I have two strikes against me, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, which seems to be qualification enough for some...
Off topic, do you ever wonder what this nation might be like if the real lawyers out there spent as much time digging into the Constitution and supporting documentation as you obviously have?
This comment in fact addresses my key substantive point, and it goes back to my comment about how operant Constitutional constraint automatically limits the number of bills, increases their criticality, and improves the quality of debate. We would thus get a different kind of legislator: statesman instead of deal-maker.
I agree with the theory, and agree with working back to that standard. For the here and now though I have to support what is going to get results. Maybe it is a trade off that condones the current system, but that is probably another discussion entirely.
WRT Farrand, I doubt more than a dozen FReepers even know what it is, much less have read it (the web-site is wonderful). I had lucky opportunity to read it under the tutelege of William Allen while in engineering school. It was a life-changing experience.
I wouldn't claim to be an expert by any stretch - I just seem to have the ability to retain critical, yet seldom used information - my wife calls it useless knowledge - I disagree - but of course I am usually wrong.
As odd as it may sound, to some, I find the Constitution, it's development, and the associated history fascinating. Some people spend spare time reading novels in front of a fire, I like reading this stuff, associated court opinions, etc. I might be weird, but it works for me. Plus, when I get a chance to debate these kind of topics with someone else who spent time learning about it I get a chance to test my knowledge, interpretations and understanding.
So do I!
I am getting the impression that our difference of opinion lies not in the base understanding of how our government should work...
Isn't this fun?
Absolutely!
ROTFLMAO! What usually happens with lowyers is that they try to tell me that the Constitution only means what the guys in black robes say it does. They see it all in terms of winning and losing. Sickoes.
For the here and now though I have to support what is going to get results. Maybe it is a trade off that condones the current system, but that is probably another discussion entirely.
There's a simple cure for this. :-)
Aristotle, in the Nichomachean Ethics, elaborated on the question of ends and means with an answer so clear and simple, it is a wonder that “ends justification” was ever mentioned again. He wrote (this is condensed out of a couple of paragraphs), ‘No person selects an end unless it is a means to something else. There are no “Ends.” There are only means.’I find the Constitution, it's development, and the associated history fascinating.
Ever looked into Peter Gay's writings on The Enlightenment?
I am getting the impression that our difference of opinion lies not in the base understanding of how our government should work...
Yup. It's all about how to get there. I think I found a way, but get started so that I can raise the capital my patent has to allow.