Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Someone recently told me that what makes Ron Paul a "strict constitutionalist" is that he does not interpret the text, he does exactly what it says. I found this notion bizarre and pointed out that you have to interpret the things you read. Anyway later I went and looked at the Bill of Right to see what would happen if we tried putting this idea into practice.

1st Amendment
Only Congress is forbidden from doing things there. State government, judges, and executive orders are all legal ways to (say) establish a state religion . . . if you're a strict constitutionalist.

2nd Amendment
It uses the phrase "shall not be infringed" when talk about keeping and bearing arms. So I wonder about prisons. There's no qualifier there about that. So from a strict constitutionalist standpoint we have to either let criminals keep guns while in prison or declare them to either not be people or not be citizens.

3rd
This is where the "right to privacy" comes from a claim that is wholly an reinterpretation of the text and would have to be discarded

8th
A strict constitutionalist can't interpret that bit about "cruel and unusual punishment" so I suppose everything would be on the table again?

If you take that claim seriously you end up with a very strange legal system, is what I'm saying, one that I sort of doubt Ron Paul is advocating. I had a pastor once who pointed out the same thing about the Bible, half the time it doesn't even make sense to claim that you're following it "literally".


This isn't specific to Ron Paul, though I spend a lot of time on the internet so it's his backers I usually hear it from. The second biggest group seems to be New Agers and religious types who phrase it as "I don't believe, I know". It's a very odd mindset. The belief that not only are you right but that you're fundamentally right and the way you know is specifically because you aren't thinking about it.

I mean that was literally the problem the person I was talking to had with everyone who wasn't Ron Paul, they think about the constitution while he blindly obeys. The idea that Paul might read the document and then have to decide what it meant just produced anger.

Doesn't your First Amendment prohibit the establishment of a state religion, bu Ron Paul claims that's a misinterpretation, and himself seeks to make one?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Doesn't your First Amendment prohibit the establishment of a state religion, bu Ron Paul claims that's a misinterpretation, and himself seeks to make one?

Not that I know of. Paul's supporters do often say that the only thing keeping him from trying to establish theocracy is that he think the constitution forbids it. AFAIK I'm the only one to point out that the 1st Amendment doesn't actually having forbid state religion if you take it literally.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not that I know of. Paul's supporters do often say that the only thing keeping him from trying to establish theocracy is that he think the constitution forbids it. AFAIK I'm the only one to point out that the 1st Amendment doesn't actually having forbid state religion if you take it literally. Goddamn, the way they worded it is inconveniently semi-ambiguous. Poor bastards probably couldn't conceive of that at the time.

I had hoped good 'ol Wikipedia would help here, but it didn't.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Someone recently told me that what makes Ron Paul a "strict constitutionalist" is that he does not interpret the text, he does exactly what it says. I found this notion bizarre and pointed out that you have to interpret the things you read. Anyway later I went and looked at the Bill of Right to see what would happen if we tried putting this idea into practice.

1st Amendment
Only Congress is forbidden from doing things there. State government, judges, and executive orders are all legal ways to (say) establish a state religion . . . if you're a strict constitutionalist.

2nd Amendment
It uses the phrase "shall not be infringed" when talk about keeping and bearing arms. So I wonder about prisons. There's no qualifier there about that. So from a strict constitutionalist standpoint we have to either let criminals keep guns while in prison or declare them to either not be people or not be citizens.

3rd
This is where the "right to privacy" comes from a claim that is wholly an reinterpretation of the text and would have to be discarded

8th
A strict constitutionalist can't interpret that bit about "cruel and unusual punishment" so I suppose everything would be on the table again?

If you take that claim seriously you end up with a very strange legal system, is what I'm saying, one that I sort of doubt Ron Paul is advocating. I had a pastor once who pointed out the same thing about the Bible, half the time it doesn't even make sense to claim that you're following it "literally".


This isn't specific to Ron Paul, though I spend a lot of time on the internet so it's his backers I usually hear it from. The second biggest group seems to be New Agers and religious types who phrase it as "I don't believe, I know". It's a very odd mindset. The belief that not only are you right but that you're fundamentally right and the way you know is specifically because you aren't thinking about it.

