Ok, point taken.
My use of 'edifice' meant rigid parameters, regardless of content or specificity...(and I see how you interpretated that to imply the Constitution. I was actually referring to unyeilding bureaucratic processes -- you could argue that to a degree, that is one in the same however, but that was never my intent).
I did not include full detail, granted--I'm in no way prepared to--but all this academic dialogue still does not supply an answer to the specific need, it only moves it aside, as 'untidy'.
It may be neatly tied up with precedent but the situation still hemorrages...so what has been solved re the intrinsic nature of the original problem presented in the case?
This is where blinders-style process breaks dowen for me.
I understand the essential requirement for cemented anatomy of law to govern this massive cooperative, and do not take that lightly. Critical systems cannot be trivialized and disassembled in one-off hits, I get that--but this case represents an epidemic reality, not a blimp on the radar.
When law is not serving the very reasons for which it came into being in the first place, does it become an exercise in self-cycling, puff and blow paralysis?
The plaintiff just sucks it up because of constitutional inconvenience?
Or even a "blip" :-)
(Those pesky dirigibles can really screw up a situation...)
My use of 'edifice' meant rigid parameters, regardless of content or specificity...(and I see how you interpretated that to imply the Constitution. I was actually referring to unyeilding bureaucratic processes -- you could argue that to a degree, that is one in the same however, but that was never my intent).
I did not include full detail, granted--I'm in no way prepared to--but all this academic dialogue still does not supply an answer to the specific need, it only moves it aside, as 'untidy'.
It may be neatly tied up with precedent but the situation still hemorrages...so what has been solved re the intrinsic nature of the original problem presented in the case?
Nothing was solved, because the end doesn't, and cannot justify the means if the Constitution is to remain as the basis for our government.
This is where blinders-style process breaks dowen for me.
I understand the essential requirement for cemented anatomy of law to govern this massive cooperative, and do not take that lightly. Critical systems cannot be trivialized and disassembled in one-off hits, I get that--but this case represents an epidemic reality, not a blimp on the radar.
A Communitarian Ethos The Groton influence of Endicott Peabody showed in a speech Roosevelt gave at the People's Forum in Troy, NY in 1912. There he declared that western Europeans and Americans had achieved victory in the struggle for "the liberty of the individual," and that the new agenda should be a "struggle for the liberty of the community." The wrong ethos for a new age was, "every man does as he sees fit, even with a due regard to law and order." The new order should be, "march on with civilization in a way satisfactory to the well-being of the great majority of us."
In that speech Roosevelt outlined the philosophical base of what would eventually become the New Deal. He also forecast the rhetorical mode by which "community" could loom over individual liberty. "If we call the method regulation, people hold up their hands in horror and say ‘un-American,' or ‘dangerous,'" Roosevelt pointed out. "But if we call the same identical process co-operation, these same old fogeys will cry out ‘well done'.... cooperation is as good a word for the new theory as any other."
When law is not serving the very reasons for which it came into being in the first place, does it become an exercise in self-cycling, puff and blow paralysis?
The plaintiff just sucks it up because of constitutional inconvenience?
From George Washington's Farewell Address:
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."
You find fault with the Supreme Court's decision in this case without understanding the issues involved, and attribute the basis for that determination to "common sense". If such sense becomes common enough, the Constitution will be rendered little more than a curious relic of a bygone republic. The arguments you've copied and pasted are a blatant misrepresenttion of the issues involved. They are a lie. Granted, it is a very pretty and righteous sounding lie, but it is still a lie and you've been conned into helping them spread it.