Not one word of this addresses the question. Read it again if you need and let me reiterate. In terms of freedoms in the real world the US ranks below every nation without a written Constitution, barring one. The worst 100 offenders, however, all possess something akin to it. How, then, can you stand by your assertion that such a document actually fulfills the purpose you insist it does?
So, can you demonstrate a real world link other than merely asserting something on faith? Can you evidence that constitutions actually serve their purpose?
Because Madison and Hamilton in particular thought it was already implied that these rights were baked into the constitution. It was people like Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee (Federal Farmer) and other Anti-Federalists demanded that there be amendments. Madison agreed and proceeded to write them out.
The world is affected by a lot of things. No, you're still only interested observers. You don't gain any special control on our political system just because you deem an issue extra-extra-important. The global effort does not override national sovereignty. Good, then we're agreed that it does actually protect people's rights. Semantics. The will of the people is only conceptual until it is enacted in law. It is only through law that will has effect. You're refuting an argument I'm not making. The Constitution (the American one) is the basis of our system and the guarantee of our rights. Whether a constitution works or does not somewhere else is irrelevant. We elect lawmakers to wrestle with those issues. They're too important to be left to unaccountable bureaucrats.
I figured there was some horse-trading going on to get all the colonies on board. That wasn't the case?
You’re talking about the Declaration of Independence. The country was already founded when the constitution was being proposed.
Whether it works elsewhere is absolutely crucial if it indicates the likelihood it's working there. If constitutions cannot be shown to be effective as a measure against abuses then you cannot attribute your own freedoms to one except as an act of faith. All you can empirically state is that your own country sits in the upper quartile of nations globally as ranked. Whether that is due to the Constitution has not been demonstrated. As so many similar constitutions seem to have not delivered on the promise the discrepancy between intent and outcome in so very many cases needs explanation if you are to maintain the assertion it has worked specifically in yours. Otherwise you are merely live in a prosperous and secure nation where the proposition is largely untested. Weigh that untested proposition against the overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change and yes I do think we all have a right to speak up. If your freedoms are costing us all then a global concern should indeed override national sovereignty, especially where that sovereignty is only being claimed by a special interest group rather than the elected government.
Or even if large numbers of us are killed. I’ll just point out that an enigmatic monument in Georgia, which conspiracy minded folks think were erected by a shadowy organization states that the human population should be kept at around 2 billion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones Folks ascribe all kinds of sinister implications to the stones. Many of these folks also think that global warming is a hoax. Not doing anything about global warming is a pretty good way to insure that the human population on the planet drops dramatically.
So you're electing experts in climate science, are you? Or are you trusting them to delegate when they know they aren't experts? The issue today is that the GOP think they ARE experts, despite the topic not being "who can spew the most bullshit".
There isn't some other place that has the U.S. Constitution, or that has built a political society upon it. As I said, if our Constitution does not actually protect against abuses, then we can start repealing parts of it. It doesn't matter, right? The right of women to vote doesn't really turn on that silly 19th Amendment does it? One's right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures doesn't really depend on that old 4th Amendment, right? They do. Because our system is defined to say that they do. It may be true that if, say, we repealed the 1st Amendment today that there wouldn't be any egregious abuse for a while. But, sooner or later, someone will claim a book or a popular song is obscenity and try to ban it. Then certain opinions will be labeled dangerous and be suppressed from public discourse. And so on. I don't make any claims here about attributing our historical success to the Constitution, but it wouldn't be a hard argument to make. I can't say about others. We have a long tradition of observing and upholding our Constitution, and the process of striking down laws that run contrary to it goes all the way back to the founding generation. How many times have courts ruled laws un-constitutional? (I use the lowercase there because, in addition to our federal charter--the Constitution--each state has its own constitution, whose rules are similarly upheld.) Speak up all you want. But your opinion doesn't override our democratic processes. "The ends justifies the means." Sorry, no.
