The Conservative Supreme Court may help doom the world

Hell, I’m not even talking about slavery of old, there are people living in slavery today with worse conditions than people back then.

We were talking about doing away with the Constitution.

And that now explicitly forbids slavery.

Want to do away with that limitation?

I didn't say they were.

Others may have their own protections, but we are protected by the Constitution.

They said the same thing about the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union when there were replaced by the Constitution.

You might have heard of the Anti-Federalists. Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Clinton among others.

You prefer the Constitution because it codifies an anti-democratic system where empty land has more power than the population and economic centers of the nation.

If the nation starts to crumble under the weight of its negligence, it's not only the ability of the population to move forward, it's their duty.

We aren't there now in my opinion, but anyone with an ounce of foresight could see that possibility coming down the pike.

Until then, I hope you enjoy the wildfires.

And you can continue to get insurance on your house.

Honestly, that isn't even a fair assessment. Runaway climate change based on methane release, acidification of the oceans, mass extinctions that destroy the food chain, there's several apocalyptic scenarios that are possible, if not at this moment probable. We won't live to see it, but that doesn't mean it couldn't end civilization and make the planet virtually uninhabitable.

That's the most likely short term scenario of this kind, yes. We are looking at massive upheavals in SE Asia and central Asia in the next 30 years due to lack of drinking water.

We've seen diasporas of this nature in history. The Sea People, which historians believe were nomadic groups forced into wandering due to climate change of the day, overwhelmed the Mediterranean basin and ended several promising civilizations before they could prosper. History would be very different if that didn't occur.

I don’t do the separation of quotes very well, but even if the constitution were to be disbanded, I don’t see slavery making a comeback.

Think about every law you've ever heard that was ruled un-Constitutional. You good with all of those? Abridgement of free speech, segregation, state religion, poll tax, disregard of due process, ex post facto laws, etc., etc. All fine and dandy now? If there's no Constitution, there's no basis to strike them down.

If there's no Constitution, there are no limits on government. Why do you think you're entitled to elections or to be free from arbitrary imprisonment or execution? If you pull the foundation out, the edifice will no longer stand.

Give up the legal basis for your freedom and watch how soon the freedom disappears.

Seriously?

You genuinely believe that in an uncaring universe billions of years old containing millions of galaxies the only possible way for sentient beings to avoid slavery is a piece of paper written in one nation amongst dozens at one point in human history?

That same uncaring universe operates according to physical laws which don't care about your Constitution, or your amendments, or your personal values, any religion you may hold, or anything else so petty as a human mental construct.

Climate change is real. Its importance and scale trump your Constitution a hundred times over before breakfast and the rest of us (that is to say the majority of the human race) would like to have a future on the planet for our kids and grandkids.

Sorry, but with all due respect most of us, given a binary choice, would happily tear that thing up rather than face extinction so you can play with guns and drive a hummer.

I'm watching.

Nope, still not a slave.

Not the sacred constitution that was created by the godly founding fathers! They knew guns and god are going to save everyone and they wrote it down. There is no way a cruel universe could ever blow the delicate atmosphere off this planet and extinct us without a care because we wrote the constitution and the bible, and we made guns.

@Lanzman facepalmed this. even down syndrome kids have an idea of physics and nature, but not him. His gun is going to protect him from an asteroid or GRB. He got a big old fucking gun, and that means he is not a fragile little conglomeration of chemicals that is easily snuffed out.

How dare you tell him the truth mr. spot. How dare you.

You know who else has a codified Constitution?

China.
Cuba.
Afghanistan.
Iran.
Russia.
Sierra Leone.
North Korea.
Zimbabwe.
Somalia.

Good company.

Know who doesn't?

Your supposed closest and most trusted ally the UK.

Also New Zealand, but let's not talk about Israel eh?

I'm really not seeing a correlation between written constitutions and human rights to be honest.

Some people forget human rights are a hu8man construct. Physics and nature do not give a fuck about our rights. We decided to make social contracts to make things better for us, but we are still subject to the fragility and weakness of these physical bodies. we live on a tiny delicate flower blossom of electromagnetic protection. If humans venture too far outside of the weak electromagnetic field of this planet we will burn in the ambient radiation of the universe, even if we bring a pod of atmosphere allowing us to live.

our consciousness has not existed for a speck of time in comparison to the universe. For some reason people think the universe revolves around them. For some reason people think that the constitution is some sort of powerful document that governs things. The constitution does not mean shit to the universe. Our governments only mean something to us, and that really should include the future of our race if we ever want to harness our collective work in a meaningful way to the universe. But it doesn't, and in our present state humans amount to nothing more than a very recent and small infection of a tiny speck of dirt in a little solar system in a small galaxy in the grand old universe.

But yeah the US founding fathers had it totally right that we all should have guns because they actually knew some shit.

Not all Constitutions are created equal, and some countries function fine without a formal written one. Our system, however, is built on one.

I'm not arguing for a Constitution, I'm arguing for the Constitution.

But, okay, let's talk about abolishing it...

We can ease into it. If we don't need ALL of it, then we don't need ANY of it, right? Let's start by abolishing the 26th, 19th, and 15th Amendments because 18 year olds, women, and blacks don't need a guaranteed right to vote. Let's repeal the 8th, because we don't need it to prevent cruel and unusual punishments. Let's also ditch the 4th and 5th: criminals shouldn't get speedy trials, or lawyers, or due process, or even get to know why they're being held.