I mean that was literally the problem the person I was talking to had with everyone who wasn't Ron Paul, they think about the constitution while he blindly obeys. The idea that Paul might read the document and then have to decide what it meant just produced anger.


I see several problems with you conclusions.

Let's start from the top:


1st A: That's EXACTLY what it means. That's actually what was argued: leave it up to the states to decide by popular vote. You see that as a problem, I don't (if your state votes on a state religion and the 14th amendment is invalidated...then the citizen has the option to move to another state that agrees with them). HOWEVER, you must take into consideration Gitlow v. New York and the 14th amendment (Due Process), which is also the constitution: it applies to States and local governments, too. So, no, your direct reading is not correct because you didn't consider that other parts of the constitution that affected this particular amendment.

2nd A: Yes, that's exactly what happens when you become a felon: you lose most of your rights as a citizen. That's fairly basic. It is not until those citizenship privileges are restored that you get your other rights back. This is known as the deprivation of "Civil Rights". Your question is incorrectly formed: "The second amendment says we can have guns, so why can't incarcerated felons have guns under the second amendment? They are citizens, too." They are not full-citizens because they are literally deprived of many of their rights. A full citizen should not have his "rights" infringed, of course, but not one that does not. They have to have those rights to be infringed, to begin with.

3rd A: it only protects against the state: not other individuals. Under "other individuals", that becomes tort law, not constitutional law.

8th A: That's exactly what happened with your qualms over #2: in the 60s, people said our prison conditions (prison conditions are not constitutional law) were so bad that it constituted (that's not a pun) "cruel and unusual punishment". Since that's something we are protected from, even as incarcerated criminals, congress and the justice system made several remedies to our laws (something the constitution does allow to be done). This brings up another topic, though: Habeas corpus

However, the idea that the constitution is not supposed to be interpreted is FALSE!

1000000% false!


The reason we KNOW it's supposed to be interpreted is due to Article One which contains the Necessary and Proper Clause; they knew we would have gray areas, confusing areas, or new situations.


Since there are plenty of provisions for both the legislative and judicial branches to interpret or make new law, there's no good argument about a direct interpretation, ever.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1st A: That's EXACTLY what it means. That's actually what was argued: leave it up to the states to decide by popular vote. You see that as a problem, I don't (if your state votes on a state religion and the 14th amendment is invalidated...then the citizen has the option to move to another state that agrees with them).

The 1st doesn't forbid the Federal govt from establishing a state religion, it forbids Congress from doing so. The Supreme Court could send down a ruling that makes it illegal not to be a Catholic and not violate a strict reading of the 1st.

Also, I find it sort of hard to believe that the intent of the wording was to let states decide people's religious practices.

Originally posted by dadudemon
HOWEVER, you must take into consideration Gitlow v. New York and the 14th amendment (Due Process), which is also the constitution: it applies to States and local governments, too. So, no, your direct reading is not correct because you didn't consider that other parts of the constitution that affected this particular amendment.

Then freedom of religion is a privilege not a right? (the DPC protects only "privileges and immunities"

Originally posted by dadudemon
2nd A: Yes, that's exactly what happens when you become a felon: you lose most of your rights as a citizen.

I count taking the right away completely as infringing on the right. The 2nd Amendment, followed strictly, forbids that. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't have the qualified "until we take it away" tacked on at the end. You'd have to completely revoke their citizenship if you wanted the 2nd to not apply to them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
3rd A: it only protects against the state: not other individuals. Under "other individuals", that becomes tort law, not constitutional law.

