timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

ESTABLISH JUSTICE

Now we get to the specific purposes of the Constitution (a more perfect union being a general theme). Again I have to go back to the fact that so many constitutions that have been written in the last 200 years have been meaningless, with the countries sliding into dictatorships very quickly; the opposite of justice. The Founding Fathers, writing in 1787, could not have known this of course, but they must have sensed it- they recognized just how fragile a free republic with Justice for all would be, and they sought to create a form of government which would guarantee it.

Now Howard Zinn's book, A People's History of the Untied States, focuses on the INJUSTICES of the government throughout our history, of which there were many, and it was Zinn's position that the Americsn government has always been predominantly unjust. The book is entirely factual and very well-written and I highly recommend it. However I also disagree with his overall point. I think that all the terrible history that Zinn describes are essentially the exception to the rule, (and furthermore his book proves the rule itself, because an essential element of a just society is its willingness to self-criticize). Finally, Howard Zinn was a socialist, and like most socialists he was focused more on outcome than on process- any political system which did not produce egalitarianism was inherently unjust.

If one focused only on negatives, they could make Mother Theresa out to be a villain. For the author to come to such a conclusion requires some kind of personality disorder, even if entirely based factual evidence.

 

[timschochet]

Great post Yankee. Have you ever read the Constitution of the former USSR? That document assumes perfection, and the differences are stark.

One point regarding the mechanism for changes to the Constitution- it seems to me that our current political system has rendered this, not just extremely difficult as was intended, but effectively impossible.

It was meant to be extremely difficult, taking a consensus of the 3/4 of the states to pass it. Of course the real mechanism for changing it now is through the courts.

Yeah your last sentence there wasn't meant to be provocative was it? lol

 

[jon_mx]

Great post Yankee. Have you ever read the Constitution of the former USSR? That document assumes perfection, and the differences are stark.

One point regarding the mechanism for changes to the Constitution- it seems to me that our current political system has rendered this, not just extremely difficult as was intended, but effectively impossible.

It was meant to be extremely difficult, taking a consensus of the 3/4 of the states to pass it. Of course the real mechanism for changing it now is through the courts.

Yeah your last sentence there wasn't meant to be provocative was it? lol

Why would it be provocative? It is what is happening. The courts are finding all kinds of things in the Constitution from abortion rights to soon to be gay rights. The states and people are losing more and more power to govern to the federal executive and courts.

 

[timschochet]

Yes that is a provocative point of view as you well know. Of course the progressive response to your contention, which in this instance I happen to share, is that no judge "created" gay rights or abortion rights; those were always implicit between the lines in the amendments to the Constitution which we'll get to.

 

[Glass Joe]

What should Obama have done? A koombaya sit in?

Personally I don't think the president (any president) has the power to shift society in a direction it doesn't want to go. There is too much resentment and mistrust in both directions (e.g. see Eminence's rant) to reconcile

Obama is someone who can speak on the issue and be listened too not only as a black man but also as the most powerful political figure in the world. Obama can make a call for people to stop the violence and to bring the sides together to get a better understanding of each others viewpoints and to make appropriate changes. Instead Obama takes the side of blacks and act more as a rabble rouser than a peace-maker. In the beer summit case, Obama spouted off claiming the police acted stupidly without any knowledge of the facts. In the Zimmerman case, Obama says that Trevon could be his son. The justice department completely ignores Black Panthers posters putting a bounty on Zimmerman's head, and instead spends over a year trying to dig up evidence for some kind of civil rights violation by Zimmerman. Obama has shown lots of empathy towards the protests in the Brown incident, and has suggested more training and body cameras for police, in a way implying it was all the police's fault. Obama at times tries to sound like he is fair and understanding of both sides, but his actions consistently show a bias and lack of understanding. Yesterday Obama declared that race relations were better than ever, seemingly oblivious to what is really going on.

Obama had/has a chance to lead. To do something great. To make a difference on an important issue he is more uniquely qualified than any of his predecessors. And yet he is punting, and in my opinion even being inflammatory in his actions and making things worse.

Perhaps he's leading in a direction you disagree - that doesn't mean he's not leading. He sees things differently than you. Doesn't mean he's wrong. Likely makes him right...

 

[jon_mx]

What should Obama have done? A koombaya sit in?

Personally I don't think the president (any president) has the power to shift society in a direction it doesn't want to go. There is too much resentment and mistrust in both directions (e.g. see Eminence's rant) to reconcile

Obama is someone who can speak on the issue and be listened too not only as a black man but also as the most powerful political figure in the world. Obama can make a call for people to stop the violence and to bring the sides together to get a better understanding of each others viewpoints and to make appropriate changes. Instead Obama takes the side of blacks and act more as a rabble rouser than a peace-maker. In the beer summit case, Obama spouted off claiming the police acted stupidly without any knowledge of the facts. In the Zimmerman case, Obama says that Trevon could be his son. The justice department completely ignores Black Panthers posters putting a bounty on Zimmerman's head, and instead spends over a year trying to dig up evidence for some kind of civil rights violation by Zimmerman. Obama has shown lots of empathy towards the protests in the Brown incident, and has suggested more training and body cameras for police, in a way implying it was all the police's fault. Obama at times tries to sound like he is fair and understanding of both sides, but his actions consistently show a bias and lack of understanding. Yesterday Obama declared that race relations were better than ever, seemingly oblivious to what is really going on.

Obama had/has a chance to lead. To do something great. To make a difference on an important issue he is more uniquely qualified than any of his predecessors. And yet he is punting, and in my opinion even being inflammatory in his actions and making things worse.

Perhaps he's leading in a direction you disagree - that doesn't mean he's not leading. He sees things differently than you. Doesn't mean he's wrong. Likely makes him right...

Only if you consider riots and police getting shot right....

 

[jon_mx]

Yes that is a provocative point of view as you well know. Of course the progressive response to your contention, which in this instance I happen to share, is that no judge "created" gay rights or abortion rights; those were always implicit between the lines in the amendments to the Constitution which we'll get to.

when it takes contrived cases and mental gymnastics to get there, it is an indication that is wasn't even implicit.

 

[Glass Joe]

What should Obama have done? A koombaya sit in?

Personally I don't think the president (any president) has the power to shift society in a direction it doesn't want to go. There is too much resentment and mistrust in both directions (e.g. see Eminence's rant) to reconcile

Obama is someone who can speak on the issue and be listened too not only as a black man but also as the most powerful political figure in the world. Obama can make a call for people to stop the violence and to bring the sides together to get a better understanding of each others viewpoints and to make appropriate changes. Instead Obama takes the side of blacks and act more as a rabble rouser than a peace-maker. In the beer summit case, Obama spouted off claiming the police acted stupidly without any knowledge of the facts. In the Zimmerman case, Obama says that Trevon could be his son. The justice department completely ignores Black Panthers posters putting a bounty on Zimmerman's head, and instead spends over a year trying to dig up evidence for some kind of civil rights violation by Zimmerman. Obama has shown lots of empathy towards the protests in the Brown incident, and has suggested more training and body cameras for police, in a way implying it was all the police's fault. Obama at times tries to sound like he is fair and understanding of both sides, but his actions consistently show a bias and lack of understanding. Yesterday Obama declared that race relations were better than ever, seemingly oblivious to what is really going on.

Obama had/has a chance to lead. To do something great. To make a difference on an important issue he is more uniquely qualified than any of his predecessors. And yet he is punting, and in my opinion even being inflammatory in his actions and making things worse.

Perhaps he's leading in a direction you disagree - that doesn't mean he's not leading. He sees things differently than you. Doesn't mean he's wrong. Likely makes him right...

Only if you consider riots and police getting shot right....

Presidents lead with their voice. That's it. He didn't shot or riot. He took a position you disagree with.

 

[jon_mx]

What should Obama have done? A koombaya sit in?