Comfortable doing that? Certain that once those silly old protections are gone, there won't be any outrageous abuses?

Yes, you're not the first or last person to figure out all law is a useful fiction, but as Paladin points out, we abandon it at our peril.
Hell, we're already on a dangerous road of people like Trump and Putin hand-waving law away like an annoying mosquito.

Silly Paladin, don't you realize that arbitrary government is the goal? If you don't have a foundational document to lean on, then any goofy shit you want to do is fine. But only if the right people are in charge, of course.

Oh please, if I were Emperor, and I gave you a position, and a title, and a pretty costume, you'd shut right up.

Yup. Until I could stick a knife in your back and become Emperor in your place.

So, evidence?

Show me a real world link between constitutions and human rights.

Until you can do that all you have is an unproven hypothesis at best, an article of faith at worst.

OK, so you're saying it's not simply the presence of a Constitution which matters but that yours is in some sense the "correct" Constitution?

Others are inadequate or in some sense incorrect?

I reject the idea that it's an all or nothing deal. People are more than intelligent enough to be objective about circumstances and where the gravity of the situation is realistically existential on a global scale it's not unreasonable to suggest a ruling against pollution regulations as unconstitutional means the definition of "constitutional" warrants revision.

Survival trumps freedom in any case but even leaving that aside you're yet to provide any real reason to suspect that one document really safeguards anything.

Most constitutions say similar things in essence yet dictatorships happen regardless. Where circumstances allow the protections are shown to be paper thin every time.

You aren't free because of the Constitution. You're free because you were lucky enough to be born in one of history's little bubbles, just like me.

indentured employment, however...

Bill of rights. First amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Arguably the pivot point of the entire American experiment and the reason we prosecute people for things like antisemitic violence and hate speech. Kind of protecting their human rights, yes?

Second amendment - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Enshrines the right of self-defense, without which the very term "human rights" has no meaning.

Third amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. In other words, the government can't seize your home to quarter the military without due process. Kind of overtaken by events, but still an important protection preventing you from being made homeless by fiat. Since we generally define having a place to live as a human right, I'd say it counts.

Fourth amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. No secret police disappearing you in the dead of night. No goon squads taking your personal property without due process. I'd say that counts.

I could keep going, but your question is so devoid of reason or awareness that you'll not see the point. You seem to want a government system that's so fluid and subject to the whims of the mob that it might as well not be there at all.

If all this stuff is so good, why is it in amendments rather than the original text?

Exactly... and frankly yours has a fair amount of redundant components in the first ten updates and one or two rollbacks as I recall. Not too mention basically being a beta version that many after market vendors have made with way better functionality.

We did it here nearly 40 years ago and are pretty much better for it.

"Since we generally define having a place to live as a human right,"

yet you have ten homes vacant for every known homeless person in the country...

"No secret police disappearing you in the dead of night. No goon squads taking your personal property without due process. "

unless it's a no knock warrant, and everything you own including the house itself is considered suspect as "proceeds of crime". In which case you may have to mortgage it to get it back once you've proven yourself not guilty.

I said our system is built on our Constitution.

Incidentally, I am now fairly convinced that any sentence that begins with "So, you're saying..." will end with a gross mis-characterization of the original quote.

I literally said others' may work fine. For them.

Okay, what are we discussing? The Constitution or this one case?

Survival is not at stake. And even if it was, you don't get to jump to your solution without the consent of the governed.

Then repeal the sections I mentioned. If they don't actually safeguard anything, there's no danger.

Our Constitution separates powers and provides for checks against the abuse of government power.

I suppose dictatorship can happen in any system given the right circumstances, but I see no evidence that our system--in place since 1788--is more susceptible.

That could be said about any situation. It doesn't reduce me to a passive spectator, nor does it remove my obligation to uphold the rights of myself and my fellow citizens. My rights won't be surrendered just because I'm "lucky" in some historical sense.

Good for you. Hopefully, your bank account won't be frozen without due process.

Also wishing you a continued avoidance of civil forfeiture.

pretty sure my bank isn't bound by the Charter when I'm into overdraft...

any conceivable government action like that would probably require the stated "due process".

got another strawman?

Careful, lest you have introduce him to some uncomfortable actual history rather than the mythology he is familiar with...

Consent of the governed....

I am not governed by the US.

Most of us are not (thankfully).

Yet it is our world being impacted by climate change, our children's futures.

Where it was about guns or freedom of speech it was a curiosity we foreigners could comment on only as interested observers, but where the impact spreads to affect us all then it's a different matter.

It has to be a global effort to work, we cannot manage when industrial superpowers choose to declare they're special or exempt.

Now, for the record I accept that various amendments to the US Constitution have improved it at times, but that doesn't answer my point.

For those amendments to pass there had to be a public will to enact change. Without that will nothing would have happened. The amendments to the Constitution were the result, not the cause.

What I asked you to do was demonstrate at the least a correlation between the presence of a Constitution and positive human rights, even better causation.

You can't, because there is none.

Take note:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country

The worst hundred nations on the planet for human rights and freedoms all have something in common, they all have constitutions guaranteeing their rights.

Barring Israel every nation without one ranks above the US.

Admittedly the sample size for "without" is not large enough to be significant, but surely the total lack of demonstratable positive impact should make you at least stop and question your assumptions because wifvthis ruling goes the wrong way it could be disastrous.