It’s a debating tactic - and not a very clever one.
The irony is between the imputations, the fallacies, the non sequiturs, and their own emoting I’m amused by the glad-handing they’re doing. I’m also amused by the notion that these two arrogate unto themselves the singular clarity that no one else on the planet grasps. The rest of us have apparently been hornswoggled, brainwashed, or are just too much the dullard to get it.
mek1959 suggests that we are “theorists” - let’s put it to the test.
[Noun] Theory
1. A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
No, that can’t be us since we can’t substantiate (at least to their satisfaction) our understanding of the Constitution.
2. A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
Now that may be closer to their liking since “tentative” implies a temporal quality that they feeeeel exists in our POV.
3. A belief that can guide behavior
There’s one that I’m sure they can hang their collective hats on! After all, doesn’t “belief” fall into the same soft~n~squishy category as faith, trust, and hope?
The problem with absolutists are that they are so....absolute. They’re invariably rigid and compartmentalized in their thinking and incapable of viewing the same thing from a different perspective.
mek1959 - I would suggest that it is you who is the theorist and I the pragmatist. You see the world in terms of how you believe it was meant to be and therefore how events should have progressed and I see it, in all of its foibles and failings how it has developed.
Your answers to the loaded got-ya questions regarding both the “right” to secession and the power to “preserve the Union” have been answered. Neither are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. So what? As MamaTexan so ably put it, “Do you seriously think the Founders threw down less than 5000 words and expected them to restrain the government?” It is simply ludicrous to suggest that any government would preclude the ability to defend or preserve itself.
Lincoln did what he had to to preserve the union and his actions were affirmed by our courts. The confederates attempted to test their theory on secession and discovered that it contained a few flaws.
Attempting to assign blame for everything you dislike to one side of the dispute without acknowledging the contributions of both parties is simplistic and foolish.
This looks like a good place for mama’s helpful approbation, “blah, blah, blah!”
Why don't you just come clean here and admit you're a living constitutionalist. It's ok, we won't shoot you for your beliefs unlike a certain president who shot 400,000 people for a inaccurate, anti-constitutional, anti-rule of law, anti-inalienable right, anti-authority, set of beliefs. Hmmm...now who was that who did that. Wait, wait, it's coming to me.
No, your vaunted and cherished "fluidity" has led to a national (NOT federal) government that:
1. Has wracked up $16 or so trillion in current debt
2. Is working on $105 or so trillion in unfunded liabilities
3. And making grandmothers in wheelchairs take of their undergarments in order to board a plane.
Yes, these federalism crushing THEORIES based on "Universal Law" have worked out just great. But then again, as you're a living constitutionalist, and a pragmatist, I would suspect you're quite ok with the outcome.
So I'll end with the "gotcha" question for others who have yet to answer (except you, I'll get to that in a sec) on this thread. Here it is:
Please point to that section of Article II of the United States Constitution where the good people of the SEPARATE and SOVEREIGN States DELEGATED a power that they alone possessed as the repositories of Inalienable Rights to the Executive Branch of Article II to "Preserve the Union????"
Chirping crickets sounds in the background. You can stop looking...there is none.
You however rockr, you are the man because you answered CORRECTLY and HONESTLY..."Neither are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. So what?" FINALLY...a big government, pro-arbitrary power "conservative" comes clean. So what? I'm truly impressed, rarely do conservative living constitutionalists admit such. Seriously, I'm impressed.
Indeed, my question is a "gotcha" question to smoke out conservative living constitutionalists. I run into them all the time. Some actually see the error of their ways (like me and Dr. Walter Williams) recant our former big-government (just our kind of big government) ideas and reorient ourselves back to the Rule of Law. It doesn't sound like you're one of them...but I could be wrong.
Anyway, this is a "gotcha" question...and it works like a charm. So now that you've answered it honestly, take pride in your arbitrary power supporting living Constitution ideas. That's ok, we pro-inalienable rights people won't shoot you. Though we're pretty sure you'll shoot us if Texas or Oklahoma, or Idaho, or Montana decides they want to withdraw from the Union. You'll probably weave together something like this as you oil your guns:
"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.
Oh, wait...somebody already used this.
Great, now I'm dead because of some "Universal Law" that holds Unions together in perpetuity that nobody taught me about. Stupid me, I thought that our ratified Constitution was the Law...not some Universal Law. Crap! Can somebody call an ambulance? I've been shot by the Lincolnian living constitutionalists because people of our State, like me, thought we had Inalienable Rights and tried to withdraw from the Compact.