The Political Compass test

[jeffg]

> The 1, 10 and 14th amendments are hated by Republicans because the do grant, clearly, the freedom to all things not specifically circumscribed. <

The proper term for what I'm referring to is "constitutional textualist".

As for those three amendments, our government has trampled relentlessly on them over the past 30+ years, to the point where the 1st means little, and the other two mean nothing at all. E.g. read the 2005 SCOTUS decision on medical marijuana, where the feds claim interstate commerce jurisdiction over pot which is grown, sold and consumed in a single state. I can cite a dozen similar decisions over the last few decades.

 

[panthera]

Jeff,

Who can't?

All you have to do is to label a bill "patriotic" and the know-nothings and red-nex will support it.

I was unfamiliar with the term 'textualist', thank you. It sums things up very well.

Once upon a time, you could agree to disagree and not be called a traitor or un-American.

I understand Reid just announced there would be a public insurance with opt-out in the final legislation?

 

[jeffg]

That's his current approach. Olympia Snowe is the key Republican vote to avoid a filibuster, and she wants an economic "trigger" for a public option, i.e. if costs don't come down enough without a public option.

I think this rests on how much effort Obama puts into it, not Reid.

 

[hunter]

actually...

the US constitution does NOT grant rights.

It enumerates restrictions on what government can do.

What is says QUITE CLEARLY is that powers not explicitly delegated to the feds and the states are reserved to the people.

It does NOT grant rights.

People who say that (say) the Bill of Rights grants rights are WRONG.

Consider the first ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This does NOT grant the right of freedom of religion - that is a NATURAL right. What it says is that CONGRESS cannot make a law linking the state to a religion.

If you go down through the BoR you will see they ALL read like this.

This document does not grant rights, it limits government. As it should!

 

[jeffg]

Hunter, of course you're correct, but constantly over the last 230 years issues have arisen where we've assumed certain basic rights, but the constitution has had nothing to say. One current example is a right to privacy.

Because the Constitution does not explicitly limit government power to intrude into people's private lives, e.g. in matters of sexual relations, marriage etc, does that mean a fundamental right to privacy does not exist in the U.S.?

Most rational people would assume that of course some degree of privacy must exist, if out of basic decency and logic if nothing else, while many or most constitutional textualists would say of course there is no guaranteed right to privacy. And this has been the right-wing's main course of attack against everything from Roe v. Wade to Lawrence v. Texas.

IMO, a constitutional amendment which explicitly limits government power in all matters of personal privacy, including relationships, reproduction and marriage, health care etc etc is long overdue, and unless we get such an amendment we're doomed to a mixture of totalitarianism on the right and socialism on the left. But crafting this amendment is easier said than done. How would it be worded, and how specifically would it limit government power?

 

[jeffg]

Best I could come up with:

The right of the people to be secure in the privacy of their family and professional relationships, and personal data shall not be violated.

 

[hunter]

But isn't the 'right to privacy' the 4th amendme

which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This clearly says 'the state shall stay out of your business unless under due process there's a warrant issued.

The issue we seem to have these days is that folks actually BELIEVE that which is not mandatory is forbidden.

Of course the USSR said they wouldn't fight a war with us, but cause us to rot from within.

Hunter

 

[jeffg]

The 4th Amendment has always been narrowly interpreted. It protects against unreasonable searches of your physical person and property, and not much else. It certainly hasn't stopped the government from denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, and otherwise sticking its nose where it clearly doesn't belong in matters of family, family planning etc.

 

[jeffg]

> Of course the USSR said they wouldn't fight a war with us, but cause us to rot from within. <

Very few people in the USSR said that. Far more believed we would eventually rot from within by our own accord, which is what seems to be happening.

 

[peterh770]

How did you get your graphs to display?

The Political Compass

www.politicalcompass.org

 

[swestoyz]

That was actually pretty interesting.

 

[panthera]

PeterH,

Mine wouldn't, so I did a screen shot (that funny prt-scr key) and then pasted the whole screen into Paint. Then I cropped it. Then the power to our house failed and I said, well, never mind and never did post it.
I'm in the III quadrant about where everybody else is, maybe a bit further down and to the left.

Hope that helps.

 

[sudsmaster]

For a Lark

I decided to try to answer these questions as conservatively as possible.

I was rewarded with a rating that is to the Right of Thatcher and Hitler, LOL...

The Political Compass

www.politicalcompass.org

 

[runematic]

Here's mine.

 

[hunter]

too true

>Very few people in the USSR said that. Far more believed we >would eventually rot from within by our own accord, which is >what seems to be happening.

It certainly does. Of course, we have a generation of people who have been helping this along since about 1968, which doesn't help.

 

[jeffg]

> we have a generation of people who have been helping this along since about 1968, which doesn't help. <

That's myopic IMO. Read some of the accusations made against Elvis and rock 'n roll music in the mid-1950's. And long before that we had things like prohibition. Every generation that comes along blames the current and former generations.

The "rot" I'm talking about, and what I think most Soviets meant, is the natural process of political decline. Ben Franklin saw this coming 222 years ago:

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults,
if they are such, because I think a general Government necessary for us; and
believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of
years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it,
when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government,
being incapable of any other."

-- Benjamin Franklin, Speech before the Constitutional Convention, 9/17/1787

 

[hunter]

Oh myopic, yes...

...but I'm referring to the radical hippies who said stridently they would destroy the country. Well this philosophy - which started out awesome and morphed into something horrible, has.

Now as for the rot, yes, I agree with you -- it has been going on for a LONG time.

It's rather amazing that the framers of our system of government were as far sighted as they were -- and terrifyingly sad that the current citizens of the USA don't really give a damn. Too many have the idea that the USA can't be destroyed no matter what anyone does. Which is, of course, wrong.

 

[panthera]

The framers

were all very well aware of the twin evils of the revolution eating her own and what happens when religion gets the upper hand (regardless of which religion).
They knew what they were doing.

What they didn't anticipate, was that literacy would fall from virtually no one with the franchise in 1786 to 25% of those with the franchise in 2009.

Fascinating, South Carolina was the first to cause problems, even back then.

The US Constitution is the model for all good constitutions in the entire world, only at home is is spat upon. The 1968 movement ws not a threat, they were silly children. The Republicans of today and the christianists really do want to impose a theocracy.

 

[jeffg]

Someone who was 19 years old in 1968 is now 60. Personally I haven't come across anyone, let alone any 60 year-olds, who're calling for the destruction of our country, even here in wacky California.

 

[panthera]

I can read, it's writing that doesn't work so well..

I meant, of course, that illitarcy would rise from basically nill in the late 18th century to one-quarter in the 21st.