It's OK to ignore the constitution.
 

It's not often that I use Facebook, and it's even less often that I become involved in debates on it.

Still, the discussion thread which follows is of great interest to me.

To name a few of the participants:

The one called "Joe Perez" is me.

"Joshua Eubanks" is a stereotypical 50th percentile American who I knew in High School, and who, at that time, was known by the nickname "Gumby" as he had the ability to place both of his legs behind his head and "walk" on his ass. He is currently unemployed and lives in a tiny town in central Georgia.

"Kevin Whitehead" is another friend from High School. He is a marine structural engineer who lives in Tampa, FL, and is married to a girl on whom a I once had a tremendous crush.

And now, the thread, in which I have highlighted a few select passages:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1392820297
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1392820297
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1392820297



Is it wrong of me to just be utterly flabbergasted to hear someone say this?

You get the government you deserve.

Do you think that arguing with mouth-breathers will benefit them?

Yes, he is wrong and, no, I'm not surprised people believe those things.

But then, I'm the guy who believes that anyone who receives direct financial support from the federal government due to impoverishment shall not be extended the right to vote. Much in the same way you don't let school-age dependents have an equal say as the adults in a household as to how the finances are handled.

I mean,

There are enough of these people that he actually became president

Are you really surprised?

People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.

Judging by the tidiness of his living space, I'd say he's a mature individual.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392825941

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392825941

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392825941

I'm not even talking about any one specific president, or even the Office of the President in general.

I'm just flabbergasted by the notion that a person, an American, would literally come right out and say "Yes, it's ok to ignore the constitution under certain circumstances."

This is just... incomprehensible to me.

The constitution is being ignored and over-ridden and gone against every single day by every single one of them...


So yeah, because it is already happening, it's cool, we can just keep ignoring it.

Are you not aware of Woodrow Wilson or FDR not just stating the constitution was a hindrance to them but actively subverting or circumventing it? Or Lincoln, for that matter. This is certainly not a novel idea among large groups of the "educated" populace. How much more so among the uneducated?

That's a pretty accurate paraphrase of one of the best thing Churchill ever said.

We blame DC, we blame Wall Street, We blame 'the government', we blame 'the corporations', we blame a lot of versions of 'they'.

Truth is that those are all extensions of the famed 'Main Street' everyone claims to be defending.

I like when Churchill said:

democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Actually what's really depressing is that uneducated people will cling to dogma well and thus end up being defenders of the constitution if that's their particular social comfort zone. It's like that moron friend that is loyal to the hilt, but you don't want him sticking up for you in an argument because it'll just weaken your case. Maybe we could call this the 'Biden Effect' or 'Palin Principle'.

'Educated' people by and large are a lot like 'uneducated' people, they interpret things to confirm their world view and fit in with their social/political/religious/class group. And many 'educated' people have a pathological need to be as opposed to and different from 'uneducated' people as possible. Anyone who's had a undergrad poly-sci class at a large university can attest to this.

So when 'uneducated' people consider the constitution important, the knee-jerk reaction from the 'educated' is the opposite. Its gets couched in a lot of fancy language, but in the end that's pretty much it. 'Education' is more of a social process than an intellectual one until you get to the masters level in this country and it shows.

Its like having one clock that's 2 hours slow and other that's stopped. The stopped clock is dead-on right once in awhile, the one that's 2 hours slow is closer to the truth most of the time. Relying on either is a bad idea.

Personal favorite was his vision for the Earth: Every country has an English channel and anything artificial that tries to fly will burst into flames.

I do.

But I also recognize a distinction between how government operates in the real world, and how we ought to idealize the functioning of government in an aspirational sense.


Consider a floor which is dirty. We might look around and say "Well, a lot of other floors are also dirty, so I guess it's fine."

But that would be wrong. Or at least it wouldn't improve the situation any.

The better man would rise to attention, take up his mop in his hand, and shout "HEY! THESE FLOORS ARE DIRTY AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

^ A great film.