Yes, that's what I was saying. If you use only the text of the constitution you have no right to privacy from the state, it doesn't exist. I suppose it might show up elsewhere, though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
8th A: That's exactly what happened with your qualms over #2: in the 60s, people said our prison conditions (prison conditions are not constitutional law) were so bad that it constituted (that's not a pun) "cruel and unusual punishment". Since that's something we are protected from, even as incarcerated criminals, congress and the justice system made several remedies to our laws (something the constitution does allow to be done). This brings up another topic, though: Habeas corpus

My point with the 8th was more than a "literal" interpretation isn't actually possible. Its a statement that can only be interpreted.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1st A: That's EXACTLY what it means. That's actually what was argued: leave it up to the states to decide by popular vote. You see that as a problem, I don't (if your state votes on a state religion and the 14th amendment is invalidated...then the citizen has the option to move to another state that agrees with them).
How can you possibly not see that as a problem? By that logic, there was nothing wrong with the holocaust because the Jews were given an option to move out in the preceding years. I mean if there is an atrocious human rights abuse going on, you can't just duck the problem and say "well you should move". That is practical advice, but it hardly stops the abuse itself. I would consider a state religion a human rights abuse akin to apartheid; how can that not be a problem in your mind?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The 1st doesn't forbid the Federal govt from establishing a state religion, it forbids Congress from doing so.

Why are you repeating what I told you?


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Supreme Court could send down a ruling that makes it illegal not to be a Catholic and not violate a strict reading of the 1st.

Nope, that's exceeding the rights the constitution offers the judicial branch: they cannot make new law.

You can disguise your point as "interpretation" but that wouldn't be interpretation: that would be creating new law.

The law already has to exist for the SC (nice parallel, eh?) to rule it constitutional or unconstitutional. Since we have the 14th amendment, the ruling would still be illegal and would be deemed unconstitutional.

What does that mean? Still, using a strict interpretation, fails to do what you want it to do.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also, I find it sort of hard to believe that the intent of the wording was to let states decide people's religious practices.

I don't because that's almost exactly what it means to me.

States are not the federal government. The idea, originally, was to give states SOME powers (reserved powers) because of some of those individuals that wanted more power that was in the Articles of Confederation.

The US Constitution was a compromise from the Articles of Confederation and a virtually totalitarian central government.

The compromise was quite a bit of autonomy for the states and lower with the Federal government acting as a strong "glue" so that the "conderations" were more closely tied together under a central umbrella.




The rights of states is one of the "things" about the US that we don't think about or take into consideration very often, these days. Mostly due to the actions/destruction of the reserved powers from the Nixon-era on.



This is why constitutionalists and Paul supporters say, "leave it up to the states" when it comes to gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, religion in schools/government, and many other hot topics. It was something that was supposed to be reserved for the states, anyway.

Thus comes in the part about protection from state actors into privacy; state in this sense is not "New Jersey" or "Oklahoma", obviously. For example, The Fedaral Government would be violating your right to privacy IF they regulated your marriage above and beyond upholding a legal marriage as binding, interstate.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then freedom of religion is a privilege not a right? (the DPC protects only "privileges and immunities"

1. It's the incorporation doctrine and the "right" to used to justify that application is that is the DPC. You'd say, "by the right of DPC and invoke the ID, so FU, while IP." The last part is unecessary.

2. At the federal level, it has no place: from state upon people or people upon state.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I count taking the right away completely as infringing on the right.

You could do that, but you'd be wrong in doing so.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The 2nd Amendment, followed strictly,

You can't do that because the constitution, which includes amendments, must be viewed as a whole document. If you do so, then you'd be wrong.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
forbids that.

Of course a myopic view would lead to an idiotic conclusion. That's what you're arguing to begin with, right?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Shall not be infringed" doesn't have the qualified "until we take it away" tacked on at the end. You'd have to completely revoke their citizenship if you wanted the 2nd to not apply to them.

No you do not. Just certain rights must be taken away.

If you can find in the constitution anywhere that says "if you commit a felon against the state, you shall not have any rights taken away", I'll believe you.

By the way, the rights taken away are done so by the states, not the federal government, so your argument is completely invalid. 313


Of you don't believe me, check out restoration of suffrage and "right to bear arms" for convicted felons: all laws are state or lower. Meaning, your argument is against the constitutionality of states having such laws, not against a strict interpretation of such rights.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes, that's what I was saying. If you use only the text of the constitution you have no right to privacy from the state, it doesn't exist. I suppose it might show up elsewhere, though.

