I'm not on any kind of medication that would affect my mind in any way, and am perfectly sane and rational. What I said was perfectly reasonable.

We can't all just use the constitution as en excuse to justify our own prejudices,as so many conservatives want to today , disingenuously claiming that they know exactly what the constitution means and requires.  

To talk about "original intent" is ridiculous. America and the whole world are so vastly different from the late 19th century that there's absolutely no way to govern this country as it was at that time. Econonomic and social conditions are so vastly more complex from the past that wondering what the founding fathers supposedly intended is absolutely futile. We have to face the realities of this day in a pragmatic way or we are lost as a nation.

Selwyn Duke responds:

Dear Mr. Berger:

You just might have set a record with your two posts.  You have managed to write a handful of paragraphs in which virtually every sentence contains either a falsehood or a fallacy.  And although I'm probably wasting my e-breath with you, others may benefit from hearing the Truth.  So let's take your points one at a time.

"We can't all just use the constitution as en excuse to justify our own prejudices,as so many conservatives want to today , disingenuously claiming that they know exactly what the constitution means and requires."

You have it exactly backwards.  It is leftists who interpret the Constitution so as to suit their own agenda; thus, they are the ones who interpret it in a way that justifies their own prejudice.  And while this shouldn't require further elaboration, I'll illustrate the point.

Let's hark back to the golf analogy I often use.  Who is interpreting the rules of golf to justify his prejudice?  Is it the person who says, "I'm going to abide by the rules whether I like them or not" or the one who says, "Let's see, I don't like certain rules, so I'm going to put my own spin on them and justify it by calling it 'pragmatism'"?  The fact is — and it is a fact, not opinion — that people such as me say the former; we accept the Constitution's dictates whether we like them or not.  This doesn't mean that I wouldn't change certain things about the document if I could, but I'm steadfast in maintaining that it must changed, not twisted.  In other words, it must be amended, which is the only way to alter the Constitution, not misinterpreted.  Now, with this in mind, let's examine what "conservatives" actually say, as opposed to your misconceptions about their beliefs.

"The constitution is rather similar to the Bible in that any American citizen can use it as an excuse to advocate banning this or that, or making certain things mandatory. But it says absolutely nothing about what personal conduct is permissable or not, or what individual things should be legal or legal."

Precisely.  And now you're halfway to an understanding of the issue.  What does it mean when the Constitution is silent on a matter, as it is on personal matters (and most things; it's a short document)?  It means exactly what conservatives advocate, which is that those matters are then up to the states to decide.  For example, I despise socialized medicine.  But since the Constitution is silent on the matter, if the states want to institute such a thing, that it their legal right.  Understanding this, let's examine the falsehoods you expressed.

"Some homophobic bigots have used it as an excusr to take away rights from gay people and even persecute them, even though it says absolutely nothing about the sexual conduct of private citizens."

This is untrue.  Conservatives do not say the Constitution prohibits faux marriage or sodomy; they simply say, correctly, that since "it says absolutely nothing about the sexual conduct of private citizens," such decisions are the domain of the states.  It is the left that is trying to use constitutions (the national as well as states ones) as an excuse to force faux marriage upon us despite the fact that majorities in all states are opposed to recognizing them legally.

"Others have claimed that there is supposedly no right to privacy in the constitution, and that therefore the government should have the right to pry into the bedrooms of Americans . . . ."

You're referring to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.  Note that the language implies that there are such things as reasonable searches and seizures. 

Moreover, the second part of your statement is a falsehood; conservatives don't say that the government should have a right to "pry into bedrooms" (without a warrant) as that would constitute an unreasonable search.  They simply say that states have a right — which again, they do under the Constitution — to outlaw acts such as sodomy and bestiality.  Whether or not they should do so and how they would go about enforcing such law is a different matter.  It's much like drug use.  Most people use illegal drugs in private homes, but no one ever says that this fact alone justifies wiping drug laws off the books.  In point of fact, most illegal acts, from murder to battery to child molestation, can be perpetrated in private homes.  Yet the government still has a right to criminalize those acts.   