Personally I don't think the president (any president) has the power to shift society in a direction it doesn't want to go. There is too much resentment and mistrust in both directions (e.g. see Eminence's rant) to reconcile

Obama is someone who can speak on the issue and be listened too not only as a black man but also as the most powerful political figure in the world. Obama can make a call for people to stop the violence and to bring the sides together to get a better understanding of each others viewpoints and to make appropriate changes. Instead Obama takes the side of blacks and act more as a rabble rouser than a peace-maker. In the beer summit case, Obama spouted off claiming the police acted stupidly without any knowledge of the facts. In the Zimmerman case, Obama says that Trevon could be his son. The justice department completely ignores Black Panthers posters putting a bounty on Zimmerman's head, and instead spends over a year trying to dig up evidence for some kind of civil rights violation by Zimmerman. Obama has shown lots of empathy towards the protests in the Brown incident, and has suggested more training and body cameras for police, in a way implying it was all the police's fault. Obama at times tries to sound like he is fair and understanding of both sides, but his actions consistently show a bias and lack of understanding. Yesterday Obama declared that race relations were better than ever, seemingly oblivious to what is really going on.

Obama had/has a chance to lead. To do something great. To make a difference on an important issue he is more uniquely qualified than any of his predecessors. And yet he is punting, and in my opinion even being inflammatory in his actions and making things worse.

Perhaps he's leading in a direction you disagree - that doesn't mean he's not leading. He sees things differently than you. Doesn't mean he's wrong. Likely makes him right...

Only if you consider riots and police getting shot right....

Presidents lead with their voice. That's it. He didn't shot or riot. He took a position you disagree with.

And the results speak for themselves.

 

[timschochet]

I was all prepared this morning to move on from the Obama and race discussion, but I find that I don't want to let this go just yet. It seems to me, if I understand them correctly, that when various conservatives in this thread complain that Obama missed the opportunity to have an "open discussion" about race in light of all the recent incidents (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) what they're really saying is that they wanted Obama to tell the public, "Hey, there wasn't any racism going on here." And by suggesting otherwise to the public, Obama not only failed to act as a leader, he paved the way for protests and rioting and perhaps even the shooting of the police in New York.

There's just one problem with this analysis: many of us believe that those incidents mentioned DID involve racism, and many of us continue to believe that institutionalized racism among the police of this country continues to be a major problem. I'm one of those people; it seems pretty clear that President Obama is another. Why therefore would it be irresponsible for him to discuss this in reference to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Why is wrong for him to offer his honest opinion here?

And while Obama has never encouraged rioting (in fact has spoken out against it again and again) why shouldn't he encourage peaceful protests? If he believes as he does, aren't protests a reasonable avenue to seek change? In short, I don't think the criticism here is at all warranted.

 

[jon_mx]

I was all prepared this morning to move on from the Obama and race discussion, but I find that I don't want to let this go just yet. It seems to me, if I understand them correctly, that when various conservatives in this thread complain that Obama missed the opportunity to have an "open discussion" about race in light of all the recent incidents (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) what they're really saying is that they wanted Obama to tell the public, "Hey, there wasn't any racism going on here." And by suggesting otherwise to the public, Obama not only failed to act as a leader, he paved the way for protests and rioting and perhaps even the shooting of the police in New York.

There's just one problem with this analysis: many of us believe that those incidents mentioned DID involve racism, and many of us continue to believe that institutionalized racism among the police of this country continues to be a major problem. I'm one of those people; it seems pretty clear that President Obama is another. Why therefore would it be irresponsible for him to discuss this in reference to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Why is wrong for him to offer his honest opinion here?

And while Obama has never encouraged rioting (in fact has spoken out against it again and again) why shouldn't he encourage peaceful protests? If he believes as he does, aren't protests a reasonable avenue to seek change? In short, I don't think the criticism here is at all warranted.

There you go again. Putting in words which were never spoken or even thought of. Come on Tim, stop the stawman stuff.

 

[timschochet]

Also, when Obama stated that overall race relations in this country are better than they've ever been, he is speaking nothing but the truth, which should be obvious to anyone. Those people (and there are some on both sides of this issue) who are claiming that race relations are the worst they've been since the late 1960s are using anecdotes to spread false hysteria. The media is not helping in this regard.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Those people

Whoa...

 

[jon_mx]

Those people

Whoa...

 

[timschochet]

I was all prepared this morning to move on from the Obama and race discussion, but I find that I don't want to let this go just yet. It seems to me, if I understand them correctly, that when various conservatives in this thread complain that Obama missed the opportunity to have an "open discussion" about race in light of all the recent incidents (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) what they're really saying is that they wanted Obama to tell the public, "Hey, there wasn't any racism going on here." And by suggesting otherwise to the public, Obama not only failed to act as a leader, he paved the way for protests and rioting and perhaps even the shooting of the police in New York.

There's just one problem with this analysis: many of us believe that those incidents mentioned DID involve racism, and many of us continue to believe that institutionalized racism among the police of this country continues to be a major problem. I'm one of those people; it seems pretty clear that President Obama is another. Why therefore would it be irresponsible for him to discuss this in reference to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Why is wrong for him to offer his honest opinion here?

And while Obama has never encouraged rioting (in fact has spoken out against it again and again) why shouldn't he encourage peaceful protests? If he believes as he does, aren't protests a reasonable avenue to seek change? In short, I don't think the criticism here is at all warranted.

There you go again. Putting in words which were never spoken or even thought of.

Hmm. Let's see.

In post 1344 you wrote:

But I really believe that race relations in this country have reversed a long term trend and have worsened since Obama took office. And part of that reason is Obama consistently sides with blacks,

Obviously your implication is that you would like to see him "side with whites" once in a while? In which instance would you have preferred to see Obama "side with whites", and what specifically does that entail?

 

[jon_mx]

Also, when Obama stated that overall race relations in this country are better than they've ever been, he is speaking nothing but the truth, which should be obvious to anyone. Those people (and there are some on both sides of this issue) who are claiming that race relations are the worst they've been since the late 1960s are using anecdotes to spread false hysteria. The media is not helping in this regard.

Besides the riots and the shootings at cops, there is polling data which supports the:

But since 2009, the share of black respondents who had a positive view of race relations has dropped twelve points, to 64 percent. Similarly, white respondents who thought blacks and whites got along well increased three percentage points from 2007 to 2009, but decreased five percentage points from 2009 to 2014.

There is also polling data which shows Obama approval rating on the issue is on the decline:

A Pew Research Center poll found that only 40% of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling race relations. Black approval is down to 57%, while approval among whites is down to 33%.

And what did you base your rebuttal on? Anecdotal evidence? Polling data? Oh that is right, nothing. But you do have good strawmen to fall back on.

 

[jon_mx]

I was all prepared this morning to move on from the Obama and race discussion, but I find that I don't want to let this go just yet. It seems to me, if I understand them correctly, that when various conservatives in this thread complain that Obama missed the opportunity to have an "open discussion" about race in light of all the recent incidents (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) what they're really saying is that they wanted Obama to tell the public, "Hey, there wasn't any racism going on here." And by suggesting otherwise to the public, Obama not only failed to act as a leader, he paved the way for protests and rioting and perhaps even the shooting of the police in New York.

There's just one problem with this analysis: many of us believe that those incidents mentioned DID involve racism, and many of us continue to believe that institutionalized racism among the police of this country continues to be a major problem. I'm one of those people; it seems pretty clear that President Obama is another. Why therefore would it be irresponsible for him to discuss this in reference to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Why is wrong for him to offer his honest opinion here?

And while Obama has never encouraged rioting (in fact has spoken out against it again and again) why shouldn't he encourage peaceful protests? If he believes as he does, aren't protests a reasonable avenue to seek change? In short, I don't think the criticism here is at all warranted.

There you go again. Putting in words which were never spoken or even thought of.