A less great film:

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

He is certainly not an over-achiever.

But by the same token, he's an American, and he has the right to vote. And that terrifies me.

I still go back to the very opening volley in that thread, where I asked "So, it's OK for the president to ignore the constitution, circumvent the congress and act as a de-facto monarch, so long as he has good intentions?" and he replied "Yes, actually."

I just wasn't prepared for that. The idea that a person might have responded to that question in the affirmative just never occurred to me.

I mean, imagine for a moment that I'd asked "So, it's OK to round up all of the Jews in the whole country, inter them in forced-labor camps, and exterminate them slowly over a period of several years?"

How would you imagine most people would react if a person publicly answered "Yes, actually" to that question. Because that's literally just about the same level of incomprehension that I'm at right now.

"I will put an end to this, once and for all," he said.

His voice was clear and without feeling.

That was all he said and started to walk out. He walked down the length of the place, in the white light, not hurrying and not noticing any of us. Nobody moved to stop him.

Gerald Starnes cried suddenly after him, "How?"

He turned and answered, "I will stop the motor of the world."

Then he walked out.

And my beef is through democracy and the monopoly of gov't, their gov't affects ME.

Who was it that said "voting is the average person's way of being a petty tyrant". Therein lies the problem with democracy.

Or you could reply with:

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

And here is data that contradicts the "educated voters vote for what's right" hypothesis:

http://www.cogsci.bme.hu/~ktkuser/KU...anEtAl2013.pdf

More Ayn Rand? Seriously?


Here's how a mother of 6 in Portland saved the world by weaning her family off of toilet-paper entirely: HuffPost Live

Part of the problem is the unwashed masses complete misunderstanding of how economics work. Many of the people I talked to before the last presidential election were against Romney, simply because he is rich. Their thinking was, "if he has a bigger piece of the pie, less is left over for me, the working guy". Someone else being rich does not make you poor in and of itself.

So, it's a us vs. them game. Which is fine with the politicians, who'd rather that the people were divided instead of standing up to gov't control and corruption.

I saw the parallel in your statement with the one from the book.


here:

So what's going on? It's quite clear that the public school system is a main culprit. It's no longer teaching history, geography or civics in an effective way. I'm generalizing I know there are some good schools but most public schools could not care less about instructing young Americans how their country works.

Number two, the Internet has created a generation of self-absorbed, addicted, distracted and ignorant people. The powerful machines, hand-held many of them, are diverting a lot of Americans away from real life. You can now create your own world on the net devoid of reality and millions of Americans are doing that. The result is that a very few shrewd people are now wielding enormous power.

Many Americans are voting for what they can get, not for what is best for this nation. And both the Republican and Democratic parties know it. Therefore we are a country in decline primarily because 320 million American Americans citizens aren't paying attention. They do not seem to be interested in the welfare of their country. They are primarily interested in their own welfare.

Once again, I'm generalizing and a I have a caveat. I'm not pandering here. Those of you watching this broadcast right now are most likely not in the ignorant category. You are taking the time to watch a news program to get information and analysis. But if you add up all the Americans who watch TV news and read the newspaper, it is a minority not a majority. Finally with the Internet now dominating American life the situation will most likely get worst.

One last stat according to a poll by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum, just 25 percent of Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms the First Amendment guarantees. They are: speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for the redress of grievances.

Again, just 25 percent ok, could name more than one of those. But more than half of Americans can name at least two members of the Simpsons cartoon family.

This is definitely not a new or unique situation, and it is therefore not "the result" of having access to powerful hand-held computers with wireless network connectivity.



I rather doubt that this is a new phenomenon either. Not the Simpsons specifically, but the idea that a majority of Americans humans living in constitutional republics can probably recite information from popular culture and entertainment more readily than from their nation's constitution, and that this has been true for at least so long as mass-communication for the purpose of entertainment has been pervasive and easily accessible. (ie: at least since the origin of commercial radio, and probably as far back as when daily newspapers started carrying sports reporting and society gossip columns.)