"and others have claimed that it mandates making abortion illegal . . . ."

This is a falsehood.  What conservatives say is that Roe v. Wade is badly settled law (which Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said herself).  They furthermore say that it should be overturned, which would have a significant effect, but the criminalizing of abortion would not be part of it.  Did you know that?  I don't think you did.  All that would happen is that the issue would then be decided by the states, which is what conservatives have been lobbying for.  Also note that this was how the matter was determined for most all our nation's history.

"abortion was a non-issue at the time of the founding fathers, and that if any of them had even mentioned abortion at a meeting ,let alone making it illegal, the others would have thought he was out of his mind !"

This is because it was taken for granted that it was wrong (how many abortions do you think they had in colonial America?).  This is much as when people point out that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.  The fact is that He didn't have to; everyone at the time understood that the behavior was wrong and this was enshrined in Judaic law.

"No, the constitution is NOT an absolutely fixed thing. It is open to differing views of interpetation . No one, not even the members of the supreme court has a monopoly on interpeting it."

Illogical statement.  A document cannot change unless we change it, so it is in fact a fixed thing.  And the only way we can change it is through the Amendment Process. 

As for differing views, how about if I interpret it to mean that I can rob you?  When you imply that there is no correct interpretation, that is the road you go down.  It either means something, or it doesn't.  If the latter, why even have a Constitution?  Just let the judges rule in a way they think is just.

As for the High Court, unfortunately, we have given it a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution.  And, because of people such as you, it can interpret the document as it sees fit and impose its own prejudices on the rest of us.  This means that, because of people such as you, the Court is no longer constrained by anything but is acting as an oligarchy.  Thus, if you want to know who is responsible for the Kelo decision, look in the mirror.

"To talk about "original intent" is ridiculous. America and the whole world are so vastly different from the late 19th century that there's absolutely no way to govern this country as it was at that time. Econonomic and social conditions are so vastly more complex from the past that wondering what the founding fathers supposedly intended is absolutely futile."

Let's apply this to another set of rules and see if it makes sense.  What if a golfer said, "Don't tell me I have to follow the rules of golf.  It's ridiculous to talk about what the original rule makers intended because the world and golf — with equipment changes and what not — are so much different.  We have to be pragmatic"?  Unless you're willing to be consistent about your irrationality, you'd tell him to get an education.  You'd say that if the rules are lacking, it is up to the ruling body, responding to the will of the players, to alter them — it's not up to him.

"We have to face the realities of this day in a pragmatic way or we are lost as a nation."

Who is "we," Mr. Berger?  Is it just you and those who think like you?  I know you don't say that.  Well, then who is it?  It is the people, correct?  OK, then how do the people alter the Constitution so as to have it reflect the realities of the times, should they deem this necessary?

Answer: the Amendment Process.

This is the way the people, through their elected representatives, can put into effect what they believe is "pragmatic."  What you are proposing is very different.  You want to give unelected judges the right to make those determinations for the people.  That's not democracy, but oligarchy.

As an example, the people have spoken clearly and said that, at this juncture, they don't want faux marriage.  So I ask you, why do you not accept what "we," the majority, has decided?  The Constitution doesn't say faux marriage must be legally recognized — as you said, it is silent on such matters — so your only answer would have to be that we can interpret it to suit the times.  But if the people don't determine the times, who does?  Judges?  If the "we" doing the interpreting isn't the people, who is it?  Judges?  Try to answer the last five questions (for yourself) honestly, and you'll start to understand the issue. 

"I'm not on any kind of medication that would affect my mind in any way, and am perfectly sane and rational. What I said was perfectly reasonable."

The first assertion may very well be true, but the last two certainly are not, as I have illustrated for you.  But you should understand why some here are suggesting that you're a drug user.  You are exhibiting something ex-KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov spoke of when he talked about the effects of subversion.  That is, you are detached from reason.  You seem incapable of following one point logically to the next, assessing facts and grasping analogies.  Detached from Truth, you use the only yardstick you have left for making decisions: emotion.  This is why I don't expect you to see the light. 

Hell is a place where there is no reason.

                  © 2009 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved