbes, Lock, and Aristotle.

Their definitions of natural law are... confusing at best. A strict interpretation of natural law says that those are just laws that flow from a base set of social assumptions. As far as I can see, natural law cannot apply to physical action since a near infinite combination of those have been successfully tried.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:20:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 6:33:19 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/25/2011 6:19:58 PM, OreEle wrote:
If the Constitution is held to be authoritative over all other laws (pieces of paper as you call it) then why is it not recognized or treated as such?

If it is held to be that, then it should, but it isn't.

It is held to be..

when it's not followed it's NOT b/c those who decide cases say "To hell with the constitution"...

it's not followed b/c of bullsh*t interpretations.

People choose not to follow it, but then look for someway to go back into "well yeah, if interpretated this way, we technically are still following it."

If we forced an accurate following of it (as the founding fathers followed it) and gave people the dichotomy of "follow as-is" or "drop it and make a new one" it wouldn't take long for people agree on dropping it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:35:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 4:52:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land then how come all the unConstitutional laws override it?

They don't. They have lawyers that get around it by language or lawyer logic, and no one gives it to the supreme court to rule on.


For example, if I'm sitting in my car munching on some magic mushrooms and a cop tries to arrest me under an unConstitutional law, how come the cop won't leave me alone if I whip out my Constitution?

Because the Supreme Court has said it is constitutional for him to arrest you.

The constitution is only a piece of parchment. That is all.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:40:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 5:02:53 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/25/2011 4:52:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land then how come all the unConstitutional laws override it?

For example, if I'm sitting in my car munching on some magic mushrooms and a cop tries to arrest me under an unConstitutional law, how come the cop won't leave me alone if I whip out my Constitution?

Disregarding the 14th amendment:

Under the constitution.. States can pass laws outlawing shrooms.

Any Federal laws about such are, under a reasonable interpretation of the constitution, Unconstitutional.... But states are free to pass such laws.

However... the 14th amendment Really screws up the tenth, and our whole Dual level government set-up pretty good too.


It did not really screw it up. It just brought about substantive due process. I do agree that it is very convoluted, and ambiguous in its writing, but I like it nonetheless.

Read properly, I'd say, given the 10th amendment, the 14th amendment makes it so the states can do No More than the Feds... making laws of Most stripes illegal.

That interpretation isn't really what the people who wrote/supported the 14th amendment wanted though, or what most people want now..


I do not agree with this at all. The writers copt out and meant to make it so weird. It has created some of the best laws and true freedom from government.

so the sensible interpretation is dropped, and instead they basically completely forget about the 10th amendment, and make it so the Feds can establish whatever limits they want (w/o constitutional change), and the states have to follow sway.


Na.

Though of course such an interpretation is nonsense.. so it's not really mentioned explicitly ;)

the 14th amendment should be revised.

No. It is better to have it than not.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:41:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/25/2011 5:11:14 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
eh, perhaps I give the 14th amendment too much credit..

the "Privileges and Immunities" of Citizens of US does not mean that they are so numbered as those "rights" which the Fed's must respect of citizens.

it's not a Privilege to speak freely.. it's a Right of a person which the Feds Cannot abridge. Nowhere (including the 14th) is it said that the State's can't.

the constitution should be revised to make sure the states don't abridge certain rights..


That is what the 14th has done.

but the idea behind the State/Federal setup that was made manifest through the constitution was that the States would have more powers over the people than would the Feds..

read reasonably the 14th shouldn't do away with that.

and, read reasonably the 14 does not conflict with the tenth.


I don't see it that way.

and the tenth limits the Feds to the powers listed in the constitution.

so.. Federal laws on shrooms are (on a sensible reading) unconstitutional.. State laws are Not.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:46:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:20:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/25/2011 6:33:19 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/25/2011 6:19:58 PM, OreEle wrote:
If the Constitution is held to be authoritative over all other laws (pieces of paper as you call it) then why is it not recognized or treated as such?

If it is held to be that, then it should, but it isn't.

It is held to be..

when it's not followed it's NOT b/c those who decide cases say "To hell with the constitution"...

it's not followed b/c of bullsh*t interpretations.

People choose not to follow it, but then look for someway to go back into "well yeah, if interpretated this way, we technically are still following it."

If we forced an accurate following of it (as the founding fathers followed it)

Na. They did not follow it fully.

and gave people the dichotomy of "follow as-is" or "drop it and make a new one" it wouldn't take long for people agree on dropping it.

It is hard to "Where do rights come from."