So, to be clear, your argument is that no matter the consequences the US Constitution is sacrosanct? Strange how you're so happy enacting regime change almost on a whim elsewhere when you deem someone else's system harmful. When it's your own it's a different story. I've not suggested you have a long history of success because of the Constitution. Far from it, I've suggested you have enormous geographical and industrial advantages which have rendered (mostly) upholding it comparatively easy compared to most nations. It's been convenient. The Constitution did not end segregation or bring women the vote, it rubber stamped public opinion after the fact. Likewise it did little to stop Mccarthy during the Cold War. In all these things the Constitution has been coincidental, it has reflected the changing times rather than shaped them and where your society has faced genuine challenges it has been ineffective. It didn't stop the Patriot Act, or Trump running roughshod over everything and anything which he disliked. It hasn't stopped the police violently targeting ethnic groups, no knock raids, racism. You haven't been invaded, faced famine, economic collapse. You've until recently not had civil unrest which threatened governance. Again I put forward case that there exists little empirical evidence that having a Constitution is an effective safeguard against anything. Climate change, on the other hand, is most categorically real.
Once again, because we seem to be missing this: The current implementation of federal regulatory ability has been largely unchallenged for over 100 years. In 1989 Mistretta vs US the 'nondelegation doctrine', which radical conservatives are attempting to resurrect, was ruled as inapplicable by a largely conservative court. Congress can delegate regulatory authority. "Applying this "intelligible principle" test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient" if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority." As to the Constitution, it's not going to be ignored piecemeal. The Sacred, Holy Constitution is not the foundation of the US government. It's the SECOND implementation of it. The first one, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was found to be completely incapable of dealing with the exigencies of political reality a mere 4 years after its inception - leading to an army attempting to storm Congress because they were Revolutionary War veterans that hadn't been paid. If we are ever faced with another situation where the rules have to be rewritten, it will no doubt be done in a similar manner. Replaced en toto. But the real reason that radical conservatives want this should be evident to everyone - they know they can stop meaningful law in Congress, so they can continue to pollute and exploit to their heart's content.
You're almost right. The Articles of Confederation were the first attempt - the "draft copy," if you will - at a national government. But the current Constitution very much IS the foundation of the US government. There are bits and pieces from the Articles in it, but it is an almost wholly different approach to national governance.
No. My argument is that the Constitution is the basis for our entire legal system, and that the limitations it imposes on state power protect our rights. What are you implying here? That I think some systems are worthy of preserving and others are not? Guilty as charged. You like sharia law? How about National Socialism? Juche? Do you think those systems are good and valid? We retain those geographical and obtain those industrial advantages because of our system. But, if it's as you suggest--the other way around--so what? If our principles only arise from our circumstances, that doesn't invalidate the principles. Your principles would be different if you lived in another context, too. It locked that public opinion into our basic law, and it settled it everywhere. I assure you, segregation was not a settled matter in ALL places by public opinion before it was by force of law. The state has always had the power to punish through prosecution. That remains a problem today: prosecuting protestors as insurrectionists and such. You seem to think that the Constitution is only an instrument that only operates when called upon. It isn't. It is the basis of the system. It's the context for every protest, every vote, every arrested person being read their rights, every interracial marriage, every book critical of the government published, every political ad, every President stepping down after two terms, And being stopped by the courts when it was appropriate to do so (thanks, Constitutional separation of powers!). In general, the police don't "violently target" people by ethnicity. Where police behave unlawfully, the system addresses it. The discussion is ongoing. No legal system will change every person's heart, but we guarantee the rights of full citizenship to everyone regardless of race. We have discrimination laws that cover housing, education, employment. We had much worse in the 1960s; it's been forgotten about. In any case, governance was not threatened. Roe v Wade Miranda v Arizona Brown v Board of Education Loving v Virginia Griswold v Connecticut Hernandez v Texas Brown v Mississippi Lawrence v Texas Kent v Dulles Those cases all had to go to the Supreme Court for final adjudication. All involved finding laws--popular opinion, anyone?--or processes un-Constitutional violations of the rights of individuals. (There are thousands of such cases, but these are particularly impactful and wide-ranging.) And a matter for democratic governments to grapple with.