I know that's what you're saying: and I was saying the opposite.

You have a right to privacy FROM state actors, under certain provisions.


Sure, it's not complete.


During wartime, you have to accomodate military personnel (and, using the elastic clause, your resources) IF and only if it is a law to do so.


What does that tell you? It should tell you that the architects clearly saw "law" as very much a dynamic animal. Not some permanent force. They came from a different time.

But the supreme court, I believe, has interpretted the 3rd as a way to keep the government out of your home without proper legal authorization: warrants, for example. That includes virtually, as well: wire-tapping.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My point with the 8th was more than a "literal" interpretation isn't actually possible. Its a statement that can only be interpreted.

A strict interpretation can be applied to most of it: especially if you put in historical context (such as the 3rd).



Originally posted by King Kandy
How can you possibly not see that as a problem? By that logic, there was nothing wrong with the holocaust because the Jews were given an option to move out in the preceding years. I mean if there is an atrocious human rights abuse going on, you can't just duck the problem and say "well you should move". That is practical advice, but it hardly stops the abuse itself. I would consider a state religion a human rights abuse akin to apartheid; how can that not be a problem in your mind?

Godwin's law?

Really?




The discussion hasn't progressed far enough to even get there.


My question to you is the same as yours to me: how could you possibly see that as a problem?

You do know that many Jews fled (hundreds of thousands...millions, even) "the state" when Hitler started to bring down the hammer, right? RIGHT? RIIIIGHT????


When you understand that the constitution was designed to make the states slightly autonomous, then you understand that if a citizen does not like the laws (legally allowed for by the constitution), they can select a state whose laws are more suitable for their wants. YES, I am saying they can shop around, if they want to.

You can then ask: "Not all of the people had the means to move now. So how can that even be pragmatic?"

If the architects thought it was okay back in the horse and buggy day, why would it be a problem in the "less than a day's flight" era? They can hitch a ride, if they want to. A person considering the religious repercussions of a state sponsored religion is not generally your homeless/poor person, either. Also, a state sponsored religion (excluding the obviously required 14th amendment) would still have to be constitutional in its actions. Since it would be unconstitutional to even have a state religion, your argument is invalid.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Godwin's law?

Really?




The discussion hasn't progressed far enough to even get there.


My question to you is the same as yours to me: how could you possibly see that as a problem?

You do know that many Jews fled (hundreds of thousands...millions, even) "the state" when Hitler started to bring down the hammer, right? RIGHT? RIIIIGHT????


When you understand that the constitution was designed to make the states slightly autonomous, then you understand that if a citizen does not like the laws (legally allowed for by the constitution), they can select a state whose laws are more suitable for their wants. YES, I am saying they can shop around, if they want to.

You can then ask: "Not all of the people had the means to move now. So how can that even be pragmatic?"

If the architects thought it was okay back in the horse and buggy day, why would it be a problem in the "less than a day's flight" era? They can hitch a ride, if they want to. A person considering the religious repercussions of a state sponsored religion is not generally your homeless/poor person, either. Also, a state sponsored religion (excluding the obviously required 14th amendment) would still have to be constitutional in its actions. Since it would be unconstitutional to even have a state religion, your argument is invalid.
I would say this was a good time to use this comparison, since you just said you DO agree with it. Yes, thousands fled. That was the whole point of the comparison. So are you saying that made killing the ones who stayed behind OK? Can I get a straight answer? Your last response makes it sound like you support that, but, I somehow can't believe you think the holocaust was OK. Clarify, please.

You're quite wrong, the architects of the constitution did not envision a country where states could trample on human rights, but its OK because they can make every affected person leave. IMO, if your country supports that, no you might as well leave the whole collective because your rights are not guaranteed in any state.

lol at "it would be unconstitutional" in the same breath as "disregarding the 14th amendment". How can you treat some amendments as sacrosanct while freely disregarding others?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I would say this was a good time to use this comparison, since you just said you DO agree with it. Yes, thousands fled. That was the whole point of the comparison..

