The purpose of every constitution is to distribute decision making authority while maintaining a cooperative decision making structure (very anti-socialist).
There really isn’t much conceptual difference between a democracy and a republic. The democracy has more emphasis on the power of the individual, bottom-up authority. A republic places more emphasis on the structure of top-down authority.
Do you mean because the legislature is responsible for collecting and distributing taxes?
I think that’s a brilliant idea. Can you give an example of how to apply this methodology, say by taking one of the Article Sections above and translating it into a set of values held by the authors? (And should we conclude that these values were also held by the people in general? And can we be sure we are translating the meaning of the phrases and clauses in the Constitution correctly, let alone inferring the values they express in as unbiased and objective way as possible?)
I think the project you describe would have to follow a thorough analysis of the meaning of the Constitution first, and only when such an analysis is complete (for the further into the Constitution we get, the more our analysis often reflects back on previous stages of our analysis). Not saying you couldn’t start right now right here, but I think it would complicate things beyond necessity.
How do you figure, James? On a surface reading (i.e. based on the word “constitution” itself), I would guess the purpose of a national constitution is to state how the nation is politically constituted–that is, what the nation is all about politically and what the rules and methods are by which it attains to that. I don’t see why a people would ever want a centralized decision making institution, but it’s certainly possible in principle that that’s what a given nation’s constitution stipulates. It’s possible that that’s how a given nation’s constitution was drafted by the authorities at the time even if it was against the consent or knowledge of the people. ← Would you consider that an illegitimate constitution?
With an eye for preserving the people’s power over the government/state, correct?
Gib, do you know about the first attempts for a government (before the constitution) in the US?
The Articles of Confederation (It is just the Wiki, there are other sources)
Rather that money is often required to be properly represented in the court of law.
Equal rights refer to a equal treatment by the state in similar situations. But what’s not made explicit is that wealth is a fundamental part of most legal situations.
Yes, for example. That’s a good idea.
I don’t think we can do that. I very much doubt that the people in general have very detailed conceptions of their values, in administrative and legal terms. I am growing more and more to the conviction that the people in general are not to be considered as a voice, as numbers generally break down nuance and legislation and ethics without nuance is always detrimental.
I think we need to address/consider a certain ‘elite’ layer of society, i.e. people who have acquired experience and understanding of administration, who are able to make informed case-specific judgments. This only means that I think we need to address the segment of society from which laws actually do emerge, now and in the past.
No, but given that this constitution is famous for its effectivity and has sorted a great deal of societal success, I think we can trust that we’ll approach a clear enough conception of those values, clear enough so as to result in a background against which we can analyze our own time and attempt to formulate political values in terms of the here and now.
Well, what are your criteria for what is necessary? I do think we do need to go to that length to create the ground for actual new legislation.
As soon as you’re talking about reforming the state-structure you’re talking about decades of work. But then this is exactly the sort of work I’ve been committed to the past years, this is why I can lightheartedly make such a suggestion.
In any case I think it is crucial to know exactly what the values are that you wish to secure before you start to work on the structure that must provide those values.
But, having said all this, I do not think that the most time consuming or difficult part of such a work is deriving those first values. I think the original legislation is so great and turned out so powerful because it reflects a very good approximation of human nature. And, to make myself as clear as I should in this confusing paradigm, this nature includes the inequality I mention above.
One of the questions we need to ask, before assessing the desired legislative structure of the USA, is how we value luxury.
What is more important, luxury or equality - and to which extent, and most notably, why? In what way do we differ here from the founding fathers? Are our morals compatible at all with those of the ones who founded the country? That is the beginning, it seems to me.
Yes, I was aware of that, though the details are a bit of a blur at this point.
The article says this:
It seems they learnt a lesson about what’s minimally required to have an effective government–the scarcity of voluntary tax dollars coming in hinting at the need for legally enforced taxation, for one thing. The absence of an executive figure head seems to be another according to the article. If nobody knows who’s in charge, it’s difficult to make formal decisions in an expedient way I guess.