You stated earlier you didn't believe the ends justified the means and interference in a sovereign nation was never justified even in the face of an extinction event. Now you have doubled back to state you support intervention where a regime is sufficiently dangerous. I put it to you that nothing in human history has been as dangerous as climate change. Furthermore the freedoms you believe are under threat are those of a special interest group with undue influence beyond those of similar numbers of voters. You are weighing very realistically the future of humanity against the profitability of an industry. Let that sink in. I have no doubt you believe what you are asserting, that the Constitution provides you with a necessary framework for the reach and scope of governance. The key word there is believe. As a scientist you also understand the importance of statistics, or measuring a phenomena objectively. You are not applying that objectivity here, much as a physicist may have a religious epiphany and see no disconnect between his faith and empiricism. With a religion that can hold philosophically, but this cannot. God's existence may not be open to investigation but the efficacy of political methods is. Faith is not a valid answer here. Unproven assertions hold little water in a sphere where evidence is available. When that is done the simple fact remains that the available data suggests that nations without formal constitutions appear to not only function perfectly well without the erosion of rights you predict, but actually perform better. Similarly the data strongly supports a position where we have little, if any, leeway left to take sufficient action on the single most pressing issue of our, or any other, time.
I'm not even going to tell you to suck on my balls because I would be worried that your brain damage might somehow infect me. The only thing you are a slave to is your brain worms.
I didn't say "never." But I will say never for purposes of overriding its democratic processes. That isn't doubling back. Where a regime is dangerous enough, I do support intervening. Gee, I didn't know I was on the horns of such a dilemma: give up the Constitution or let humanity die. Needless to say, I reject that false dilemma. I think it pretty well established in fact. Every human system persists because people who "believe in it" keep it going. You seem to see that as unreal. I'd ask which system anywhere exists in a more real way. I think I can supply plenty of empirical evidence that supports the system. I've provided evidence where "popular opinion" would deny others what YOU would see as their undeniable right. I don't maintain the Constitution--either at the founding or now--is perfect. I don't claim I agree with every aspect of it, or every one of its judicial interpretations. But I do claim that it works: out system has been remarkably stable and prosperous, while still continuing to ensure ever greater individual freedom. Of course, it depends on what measures you choose and what values you hold. And, I should point out, no formal written constitution is not the same as no constitution. Our representatives can debate that. That's what they're there for.
I don't reject that dilemma if the courts rule in favour of the energy lobby. That's exactly what is being discussed. Your representatives put the legislation in place. That legislation is evidence based and intended to play a key part on the greater effort over climate change. It is being challenged as unconstitutional. Where the stakes are so high that really is dangerous and exactly why I suggest a regime which would make such a terrifyingly inappropriate value judgement (if it does) is exactly what I would call dangerous. What is constitutional may well also be the greatest evil you could possibly perpetrate.
Sometimes, it feels like the fate of the planet hinges on the pull of a video slot machine. "I hope I don't die!! ". "Ope, cherry, cherry, lemon. I is dead. ".
Yeah, it is. You mean they might decide that is an issue best left to the states and not the federal government? The HORROR! The same batshit insane people who told Trump to go fuck himself when he tried to overthrow an election and did so again recently when Trump tried to block documents pertaining to the capital riot from democrats in congress? Lay off the Kool-Aid kid.
The Environmental Protection Agency exists because state regulatory agencies had a fraction of the resources and were easily captured by corrupt corporations. Who thought this was a good idea? That horrible progressive... Richard Milhouse Nixon. You know. After American rivers started catching on fire. It's good to know the history of things, the reason they were done. The same ones that are champing at the bit to break the power of the federal government. They were put there specifically for this purpose. And one of the first things they've done is to agree to review whether or not the government has actual regulatory power. You guys think the Feds are evil, and billionaires have spent quite a bit of money to get you there. As they are the only ones that can possibly compete with the megacorps and oligarchs. Things aren't great, but they are about to get a hell of a lot worse. And yeah, that's so obvious that it takes the batshit insane people not to see it.
Thanks for the middle school refresher The EPA will still exist even if the court decides that its over stepping its boundaries. That IS the main purpose of the court's existence. It's not to just get out of the way and let the federal government act on the whims of the President. You learn that in middle school too. Actually the first thing they did was to deny Trump the opportunity to overthrow an election. But I can see why you want to keep ignoring that. It destroys the narrative that you've been fed for so long by partisan hacks. They're both evil. Billionaires work for your side too buddy. Your guy wouldn't be sitting in that white house and your side wouldn't be controlling congress without them.
