Should the flag protect those that are intent on destroying it?

i don't see how. unless media corporations start giving out jobs, people aren't going to give a shit what they say.

oops, i was trying to say quite the opposite. i think propaganda is super-effective (thank you pokemon) when used against people who have fewer necessities to worry about. if someone doesn't have to worry about looking for their next meal, they're going to worry about other things like politics or circle-jerking internet forums. if someone is living paycheck to paycheck, they couldn't give fewer fucks about how the wars are progressing or what Bill "what does that mean to play us out" O'Rielly has to say.

 

I think propaganda is more effective against insecure people, regardless of their socioeconomic status.

 

I think it depends on the person and what the propaganda is designed to influence. I, for instance, am currently unemployed and living pretty much unemployment check to unemployment check. The fact that I'm unemployed actually gives me more time to pay attention to politics, economics, war, etc. When I was working, I was still interested but had far less time or inclination to worry about such things.

Of course, I recognize propaganda for what it is so it may not work that way for everyone.
If I didn't see through the bullshit of propaganda - I feel as though I might be more susceptible to it's influence when my life was less secure.

I think Bodkin has it right, though. Propaganda works best and is designed for the insecure and I'll add - the ill-informed.

 

the war powers act, much like the controlled substances act, has no rule of law standing other than it's popularly accepted. Otherwise it's about as unconstitutional as it gets.

 

unconstitutional as in... Congress overrode the president's veto by a 2/3rds vote to establish it?

 

i have that creepy strict constructionist feeling. you know, the one that enables paulbots and their even further to the right bretherin to imagine themselves defending some "real" american-ness on the basis of a legal philosophy that is a wholesale rejection of the actually existing legal system, one that would replace it with a wholly arbitrary "what matters is law that we like" rule so that no-one would have to pay attention to any law that the far right does not like and all this justified on the basis of imaginary intent imputed to finger puppets called "the founders" who, curiously enough, think just like the paulbots and their even further to the right bretherin. it's an amazing coincidence.

 

eventhorizon, does congress alone have the authority or power to override the constitution?

roachboy, here's my issue with you and others like minded that believe the constitution is a living document subject to interpretation according to the times/9 ideological black robed tyrants, a despot president, and 535 elected lords and ladies.

the constitution is a legal binding document that structures and defines the powers of the US federal government, right?

how ugly would regular commerce be if we considered business contracts as 'living' documents?

 

All documents are living documents. There is no way to convert information on paper into a thought without interpreting it. The constitution was not written by robots for robots.

 

Why is it that strict constitutionalists dont want to apply that same strict interpretation to the framers stated intent of separation of powers and a federal judiciary with the power over "all cases arising under the Constitution..." or for federal judges having lifetime appointments (or as long as they demonstrate "good behavior").

Ron Paul wants to give voters the right to remove federal judges who decisions they disagree with. Does an unpopular judicial decision constitute a lack of "good behavior" on the part of the judge? Evidently it does for these "strict constitutionalists."

Newt Gingrich wants to eliminate entire courts, specifically the 9th circuit, when members of Congress disagree with the court's decisions.

Rick Perry also wants to end lifetime tenure and give Congress the right to veto Supreme Court decisions. How does that conform with the intent of the framers?

These guys and their supporters are not interested in a strict interpretation but rather an interpretation that solely supports their views. Essentially, they want to make a co-equal branch of the government, which is at the very foundation of the Constitution, less equal...or to put it more bluntly, they want to use the Court when it suits their interest and limit the Court when it doesnt.

 

this idea that all documents have words, thus all words need to be interpreted, therefore all documents are living documents is absurd on its face.
--- merged: Oct 26, 2011 5:46 PM ---

those issues raised by the individuals above do not make them strict constructionists, even if they claim themselves to be. Scalia says he's a strict constructionist, but several decisions he's authored or joined make that claim baseless.

here's a hint, just because someone says they are something, doesn't make them out to be that.

 

Perhaps you can explain how Ron Paul's suggestion that the "people" should have the right to remove a federal judge from office meets the stated Constitutional intent for federal judges to serve as long as they demonstrate "good behavior." Where is good behavior defined that gives the "people" this right to remove a sitting judge?

Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to veto a Supreme Court decision? How is that not a direct contradiction to the stated intent of separation of powers.

It was Hamilton who said during the Constitutional debates and the ratification process that “the interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.”

Why is Hamilton wrong and Ron Paul, who was not there during any of the deliberations and decisions in crafting the Constitution, right. Or is Paul just an arrogant extremist ideologue attempting to impose his interpretation on the country?

Have you read the Federalist Papers or do you just take the word of a doctor who proclaims he knows the original intent?

 

Interpretation gives words meaning - words have no meaning without interpretation. For instance, an appropriate interpretation of what "dead constitution" folks really mean when they say that the constitution shouldn't be interpreted is

"My preferred interpretation of the constitution is correct. Any other interpretation is wrong. Fuck yo' couch."

If you understand the meaning of that third sentence to be something wholly unrelated to couches, then I rest my case.

 

Is it a stretch to say that those who believe that the constitution should only be interpreted in one way (their way) are, for the most part, those who also proclaim the same of the Bible? It's a black or white, true or false, good or evil mindset that approaches nuance and interpretation with a cross held out in front of them. They fear what they have no experience with.

I've met many with this mindset and have come to the conclusion that there is no way to convince them otherwise. Perhaps someday the science will be available to rewire neural pathways which currently only connect between two opposing ideas.

In a way, it's probably not their fault.

 

i was always under the impression that Congress can amend the constitution and the Supreme Court then interprets it.

getting back to the living documents thing, i think the old white "framer" dudes wanted future generations to interpret thing differently as time went on. who else would know better than they that drastic changes in a country should be solvable by a flexible government? the constitution doesn't say anything about the internet or how stealing money online is illegal because how the hell could they know there was going to be an internet? they left parts vague for the exact purpose of it evolving... almost as if it were alive. DUN DUN DUNNNNN

 

i've said this before, but the irony--i suppose---in strict construction is that it throws out the entire common law tradition in the name of preserving it. the stupidity of that is remarkable.

 

Congress AND the states together can amend the Constitution. What these guys (who claim to respect the Constitution) propose goes against everything the framers had in mind with respect to separation of powers and co-equal branches of government.
--- merged: Oct 26, 2011 8:32 PM ---

IMO, it is ignorance and intolerance....and a far greater threat to our system of justice than their irrational and ideological fear of Sharia law.

 

the 'people' have the right to remove a judge through the impeachment process. what was wrong with what Dr. Paul said?

do you not remember the history of the 14th Amendment? if congress finds that they, or we the people, disagree with a supreme court decision, we can amend the constitution.

of the laws, yes. not the constitution. we the people created the constitution, not the courts.

you haven't shown where Ron Paul was wrong.

i've read them.
--- merged: Oct 26, 2011 9:16 PM ---

words already have meaning. interpretation of words simply provides people to alter or redefine already defined words. in other words, the living constitution folks like to make up shit to suit them.
--- merged: Oct 26, 2011 9:18 PM ---

the stupidity of your premise is remarkable. especially given that the common law tradition of the constitution was to provide limits on federal power, not allow the federal government to redefine their own power.

 

A word's meaning is its interpretation. And its context. You can't have meaning without interpretation. At all. Meaning comes from interpretation. You are interpreting the constitution when you read it.

 

a words meaning is not it's interpretation. it is it's definition. you're simply trying to obfuscate the whole issue. understandable since i think you know it's wrong.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistics)

I think the constitution should be interpreted in ways that make sense. I don't think we should interpret it based solely on the imputed intentions of people who've been dead for centuries.