NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is mainly for the Americans here, but everyone is invited to chime in, if they like.

Mainly, I have a question to ponder.

Does Judicial Review extend over constitutional amendments?

I would have to say, even though Judicial Review is unpalatable to me in general, that it would have no power over the amendment process. Support for this is in the repeal of the 18th Amendment - Prohibition. If amendments were subject to Judicial Review, then the 21st Amendment would be null and void, because it is in conflict with the 18th.

Indeed, if Judicial Review applied to amendments, no amendment would be valid. The changes being wrought by an amendment are altering the existing Constitution. Since a change to the Constitution is, by definition, unconstitutional, Judicial Review would have to strike down any amendment.

Thoughts?

Comments?

Orders for pizza?

The primary reason some people want constitutional amendments banning flag burning or same-sex marriage is precisely that an amendment is part of the Constitution and therefore exempt from judicial review. Congratulations on your astute deduction.

Duh

Plain cheese for me, please.

The same principle is why my friends and neighbors in Colorado made the "marriage is between one man, one woman" thing a constitutional amendment in November, they're much, much harder to get rid of. You basically have to re-amend the constitution.

The changes being wrought by an amendment are altering the existing Constitution. Since a change to the Constitution is, by definition, unconstitutional, Judicial Review would have to strike down any amendment.
How can amending the Constitution be unconstitutional if the Constitution contains provisions for amending itself, itself?

...

Wow, that sentence was a lot more confusing than I thought it'd be...

How can amending the Constitution be unconstitutional if the Constitution contains provisions for amending itself, itself?

...

Wow, that sentence was a lot more confusing than I thought it'd be...

*offers a cool towel and a cookie*

The primary reason some people want constitutional amendments banning flag burning or same-sex marriage is precisely that an amendment is part of the Constitution and therefore exempt from judicial review. That and that banning both is currently unconstitutional.

How can amending the Constitution be unconstitutional if the Constitution contains provisions for amending itself, itself?

...

Wow, that sentence was a lot more confusing than I thought it'd be...

Because, until the amendment passes, it is not in conformance with the Constitution by it's very nature.

And, this is why Judicial Review does not apply to the amendment process or amendments.

Actually, since Judicial Review is a power the supreme Court took upon itself - the Constitution gives them no such charge - it is an illegal process in and of itself.

Now, that being said, I do think that the Court should have Judicial Review powers. But, until an amendment is ratified giving them this duty, they are in violation of the Constitution every time they exercise it.

Ain't Constitutional Law fun?

That and that banning both is currently unconstitutional.

Well, if banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, I wish someone would challenge all the friggin' "defense of marriage" acts that keep getting passed, already!

Well, if banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

It isn't.

In fact, it is in the interest of the US government to enact an amendment defining marriage. At any rate, it must define it in some fashion.

The 16th Amendment gave us income tax. The IRS is the agency empowered to enforce the rules and derives that power from Article I, Section 8, Clause 18;

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Since our income tax is dependent upon our marital status, the government MUST define what marriage is in order that the tax-payer knows what constitutes marriage under the law.

Repeal the 16th and all interest from the federal government is obviated. But, as long as it's there and marital status decides taxes, the government must define what it is.

It isn't.

In fact, it is in the interest of the US government to enact an amendment defining marriage. At any rate, it must define it in some fashion.But not in some way that violates the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, which banning same sex marriage would do.

But not in some way that violates the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, which banning same sex marriage would do.

It would supercede the 9th and 14th, as the 13th supercedes Article I, Section 2, Clause 3;

"... three fifths of all other Persons."

That aside, how would banning same sex marriage be in violation of the 9th or 14th?

It would be a ban on same sex marriage for all, not any segregated group.

It would supercede the 9th and 14th, as the 13th supercedes Article I, Section 2, Clause 3;

"... three fifths of all other Persons."

That aside, how would banning same sex marriage be in violation of the 9th or 14th?

It would be a ban on same sex marriage for all, not any segregated group.

The government tried that logic in Loving v Virginia. SCOTUS said it was a crap argument. Same applies here, or rather, will apply here as our society opens up. Living Constitution, you know.

It would supercede the 9th and 14th, as the 13th supercedes Article I, Section 2, Clause 3;

"... three fifths of all other Persons."

That aside, how would banning same sex marriage be in violation of the 9th or 14th?

It would be a ban on same sex marriage for all, not any segregated group.

It would create a segregated, second class of citizens with fewer rights than other citizens, based solely on sexual orientation. SCOTUS' decision in Loving said that marriage is a right.

In the end the Supreme Court decides what the words of the constitution mean. But they can't decide until someone sues and appeals to them Then they have the power to decide if they want to hear the case or not. If they say no the ruling of the lower court stands in the region where that court has authority. But in another region, another lower court can rule just the opposite. Then different regions have different rules. Usually when that happens the Supreme Court feels obligated to take the cases and make a ruling.

The state constitutions can't go against the Federal constitution so if the SC rules against the state constitutions by saying the Fed constitution means something then the state amendments become void. In the mean time, the states can have different rules in their constitutions.

However; when it comes to marriage, the equal protection amendment has always been interpreted as if someone's marriage was recognized in one state then it was recognized in all states by the Fed constitution. The Supreme court will have to rule if the equal protection clause applies to marriage if some states allow for gay marriage and others don't. Or it may be that every time one moves they will have to get remarried in the new state.

Living Constitution, you know.

No such thing.

It would create a segregated, second class of citizens with fewer rights than other citizens, based solely on sexual orientation.

Who? If the ban applies to ALL, who is segregated?

SCOTUS' decision in Loving said that marriage is a right.

Yeah.

How'd that ol' Dred Scott and Slaughterhouse go?

In the end the Supreme Court decides what the words of the constitution mean. But they can't decide until someone sues and appeals to them Then they have the power to decide if they want to hear the case or not. If they say no the ruling of the lower court stands in the region where that court has authority. But in another region, another lower court can rule just the opposite. Then different regions have different rules. Usually when that happens the Supreme Court feels obligated to take the cases and make a ruling.

The state constitutions can't go against the Federal constitution so if the SC rules against the state constitutions by saying the Fed constitution means something then the state amendments become void. In the mean time, the states can have different rules in their constitutions.

However; when it comes to marriage, the equal protection amendment has always been interpreted as if someone's marriage was recognized in one state then it was recognized in all states by the Fed constitution. The Supreme court will have to rule if the equal protection clause applies to marriage if some states allow for gay marriage and others don't. Or it may be that every time one moves they will have to get remarried in the new state.

They will have to address it at some point, I agree. And I thought the "full faith and credit" clause of Article 4 took care of not having to get married if you move from one state to another, and kept you from having to get a new driver's license if you spend a few days out of your home state, etc.

I'm not in the mood for a full-fledged debate on this, we had one here a week or so ago. My position is, if Jack and Jill can stroll down to City Hall, get a license and assuming they meet the criteria, just get married, why can't Jill and Mary? Or Jack and Bill? Are they not citizens, too? Or do gay citizens simply have fewer rights?

No such thing.

In that it's all imaginary anyway, I agree :)

Who? If the ban applies to ALL, who is segregated?Men are segregated from marrying men, and women are segregated from marrying women.

I'm not in the mood for a full-fledged debate on this, we had one here a week or so ago. My position is, if Jack and Jill can stroll down to City Hall, get a license and assuming they meet the criteria, just get married, why can't Jill and Mary? Or Jack and Bill? Are they not citizens, too? Or do gay citizens simply have fewer rights?

Despite yips of Loving, marriage is not a right.

Jill and Mary or Jack and Bill want the equivalent bennies - and responsibilities - of marriage, fine, but call it a Civil Union, not Marriage.

Of course, all this is tangential. It hardly addresses whether Judicial Review applies to amendments or not...

It would create a segregated, second class of citizens with fewer rights than other citizens, based solely on sexual orientation. SCOTUS' decision in Loving said that marriage is a right.

I have to agree. Only once did a constitutional amendment take away rights. (prohibition) Every other amendment that deals with rights ADDS new rights to the people. It would be a shame to add another that would remove rights from a class of people.

It has been the American ideal to give everyone as many rights as possible as long as they didn't take rights from someone else. No one has shown how gay marriage would take rights away from someone else.

No such thing.

Spare me. You don't really want to live in a society where we're using late 18th century definitions of concepts like speech and commerce. The Constitution is a living document because it has to be, lest it become obsolete. That's why it deals largely in abstractions instead of concrete arguments.

Despite yips of Loving, marriage is not a right.

Jill and Mary or Jack and Bill want the equivalent bennies - and responsibilities - of marriage, fine, but call it a Civil Union, not Marriage.In other words, you can't really argue against the facts, so you're going to take your ball and go home.