This is the one part of the article that stood out for me because it answers the first and most obvious question that came to my mind: Why didn’t it last? What was it about the first Constitution that resulted in its eventual wholesale abandonment and replacement by the one the US current has? There’s a lot of other details and interesting tid-bits in that article, but I only skimmed through it and didn’t read everything. Was there something about it you found relevant to my replies to James, about a Republic being a political system concerned with top-down administration while at the same time focusing on how to preserve the people’s “ownership” over their government and nation?
So the inevitable inequalities in wealth will correlate with inequalities in treatment before the law. I think that’s a truism that we would all do well to be aware of, even if painfully.
I meant, can you actually do that for us, as an example of what your methodology would look like?
So these values which we decipher from the Constitution would be the values of this elite, not of the people in general, is that right?
That is what we’re engaged in here, after all (or what I’m engaged in at least). Your point about the successful track record of the US Constitution is interesting–it suggests that even in all our attempts to interpret it, with all the inevitable subjectivity and bias that undoubted seeped into those interpretations, it didn’t turn out to run the country into the ground. We seem to be able to apply the principles and values of the Constitution despite being forced to interpret them and observe how they still work on the whole.
I meant that doing a thorough analysis of the detailed meaning of the Constitution before beginning on an analysis of the values expressed therein, coupled with a cross-reference to today’s values, is probably a simpler and cleaner way of accomplishing both our goals, as opposed to doing both concurrently.
Well, you do seem to have a very sobering view on these matters. Glad you decided to participate. Your insights have not gone unappreciated.
However, one of the more humbling lessons I’ve learnt throughout this discussion is that promulgating what I think is the best solution for the nation is not a very good strategy. It’s fool-hearty at best, dangerous at worst. This is why I think simply doing an analysis of the Constitution might just be good enough. It does the job of exposing to the public what the Founding Father thought was a good prescription for a healthy government, and the rest can take care of itself via people reading it and coming to their own conclusions on what ought to be done about it.
But that’s just where I stand. You seem to have thought about this a lot more than I, and you might just be the right man for the job, the right man to take it beyond the step of exposing the guts of the Constitution on a public internet forum.
As for what’s more valuable–luxury or equality–I think a point somewhere between the extremes is best (morally speaking). I think extreme equality (in terms of wealth and probably other ways) can be damaging, but so can unrestrained striving for wealth at any expense to the quality of life for others. And of course, where we place our values on this spectrum says nothing about how to manage or control things such that those values are met–should that responsibility be handed over to the government or should every individual be encouraged to do their part to support and strive for those values?
…and what do they do once they assemble?
For example: value of continuity. State = organization. Definition of government must include definition of process as well as the institutionalization of process.
Possible alternative: Congress only assembles when there is something on the agenda.
That would most likely be always the case, but we can use this to think about the practical business of being government as people.
The value implied by this article is permanence of government, its being-institution.
Pretty basic, but still a value that’s not at all self-evidently a value.
A values implied here are the autonomy of the houses, which can be extended to mean their ‘self-valuing’, their being a standard unto themselves.
The larger value is the separation of powers.
Another value is democracy - -the requirement of the organ to be accountable for the quality “representative”.
I think these values are valid now as they were then.
It seems a majority vote indeed. This is a very valuable item then.
Values – transparency and due process even in the case of emergency.
Larger value: integrity of representation.
Value: Accountability.
Okay, I think we can handle one more Section in this post–
Section 6:
Yes. Here the values begin to differ markably from the value of representation.
We must question if it is even fit at all for a government official to be paid tax money. I think that in the end it is not, because of “Parkinsons Law” of Bureaucracy.
Honor and contacts are plenty reward.
As far as Im concerned all tax money should go directly into water, roads, police, fire, basic medical response, public provisions. Actual jobs get paid, but administration needs to be a matter of having the will and time to do it. That means indeed that no poor man can ever govern, and I think that is an idea worthy of consideration. It can be argued that one must have a good idea of what it means to manage an estate to be given the right to make decisions of national importance.
