Posted on 09/18/2005 9:30:23 PM PDT by betty boop
Not a problem. I do it all the time, too! Hugs!!!
How many crimes and horrors have been committed in the name of "the People"? In any good government the will, the want, the needs, the opinions of the people are sovereign -- but I draw the line at "all wisdom". This is b/c Nature has distributed wisdom no more fairly, or evenly, than she has brains, beauty or ability.
But, you protest, what if the people become capricious, willful, indifferent, unjust, decadent, careless, profligate, lazy, or neglectful?
There's that mine-field of a phrase again, "the People". Just who are "the People"? Everyone? Everyone?? No difference between the tree that bearth good fruit, and the tree that is rotten? Between the foolish virgins with their flickering lamps, and the wise virgins with their lamps of steady flame?
By lumping us together simply as "the People" individuality is not only taken away, but all but denied to even exist. To say that we -- this lump of humanity -- somehow or other possess "all wisdom" is to imply that,
- a) the people above us (or even ourselves if we are in any such a position and/or degree of power) are less wise [a.k.a. stupider] then we are. Yet is that's the case why are "they" directing us? Shouldn't the order of things be reversed?
- b) Is to assume or imply that the word "wisdom" is set in its definition and somehow is only revealed and understood only by the ever laboring, ever humble, ever ignorant, impoverished, weary, philosophical peasant. Why is that? Whence the assumption that with learning and material improvement of one's socio-economic conditions that "wisdom" -- like honesty, happiness, morals, ethics, etc. -- drop away like leaves from a tree?
Well, if the people are sovereign, then they may do any, or all of these things.But, you might ask, if the people become these things, what will become of us?
Again, the lumping of people into a sort of living blob with no one than one mind, one thought, one action. Still knowing that even identical twins differ from one another in ten thousand ways and more.
...what will become of us?" The answer is: Nothing. There is nothing we can do, for by the above supposition "us" = "the People"
Why, very much the same thing that has happened to many a prince who became capricious, willful, indifferent, unjust, decadent, careless, profligate, lazy, and neglectful.
Ah, but here we are comparing a fish to a feather. The prince is one mind a single drop in a sun lit ocean. We, the people (not "the People") are that ocean.
That's news to me, and it will take more to convince me. Happiness is a religious concept. It cannot be understood without pursuit. It is nothing without freedom. It requires choice and choice is tied to a criterion of excellence. That's religion.
...”the people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution ...”the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of the community. .....U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990), Chief Justice Rehnquist writing for the majority.
“Oh, shades of Robespierre, the early Jefferson & Jeffersonians vision of the infant America, the Paris "Communaird" of 1849 and 1871, Lenin's "New Program", Mao's "Great Cultural Revolution: Learn from the peasants" debacle, and on and on and on... “
LOL! a delightful outburst. You forgot the Jacobeans? Probably not. There simply isn’t room to mention them all. But, of all the ones you mentioned, and of many another I’m sure you hadn’t the room, only the Jeffersonians gave a rap about ‘the people,’ or what they think. It’s no different, these days, when the passionate advocates of sensitivity, diversity, and of the ‘poor,’ afflict our lives, like a deadly skin rash, with their incessant yammering.
“How many crimes and horrors have been committed in the name of "the People"?”
I’ve never stopped to count. What would be the point? (yes, I understand your question to be rhetorical - please take my response in the same spirit) How many crimes and horrors have been committed in the name of Jesus Christ? Or, the Proletariat? (which to some, is probably just a more clever way of saying ‘the people’). How many crimes and horrors have been committed in the name of patriotism? Of Lenin? Of Hitler’s thousand year’s Reich? Or by those pathetic 70's creatures who solemnly intoned “power to the people”? Patriotism used to be the last refuge. Anymore, I don’t think it even makes the top ten. It strikes me that scoundrels are constantly in search of a refuge, and aren’t too terribly finicky about where they find it. How ‘bout a deep, abiding love for all of poor suffering mankind? In my opinion, that beats patriotism all hollow for a refuge. Is anyone fooled by these excuses? Well, some are, I suppose.
“In any good government the will, the want, the needs, the opinions of the people are sovereign”
Well then, you’ve caught my drift.
“ -- but I draw the line at "all wisdom". This is b/c Nature has distributed wisdom no more fairly, or evenly, than she has brains, beauty or ability.”