Hmm. Let's see.

In post 1344 you wrote:

But I really believe that race relations in this country have reversed a long term trend and have worsened since Obama took office. And part of that reason is Obama consistently sides with blacks,

Obviously your implication is that you would like to see him "side with whites" once in a while? In which instance would you have preferred to see Obama "side with whites", and what specifically does that entail?

And to you that means the same thing? :confusedashell:

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The establishment of justice wasn't a nod to the fact that they were creating great laws. It was connected to the We the People.... part of the preamble. Justice cannot come from the King but from the consent of the governed. And Justice is not the result of the system created - it is the fact that the system exists. The criminal justice system is not the sole example that the phrase references, but it is the easiest for reference purposes. Justice is when a person is indicted, tried before a jury of his peers and the case is presented to a jury. Everything up to the moment that the jury annouces its findings is justice. The result of the jury is not. We establish justice when we create a system that allows people accused by the state of a crime to have a system in place to defend themsevles and not a sole arbiter in the clothes of a divine king giving the thumbs up or down sign depending on which slave girl the king had sex with that day.

 

[timschochet]

I was all prepared this morning to move on from the Obama and race discussion, but I find that I don't want to let this go just yet. It seems to me, if I understand them correctly, that when various conservatives in this thread complain that Obama missed the opportunity to have an "open discussion" about race in light of all the recent incidents (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) what they're really saying is that they wanted Obama to tell the public, "Hey, there wasn't any racism going on here." And by suggesting otherwise to the public, Obama not only failed to act as a leader, he paved the way for protests and rioting and perhaps even the shooting of the police in New York.

There's just one problem with this analysis: many of us believe that those incidents mentioned DID involve racism, and many of us continue to believe that institutionalized racism among the police of this country continues to be a major problem. I'm one of those people; it seems pretty clear that President Obama is another. Why therefore would it be irresponsible for him to discuss this in reference to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Why is wrong for him to offer his honest opinion here?

And while Obama has never encouraged rioting (in fact has spoken out against it again and again) why shouldn't he encourage peaceful protests? If he believes as he does, aren't protests a reasonable avenue to seek change? In short, I don't think the criticism here is at all warranted.

There you go again. Putting in words which were never spoken or even thought of.

Hmm. Let's see.

In post 1344 you wrote:

But I really believe that race relations in this country have reversed a long term trend and have worsened since Obama took office. And part of that reason is Obama consistently sides with blacks,

Obviously your implication is that you would like to see him "side with whites" once in a while? In which instance would you have preferred to see Obama "side with whites", and what specifically does that entail?

And to you that means the same thing? :confusedashell:

You didn't answer the two questions. When should Obama have "sided with whites"? What would this entail him saying?

Yes I assume that when you wrote that you were implying that Obama should have said, at least in one or more of these incidents, that race was not a factor. Otherwise you would never have written that he always "sides with blacks". But if you had another meaning in mind here, then please feel free to explain it.

 

[timschochet]

The establishment of justice wasn't a nod to the fact that they were creating great laws. It was connected to the We the People.... part of the preamble. Justice cannot come from the King but from the consent of the governed. And Justice is not the result of the system created - it is the fact that the system exists. The criminal justice system is not the sole example that the phrase references, but it is the easiest for reference purposes. Justice is when a person is indicted, tried before a jury of his peers and the case is presented to a jury. Everything up to the moment that the jury annouces its findings is justice. The result of the jury is not. We establish justice when we create a system that allows people accused by the state of a crime to have a system in place to defend themsevles and not a sole arbiter in the clothes of a divine king giving the thumbs up or down sign depending on which slave girl the king had sex with that day.

Do you believe that, overall, the United States of America has been a just society since 1787? Or do you accept the Howard Zinn argument that overall we have been an unjust society?

 

[jon_mx]

The establishment of justice wasn't a nod to the fact that they were creating great laws. It was connected to the We the People.... part of the preamble. Justice cannot come from the King but from the consent of the governed. And Justice is not the result of the system created - it is the fact that the system exists. The criminal justice system is not the sole example that the phrase references, but it is the easiest for reference purposes. Justice is when a person is indicted, tried before a jury of his peers and the case is presented to a jury. Everything up to the moment that the jury annouces its findings is justice. The result of the jury is not. We establish justice when we create a system that allows people accused by the state of a crime to have a system in place to defend themsevles and not a sole arbiter in the clothes of a divine king giving the thumbs up or down sign depending on which slave girl the king had sex with that day.

Do you believe that, overall, the United States of America has been a just society since 1787? Or do you accept the Howard Zinn argument that overall we have been an unjust society?

By what metric are you measuring by? There are millions of ways to answer that question.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

The establishment of justice wasn't a nod to the fact that they were creating great laws. It was connected to the We the People.... part of the preamble. Justice cannot come from the King but from the consent of the governed. And Justice is not the result of the system created - it is the fact that the system exists. The criminal justice system is not the sole example that the phrase references, but it is the easiest for reference purposes. Justice is when a person is indicted, tried before a jury of his peers and the case is presented to a jury. Everything up to the moment that the jury annouces its findings is justice. The result of the jury is not. We establish justice when we create a system that allows people accused by the state of a crime to have a system in place to defend themsevles and not a sole arbiter in the clothes of a divine king giving the thumbs up or down sign depending on which slave girl the king had sex with that day.

Do you believe that, overall, the United States of America has been a just society since 1787? Or do you accept the Howard Zinn argument that overall we have been an unjust society?

Howard Zinn is an arsehat.

Have we been a just society since 1787? In the establishment of justice - a system in place so that We the People decide the merits of the state's use of its ultimate power against its own citizens? Yes.

 

[jon_mx]

I was all prepared this morning to move on from the Obama and race discussion, but I find that I don't want to let this go just yet. It seems to me, if I understand them correctly, that when various conservatives in this thread complain that Obama missed the opportunity to have an "open discussion" about race in light of all the recent incidents (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) what they're really saying is that they wanted Obama to tell the public, "Hey, there wasn't any racism going on here." And by suggesting otherwise to the public, Obama not only failed to act as a leader, he paved the way for protests and rioting and perhaps even the shooting of the police in New York.

There's just one problem with this analysis: many of us believe that those incidents mentioned DID involve racism, and many of us continue to believe that institutionalized racism among the police of this country continues to be a major problem. I'm one of those people; it seems pretty clear that President Obama is another. Why therefore would it be irresponsible for him to discuss this in reference to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Why is wrong for him to offer his honest opinion here?

And while Obama has never encouraged rioting (in fact has spoken out against it again and again) why shouldn't he encourage peaceful protests? If he believes as he does, aren't protests a reasonable avenue to seek change? In short, I don't think the criticism here is at all warranted.

There you go again. Putting in words which were never spoken or even thought of.

Hmm. Let's see.

In post 1344 you wrote:

But I really believe that race relations in this country have reversed a long term trend and have worsened since Obama took office. And part of that reason is Obama consistently sides with blacks,

Obviously your implication is that you would like to see him "side with whites" once in a while? In which instance would you have preferred to see Obama "side with whites", and what specifically does that entail?

And to you that means the same thing? :confusedashell:

You didn't answer the two questions. When should Obama have "sided with whites"? What would this entail him saying?

Yes I assume that when you wrote that you were implying that Obama should have said, at least in one or more of these incidents, that race was not a factor. Otherwise you would never have written that he always "sides with blacks". But if you had another meaning in mind here, then please feel free to explain it.

You can't take race out of the picture. Everyday these inner city cops are exposed to violent crimes where in most case the victims and culprit are black. This is going to effect anyone's views, whether the cop is white or black. Obama's tendency is to jump on the side of the black victim, which is understandable if he was a community organizer. But he is the President and needs to act that way. He needs to acknowledge both sides and try to open the discussion in a way which does not alienate one side or increase tensions in an already volatile situation.

