Six Amendments to the Constitution

http://radicalacademy.com/adler_amendments.htm ^ | M. Adler

[tpaine]

"-- The basic issue here -- between the first two answers (both of which appeal to principles of natural justice) and the third (which denies such principles) -- is the deepest, most long-standing issue in jurisprudence or the philosophy of law: the issue between naturalists, on the one hand, and positivists or legalists, on the other. --"

"-- The positivists hold that might is right. --"

--- The issue is between those of us who live for the liberty to own & use property as we see fit; --- and those who declare they have the power to prohibit any property they see as 'unfit'.

The prohibitionists hold that gov't might is 'right'. -- The 2nd holds that an armed people are right.

[tpaine]

Constitutional bump.

[tpaine]

Amazing lack of interest bump.

[MHGinTN]

How many times has it been viewed?... Some of us do not have your zeal or edcuation on the Constitution in order to make comment on such an outstanding article. You and I have butted heads over court interpretation of the Constitution on various topics, but I bow to your knowledge of the Constitution in all cases even when we disagree. Don't look at the lack of posts as disinterest ... most of us regulars are familiar with your debating.

[Popman]

Amazing lack of interest bump.

All are to busy fighting over which RINO running for POTUS will sell us down the river

BTW, great article.

Reminds me of what this place used to be like.

[Lurker]

I really miss the days when stuff like this was posted regularly.

Nice find.

Thanks,

L

[Popman]

...Judge Bork...

I never thought of Judge Bork as a legalist.

[tpaine]

How many times has it been viewed?

Good question, one I was about to ask meself.. -- The 'times viewed' feature is no longer there. Anybody know when & why it was pulled?

... Some of us do not have your zeal or education on the Constitution in order to make comment on such an outstanding article.

Thanks. No formal 'education' tho.

You and I have butted heads over court interpretation of the Constitution on various topics, but I bow to your knowledge of the Constitution in all cases even when we disagree. Don't look at the lack of posts as disinterest ... most of us regulars are familiar with your debating.

That's good to know. -- It's become hard to tell lately, as many of FR's prohibitionists & majority rule socialists refuse to even debate the issues they raise.
-- Regards..

[tpaine]

All are to busy fighting over which RINO running for POTUS will sell us down the river

Completly forgetting that all the infighting is what "will sell us down the river".

BTW, great article. Reminds me of what this place used to be like.

Thanks.

[tpaine]

I really miss the days when stuff like this was posted regularly.
Nice find. Thanks,
L

Thanks to my opponents, I find this stuff. -- Following them around FR is a real education in bizarre constitutional theories.

[Political Junkie Too]

:-)

[tpaine]

I never thought of Judge Bork as a legalist.

Well, he sure ain't a constitutionalist.
-- "Prohibitionist" classifies him just fine.

[Verginius Rufus]

What black slaves after the Civil War? Slavery ended with the Civil War.

Technically there were a few slaves who weren't officially free until December 1865, because they were living in states not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation, but in practical terms I don't think very many of them were actually compelled to work without pay against their will during the interval between April and December of 1865.

[tpaine]

Adler wrote:

"-- I think that the three-sided issue must be resolved in favor of natural justice and natural rights.

Here are my reasons for thinking so.
How do positivists explain the succession of amendments that the naturalists regard as rectifications of injustice and as securing natural, human rights?
How do they explain the amendments that the naturalists regard as steps of progress toward democratic justice? It seems that they must say that they came about through the operation of power politics.
This means that those who stood to benefit by them had enough political clout to get these amendments adopted in order to improve their own condition. But is this true of the black slaves after the Civil War or of the militant suffragettes and the disfranchised poor in the twentieth century? Remember that the outcries against slavery came from abolitionists long before the Civil War. Those outcries appealed to principles of natural justice against the injustice of legalized chattel slavery. --"

What black slaves after the Civil War? Slavery ended with the Civil War.

Context anyone? -- In context Adler is asking:

[Is this true? --] "- those who stood to benefit by them had enough political clout to get these amendments adopted in order to improve their own condition. But is this true of the black slaves after the Civil War or of the militant suffragettes and the disfranchised poor in the twentieth century? --"

I too think that the prohibitionists/positivists among us ~can not~ explain away the succession of amendments that we naturalists regard as rectifications of injustice and as securing natural, human rights.

--- They sure ~try~ to say the 14th does not 'incorporate' our right to own & carry arms; -- that's what prohibitionists/socialists do.. -- Because socialism is a political disease.

[Teacher317]

Repeal the 16th and 17th, as a start. Then actually enforce the 10th, and we'll be a long way back towards a decent limited government. (Which, by the way, necessarily entails fewer skirmishes into foreign lands, so the liberals should even have a bumper-sticker slogan that could get them on board with the idea.)

Then, for my own personal tastes, a term limit amendment (1 senate term, 2 presidential terms, and 5 in the House. A quarter century in the federal halls is more than enough for anyone.)

Sadly, it won't happen without bloodshed. It never does.

[Verginius Rufus]

I was objecting to Mortimer Adler's use of the term slave to refer to people who were no longer slaves. The 13th amendment was adopted through the efforts of white people, for the most part--even many northern states did not let black men vote in 1865, and even where they could vote, they weren't numerous enough to have much political clout. The former Confederate states ratified the 13th amendment under duress, at a time when they still restricted suffrage to white males.

The abolitionists seem to have been motivated by altruistic reasons for the most part--by the realization that slavery was inherently evil and needed to be eliminated. But there were also whites who wanted slavery abolished because they felt that the institution worked against their own interests, by making it harder for white owners of small farms to succeed.

Slavery existed in some of the states in 1787, so it had to be left to the states by the Constitution or those states would have refused to ratify the Constitution. The abolition of slavery in 1865 was long overdue but whether the 13th amendment really represents an alteration in the relationship between the federal government and the states is debatable. The federal government already controlled some items, and now was given the power to see to it that slavery did not exist.

[tpaine]

Repeal the 16th and 17th, as a start.

Hmmm, we repeal income tax & popular election of Senators. -- I like it...

Then actually enforce the 10th, and we'll be a long way back towards a decent limited government.

Actually, -- enforcing the 10th would make the 16th a null & void "amendment". -- No branch of gov't could have the power to enforce it without violating all of our individual rights.

(Which, by the way, necessarily entails fewer skirmishes into foreign lands, so the liberals should even have a bumper-sticker slogan that could get them on board with the idea.)

Yep. -- We can all agree that gov't should limit itself to enumerated powers on making war.

Then, for my own personal tastes, a term limit amendment (1 senate term, 2 presidential terms, and 5 in the House. A quarter century in the federal halls is more than enough for anyone.)

Good plan. -- I'd just simplify it by setting a two term limit in any of those jobs.

Sadly, it won't happen without bloodshed. It never does.

I'd bet money that you're right about that...

[Christopher Lincoln]

Abraham Lincoln said that right makes might. I think so too.

[The KG9 Kid]

"How it used to be around here on FR" bump.

[MARTIAL MONK]

Good question, one I was about to ask meself.. -- The 'times viewed' feature is no longer there. Anybody know when & why it was pulled?

It's on the new threads list. Don't look, it's discouraging. The Constitutionalists are gone. Those that may remain are afraid to post because they'll just get mired in pointless arguments with the God Squad or the ones fer that thar team with the purdy red jerseys.

Good article, though.