Value here is eliminating conflict of interests in officials.
No please, definitely not. No, I mean that a mass of people is not able to make rational decisions. All representative politics on mass scale is a matte of illusion, of rhetoric and plain lies. The fortunate state has a government of an elite that is willing to dedicate a solid portion of its time to solve problems for the state.
Enormous leap over argument I have in my head but is too long -
Corporate lobbying must become a public virtue rather than a sneaking vice.
If government is not paid, lobbying becomes even more inevitable on paper but then in a business society lobbying is necessary to adapt to changing circumstances in the industries and markets. It needs to be overt. There can be a ‘fair’ every x years where commerces represent themselves to public scrutiny and fight for seats in a specially designated chamber that gets to direct the course of government funding and taxing for a while. Their developments will be exploited by the media and so verified.
Yes, it’s too good to drop. It’s not strictly American, it’s basically Roman, and modernized by the English, Dutch and French, but in America it could take hold from the ground up, without a king or a fixed god. Government could become God. Could attain to the principle. Look how crazy they went over the dollar bill, not to speak o the architecture. It was pure Apollonian euphoria, man had found the strength and expanses to build his own paradise to put the old world to mortal shame. Christianity was tolerated and encouraged as a binding force, but classical aesthetics drove state architecture, and there was something else going on, namely the liberation of the individual man by the disclosure of the objective laws of science, which pushed the Greek spirit beyond itself into an economic, cultural and military rapture that commands a certain distance, a respectful touch. It is clear enough that no revolution of anger from below could affect the institutions.
I would argue that it is more effective to clarify and examine in the same post. It is quicker (given that the whole of the work is so daunting this is something I’d consider), but also be more convenient for reference and thus not structurally compromising.
Besides, clarification can go on indefinitely, and as it does, urges more toward the specific values that are implied or simply touched on by the law’s formulation.
I just think the guts is in the implied values. Moreover, the values are not at all hidden, and they are easily picked out. And in some cases this can even help with the clarification.
That seems like a good solution I suppose this is what is meant with ‘the create a strong middle class’.
It is easy to derail this into a discussion about mediocrity. A think a strong middle class is rather marked by excellence.
[EDITED: For formatting by Carleas. Let me know if I have inadvertently caused a misattribution].
I’m not sure how this works, beginners luck I suppose. What did I do?
Do other people get this formatting?
Sorry Gib.
Damn, Jakob, how did you break ILP!? 
Yes, I see it too. Did you forget a closing tag somewhere?
Anyway, I’ll respond to your post sometime tomorrow.
Many often don’t know that a “pure” state only system failed. Rather sadly too. You are reviewing the United States government, and I wanted to make sure that you understood some of the context in which the Constitution was created. You might want to look up Shay’s Rebellion as it had a lot to do with the shown failure of the Articles… Also, the Articles of Confederation is where the Confederates (The South during the Civil War) got their name.
I’m leaving a lot of things to your own research, while pointing you in directions because that seems the way you want to do things…
Next you’ll get into the crazy history of disobeying the Constitution that much of the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court has done…
I’m never sure if I should capitalize “the” when referring to The President and The Congress and The Supreme Court… It looks weird with them all capitalized.
But it does work as a justification for making such decisions, wouldn’t you agree? I mean, even if the representatives don’t act as the voice of this or that group of people, most Americans will recognise that this is the most fair system they have to work with and that it isn’t designed without the well-being of the people in mind.
But if the design of this system expresses certain values, whose values would those be?
How so?
How so?
Well, I can’t stop you if you want to do an analysis of value. Where I’m coming from is that I’ve sort of, kind of taken on more responsibility for this thread than I usually do for threads. I figure I’ve created something that’s too important to just “get bored” with or abandon as is often the case with other threads. So when you bring up the prospect of doing an analysis of value along side an analysis of meaning, I hear: double the load, and I think “Oh God, twice the responsibility.” I might be making a mountain out of a molehill, but it would definitely be more work.
At the same time, however, I don’t want to discourage you. I really do think it would be a good idea. I could ask you to bear the responsibility of keeping your own project on track, but I definitely won’t be ignoring it.
The meaning expresses the values and the values determine the meaning. I think this is true.
How so?
Ucci linked me to the Shay’s Rebellion article earlier. I’m working my way through it now.
Very much appreciated.
Can’t wait.
I’m always torn about capitalization period. I assume it’s a sign of respect or reverence, but one can go crazy over it. ← This can even be another dimension of analysis. For example, what does it mean that almost every noun in “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications for its Members…” is capitalized? It probably says more about the language and grammar at the time than it does the meaning on the Constitution.
“The”, from what I know, gets capitalized if it’s part of a title, like The Great Gatsby, but not an ordinary article in a sentence.
Wait until we get to the federalist papers.
Next semester I’m taking, Economic History of the US, and very much looking forward to it. I’ll probably have even more things for you to read after that…
Wait until we get to the federalist papers. More than any others they show the intelligence of the founders of the US, IMHO. They also show some of the most creative ways to spell words, as was the style at the time, what with no dictionary… (Otherwise known as a bunch of jackasses pretending that there is only one way to spell wordiz.)
And that is the part that confuses me… Technically, The Supreme Court is a title, and official one an’all.
Yep, it’s on my reading list.
Yeah, I sometimes think about that. Why do we have standardized ways of spelling words? Why not just pick the letters of the alphabet that make the sounds you hear in the word? What’s even more strange is why, if you’re going to make rules for how words are spelt, decide on the most counter-intuitive spellings you can think of: take “bubble” ← Why two 'b’s? Why not “buble” (or even “bubl”)? Or: “laugh”? Why not “laf”?
(Actually, I can think of answers to this, but still…)
Well, I guess you’d better capitalize it then.
(May God strike you down if you don’t. )
The infamous Section 8:
I had never noticed that (the taxes thing) I would guess otherwise there would be no justification for our “progressive” tax.
The intent was to give the power to congress, and allow them to adjust as time progressed.
I find the “value thereof” line to be amusing, as if anyone could regulate the value of money.
I read it to mean that no law can be passed, to raise money for the army, that can last longer than two years.
It has nothing to do with a two year term, especially as they usually serve a four year term…
Personally, I would put the justification for all bills passed, at this point, to be the arrogance of the law makers… But this might be used as justification…
Though I bet that part of his is in there because of Shay’s Rebellion.
The states have their own military forces. A state national guard and state air national guard. Though, again, this might just be a sign of the time it was written. Many people identified more by their state (at that point in time), than by being a US citizen. And, often states wanted people from their state in positions of power.
It’s used for setting up military bases and the like.
I see. This might be an important, though subtle, point to bring up about the Constitution overall: that unless expressly stated, whatever power the Constitution grants to this or that branch of the government (or office, or whatever), it is not meant to be interpreted as exhaustive. What I mean is, if the Constitution states that the Legislative branch is “To establish Post Offices and post Roads,” this is not meant to be taken as “unconditionally and under all circumstances.” Rather, it is meant to be taken as a starting point from which future amendments may whittle it down (for example, by adding the clause “except in the State of Nebraska” ← just as a random thought… I have nothing against Nebraska 
).
One might keep this principle in mind when contemplating the “general welfare” clause.
What do you mean, Eric? Don’t they regulate the value of money all the time by producing more or less of it?
You mean the law can’t hold for more than two years? Why do you think they put it in terms of “appropriation of money”?
You mean the army conscription? Yeah, I’m a little fuzzy on how that works in your country. Last I heard (which was many moons ago), that all males, upon the age of 18, unless enrolled in a post-secondary education program, must submit 2 years of military service. But you’re saying that has nothing to do with this clause (and that it’s really 4 years)?
Which I’m still working through (I might pause this analysis on the Constitution to discuss that once I’m through it).
By “his” you mean Obama, right?
“state national”? ← That’s almost a contradiction in terms, isn’t it?