 

[timschochet]

ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

(to avoid further confusion, I'm using the more common spelling here.)

As I mentioned earlier, this is a somewhat troubling line to me. The most benign meaning I can think of is this: that I, as an American, can go to work each morning and go about my daily business and not be bothered by crime, anarchy, terrorism, rioting, general lawlessness, etc. It's the proper role of government to protect me from these things; it's why we have government in the first place; otherwise I might live in the jungle. I think anyone who is not an out and out anarchist would agree that at a minimum, government should provide public safety.

But of course, there's a lot more to "domestic tranquility" than this. For example, any kind of strike or protest might interfere with domestic tranquility. Does the government have the right to seize the means of production (as President Truman did with the steel manufacturers) in order to secure domestic tranquility? Did Lincoln have the right to suspend habeas corpus? Did FDR have the right to forcibly relocate 100,000 Japanese Americans? Does Obama have the right, as a means to combat terrorism, to authorize the NSA to collect millions of mass emails and phone records without individual warrants? All of these actions have been done with the intention (or excuse, depending on your opinion) of securing domestic tranquility.

There is also the more general contradiction between domestic tranquility and "the blessings of liberty" mentioned later in the Preamble. Can true tranquility and true liberty co-exist in the same society? Perhaps a truly free society can never be fully safe, and a truly safe society can never be fully free.

 

[General Tso]

There isn't a shred of evidence that the Mike Brown shooting was racially motivated. Obama knew this and should have done something about it. Instead he tacitly supported the protesters. His handling of the situation has me believing that he is not unbiased enough to see the true nuances of an issue, and where the heart of a problem really lies.

The issue of police brutality is not one of race primarily. It's far more complicated than that. As Saint rightfully points out above, the ranking officer ON SCENE at the Eric Garner tragedy was a BLACK FEMALE. The issue is not one of race, it's one of training and technology. A good leader would have recognized this and dealt with it appropriately.

That's my opinion, and in full disclosure I'm a liberal white male who campaigned hard for Obama.

 

[timschochet]

I was all prepared this morning to move on from the Obama and race discussion, but I find that I don't want to let this go just yet. It seems to me, if I understand them correctly, that when various conservatives in this thread complain that Obama missed the opportunity to have an "open discussion" about race in light of all the recent incidents (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) what they're really saying is that they wanted Obama to tell the public, "Hey, there wasn't any racism going on here." And by suggesting otherwise to the public, Obama not only failed to act as a leader, he paved the way for protests and rioting and perhaps even the shooting of the police in New York.

There's just one problem with this analysis: many of us believe that those incidents mentioned DID involve racism, and many of us continue to believe that institutionalized racism among the police of this country continues to be a major problem. I'm one of those people; it seems pretty clear that President Obama is another. Why therefore would it be irresponsible for him to discuss this in reference to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Why is wrong for him to offer his honest opinion here?

And while Obama has never encouraged rioting (in fact has spoken out against it again and again) why shouldn't he encourage peaceful protests? If he believes as he does, aren't protests a reasonable avenue to seek change? In short, I don't think the criticism here is at all warranted.

There you go again. Putting in words which were never spoken or even thought of.

Hmm. Let's see.

In post 1344 you wrote:

But I really believe that race relations in this country have reversed a long term trend and have worsened since Obama took office. And part of that reason is Obama consistently sides with blacks,

Obviously your implication is that you would like to see him "side with whites" once in a while? In which instance would you have preferred to see Obama "side with whites", and what specifically does that entail?

And to you that means the same thing? :confusedashell:

You didn't answer the two questions. When should Obama have "sided with whites"? What would this entail him saying?

Yes I assume that when you wrote that you were implying that Obama should have said, at least in one or more of these incidents, that race was not a factor. Otherwise you would never have written that he always "sides with blacks". But if you had another meaning in mind here, then please feel free to explain it.

You can't take race out of the picture. Everyday these inner city cops are exposed to violent crimes where in most case the victims and culprit are black. This is going to effect anyone's views, whether the cop is white or black. Obama's tendency is to jump on the side of the black victim, which is understandable if he was a community organizer. But he is the President and needs to act that way. He needs to acknowledge both sides and try to open the discussion in a way which does not alienate one side or increase tensions in an already volatile situation.

OK, my last word on this subject is this: IMO, the bolded is EXACTLY what Obama has attempted to do each time.

 

[General Tso]

The establishment of justice wasn't a nod to the fact that they were creating great laws. It was connected to the We the People.... part of the preamble. Justice cannot come from the King but from the consent of the governed. And Justice is not the result of the system created - it is the fact that the system exists. The criminal justice system is not the sole example that the phrase references, but it is the easiest for reference purposes. Justice is when a person is indicted, tried before a jury of his peers and the case is presented to a jury. Everything up to the moment that the jury annouces its findings is justice. The result of the jury is not. We establish justice when we create a system that allows people accused by the state of a crime to have a system in place to defend themsevles and not a sole arbiter in the clothes of a divine king giving the thumbs up or down sign depending on which slave girl the king had sex with that day.

Do you believe that, overall, the United States of America has been a just society since 1787? Or do you accept the Howard Zinn argument that overall we have been an unjust society?

Howard Zinn is an arsehat.Have we been a just society since 1787? In the establishment of justice - a system in place so that We the People decide the merits of the state's use of its ultimate power against its own citizens? Yes.

Except that "we the people" didn't apply to over half the people inhabiting the land (blacks, Native Americans, and women). Zinn does have a valid point from that perspective.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I was all prepared this morning to move on from the Obama and race discussion, but I find that I don't want to let this go just yet. It seems to me, if I understand them correctly, that when various conservatives in this thread complain that Obama missed the opportunity to have an "open discussion" about race in light of all the recent incidents (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) what they're really saying is that they wanted Obama to tell the public, "Hey, there wasn't any racism going on here." And by suggesting otherwise to the public, Obama not only failed to act as a leader, he paved the way for protests and rioting and perhaps even the shooting of the police in New York.

There's just one problem with this analysis: many of us believe that those incidents mentioned DID involve racism, and many of us continue to believe that institutionalized racism among the police of this country continues to be a major problem. I'm one of those people; it seems pretty clear that President Obama is another. Why therefore would it be irresponsible for him to discuss this in reference to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Why is wrong for him to offer his honest opinion here?

And while Obama has never encouraged rioting (in fact has spoken out against it again and again) why shouldn't he encourage peaceful protests? If he believes as he does, aren't protests a reasonable avenue to seek change? In short, I don't think the criticism here is at all warranted.

There you go again. Putting in words which were never spoken or even thought of.

Hmm. Let's see.

In post 1344 you wrote:

But I really believe that race relations in this country have reversed a long term trend and have worsened since Obama took office. And part of that reason is Obama consistently sides with blacks,

Obviously your implication is that you would like to see him "side with whites" once in a while? In which instance would you have preferred to see Obama "side with whites", and what specifically does that entail?

And to you that means the same thing? :confusedashell:

You didn't answer the two questions. When should Obama have "sided with whites"? What would this entail him saying?

Yes I assume that when you wrote that you were implying that Obama should have said, at least in one or more of these incidents, that race was not a factor. Otherwise you would never have written that he always "sides with blacks". But if you had another meaning in mind here, then please feel free to explain it.

You can't take race out of the picture. Everyday these inner city cops are exposed to violent crimes where in most case the victims and culprit are black. This is going to effect anyone's views, whether the cop is white or black. Obama's tendency is to jump on the side of the black victim, which is understandable if he was a community organizer. But he is the President and needs to act that way. He needs to acknowledge both sides and try to open the discussion in a way which does not alienate one side or increase tensions in an already volatile situation.

OK, my last word on this subject is this: IMO, the bolded is EXACTLY what Obama has attempted to do each time.

Really. I recall seeing Al Sharpton on his committee. Who did he have from the police or victims' organizations by his side?