Of course, all this is tangential. It hardly addresses whether Judicial Review applies to amendments or not...
Of course it's tangential. We dealt with your original "question" in the first three or four posts on the thread.

It hardly addresses whether Judicial Review applies to amendments or not...

The answer is: The Supreme Court rules what the words of the constitution including the amendments mean.

As far as the OP goes, the answer is no.

Judicial review is used to determine if a piece of legislation is unconstitutional. But, if you amend the constitution to include something, it becomes constitutional because it is in the constitution.

Ok, thats a really awkward phrasing, but you get the idear (I hope).

Jill and Mary or Jack and Bill want the equivalent bennies - and responsibilities - of marriage, fine, but call it a Civil Union, not Marriage.


The Supreme Court ruled that "Separate but Equal" is not possible.

Spare me. You don't really want to live in a society where we're using late 18th century definitions of concepts like speech and commerce. The Constitution is a living document because it has to be, lest it become obsolete. That's why it deals largely in abstractions instead of concrete arguments.

The Constitution is LAW. The Supreme Law of the Land, to be exact.

Laws are not "living." They are exactly what they are written until altered via legislation or repealed.

So, the Constitution is NOT a "living document."

Since you put so much store by the words of supreme Court justices, here're the comments of one of them;

==========================
Scalia slams 'living' document philosophy

Justice draws overflow crowd, protesters at Marquette

By TOM KERTSCHER
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: March 13, 2001

The Constitution is an enduring document but not a "living" one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in Milwaukee on Tuesday.
==========================
-- http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar01/scalia14031301a.asp

In other words, you can't really argue against the facts, so you're going to take your ball and go home.

Still here, dood.

while it is funny to see amateurs squibble about the constitution, it does get old at times.

Does Judicial Review extend over constitutional amendments?

They can only interpret the meaning of the Constitutional Amendment. They cannot rule wether or not it is constitutional.

I would have to say, even though Judicial Review is unpalatable to me in general, that it would have no power over the amendment process. Support for this is in the repeal of the 18th Amendment - Prohibition. If amendments were subject to Judicial Review, then the 21st Amendment would be null and void, because it is in conflict with the 18th.

Wrong. It would stay constitutional for it repealed something that should not have been in the constitution in the 1st place. By repealing the Prohibition amendment, the 21st amendment states that alcohol is indeed constitional to drink.

Indeed, if Judicial Review applied to amendments, no amendment would be valid. The changes being wrought by an amendment are altering the existing Constitution. Since a change to the Constitution is, by definition, unconstitutional, Judicial Review would have to strike down any amendment.

Thoughts?

Comments?

Orders for pizza?

I think you need to read up on the judiciary more and study the Constitution more indepth.

The Constitution is LAW. The Supreme Law of the Land, to be exact.

Laws are not "living." They are exactly what they are written until altered via legislation or repealed.

So, the Constitution is NOT a "living document."

Since you put so much store by the words of supreme Court justices, here're the comments of one of them;

==========================
Scalia slams 'living' document philosophy

Justice draws overflow crowd, protesters at Marquette

By TOM KERTSCHER
of the Journal Sentinel staff
Last Updated: March 13, 2001

The Constitution is an enduring document but not a "living" one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in Milwaukee on Tuesday.
==========================
-- http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar01/scalia14031301a.asp

I put a lot of stock in the words of some justices. Scalia is not one of those justices. He's a hack who has sold out his own judicial ideology in favor of a result he wanted more than once.

Still here, dood.

Not on the subject we were discussing at the time.

That and that banning both is currently unconstitutional.

Actually, the constitutional amendment, The Federal Marriage Amendment, would only recognize marriage as one man and one woman. I have not seen in this amendment the banning of civil unions which are just like marriage in reality.

And the states have jurisdication in the realms of marriage so they can regulate it however they please.

Wrong. It would stay constitutional for it repealed something that should not have been in the constitution in the 1st place. By repealing the Prohibition amendment, the 21st amendment states that alcohol is indeed constitional to drink.

Actually, no. The 21st addresses transportation and importation, not drinking.

As for the 18th, once in the Constitution it is, by defintion, Constitutional. Or, are you selective in what amendments are part of the Constitution?

I think you need to read up on the judiciary more and study the Constitution more indepth.

My study is just fine...

Actually, the constitutional amendment, The Federal Marriage Amendment, would only recognize marriage as one man and one woman. I have not seen in this amendment the banning of civil unions which are just like marriage in reality.


"Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Since only married men/women would have the right to be legally married, and only married men/women can have all the rights and privileges of marriage, same sex unions would be probably banned as well, since they would not be marriages but require some of the rights and privileges.

while it is funny to see amateurs squibble about the constitution, it does get old at times.

I have to agree.

I put a lot of stock in the words of some justices. Scalia is not one of those justices. He's a hack who has sold out his own judicial ideology in favor of a result he wanted more than once.

Demonstrate how he is wrong.

Tell us how laws morph over time based solely on the whims of society and not the legislative process.

Unless you deny that the Constitution is Law, I see no way you can substantiate that it can change its meaning over time absent intentional legislation to effect the change.

Demonstrate how he is wrong.

Tell us how laws morph over time based solely on the whims of society and not the legislative process.

Unless you deny that the Constitution is Law, I see no way you can substantiate that it can change its meaning over time absent intentional legislation to effect the change.

Watch out, Nazz will say you're a puppet, because you disagree...

Not on the subject we were discussing at the time.

I don't see how your comment applied to my response.

Marriage is not a right. Despite Loving. Just as the Court was wrong in Dred Scott, it is wrong in Loving.

If those who wish to engage in same-sex coupling want the trappings of marriage, they will have to call the process something else. Marriage is taken.

Demonstrate how I took my toys and went home.

Demonstrate how he is wrong.

Tell us how laws morph over time based solely on the whims of society and not the legislative process.

Unless you deny that the Constitution is Law, I see no way you can substantiate that it can change its meaning over time absent intentional legislation to effect the change.
We interpret the Commerce clause differently now than we did in 1800. Case closed. The words didn't change, but our understanding of them did, because what we understood as commerce changed.

"Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Since only married men/women would have the right to be legally married, and only married men/women can have all the rights and privileges of marriage, same sex unions would be probably banned as well, since they would not be marriages but require some of the rights and privileges.

The bolded part is where you went wrong. Technically this says that no state is required to give marital benefits to non married couples. It doesn't say they can't.

Watch out, Nazz will say you're a puppet, because you disagree...
Is that all you've got? Sad, really.

Marriage is not a right. Despite Loving. Just as the Court was wrong in Dred Scott, it is wrong in Loving.

And this is...what, your personal opinion? It's wrong because you think it's wrong?

It must be nice to be so egotistical that you can actually stand up here and declare the supreme court of the united states is wrong.

Hardly a good debate style by the way. It's never shows a degree of intellect to say the highest authority, the final aribiters, the ultimate voice on the subject is wrong, because YOU, an untrained amateur, disagree.

We interpret the Commerce clause differently now than we did in 1800. Case closed. The words didn't change, but our understanding of them did, because what we understood as commerce changed.

Case open.

We are abusing the meaning of the Commerce clause to twist it into something that fits what we want to do.

The LAW remains the LAW. Because it is being abused in no way changes the LAW.

Case closed.

Actually, no. The 21st addresses transportation and importation, not drinking.

As for the 18th, once in the Constitution it is, by defintion, Constitutional. Or, are you selective in what amendments are part of the Constitution?



My study is just fine...

Guess not!

Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

This was then repealed by the 21st amendment which states:

Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Therefore, the whole 18th amendment was repealed.

Case open.

We are abusing the meaning of the Commerce clause to twist it into something that fits what we want to do.

The LAW remains the LAW. Because it is being abused in no way changes the LAW.

Case closed.

translation: Basically I'm screaming "activist liberal judges!" but trying REALLY hard not to actually say "activist liberal judges"

And this is...what, your personal opinion? It's wrong because you think it's wrong?

Yup.

It must be nice to be so egotistical that you can actually stand up here and declare the supreme court of the united states is wrong.

Being right helps.

Hardly a good debate style by the way. It's never shows a degree of intellect to say the highest authority, the final aribiters, the ultimate voice on the subject is wrong, because YOU, an untrained amateur, disagree.

So, "the highest authority, the final aribiters, the ultimate voice on the subject" was steadfastly correct in Dred Scott?

The bolded part is where you went wrong. Technically this says that no state is required to give marital benefits to non married couples. It doesn't say they can't.
You missed out bolding where I said probably be banned, not definitely. A conservative judge could well interpret that way.

"Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.

Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Since only married men/women would have the right to be legally married, and only married men/women can have all the rights and privileges of marriage, same sex unions would be probably banned as well, since they would not be marriages but require some of the rights and privileges.