Right, the “United States” was thought of more like today’s “European Union,” wasn’t it?
And btw, it’s clear that it appoints the duty of “disciplining” the militia to the Congress, but (assuming that “the Authority of training” is being attributed to the States), this implies that “disciplining” and “training” mean different things. What does “disciplining” mean?
Right, and it seems limited to that according to the wording (at least at the time of its writing).
Followup question: why? This I can actually answer myself as the link I posted above goes into detail about this (it’s a really good link–a kind of “go-to” for all your Constitutional questions and interpretations), but my memory is fuzzy on this point at the moment, and I think it’s a good question for discussion. Was it simply for citizens to have a sort of “federal refuge” to go to in cases of State belligerence? I mean, without having to leave one’s State in case that was blockaded?
…
Hey Eric, is there a term for the study of the American Constitution? Constitutionology?
Well, anyway, I’m gonna call it that from here on in.
I DO, FUCK Nebraska!! Fucking flat ass state…
It’s why I dislike the general welfare line, it is open ended like a male whore.
Yes, but its a little like attempting to control a car from the back seat using bent hangers as the control. No matter the skill of the driver, that car is not going in a straight line.
It’s actually a policy I’ve considered would be interesting to pass to all laws, they all “expire” within a range of 2+ years, and must be voted back in to keep going. It would give the congress something to do, without “new” laws being passed all the time.
It wouldn’t do what I wished, but it’s a neat idea.
Not even that, Israel requires a three year stint, regardless of sex. In the US, you have to sign up for the draft, and that is it. So, if there is a draft, you can be drafted… and that is about it. (I’m actually a fan of the Robert A. Heinlein idea, that to get the right to vote, you must do service in a military. Though, again it has problems, and probably wouldn’t work out the way I wanted.)
It would be worth it, that moment had HUGE repercussions, including the drafting of the Constitution in the first place.
Sadly no, I just missed a “t.”
Don’t look at me, I don’t name these things. I would have gone in a completely different route.
Initially, yes.
Which is one of many things pointed out when the EU was formed, and I expect to rear its head here eventually. (Another is that they put to many stupid laws in the basic Constitution, they (and we) need something closer to the original Constitution, one page, even if its a big page, type of thing.)
Punishment for not acting in accordance with national laws.
No, just a place for the Fed. To do fed things. Like taking freedoms, and just generally pissing in everyone’s Wheaties.
I don’t think there is one, so now there is… We are going to need to get the name of the thread changed…
Yeah, I see what you mean.
Yeah, it would certainly limit the number of laws they have time to pass.
I’m sorry, what’s the difference between the basic Constitution and the original Constitution? Are we still talking about the US Constitution, or does the EU have its own Constitution?
That’s what I thought.
Is that what Area 51 is?
It seems like “Reforming Democracy” was a poor choice of words, but I don’t think Constitutionology would be much better–it only represents a small part of this thread so far.
It wouldn’t be so bad, but the thing drives just fine by its self, and their intervention just messes it up.
Unfortunately, the problems would be similar to the dept limit. They keep raising it, reducing its usefulness to zero, yet they also use it as a political bargaining chip every time. (Note, I say they, because both parties do this, and it is stupid every time.) Can you imagine what bargaining chip would come out of allowing women to vote, or freeing the slaves… It’d make me cry.
The EU has its own set of agreements forming the EU. It is a Treaty at this point, because some of the different groups refuse to accept a primary “over government” (To which I say, good for them). I was noting, that it is much longer than the US Constitution, which means more laws to work around, and more ways for people to take advantage of them. Consolidated version of the treaty on European Union
I think this applies to the US in many ways, people making laws, instead of taking care of things. Ronald Reagan: “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
There is an “original” Constitution, it’s the one without all the amendments… Though some were necessary, often we have made new ones that it would be nice to remove.
Yes, that and big foot.
I asked a friend, that knows the words for meanings better than I, and he can’t think of one… So, for now, I’m saying one for studying the Constitution doesn’t exist… Until now.