 

[timschochet]

The establishment of justice wasn't a nod to the fact that they were creating great laws. It was connected to the We the People.... part of the preamble. Justice cannot come from the King but from the consent of the governed. And Justice is not the result of the system created - it is the fact that the system exists. The criminal justice system is not the sole example that the phrase references, but it is the easiest for reference purposes. Justice is when a person is indicted, tried before a jury of his peers and the case is presented to a jury. Everything up to the moment that the jury annouces its findings is justice. The result of the jury is not. We establish justice when we create a system that allows people accused by the state of a crime to have a system in place to defend themsevles and not a sole arbiter in the clothes of a divine king giving the thumbs up or down sign depending on which slave girl the king had sex with that day.

Do you believe that, overall, the United States of America has been a just society since 1787? Or do you accept the Howard Zinn argument that overall we have been an unjust society?

Howard Zinn is an arsehat.Have we been a just society since 1787? In the establishment of justice - a system in place so that We the People decide the merits of the state's use of its ultimate power against its own citizens? Yes.

Except that "we the people" didn't apply to over half the people inhabiting the land (blacks, Native Americans, and women). Zinn does have a valid point from that perspective.

Actually, while The People's History does spend a lot of time discussing blacks, Native Americans, women, and other minority groups- it also focuses on white males, with the contention that American society has largely been unjust for them as well. Like Upton Sinclair in The Jungle, he attacks the capitalist system we've had here, and not simply our treatment of the "others", but also of ourselves.

 

[timschochet]

I was all prepared this morning to move on from the Obama and race discussion, but I find that I don't want to let this go just yet. It seems to me, if I understand them correctly, that when various conservatives in this thread complain that Obama missed the opportunity to have an "open discussion" about race in light of all the recent incidents (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) what they're really saying is that they wanted Obama to tell the public, "Hey, there wasn't any racism going on here." And by suggesting otherwise to the public, Obama not only failed to act as a leader, he paved the way for protests and rioting and perhaps even the shooting of the police in New York.

There's just one problem with this analysis: many of us believe that those incidents mentioned DID involve racism, and many of us continue to believe that institutionalized racism among the police of this country continues to be a major problem. I'm one of those people; it seems pretty clear that President Obama is another. Why therefore would it be irresponsible for him to discuss this in reference to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Why is wrong for him to offer his honest opinion here?

And while Obama has never encouraged rioting (in fact has spoken out against it again and again) why shouldn't he encourage peaceful protests? If he believes as he does, aren't protests a reasonable avenue to seek change? In short, I don't think the criticism here is at all warranted.

There you go again. Putting in words which were never spoken or even thought of.

Hmm. Let's see.In post 1344 you wrote:

But I really believe that race relations in this country have reversed a long term trend and have worsened since Obama took office. And part of that reason is Obama consistently sides with blacks,

Obviously your implication is that you would like to see him "side with whites" once in a while? In which instance would you have preferred to see Obama "side with whites", and what specifically does that entail?

And to you that means the same thing? :confusedashell:

You didn't answer the two questions. When should Obama have "sided with whites"? What would this entail him saying?Yes I assume that when you wrote that you were implying that Obama should have said, at least in one or more of these incidents, that race was not a factor. Otherwise you would never have written that he always "sides with blacks". But if you had another meaning in mind here, then please feel free to explain it.

You can't take race out of the picture. Everyday these inner city cops are exposed to violent crimes where in most case the victims and culprit are black. This is going to effect anyone's views, whether the cop is white or black. Obama's tendency is to jump on the side of the black victim, which is understandable if he was a community organizer. But he is the President and needs to act that way. He needs to acknowledge both sides and try to open the discussion in a way which does not alienate one side or increase tensions in an already volatile situation.

OK, my last word on this subject is this: IMO, the bolded is EXACTLY what Obama has attempted to do each time.

Huh? You wrote this a few posts above....

"Obama consistently sides with blacks"

That was a quote of jon mx.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I was all prepared this morning to move on from the Obama and race discussion, but I find that I don't want to let this go just yet. It seems to me, if I understand them correctly, that when various conservatives in this thread complain that Obama missed the opportunity to have an "open discussion" about race in light of all the recent incidents (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) what they're really saying is that they wanted Obama to tell the public, "Hey, there wasn't any racism going on here." And by suggesting otherwise to the public, Obama not only failed to act as a leader, he paved the way for protests and rioting and perhaps even the shooting of the police in New York.

There's just one problem with this analysis: many of us believe that those incidents mentioned DID involve racism, and many of us continue to believe that institutionalized racism among the police of this country continues to be a major problem. I'm one of those people; it seems pretty clear that President Obama is another. Why therefore would it be irresponsible for him to discuss this in reference to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Why is wrong for him to offer his honest opinion here?

And while Obama has never encouraged rioting (in fact has spoken out against it again and again) why shouldn't he encourage peaceful protests? If he believes as he does, aren't protests a reasonable avenue to seek change? In short, I don't think the criticism here is at all warranted.

There you go again. Putting in words which were never spoken or even thought of.

Hmm. Let's see.In post 1344 you wrote:

But I really believe that race relations in this country have reversed a long term trend and have worsened since Obama took office. And part of that reason is Obama consistently sides with blacks,

Obviously your implication is that you would like to see him "side with whites" once in a while? In which instance would you have preferred to see Obama "side with whites", and what specifically does that entail?

And to you that means the same thing? :confusedashell:

You didn't answer the two questions. When should Obama have "sided with whites"? What would this entail him saying?Yes I assume that when you wrote that you were implying that Obama should have said, at least in one or more of these incidents, that race was not a factor. Otherwise you would never have written that he always "sides with blacks". But if you had another meaning in mind here, then please feel free to explain it.

You can't take race out of the picture. Everyday these inner city cops are exposed to violent crimes where in most case the victims and culprit are black. This is going to effect anyone's views, whether the cop is white or black. Obama's tendency is to jump on the side of the black victim, which is understandable if he was a community organizer. But he is the President and needs to act that way. He needs to acknowledge both sides and try to open the discussion in a way which does not alienate one side or increase tensions in an already volatile situation.

OK, my last word on this subject is this: IMO, the bolded is EXACTLY what Obama has attempted to do each time.

Huh? You wrote this a few posts above....

"Obama consistently sides with blacks"

That was a quote of jon mx.

Gotcha..sorry about that.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

(to avoid further confusion, I'm using the more common spelling here.)

As I mentioned earlier, this is a somewhat troubling line to me. The most benign meaning I can think of is this: that I, as an American, can go to work each morning and go about my daily business and not be bothered by crime, anarchy, terrorism, rioting, general lawlessness, etc. It's the proper role of government to protect me from these things; it's why we have government in the first place; otherwise I might live in the jungle. I think anyone who is not an out and out anarchist would agree that at a minimum, government should provide public safety.

But of course, there's a lot more to "domestic tranquility" than this. For example, any kind of strike or protest might interfere with domestic tranquility. Does the government have the right to seize the means of production (as President Truman did with the steel manufacturers) in order to secure domestic tranquility? Did Lincoln have the right to suspend habeas corpus? Did FDR have the right to forcibly relocate 100,000 Japanese Americans? Does Obama have the right, as a means to combat terrorism, to authorize the NSA to collect millions of mass emails and phone records without individual warrants? All of these actions have been done with the intention (or excuse, depending on your opinion) of securing domestic tranquility.

There is also the more general contradiction between domestic tranquility and "the blessings of liberty" mentioned later in the Preamble. Can true tranquility and true liberty co-exist in the same society? Perhaps a truly free society can never be fully safe, and a truly safe society can never be fully free.

