Slouching Towards a “Living Constitution”

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 24 November 2003 | David N. Bass

[jwalsh07]

The constitution was written primarily by diests such as Madison and not christians.

Looney tunes. A nice place to dissuade yourself of this notion would be George MAson and the Virginia Declaration of Rights which he authored.

Another would be to have a look at the fellow who drew up the wording for the 1A, one Fisher Ames, another devout Christian.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

O'Connor has decided, correctly or not, that the living Constitution ideology will ultimately prevail.

As she nears retirement, she wants her legacy to reflect that she was an instrumental advocate of it.

I also think she is enjoying the leftist cocktail circuit.

[Technogeeb]

Can you provide me with more on this (will look more on own later, of course)?

The essay "A Letter Concerning Enthusiasm" can be found in the works of Lord Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper), specifically in Charactersticks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times (ISBN 0521578922).

While it is undoubtably clear in his writings that he embraced Christianity ("entire submission to the truly Christian and catholic doctrines of our holy church"), his intellect demanded that he abandon the "melancholy way of treating religion is that which, according to my apprehension, renders it so tragical". Most of the founders shared this "Deist" (not in the "modern" sense, of course) view of Christianity, in that faith was something to be incorporated into a life in the pursuit of happiness via intellectual reason, not something that denied nor substituted for such happiness or reason.

[presidio9]

Slouching is a gross understatement

This is a referrence to the Yeats poem "Second Coming"

" ...And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?..."

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

[jwalsh07]

Thanks, I didn't know that but it doesn't change my point.

[jwalsh07]

I think.

[tacticalogic]

I would tend to think that the WoD necessarily involves a seperate debate on "clear and present danger," and I see that debate as counterproductive to this discussion. The SCOTUS has done very little legislating from the bench that dealt with drugs.

I think the questions are relevant to the general topic of the "Living Constitution" doctrine, and developing a consistently applicable defense against it. I wasn't aware the discussion was confined to only discussing it wrt SCOTUS legislating from the bench.

[presidio9]

Thanks, I didn't know that but it doesn't change my point.

No, I agree with you. This is a common problem with some of the fringe political websites. There is a reason why these guys can not get published mainstream. They tend to get too enthusiastic with their prose and they use hoakey referrences.

[presidio9]

Thanks, I didn't know that but it doesn't change my point.

It's not. It's just that that's not what this article is about or inspired by. If you are interested in having that conversation, there are plenty of WOD/Living Document threads that can accomodate you.

[Iconoclast2]

Serious as a heart attack. This is an accurate statement of the law. (And given the recent Supreme Court decision, the right to engage in homosexual sodomy is now, by contrast, a "fundamental right".)

[tacticalogic]

Well, the non-sequitur aside, you asked me to decide. At this juncture if I make that decision, then the infomation I have to work with concerning your views on what I think are the relevant issues is that you don't want to talk about it.

[tacticalogic]

And this is coming from John Ashcroft's Justice Department?

[mrsmith]

A "living constitution" today.

A "living UN charter" tomorrow.

Joy to the world! _{TM Secular Humanists Inc.}

[Iconoclast2]

Yep.

[presidio9]

Let's just say that Drugs are a very emotional subject for some people on either side of the debate. As such, drugs have a way of destroying intelligent threads. Since there is so much more to talk about on this subject concerning abortion, gay marriage, and such, there is simply no need to go there. Understand?

[society-by-contract]

As I mentioned I am driving to Mont Pelier on Friday, I promise to post what I learn there (and perhaps form this thread as well) about James Madison's theology on Sunday. The Declaration of Independence suggests an active creator who endows humans with rights. But why couldn't he endow, step back and become a non-intervening god? I enjoyed the adjectives you used to describe Jefferson and Franklin; I'll try to remember those.

Regarding Federalist #42: It is always good to have occasion to read a Federalist Paper, that has been referred to during the day, from end to end. I usually smile and learn somthing as well and this was no exception. It appears that Madison also supported a ten dollar per head tax on imported humans in addition to the importation ban by not before 1808. I notice that madison only talks of banning the importation, and not the abolition inside the states, although he hopes "an equal prospect lays before them...". He also indicated that only a few states even allowed importation of slaves; I suspect South Carolina and perhaps Louisianna, but I wonder what the other(s) was? I liked the talk of piracy and its threat in those days; I know we have piracy today, but it doesn't target container ships. Later in the essay, Madison suggests a power to coin money; it is interesting that he says nothing about Bills of Credit (banknotes).

[society-by-contract]

I've had a similar journey to yours, although I see problems with any oranization of society I can imagine. Human society is somewhat like running Windows software. If you run it long enough, you will get a blue screen or the system will lock up and you have to hit the reset button. Human beings are just too lazy to keep any form of government going forever. It is simply not human nature to be vigilant. Nothing lasts forever and neither will our current Constitutional Republic. However, as long as there are a few members of the society who can "set brush fires in people's minds" there will be a way to hit that reset button.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams

I can't believe that our common position on the role of the state (or lack thereof) was less incendiary than "Madison was a Deist." I find it heartening that some people put *anything* above the state in our politicized, statist society, but some christians do. I have been meaning to brush up on Leo Tolstoy's christian anarchism for a while, maybe now is the time. I liked your analogy of the state to the Windows. Samuel Adams' quote makes me want to check and make sure my Blue Tips are plentiful and dry.

Cheers!

[tacticalogic]

Let's just say that Drugs are a very emotional subject for some people on either side of the debate. As such, drugs have a way of destroying intelligent threads. Since there is so much more to talk about on this subject concerning abortion, gay marriage, and such, there is simply no need to go there. Understand?

I do. I also understand that emotional issues often lead to irrational decisions. We can only arrive at a consistent, defensible philosophy by discussing the issues rationally. If you don't want to talk about it, I won't push you. I'll ask you to understand that I think the fact that there are fundamental issues we cannot discuss without getting emotional is cause for concern, and simply avoiding those issues is not a rational solution.

[tpaine]

Since there is so much more to talk about on this subject concerning abortion, gay marriage, and such, there is simply no need to go there. Understand?
116 -p9-

---

You fail to understand that the subject is; -- does government at any level have the constitutional power to prohibit private personal property or behaviors without first establishing compelling reasons for such bans?

The answer is no.
We never gave our governments such power in our constitutions, state or federal.