What specifically is wrong with Ayn Rand such that her quotes are no good?

Nothing.

It's just that that's ALL that Brainey has been quoting recently, and it's starting to feel like a high-school AP Lit class in here.

If anyone starts quoting Vonnegut I'm gonna scream...

I've probably quoted her twice in the last 6 months.

You should be lucky to have read her in HS. I remember getting the HS, as a freshman, and reading some story about african refugee boys getting raped by men with guns, but I don't remember taking away anything from it--it was simply too shocking of a story. I can't even remember being assigned any real books of consequence after that. I really only remember Alice in Wonderland, The Canterbury Tales, Hamlet, and Beowulf.

I never received a full education because any sort of conservative/libertarian/right wing viewpoint was never given, taught, nor discussed. And I went to school in one of the best counties for public education in the nation, which scares me worse for the rest of you.

Hell, I just read The Giver for the first time last month. And that's a doggone children's book.

It wasn't until I was out of school before I read any Ayn Rand or Orwell or anything of that nature--after having an epiphany my last year of school and that everything I've been taught was a lie and I'd actually been indoctrinated.

Sadly, that accurately reflects my education as well.

I went to a public school in the suburbs of Chicago. Our school was one of the worst. It was the first time Id been to public school as well. I had gone K-8 at a private school. I was ahead of most of the kids that came from public schools so a lot of what I was doing was like being in 6th grade again, except they all knew each other, and I didnt.

I couldnt figure out how these kids got to high school without being able to read or write well. My freshman year, I failed english. One was because I felt I didnt need to try because I had done most of it already. Another was because nothing I did was good enough for the teacher. Who was a baseball coach. You automatically got a decent grade just for being: on a sports team, a cheerleader, or female.

Now, thats not to say I was a born english major, because Im not. That shit annoys me, but I would be better at it if I actually tried. Math on the other hand just fucks me in the ass.

My fourth grade teacher gave me The Giver to read....when I was in the fourth grade. I was an "advanced" student so she gave it to me to read as an extra assignment.

Fuck yea Iowa public schools!

^ lol @ self absorbed internet post on an internet website I'm basically addicted to and must check almost every day.

HA!

How about Hunter Thompson?

"◾We’ve come to a point where every four years this national fever rises up — this hunger for the Saviour, the White Knight, the Man on Horseback — and whoever wins becomes so immensely powerful, like Nixon is now, that when you vote for President today you’re talking about giving a man dictatorial power for four years. I think it might be better to have the President sort of like the King of England — or the Queen — and have the real business of the presidency conducted by… a City Manager-type, a Prime Minister, somebody who’s directly answerable to Congress, rather than a person who moves all his friends into the White House and does whatever he wants for four years. The whole framework of the presidency is getting out of hand. It’s come to the point where you almost can’t run unless you can cause people to salivate and whip each other with big sticks. You almost have to be a rock star to get the kind of fever you need to survive in American politics.

One more and I'm posting pony.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1392836162

“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”



“So long as they continued to work and breed, their other activities were without importance. Left to themselves, like cattle turned loose upon the plains of Argentina, they had reverted to a style of life that appeared to be natural to them, a sort of ancestral pattern...Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.”



“The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.”

New Obama initiative tramples First Amendment protections | WashingtonExaminer.com

Read: The Public Interest Standard in Television Broadcasting

Short version: Because wireless spectrum is finite and strictly apportioned, the government grants a de-facto monopoly on broadcasting to broadcast license holders.

In return for this, broadcast licensees agree to serve "the public interest, convenience, and necessity," and one of the ways in which they are required to do this is by providing news and information programming.

So, yes, in a limited fashion, the FCC does have the right and obligation to monitor radio and TV stations' news operations to ensure that they are keeping up their end of the bargain- this doesn't trample anyone's first-amendment protections.

It's also not a new thing to the Obama administration, this agreement goes all the way back to the Radio Act of 1927, under Calvin Coolidge (R).