Or it has nothing to do with any of that because the document at its heart is a definition of the power and a resetation of the limitations on that power, of the government. The domestic tranquility is not then for a throw away line as to the protection you have from a criminal, but the protection you have from the government. The king isn't sending his troops to your house to take your gold, rape your wife, arrest your father for crimes against the crown for not sending a gift for the kings birthday, and taking over your business for the kings own personal needs. It is the tranquility that comes from the knowledge that none of that can or should happen without a system in place where your "rights" are protected.

No government system can stop crime. That wasn't the point of the Constitution. It was created to empower a government. Domestic tranquility is therefore based in a stable government answerable to the people. Not protecting you from crime.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

(to avoid further confusion, I'm using the more common spelling here.)

As I mentioned earlier, this is a somewhat troubling line to me. The most benign meaning I can think of is this: that I, as an American, can go to work each morning and go about my daily business and not be bothered by crime, anarchy, terrorism, rioting, general lawlessness, etc. It's the proper role of government to protect me from these things; it's why we have government in the first place; otherwise I might live in the jungle. I think anyone who is not an out and out anarchist would agree that at a minimum, government should provide public safety.

But of course, there's a lot more to "domestic tranquility" than this. For example, any kind of strike or protest might interfere with domestic tranquility. Does the government have the right to seize the means of production (as President Truman did with the steel manufacturers) in order to secure domestic tranquility? Did Lincoln have the right to suspend habeas corpus? Did FDR have the right to forcibly relocate 100,000 Japanese Americans? Does Obama have the right, as a means to combat terrorism, to authorize the NSA to collect millions of mass emails and phone records without individual warrants? All of these actions have been done with the intention (or excuse, depending on your opinion) of securing domestic tranquility.

There is also the more general contradiction between domestic tranquility and "the blessings of liberty" mentioned later in the Preamble. Can true tranquility and true liberty co-exist in the same society? Perhaps a truly free society can never be fully safe, and a truly safe society can never be fully free.

Or it has nothing to do with any of that because the document at its heart is a definition of the power and a resetation of the limitations on that power, of the government. The domestic tranquility is not then for a throw away line as to the protection you have from a criminal, but the protection you have from the government. The king isn't sending his troops to your house to take your gold, rape your wife, arrest your father for crimes against the crown for not sending a gift for the kings birthday, and taking over your business for the kings own personal needs. It is the tranquility that comes from the knowledge that none of that can or should happen without a system in place where your "rights" are protected.

No government system can stop crime. That wasn't the point of the Constitution. It was created to empower a government. Domestic tranquility is therefore based in a stable government answerable to the people. Not protecting you from crime.

Guys, this discussion is completely absurd.

establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense

These things are the basics of any government and they were saying they were doing this and just this.

You can find these things in the rest of the Constitution, it's a plan for setting up a new government and a new form of government at that.

• establish justice - Article III, the courts
• insure domestic tranquility - Article II, the Congress (and really all three branches, the system)
• provide for the common defense - Article I, the president who is commander in chief of the military

They say what they're going to do in the document and then they do it. Boom, simple.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

(to avoid further confusion, I'm using the more common spelling here.)

As I mentioned earlier, this is a somewhat troubling line to me. The most benign meaning I can think of is this: that I, as an American, can go to work each morning and go about my daily business and not be bothered by crime, anarchy, terrorism, rioting, general lawlessness, etc. It's the proper role of government to protect me from these things; it's why we have government in the first place; otherwise I might live in the jungle. I think anyone who is not an out and out anarchist would agree that at a minimum, government should provide public safety.

But of course, there's a lot more to "domestic tranquility" than this. For example, any kind of strike or protest might interfere with domestic tranquility. Does the government have the right to seize the means of production (as President Truman did with the steel manufacturers) in order to secure domestic tranquility? Did Lincoln have the right to suspend habeas corpus? Did FDR have the right to forcibly relocate 100,000 Japanese Americans? Does Obama have the right, as a means to combat terrorism, to authorize the NSA to collect millions of mass emails and phone records without individual warrants? All of these actions have been done with the intention (or excuse, depending on your opinion) of securing domestic tranquility.

There is also the more general contradiction between domestic tranquility and "the blessings of liberty" mentioned later in the Preamble. Can true tranquility and true liberty co-exist in the same society? Perhaps a truly free society can never be fully safe, and a truly safe society can never be fully free.

Or it has nothing to do with any of that because the document at its heart is a definition of the power and a resetation of the limitations on that power, of the government. The domestic tranquility is not then for a throw away line as to the protection you have from a criminal, but the protection you have from the government. The king isn't sending his troops to your house to take your gold, rape your wife, arrest your father for crimes against the crown for not sending a gift for the kings birthday, and taking over your business for the kings own personal needs. It is the tranquility that comes from the knowledge that none of that can or should happen without a system in place where your "rights" are protected.

No government system can stop crime. That wasn't the point of the Constitution. It was created to empower a government. Domestic tranquility is therefore based in a stable government answerable to the people. Not protecting you from crime.

Guys, this discussion is completely absurd.

establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense

These things are the basics of any government and they were saying they were doing this and just this.

• insure domestic tranquility - Article II, the Congress

I don't disagree with you in concept at all. But this specific way you tried to make your argument agrees with my argument; it's doesn't disprove it.

 

[jon_mx]

ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

(to avoid further confusion, I'm using the more common spelling here.)

As I mentioned earlier, this is a somewhat troubling line to me. The most benign meaning I can think of is this: that I, as an American, can go to work each morning and go about my daily business and not be bothered by crime, anarchy, terrorism, rioting, general lawlessness, etc. It's the proper role of government to protect me from these things; it's why we have government in the first place; otherwise I might live in the jungle. I think anyone who is not an out and out anarchist would agree that at a minimum, government should provide public safety.

But of course, there's a lot more to "domestic tranquility" than this. For example, any kind of strike or protest might interfere with domestic tranquility. Does the government have the right to seize the means of production (as President Truman did with the steel manufacturers) in order to secure domestic tranquility? Did Lincoln have the right to suspend habeas corpus? Did FDR have the right to forcibly relocate 100,000 Japanese Americans? Does Obama have the right, as a means to combat terrorism, to authorize the NSA to collect millions of mass emails and phone records without individual warrants? All of these actions have been done with the intention (or excuse, depending on your opinion) of securing domestic tranquility.

There is also the more general contradiction between domestic tranquility and "the blessings of liberty" mentioned later in the Preamble. Can true tranquility and true liberty co-exist in the same society? Perhaps a truly free society can never be fully safe, and a truly safe society can never be fully free.

Or it has nothing to do with any of that because the document at its heart is a definition of the power and a resetation of the limitations on that power, of the government. The domestic tranquility is not then for a throw away line as to the protection you have from a criminal, but the protection you have from the government. The king isn't sending his troops to your house to take your gold, rape your wife, arrest your father for crimes against the crown for not sending a gift for the kings birthday, and taking over your business for the kings own personal needs. It is the tranquility that comes from the knowledge that none of that can or should happen without a system in place where your "rights" are protected.

No government system can stop crime. That wasn't the point of the Constitution. It was created to empower a government. Domestic tranquility is therefore based in a stable government answerable to the people. Not protecting you from crime.

Guys, this discussion is completely absurd.

establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense

These things are the basics of any government and they were saying they were doing this and just this.

You can find these things in the rest of the Constitution, it's a plan for setting up a new government and a new form of government at that.

• establish justice - Article III, the courts
• insure domestic tranquility - Article II, the Congress (and really all three branches, the system)
• provide for the common defense - Article I, the president who is commander in chief of the military

They say what they're going to do in the document and then they do it. Boom, simple.

Hey now, don't make it so simple. Tim prefers the 10,000 word explanation.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

(to avoid further confusion, I'm using the more common spelling here.)

As I mentioned earlier, this is a somewhat troubling line to me. The most benign meaning I can think of is this: that I, as an American, can go to work each morning and go about my daily business and not be bothered by crime, anarchy, terrorism, rioting, general lawlessness, etc. It's the proper role of government to protect me from these things; it's why we have government in the first place; otherwise I might live in the jungle. I think anyone who is not an out and out anarchist would agree that at a minimum, government should provide public safety.