No, your comparison is a ridiculous one: such state actions would be unconstitutional.

You're making an apples to oranges comparison. It's actually worse than that: it's more like an Apples to Dark Matter comparison.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So are you saying that made killing the ones who stayed behind OK?.

YES!

Why is that so hard to believe?

You know it was legal, right?

You are wanting an ethical response, not a legal one.


Do you want to know how he made that "legal"? He made Jews be "not" citizens and "not" humans: De-humanized and it became legal.


Do you see why your comparison is quite stupid? We are not even talking about the US Constitution, at this point...just your improper invocation of Godwin's Law.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Can I get a straight answer? Your last response makes it sound like you support that, but, I somehow can't believe you think the holocaust was OK. Clarify, please.

You mean you want a "straight answers" to a silly question that had no place in this thread to begin with?

Yes, you got your answer. It probably was not the answer you were looking for. You were using an a "trap" question based on absurd logic, of course. The question was intended to vilify the position that "it's okay for a state to sponsor a particular religion based on the second amendment".


Obviously, I do not hold that the constitution supports this:

"it's okay for a state to sponsor a particular religion based on the second amendment".

Since I made it quite clear in the very next section that it is unconstitutional.





Originally posted by King Kandy
You're quite wrong, the architects of the constitution did not envision a country where states could trample on human rights,

This is a strawman: having a state sponsored religion does not automatically trample on human rights.

1. Having a state sponsored religion does not automatically forbid another religion to be practiced. Just look at the UK, Canada, Brazil, and a crap ton of Muslim state-sponsored countries. Yes, you can have your cake and eat it to.

2. Those human "rights", as you call them, would have to be defined in that "states's" laws, to begin with. You're arguing against a state trampling on rights that it grants which is just ridiculous. Surely you see how that is not only a strawman of my argument, but an ill-conceived notion to begin with?

Originally posted by King Kandy
but its OK because they can make every affected person leave.

Again, this is an absurd strawman of my point.

The state doesn't force them to leave: the person CHOOSES to leave because he or she desires the laws in another state.

That's a giant difference between what you stated I was talking about and what actually occurred.


Originally posted by King Kandy
IMO, if your country supports that, no you might as well leave the whole collective because your rights are not guaranteed in any state.

Well, based on this logic, you might as well not live in any society, anywhere, because your rights are not guaranteed anywhere.

At any moment, laws could change in any country (they do...all the time). States could fall, wars could happen, even cosmological events could happen. So, you don't have a guarantee of any rights, for sure. You might want to purchase a pacific island, declare it your own sovereign nation, and practice your own law that you hold as perfect, to get the maximum guarantee, just to be sure.

Originally posted by King Kandy
lol at "it would be unconstitutional" in the same breath as "disregarding the 14th amendment". How can you treat some amendments as sacrosanct while freely disregarding others?

lol at you having no idea that there were state sponsored religions(yes, actual US states) in the US after the constitution was created. Both historical and conversational contexts (that's not mutually exclusive, either) are wonderful, right?*


Why do you think I found it okay for states to sponsor religion using just the strict interpretation of the 1st amendment? Instead of you beating around the bush, using logical fallacies, and improperly resorting to Godwin's Law, why don't you just tell us why you hate the idea of a state sponsored religion (both US States and "state" states like the UK or Ireland).

That's always a much better way to approach a subject instead of making rude posts. Try it. I'll "listen".



*Edit - Just wanted to clarify that the 14th amendment did not exist until post-1860. Post-war reformation and all that.

So by your logic, there is no such thing as a bad law? Obviously, I think that if you passed a law, it would be legal... That is a tautology. But I do recall our founders believed we were endowed with inalienable rights by our creator? I think you can have a law that violates human rights. It happens all the time. I think a state religion would be such a violation. And I would say the UK + commonwealth, muslim theocracies, Vatican City etc count among those committing this violation.