Marriage would be recognized as one man and one woman yes. However, if you notice, this is not saying that civil unions would not be banned. Some states have banned those as well unfortunately.

So, "the highest authority, the final aribiters, the ultimate voice on the subject" was steadfastly correct in Dred Scott?

as a matter of law? Yes, they were. By definition, while the Supreme Court can be wrong in the past, they can never be wrong in the present.

Now let me ask, by what LEGAL argument do you make your position? Through what legal stance do you challenge loving v. virginia? Through what legal situation can you turn it away.

"it's wrong because I think it's wrong" in the field of law is worth exacty jack shit.

It's worth even less when it's you saying it.

Guess not!

The 18th mentions "drinking" where, exactly?

Looks to me that it says, "manufacture, sale, or transportation," not "drinking."

Case open.

We are abusing the meaning of the Commerce clause to twist it into something that fits what we want to do.

The LAW remains the LAW. Because it is being abused in no way changes the LAW.

Case closed.

You act as though the ideas in the Constitution are solid and unchanging. You know nothing about the nature of language, and using bolds and capitals doesn't change that. The Constitution was written abstractly for a reason--so that it would be flexible and change as societies evolved. Meanings of words do not remain static, much as you might wish them to. Freedom is a concept, not an absolute. So is speech. What is considered speech today wasn't even imagined even thirty years ago.

So go ahead and screech all you want about the unchanging nature of the LAW. It won't change anything.

translation: Basically I'm screaming "activist liberal judges!" but trying REALLY hard not to actually say "activist liberal judges"

Nope.

Get the batteries in your ESP-ometer checked. It's giving you bad readings.

It's worth even less when it's you saying it.

My entire world view has been altered.

translation: Basically I'm screaming "activist liberal judges!" but trying REALLY hard not to actually say "activist liberal judges"

That's basiclly what he is doing.

The 18th mentions "drinking" where, exactly?

Care to show me where it says drinking in the 18th amendment please? It shows you do not have a clue what you are talking about!

You act as though the ideas in the Constitution are solid and unchanging.

Because that is the case.

Otherwise, there'd be no need for Article V.

The Constitution was written abstractly for a reason--so that it would be flexible and change as societies evolved.

It's not abstract at all. It is quite clear and straightforward.

It is "abstract" only to those who wish to abuse it and twist it to mean that which it does not.

The Constitution's flexibility and ability to change are provided for by Article V, not by the whims of a nebulous society.

Meanings of words do not remain static, much as you might wish them to.

Which is why the meaning at the time is what is important.

Freedom is a concept, not an absolute. So is speech. What is considered speech today wasn't even imagined even thirty years ago.

So? It's still speech. And, it gets twisted. Burning a flag is not speech. It is an act of arson.

So go ahead and screech all you want about the unchanging nature of the LAW. It won't change anything.

Because the LAW doesn't change.

Care to show me where it says drinking in the 18th amendment please? It shows you do not have a clue what you are talking about!

Try again, County. That's what I asked.

Because that is the case.

Otherwise, there'd be no need for Article V.



It's not abstract at all. It is quite clear and straightforward.

It is "abstract" only to those who wish to abuse it and twist it to mean that which it does not.

The Constitution's flexibility and ability to change are provided for by Article V, not by the whims of a nebulous society.



Which is why the meaning at the time is what is important.



So? It's still speech. And, it gets twisted. Burning a flag is not speech. It is an act of arson.



Because the LAW doesn't change.
:)
You're funny because you have no idea what you're talking about. Continue raving please. This is making my whole day.

:)
You're funny because you have no idea what you're talking about. Continue raving please. This is making my whole day.

Well, then let's reinterpret the First Amendment.

Obviously, "freedom of speech" meant freedom of the printing press. So we'll go ahead and make some decisions that "speech" doesn't mean what you type on the Internet.

Ok with that?

:)
You're funny because you have no idea what you're talking about. Continue raving please. This is making my whole day.

Glad you're enjoying it.

Best you've got?

Thought so.

Well, then let's reinterpret the First Amendment.

Obviously, "freedom of speech" meant freedom of the printing press. So we'll go ahead and make some decisions that "speech" doesn't mean what you type on the Internet.

Ok with that?

Nope--but some originalists might be. That's why I'm not an originalist. Speech is a fluid term, which has changed over time and encompasses far more today than it did in the late 18th century--that's why we interpret it differently today.