But of course, there's a lot more to "domestic tranquility" than this. For example, any kind of strike or protest might interfere with domestic tranquility. Does the government have the right to seize the means of production (as President Truman did with the steel manufacturers) in order to secure domestic tranquility? Did Lincoln have the right to suspend habeas corpus? Did FDR have the right to forcibly relocate 100,000 Japanese Americans? Does Obama have the right, as a means to combat terrorism, to authorize the NSA to collect millions of mass emails and phone records without individual warrants? All of these actions have been done with the intention (or excuse, depending on your opinion) of securing domestic tranquility.

There is also the more general contradiction between domestic tranquility and "the blessings of liberty" mentioned later in the Preamble. Can true tranquility and true liberty co-exist in the same society? Perhaps a truly free society can never be fully safe, and a truly safe society can never be fully free.

Or it has nothing to do with any of that because the document at its heart is a definition of the power and a resetation of the limitations on that power, of the government. The domestic tranquility is not then for a throw away line as to the protection you have from a criminal, but the protection you have from the government. The king isn't sending his troops to your house to take your gold, rape your wife, arrest your father for crimes against the crown for not sending a gift for the kings birthday, and taking over your business for the kings own personal needs. It is the tranquility that comes from the knowledge that none of that can or should happen without a system in place where your "rights" are protected.

No government system can stop crime. That wasn't the point of the Constitution. It was created to empower a government. Domestic tranquility is therefore based in a stable government answerable to the people. Not protecting you from crime.

Guys, this discussion is completely absurd.

establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense

These things are the basics of any government and they were saying they were doing this and just this.

• insure domestic tranquility - Article II, the Congress

I don't disagree with you in concept at all. But this specific way you tried to make your argument agrees with my argument; it's doesn't disprove it.

I'm not saying your argument is wrong, I'm just saying it's simpler than all that. Tim wants to discuss what domestic tranquility (and the other goals in the preamble) means, the USC leaves it up to The People what it will mean, the USC simply gives us a method for accomplishing it.

Ultimately the idea was the colonies were left without a reasonable form of government and we had better get something in place before we lose all sense of order. What you're saying is they were putting a system in place, I agree.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

(to avoid further confusion, I'm using the more common spelling here.)

As I mentioned earlier, this is a somewhat troubling line to me. The most benign meaning I can think of is this: that I, as an American, can go to work each morning and go about my daily business and not be bothered by crime, anarchy, terrorism, rioting, general lawlessness, etc. It's the proper role of government to protect me from these things; it's why we have government in the first place; otherwise I might live in the jungle. I think anyone who is not an out and out anarchist would agree that at a minimum, government should provide public safety.

But of course, there's a lot more to "domestic tranquility" than this. For example, any kind of strike or protest might interfere with domestic tranquility. Does the government have the right to seize the means of production (as President Truman did with the steel manufacturers) in order to secure domestic tranquility? Did Lincoln have the right to suspend habeas corpus? Did FDR have the right to forcibly relocate 100,000 Japanese Americans? Does Obama have the right, as a means to combat terrorism, to authorize the NSA to collect millions of mass emails and phone records without individual warrants? All of these actions have been done with the intention (or excuse, depending on your opinion) of securing domestic tranquility.

There is also the more general contradiction between domestic tranquility and "the blessings of liberty" mentioned later in the Preamble. Can true tranquility and true liberty co-exist in the same society? Perhaps a truly free society can never be fully safe, and a truly safe society can never be fully free.

Or it has nothing to do with any of that because the document at its heart is a definition of the power and a resetation of the limitations on that power, of the government. The domestic tranquility is not then for a throw away line as to the protection you have from a criminal, but the protection you have from the government. The king isn't sending his troops to your house to take your gold, rape your wife, arrest your father for crimes against the crown for not sending a gift for the kings birthday, and taking over your business for the kings own personal needs. It is the tranquility that comes from the knowledge that none of that can or should happen without a system in place where your "rights" are protected.

No government system can stop crime. That wasn't the point of the Constitution. It was created to empower a government. Domestic tranquility is therefore based in a stable government answerable to the people. Not protecting you from crime.

Guys, this discussion is completely absurd.

establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense

These things are the basics of any government and they were saying they were doing this and just this.

• insure domestic tranquility - Article II, the Congress

I don't disagree with you in concept at all. But this specific way you tried to make your argument agrees with my argument; it's doesn't disprove it.

I'm not saying your argument is wrong, I'm just saying it's simpler than all that. Tim wants to discuss what domestic tranquility (and the other goals in the preamble) means, the USC leaves it up to The People what it will mean, the USC simply gives us a method for accomplishing it.

I agree that in many respects the simplest explanation is better. Big fan of Star Trek and enjoyed Contact.

But the preamble isn't quite that simple when you break it out and try to understand why they chose those words. The preamble is very much no different than the opening of the Declaration. The Declaration was a political document and a laundry list of complaints against the king that was categorized by the famous lines we all know. They were doing that calling upon the "truths" that they started the document with. The Constitution is really no different when it comes to the preamble. You can basically read the preamble like this:

Ok, listen, we fought the king and won. We've been trying to govern ourselves. We are doing that because we think it's a better way to go and we were willing to fight and die for that (or at least send others to die in some of our cases). We came up with one system that sucked and we can't get anything done. We are stuck in our own methods and there is no coherence, and as a result we are losing the true battle we fought - our right to govern ourselves. So before we fall apart and George laughs at us, we are going to regroup and we need to because things like justice, tranquility, defence and common purpose for ourselves and our kids is kinda important. So here is how we are going to do it:

That is really the preamble. But they chose certain words for certain reasons. And while the premable is not constitutional law it is a wondow into the thinking of some great political minds.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

(to avoid further confusion, I'm using the more common spelling here.)

As I mentioned earlier, this is a somewhat troubling line to me. The most benign meaning I can think of is this: that I, as an American, can go to work each morning and go about my daily business and not be bothered by crime, anarchy, terrorism, rioting, general lawlessness, etc. It's the proper role of government to protect me from these things; it's why we have government in the first place; otherwise I might live in the jungle. I think anyone who is not an out and out anarchist would agree that at a minimum, government should provide public safety.

But of course, there's a lot more to "domestic tranquility" than this. For example, any kind of strike or protest might interfere with domestic tranquility. Does the government have the right to seize the means of production (as President Truman did with the steel manufacturers) in order to secure domestic tranquility? Did Lincoln have the right to suspend habeas corpus? Did FDR have the right to forcibly relocate 100,000 Japanese Americans? Does Obama have the right, as a means to combat terrorism, to authorize the NSA to collect millions of mass emails and phone records without individual warrants? All of these actions have been done with the intention (or excuse, depending on your opinion) of securing domestic tranquility.

There is also the more general contradiction between domestic tranquility and "the blessings of liberty" mentioned later in the Preamble. Can true tranquility and true liberty co-exist in the same society? Perhaps a truly free society can never be fully safe, and a truly safe society can never be fully free.

Or it has nothing to do with any of that because the document at its heart is a definition of the power and a resetation of the limitations on that power, of the government. The domestic tranquility is not then for a throw away line as to the protection you have from a criminal, but the protection you have from the government. The king isn't sending his troops to your house to take your gold, rape your wife, arrest your father for crimes against the crown for not sending a gift for the kings birthday, and taking over your business for the kings own personal needs. It is the tranquility that comes from the knowledge that none of that can or should happen without a system in place where your "rights" are protected.

No government system can stop crime. That wasn't the point of the Constitution. It was created to empower a government. Domestic tranquility is therefore based in a stable government answerable to the people. Not protecting you from crime.