I can't believe you think it was "OK" (in more than the might makes right sense) for the Nazi party to kill all jews. Obviously, they passed a law allowing it but that doesn't change the underlying human rights violations. You can have such a thing as a bad law, and a tyrant government.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So by your logic, there is no such thing as a bad law?

If you didn't read what I said, sure.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Obviously, I think that if you passed a law, it would be legal...

So you agree with a portion of my point. Where's the problem, again?

Originally posted by King Kandy
That is a tautology.

Wrong. Not all laws are legal.

The tautology is: "All legal laws are legal." Even in the US, a law can be created that is NOT legal.


Originally posted by King Kandy
But I do recall our founders believed we were endowed with inalienable rights by our creator? I think you can have a law that violates human rights. It happens all the time. I think a state religion would be such a violation. And I would say the UK + commonwealth, muslim theocracies, Vatican City etc count among those committing this violation.

Not at all: if those states still allow for other religions to exist WITHOUT negative consequences, then it is not a violation of those rights.

What IS a state-sponsored religion?


In the UK, it is fairly benign. In Massecheusets, when they had one, it was also fairly benign.

Sure, in some Muslim-sponsored nations, you have oppression via the religion, upon the people (women's rights come to mind).

Originally posted by King Kandy
I can't believe you think it was "OK" (in more than the might makes right sense) for the Nazi party to kill all jews.

Since I defined the position as "was it legal?", why do you keep coming back to this as though it were valid? You even said that you agree that it was legal, so it's a waste to continue bringing it up.




Originally posted by King Kandy
Obviously, they passed a law allowing it but that doesn't change the underlying human rights violations. You can have such a thing as a bad law, and a tyrant government.


Obviously, but that's not what we are talking about.


You asked me to answer a question of yours, and I did. I also asked you a question. I made it clear what type of "state sponsored religion" I was referring to, as well.

I've noticed that most people who claim to be "strict constitutionalists" or "originalists" tend to only support the constitution, minus all the amendments, support the articles of confederation, or have bizarre concepts of nullification and the first amendment only applying to people of christian denomination.

Don't forget "white" Christian, to boot.

The Constitution is too long and too boring to read.

Thus, I'm your typical American.....no, really I am.

Regarding Ron Paul, I don't understand why he thinks that bringing America back to the Gold Standard is a good idea.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Regarding Ron Paul, I don't understand why he thinks that bringing America back to the Gold Standard is a good idea.

I heard one economist utterly destroy the concept of going back to the gold standard.

I heard another utterly destroy the current system and the need for a gold standard.


Conclusion: I have no idea if one is legitimately better than the other.

I'll start a thread to see if I am just lacking understanding.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I heard one economist utterly destroy the concept of going back to the gold standard.

I heard another utterly destroy the current system and the need for a gold standard.


Conclusion: I have no idea if one is legitimately better than the other.

I'll start a thread to see if I am just lacking understanding.

No, this is economics in a nutshell. It's easy to sound right, it's very hard to actually be right or know what is right.

For example, I like free-market economics in a nigh-libertarian sense. But it's more academic than practical...I don't know if it would actually work if put into practice. I agree with the principles, and that's all I can really say.

Here's your strict constitutionalism: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/300270/eight-hundred-years-later-inspiration? CSAuthResp=1325725380%3A96hvl6ns9roknvogbqs2iqps92
%3ACSUserIdCSGroupId%3Aapproved%3A912E61583D0C236D
5C6799BF55481DE3&CSUserId=94&CSGroupId=1

"All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived," is the bill's one sentence.

You do realize states have had state religions in the past and it was fine?

fine for all members of that particular religion, sure.

OH THE HUMANITY

They also had their own currency, put spirits in their water supplies, and used the Catherine Wheel as a legal method of execution. Damned Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment ruined everything! We must be originalists and go back to the Articles of Confederation and Magna Carta! How else will we eliminate all involuntary federal taxes and protect American nobility's rights against the King?

Having a state religion is the same as using a breaking wheel, it seems.