I take it you didn't do very well in middle school An EPA without regulatory function does not exist. It's a hollow shell, and what Republicans like it to be - the perception that it can do something, without the ability to actually do anything. You know, like when your guy hollowed out the Federal Election Commission before launching his assault on our democracy. Or the Supreme Court overturned the majority of the Voting Rights Act. I'm beginning to worry you failed elementary. Nah, it makes perfect sense. Trump is disruptive to trade. Even the chamber of commerce rejected him in the end. Bad for business. Like I said. Batshit insane. Good governance is the power of people helping each other. You can see it at work in a dozen countries where the population lives longer, has more free time, can take time off for childbirth, are happier, and oh, yeah - has more social mobility than we do here in the US. And their voting rights are more secure. Your side does everything it can to stop that so it can pool as many resources as possible into the hands of the wealthy. Trickle down is evil, and a lie. When Biden said he wanted to end tax breaks for the wealthy at the state of the Union, most of the GOP booed him. The only time they booed as a group. A couple. And those guys are willing to pay their fair share of taxes, have explicitly stated that as their intent. And yes, they supported the Dems strongly this time - because it was clear to everyone that Trump was beyond problematic. You know, a POTUS whose own Secretary of Defense called a threat to the US Constitution who used Nazi like tactics to turn Americans against each other. But Billionaires Koch, Adelson, Griffin, Schwarzman, Marcus, Purlmutter, Schwaub, Stepehens, Ryan, Wynn, (Kelcey) Warren, and oh yeah, Sung Yung Moon's cult support the GOP. And not to mention all the dirty money coming in from overseas. GOP operatives Jesse Benton and Doug Weald have been indicted for funneling illegal campaign contributions from a Russian national, Roman Vasilenko. Igor Furman has already plead guilty to the same. Tom Barrack was arrested for acting as an unregistered agent for the UAE, and helped illegall foreign straw donations to the Trump Super Pac. Republican Sam Patten plead guilty for more illegal straw donations from a Putin-funded Ukrainian political party. Imaad Zuberl, 12 years for illegal funding from Sri Lanka. Len Blavanatik gave millioins to Mitch McConnell. And of course Russian backed Oligarchs created massive troll farms (the Internet Research Agency run by 'Putins Chef' Prigozhin) for psyops campaign for Trump, and Trump's businesses were replete with Russian mob money who clearly were laundering through Trump properties (the American head of the Mafiayoso, the Russian Mafia, was arrested after a year long manhunt in Trump Tower). And possibly the richest man in the world Vlaidimir Putin at the very least tasked Russian Military Intelligence (the GRU) to help assist Trump win office. Putin's state media just called Trump the 'legitimate President of the United States.' And I'm sure the fact that Cambridge Analytica's chief data scientist was a Russian national who concealed his origin was just a coincidence. So yeah, I'm good with the side I picked. Having morals and all.
It will still have a regulatory function even if your precious bumbler in chief can't put a one size fits all solution to 50 states. What works in California might not work in Iowa. And again, they haven't made a decision yet. So you're working yourself up in a tizzy over nothing. And the same Supreme Court overturned Obamacare. Oh wait . Yes you are. I don't pick sides dipshit. I don't tow any party line because unlike yourself I don't buy into the drivel that's shoveled by talking heads on T V and wanna be philosophers on social media. I do my own diligence and pick candidates regardless of their party affiliation. Novel concept I know. Typical talking points. Even Republicans don't use that phrase anymore. And supply side/ trickle down economics started with JFK, a democrat. ...it was all talk. Billionaires will still keep their breaks in the upcoming tax bill. But don't worry. That evil business owner whose assets happen to top one million will get the full brunt of the shaft. While the rest of us little people feel the shaft every time we pay for gas. Hurray for Biden! Try the majority of billionaires who gave in the last election. All for Biden. Obama had millions of illegal campaign contributions come from overseas, Hillary Clinton was bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs(as well as the rest of the banking industry) and Joe Biden was bought and paid for by billionaires. Your side is just as bad and corrupt as the GOP. The only difference is you've deluded yourself into thinking that it's okay if your team does it so long as it helps YOUR side win. You whine about "Trickle Down" by the GOP while at the same time thinking your side will tax the rich enough so that their wealth will "Trickle Down" to you. So yes. You ARE batshit insane. And deluded as well.
Oh, look, the evil people did more evil. Just like it was obvious they were going to do. SCOTUS strikes down the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In other news, a massive wildfire is burning in North Carolina, record heat waves are baking Asia and Europe, drought has decimated the Colorado River and Lake Meade, and food systems are collapsing in East Africa due to a record 6 year drought.
It is all good because Ginny and the handmaid are working with Jebus to save us all. Thank you Biden.