Guys, this discussion is completely absurd.

establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense

These things are the basics of any government and they were saying they were doing this and just this.

• insure domestic tranquility - Article II, the Congress

I don't disagree with you in concept at all. But this specific way you tried to make your argument agrees with my argument; it's doesn't disprove it.

I'm not saying your argument is wrong, I'm just saying it's simpler than all that. Tim wants to discuss what domestic tranquility (and the other goals in the preamble) means, the USC leaves it up to The People what it will mean, the USC simply gives us a method for accomplishing it.

I agree that in many respects the simplest explanation is better. Big fan of Star Trek and enjoyed Contact.

But the preamble isn't quite that simple when you break it out and try to understand why they chose those words. The preamble is very much no different than the opening of the Declaration. The Declaration was a political document and a laundry list of complaints against the king that was categorized by the famous lines we all know. They were doing that calling upon the "truths" that they started the document with. The Constitution is really no different when it comes to the preamble. You can basically read the preamble like this:

Ok, listen, we fought the king and won. We've been trying to govern ourselves. We are doing that because we think it's a better way to go and we were willing to fight and die for that (or at least send others to die in some of our cases). We came up with one system that sucked and we can't get anything done. We are stuck in our own methods and there is no coherence, and as a result we are losing the true battle we fought - our right to govern ourselves. So before we fall apart and George laughs at us, we are going to regroup and we need to because things like justice, tranquility, defence and common purpose for ourselves and our kids is kinda important. So here is how we are going to do it:

That is really the preamble. But they chose certain words for certain reasons. And while the premable is not constitutional law it is a wondow into the thinking of some great political minds.

Beautiful stuff Yankee, and I will just add that to me the DOI is incorporated implicitly into our government (maybe via the preamble). People may disagree with me on that but that's my feeling.

As for "tranquility" the point of that is to say, "not chaos", "not anarchy", "not disorder." That's basically it. It doesn't mean literally tranquil like a police state is tranquil, the republic they created is in fact among the noisiest, most rambunctious on Earth and we like it that way.

 

[jon_mx]

I was all prepared this morning to move on from the Obama and race discussion, but I find that I don't want to let this go just yet. It seems to me, if I understand them correctly, that when various conservatives in this thread complain that Obama missed the opportunity to have an "open discussion" about race in light of all the recent incidents (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, etc.) what they're really saying is that they wanted Obama to tell the public, "Hey, there wasn't any racism going on here." And by suggesting otherwise to the public, Obama not only failed to act as a leader, he paved the way for protests and rioting and perhaps even the shooting of the police in New York.

There's just one problem with this analysis: many of us believe that those incidents mentioned DID involve racism, and many of us continue to believe that institutionalized racism among the police of this country continues to be a major problem. I'm one of those people; it seems pretty clear that President Obama is another. Why therefore would it be irresponsible for him to discuss this in reference to Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Why is wrong for him to offer his honest opinion here?

And while Obama has never encouraged rioting (in fact has spoken out against it again and again) why shouldn't he encourage peaceful protests? If he believes as he does, aren't protests a reasonable avenue to seek change? In short, I don't think the criticism here is at all warranted.

There you go again. Putting in words which were never spoken or even thought of.

Hmm. Let's see.

In post 1344 you wrote:

But I really believe that race relations in this country have reversed a long term trend and have worsened since Obama took office. And part of that reason is Obama consistently sides with blacks,

Obviously your implication is that you would like to see him "side with whites" once in a while? In which instance would you have preferred to see Obama "side with whites", and what specifically does that entail?

And to you that means the same thing? :confusedashell:

You didn't answer the two questions. When should Obama have "sided with whites"? What would this entail him saying?

Yes I assume that when you wrote that you were implying that Obama should have said, at least in one or more of these incidents, that race was not a factor. Otherwise you would never have written that he always "sides with blacks". But if you had another meaning in mind here, then please feel free to explain it.

You can't take race out of the picture. Everyday these inner city cops are exposed to violent crimes where in most case the victims and culprit are black. This is going to effect anyone's views, whether the cop is white or black. Obama's tendency is to jump on the side of the black victim, which is understandable if he was a community organizer. But he is the President and needs to act that way. He needs to acknowledge both sides and try to open the discussion in a way which does not alienate one side or increase tensions in an already volatile situation.

OK, my last word on this subject is this: IMO, the bolded is EXACTLY what Obama has attempted to do each time.

Just as Bush attempted to establish a democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. In none of the cases was the mission accomplished.

 

[timschochet]

Hey guys I did warn you that I was an idiot regarding this subject. I have no expertise on it, none whatsoever. The points and questions I am raising are what occur to me when I read the specific phrases involved. I certainly don't mind being corrected, and I'm hoping that further discussion will occur (which is of course the entire point.)

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Hey guys I did warn you that I was an idiot regarding this subject. I have no expertise on it, none whatsoever.

I don't think anyone assumed otherwise.

 

[timschochet]

PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

Now this seems pretty basic to me. Obviously it's a proper role for any government to defend itself. So the United States is going to have a military, and the Constitution is going to provide the means for it.

The only thing that occurred to me is that the Wiki article spends so much time discussing how the Preamble is attempting to move the government away from the Articles of Confederation, which involved a group of sovereign states uniting for a common cause, into one sovereign nation. It seems to me that the phrase "common defense" COULD imply that the states are in fact separate entities- but I'm probably reading too much into it.

 

[timschochet]

Hey guys I did warn you that I was an idiot regarding this subject. I have no expertise on it, none whatsoever.

I don't think anyone assumed otherwise.

It would have been polite of you disagree with me.

 

[jon_mx]

Hey guys I did warn you that I was an idiot regarding this subject. I have no expertise on it, none whatsoever.

I don't think anyone assumed otherwise.

Yeah, but the last 11 words were completely unnecessary.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Hey guys I did warn you that I was an idiot . . . I have no expertise . . . none whatsoever.

Don't beat yourself up too badly tim. You have a winning smile and a go-get-em attitude that can take you far in life.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

Now this seems pretty basic to me. Obviously it's a proper role for any government to defend itself. So the United States is going to have a military, and the Constitution is going to provide the means for it.

The only thing that occurred to me is that the Wiki article spends so much time discussing how the Preamble is attempting to move the government away from the Articles of Confederation, which involved a group of sovereign states uniting for a common cause, into one sovereign nation. It seems to me that the phrase "common defense" COULD imply that the states are in fact separate entities- but I'm probably reading too much into it.

Stop reading Wiki. For anyone truly interested in the most important documents in our history use the Cornell Institute.

And on this one you aren't reading too much into it save for reading it the wrong way. The reference to a common defense came at a time when the states still had their own militias in place each performing under the sole authority of their states, and with it the incubated initial foreign policy of "the country" was beholden to 13 different powers each with different needs and wants that didn't always work for the "common" good. The purpose of a common defense was, in a nutshell, to let the people know that the federal government would be the ultimate military arm. The Articles of Confederation failed, and you guys in the Carolinas are going to have to accept the chance that a guy from New York might be your general in the future. It's ok. He will probably like the bourbon you make so it's all good.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Just as an aside - you aren't going to break Article 1 into each comma are you? That's like, a helluva lot of comma's and even I'll get bored with that.

 

[timschochet]

Just as an aside - you aren't going to break Article 1 into each comma are you? That's like, a helluva lot of comma's and even I'll get bored with that.

No.

I think it's interesting to look at the Preamble this way, but not the rest of the Articles. I imagine that should be done by Section.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Will you be doing it by the original document, or the codified amended document with the strikeouts? This is important.

 

[jon_mx]

The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII) prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. It is the most recent amendment to the United States Constitution. It was submitted by Congress to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and became part of the United States Constitution in May 7, 1992,[1] a record-setting period of 202 years, 6 months and 12 days.[

I did not realize there was an Amendment passed this recently.