The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. .....James Madison, The Federalist 46
If ‘all wisdom’ does not reside in the people, then why so does ‘the ultimate authority’? And, if all wisdom does not reside in the people, then whom among us shall we choose to pass on those who may constitute ‘the people,’ and who may not? Do you have a nomination? Walter Cronkite, perhaps? I write this in jest, or course, but also to make the point. If the people lack the wisdom to govern themselves, then they certainly have no business selecting the one amongst them who shall rule in their stead. (my choice of where to put ‘govern’ and where to put ‘rule’ is not mere coincidence)
“There's that mine-field of a phrase again, "the People". Just who are "the People"? Everyone? Everyone?? No difference between the tree that bearth good fruit, and the tree that is rotten?”
Who shall distinguish between the good fruit and the rotten? Society does to some extent; felons are often denied the franchise. We all do, individually, when we go to the polls (half decide by failing to go), and it is the summing up of the votes which renders the judgment. Societal judgment, from whatever source, being human in its wisdom, is limited, and overindulgence leads to tyranny. Madison’s ‘auxiliary precautions’ may be an appropriate idea at this juncture. We await the judgment of ultimate wisdom with varying degrees of anxiety. In the meantime, we do the best we can (oh, that we always would merely do the best we can). Life is a minefield; get used to it.
Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law. .....Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 6 September, 1819
I fail to see where ‘the People’ is any more a minefield than ‘We the People.” Both suffer the slings and arrows of contending concepts. Your understanding of ‘We the People’ would, I suspect, depart considerably from that of Justice Breyer’s. True, the term has a constitutional flavor that, of itself, is appealing, but a reading of the records and documents of the time indicate the prevailing use was simply “the people.” Nonetheless, I respect your preference, just as I am confident you respect mine.
For just who are ‘the people’ see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 above. One modern annex to the definition would signify that possession of the franchise defines ‘the people,’ despite the fact that eligibility would seem to require less maturity, and therefore less a sense of responsibility, than the purchase of alcohol. Likewise, we do confer rights on those who are considered legally incompetent for one reason or another. So, the scope of the definition may have shrunk over the decades, as our understanding of the franchise has expanded, but it remains true that the documents and the records of the time discussed in Verdugo-Urquidez make it clear the Founding Fathers’ concept of ‘the people’ was composed of virtually the whole of the community when the context did not indicate a more narrow construction.
“By lumping us together simply as "the People" individuality is not only taken away, but all but denied to even exist.”
PEOPLE, n. [L. populus.] 1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. 2. The vulgar; the mass of illiterate persons. The knowing artist may judge better than the people. 3. The commonalty, as distinct from men of rank. Myself shall mount the rostrum in his favor, And strive to gain his pardon from the people. 4. Persons of a particular class; a part of a nation or community; as country people. 5. Persons in general; any persons indefinitely; like on in French, and man in Saxon. People were tempted to lend by great premiums and large interest. 6. A collection or community of animals. The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer. Prov.30. 7. When people signified a separate nation or tribe, it has the plural number. Thou must prophesy again before many peoples. Rev.10. 8. In Scripture, fathers or kindred. Gen.25. 9. The Gentiles. --To him shall the gathering of the people be. Gen.49. . . . . . from a reprint of the original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, and for another idea of the meaning of ‘the people.’ It doesn’t seem to differ much from that of our Founding Fathers.
Short of naming every person from the relevant jurisdiction, when referring to more than a single individual, I do not know how to satisfy your complaint. I guess I’ll just have to hunker down and take my beating.
To suggest that the concept of ‘the people’ is forever confined to the “ever laboring, ever humble, ever ignorant, impoverished, weary, philosophical peasant” is the equivalent of understanding the Second Amendment to confer upon the people forever the right to keep and bear muskets. To be sure, Jefferson did regard rural America to be the residence of virtue and therefore happiness (it was), and the cities to be centers of miserable impoverishment and disease (they were; and they were also composed of but 5% of the population). Jefferson, therefore, was approximately correct that America was defined by its rural population, and he remained correct throughout the balance of his life. That the precise composition of what comprises ‘the people’ had changed significantly, but not until well over a century after Jefferson’s passing, should not throw us off our stride. Jefferson would have had the mental nimbleness to deal with it. So should we.
“but here we are comparing a fish to a feather. The prince is one mind a single drop in a sun lit ocean. We, the people (not "the People") are that ocean.”
You make too much of a simple point. If the people are to govern, just as the prince once ruled, then they must be faithful to their obligation or, like the prince who was not, they will suffer the same or similar fate, singularly and severally.
In all our associations; in all our agreements let us never lose sight of this fundamental maxim - that all power was originally lodged in, and consequently is derived from, the people. We should wear it as a breastplate, and buckle it on as our armour. .....George Mason, document written during service on the Fairfax County’s committee of safety, 17-26 April, 1775
Apologies for the tardiness of my response. I can but plead the necessity of pressing affairs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.