"The Constitution of the United States" Topic

Trajanus, is it your contention that the Constitution is NOT a social contract?

No, my contention is, that it is, what it is and these jokers (sorry Kevin) wouldn't have the first idea in hell what you are talking about!

YouTube link

Unless you want to restore either rule by divine right, or rule by whoever is strongest, some such idea of a social compact seems essential. Or do you disagree?

What's too restore? Why do you think they invented Super PACs?

Oh BTW: If your want to be pedantic, Rebellion is always illegal, in the eyes of the holder of power.

Whether its justified, morally correct and/or defensible depends on perspective. Not to mention how good at selling you are.

Rebellion tends to be judged on how things turn out afterwards, your view going in and how much "truth" that was based on.

Should we have a poll on good idea or no?

I'll start:

French Revolution 100% Yes

Spanish Revolution of 1936 (Coup) 100% No

Spanish Revolution of 1936 (CNT/UGT) 100% No (nice idea, shame about the consequences)

Parliament v Charles I 100% Yes (also nice idea, shame about the consequences)

Oh I like this, anyone want to join in?

Wow, this has taken a wild and illogical turn,

Brechtel: Nobody said "branches" was not the correct term for the primary (and general) Executive, Legislative and Judicial divisions of the Federal government. However, Doc wasn't talking about those general divisions, he was talking about the four specific functioning "bodies" of the Federal government, which are specificallythe House, the Senate, the Presidency (a body of one person), and the Supreme Court (and by extension the lower courts, though the nature of these is established by Congress, though they function under the umbrella of the Supreme Court). "Branches" would not be the correct term for this breakdown, surely you agree? And lo and behold, "branches" is not what Doc wrote, is it? He used "pieces." (Look back a bit— it's all there). So Doc didn't make an error in the use of the term "branches" because he didn't use the term "branches." And he wasn't referring to "branches" in his statement. So your argument against him is wrong, as you are putting words in his mouth (or in this case, his fingers) which he did not use.
It's as if you're trying to stand behind him and yell "5!" while he counts to 3, to then claim he was counting wrong.
Again, very poor rhetoric and a straw man. Try again, please.

In any case, the term "branches" is not a term in the US Constitution (look for it; it ain't there), but rather a term that has come into common usage as a way to distinguish the three general divisions, or "powers" or "functions" if you will, within the Federal government. So saying "branches is the correct term" is a stretch in and of itself. It's actually just a "common" term.

Were the colonists then bound by the British rule of law? Was their rebellion illegal?

The Supreme Court took a very practical stand on the legality of secession in Texas v White that since secession failed, it was de facto unconstitutional.
A similar ruling can be made re rebellion.
If it fails it's illegal.

Also, again:

Democracy: A system of government where all measures of law, etc., are decided by direct popular vote— meaning everybody votes specifically for or against each law, and also that everyone is therefore involved in writing or determining that law. In short, beyond a small group of people, an unwieldy and potentially tyrannical mess.

Republic: A system of government where all measures of law, etc., are decided and determined by a small group of representatives who are elected by popular vote in some manner. Thus, all the people have a say in who the representatives are, but don't directly craft or vote on laws, etc..

The US Constitution creates a republic, by the above definition, not a democracy, by the above definition.

I don't see anyone here suggesting otherwise.

John,

Doesn't that sound a bit like the Universal Rule of Civil Wars? (Dawn of time until the present day)

You know, "It doesn't matter how many times you switch sides as long as you are on the right one when the fighting stops!"

@Trajanus
Well, yeah. Look at my avatar.
His timing was off.
Had the ACW gone the other way, secession would have been de facto constitutional.
Had the AWI failed, the rebellion would have been de facto illegal. As Tyrion Lannister quipped to Dear Old Dad, "Yes, yes. Heads, spikes…"

As a practical matter, of course winning makes the difference. But that means that might makes right, doesn't it? It means there is no such thing as legitimacy: the IRS is no better than the mafia, both saying give us money or we will hurt you. The fact that the IRS is executing a law passed by elected representatives is irrelevant; it is just who is strong.

The implications of that are dire. Because upsets occur, in wars and revolutions as well as sports, and you can't be certain of the outcome unless you play the game. Or fight the war. There is no such thing as domestic tranquility, no general welfare. Just the strong and the weak, which is always SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

What though the field be lost?
All is not lost; the unconquerable Will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield:
And what is else not to be overcome?

It is precisely to avoid this horror that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. But consent can be withdrawn.