Prop 8 discussion....

[Susan B. Anthony]

I would probably have a problem with that.

You would disagree with it.  Does that mean it's wrong or that you disagree with it?  Is there some notion of good out there to which you believe the constitution should conform?  Is that what it comes down to?

I believe the Constitution exists to protect those rights which we have deemed important enough to need that protection. That protection is most important to minority groups. So, to me, it violates the spirit of the constitution to allow people to vote to take away rights from minority groups (particularly by a simple majority). If they can't vote to make laws to that effect (or their elected representatives can't vote to make laws to that effect), the majority should not be able to simply amend the constitution to get what they want. I'm sure one could come up with something that might be an exception to this, but there are better uses of your time.

The voting issue is slightly because it's an age based requirement, which is a condition that changes. I still think it's suspect, particularly given other rights and responsibilities given at younger ages.

[Susan B. Anthony]

I believe the Constitution exists to protect those rights which we have deemed important enough to need that protection.

And if we stop deeming them important enough?  If we wanted to remove equal protection for example?

Again...my primary concern here is the majority removing rights from a minority or otherwise burdened group. I could probably think of situations in which such a removal of pretty much any protected right would be a tactic by a majority to somehow burden a minority. If that's the intent or the outcome, I find it problematic and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Again...my primary concern here is the majority removing rights from a minority or otherwise burdened group. I could probably think of situations in which such a removal of pretty much any protected right would be a tactic by a majority to somehow burden a minority. If that's the intent or the outcome, I find it problematic and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

So equality is kind of the core of the Constitution in your view?

I guess that depends on how you're going to define equality in your next question.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Again...my primary concern here is the majority removing rights from a minority or otherwise burdened group. I could probably think of situations in which such a removal of pretty much any protected right would be a tactic by a majority to somehow burden a minority. If that's the intent or the outcome, I find it problematic and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

So equality is kind of the core of the Constitution in your view?

I guess that depends on how you're going to define equality in your next question.

I'm going to define it the way you'd define it.  I'm not setting up traps for you or anything.

I just don't agree that there is a spirit of the Constitution.

Let me put it this way.

I suspect that, if a group of people decided to take equal protection out of the constitution, it probably wouldn't be because they weren't worried the laws would treat people unequally anymore (although some people would probably convince themselves, or try to convince others of, that)...it would be because they weren't concerned that the laws would unfairly burden them.

The Constitution says "okay, these things are important enough to having a just society that everyone should have them." People in power and people with general social approval usually don't have to worry about having those things. Marginalized/minority groups do.  Call me idealistic, but imo the spirit of the Constitution is just that - ensuring that everyone has access to the things we value most, or think are most important to the functioning of society, no matter how despised an individual or group might be.

You disagree?

[sheltron5000]

The point of the constitution is to have basis for the power of the state, and the expression of it, in the form of police and military. One way to provide for those powers is to prevent their abuse: "why should the state have all that power?" "because we said they can only use it in these ways..."

The founders, knowing that things change, and that some laws would need to be made fundamental and above the state (like the freaking right to privacy so the military can't take it away), made provisions for amending the constitution. Conversely, the founders feared the "tyranny of the majority," that the majority would use the state and the constitution to oppress minorities or people who don't conform. So, they made it REALLY REALLY hard to change the constitution. (see my above post).

So as to the suggestion that if someone managed to amend the constitution to remove equal protection, it would take a large majority, a substantial ammount of work and time, and probably at least some minority support. That's the difference between state constitutions and the federal constitution.

There is no spirit of the constitution, but most of the really basic things in the constitution (the psuedo-spirit ), separation of powers, are spread around so much that you would have to drastically alter the entire document to remove them. It would be easier to just replace the whole thing.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Dude, cool down. hooloovoo and I were having what is primarily, I suspect, a semantic disagreement. We took the conversation elsewhere because it moved beyond the scope of the thread (at least, that's why he typically makes new threads for such discussions).

[mugatu]

uhhh...

there are a lot of things I might call hooloovoo, but trite, ignorant and zealous do not make the list.

Dude, cool down. hooloovoo and I were having what is primarily, I suspect, a semantic disagreement. We took the conversation elsewhere because it moved beyond the scope of the thread (at least, that's why he typically makes new threads for such discussions).

I'm cool.  Wasn't about to try to track down his repeticious other threads with his simple points that I believe go well beyond semantics.  I enjoyed writing what I posted.  It felt good and I'm eating lasagna with a nice salad! It's yummy. =)

ha.  no.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Dude, cool down. hooloovoo and I were having what is primarily, I suspect, a semantic disagreement. We took the conversation elsewhere because it moved beyond the scope of the thread (at least, that's why he typically makes new threads for such discussions).

I'm cool.  Wasn't about to try to track down his repeticious other threads with his simple points that I believe go well beyond semantics.  I enjoyed writing what I posted.  It felt good and I'm eating lasagna with a nice salad!  =)

His posting of that link was an invitation for me to continue the discussion elsewhere  You lept to unfounded conclusions about what our difference of opinion (which is in part philosophic and in part semantic) means. A disagreement about the "spirit" of the constitution does not mean that he approves of "tyranny," or that he doesn't know his history (I assure you, he does), or that he hasn't read the Constitution (I assure you, he has). It doesn't mean that he approves of Prop 8 or similar measures.

It means that I raised a point, he pushed me on my foundation for it, and we disagree about some aspect of that foundation. That is all that it means. I may not agree with his take on the constitution, but I have immense respect for his respect for other people, and his respect for forming informed and well-supported positions and holding respectful and reasonable discussion and debate.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Thank you Cady and mu for your defense of me in my absence.

It won't happen again 

[jeffislouie]

I wanted to move to another thread because frankly, I don't like posting in jeffislouie-started threads.  You are mistaken to assume that people who don't sign on wholeheartedly to your position 1) are zealots or 2) necessarily disagree with you on much at all.

Thank you Cady and mu for your defense of me in my absence.

Racist bastard.
I'm curious - how many threads have I started?  Is that enough for you to not like posting in them?
I'll give you a hint - it's 6.  6 threads that I've started.
And you apparently hate it so much that you continue to do it unabated.  A clever, if not transparent, lie.

I'd appreciate the sentiment if it was about not wanting to hijack anyone's threads, but find the idea that someone doesn't like posting in a thread I start ridiculous, especially when coming from someone who has posted 15 times in this one.

It's silly.

I do whole heartedly appreciate the interesting posts to date.  Thanks to all who have tried to remain civil, and a hearty f-off to the rest.