Nice doublespeak, by the way, calling original definition a reinterpretation.

Nope--but some originalists might be. That's why I'm not an originalist. Speech is a fluid term, which has changed over time and encompasses far more today than it did in the late 18th century--that's why we interpret it differently today.

Nice doublespeak, by the way, calling original definition a reinterpretation.

Ah, I see. It's reinterpretation (and good) if you agree with the outcome.

Nice doublethink there.

Nope--but some originalists might be.

No, they wouldn't be.

That's why I'm not an originalist.

Of course not. If you were, you'd be forced to adhere to the law. Heaven forbid your not being able to twist the law to something more suitable to your tastes.

Ah, I see. It's reinterpretation (and good) if you agree with the outcome.

Nice doublethink there.

you're um...you're arguing with the wrong person here.

Ah, I see. It's reinterpretation (and good) if you agree with the outcome.

Nice doublethink there.
Not even close, but thanks for showing once again your tenuous grasp on reality.

No, they wouldn't be.



Of course not. If you were, you'd be forced to adhere to the law. Heaven forbid your not being able to twist the law to something more suitable to your tastes.
Tell you what--when you have the ability to understand abstraction, maybe we'll have something else to talk about on this subject. Don't expect much else in the way of reply until that happens.

Not even close, but thanks for showing once again your tenuous grasp on reality.

Your defense in most posts seems to be calling your opponent crazy, stupid, unreal, or a puppet.

Do you have any thoughts at all?

Your defense in most posts seems to be calling your opponent crazy, stupid, unreal, or a puppet.

Do you have any thoughts at all?

I've expressed them quite cogently in this and other threads, as others will attest to. Maybe it's not me with the problem. Just sayin'.

Tell you what--when you have the ability to understand abstraction, maybe we'll have something else to talk about on this subject. Don't expect much else in the way of reply until that happens.

I understand abstraction fine.

But, the law is not abstract.

If the law is abstract, how does one know if one is in compliance?

How can one argue a defense or prosecution at trial, if the law is abstract?

JUDGE: I'm sorry, counselor. Due to a radical shift in societal norms last week, your argument is no longer valid as the law has changed.

LAWYER: What?!? Why wasn't I notified?

JUDGE: Just one of those things...

Try again, County. That's what I asked.

I just showed you that the whole 18th amendment was repealed. Section one of the 21st amendment states this. Section 2 requotes what was repealed.

I just showed you that the whole 18th amendment was repealed. Section one of the 21st amendment states this. Section 2 requotes what was repealed.

I never denied that the whole thing was repealed.

What I posted was that the amendment had nothing to do with DRINKING.

The problem is that words don't have meaning in and of themselves. Words are symbols that are used in an attempt to transfer meaning from one mind to another. But each mind filters the symbols. For example in a thread on the 2nd, what does "militia" mean? The meaning in some minds is totally different then in others. Add to this language drift. The meaning of words drifts over time. Example 1 Cor. 13 in King James uses the word "Charity". In modern bibles the word "Love" is used. That is because the word "Charity" has drifted in meaning from caring about someone to giving a dollar to the Salvation Army.

People laughed when Clinton said "It matters what the meaning of 'is' is." But words are not precise in meaning, even simple ones. That's why the old saying, "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" It would seem they would be the same but they actually mean three different things.

So, in a nation someone has to set the meaning of symbols used to govern. In the US that has been given to the Supreme Court. That is one reason they are in for life. Changes in interpretation can be made but only slowly as the members of the court change. Even then the meaning of words is hotly debated as an attempt is made to get that 5th vote.

I understand abstraction fine.

But, the law is not abstract.

The law is not abstract. It means exactly what the words that make it up means. The law is what it says it is, and what it says it is is what the words say it is.

The problem is, words are abstract.

I understand abstraction fine.

But, the law is not abstract.

[/INDENT]

Abstract may or may not be a good word depending on what it is describing. For instance, a law is passed that says the president can "use all means necessary". That is pretty abstract. It pretty much says "you are a dictator on this subject".

On the other hand a lot of problems with language are semantic. They carry emotion as well as a dictionary type meaning. Things like "death tax" are used because death has an emotional meaning beyond the actual definition. There has never been a "death tax", but inheritance doesn't carry the emotion.

The same is true with words in the constitution. "religion" for instance has an emotional reaction beyond the dictionary. And some people see the word and their emotions take them to "Christian only"