I respectfully disagree. Acting pragmatically can have the effect of changing the meaning of the law and setting that in stone--having an ossifying effect--all without any democratic input whatsoever. This can lead to a very frustrated electorate that can go overboard in its reaction to stiff and unbending interpretations of laws which had no democratic input.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. If we can interpret it pragmatically, do we interpret all laws pragmatically? I don't think that any lawmaker votes on law that he or she believes should be interpreted later in a matter that contradicts the language of the statute.
The constitution is our founding document, and for that reason alone it should be respected to some degree. However, yes, it WAS created in the 18th century and the world has truly changed since then. I do believe that the system in place for ratifying a new amendment is a bit antiquated, I would even go further to say our entire delegate process is antiquated, but I digress.
The reason why this question is so tricky is because it lacks any type of nuance. This question ultimately puts people in two camps, and any question that does this is a no no in my book.
Do I believe the constitution holds some unique truths and foundations for a civilized society?
Yes. The bill or rights alone is something that shook the entire world to it's core. It was uniquely different from what was going on in Europe at the same time. In Europe you saw constitutions arising as well, but they were usually centered around the benefits to a group of people, to society at large, to the collective. Our founding document was centered solely around the individual, and this is the single biggest reason that it needs to receive a high level of respect. Now, respect doesn't mean you can't want to change it. You can respect your 80 year old grandfather, but when he's pinching the butt of the waitress at IHOP, something's gotta give.
Do I believe the constitution is infallible and shouldn't be changed ever? No, and the majority of libertarians would agree. Like you said in your video, there is an amendment process. I do believe it is extremely antiquated, and I think we should have a much more direct way to amend the constitution. This goes hand in hand with my longing for a direct democracy through technology, like the block chain. However, it still should never be a "mob rule". We are a republic for a reason, and each citizen in each state has a say in their state, and then those states to the great whole. If we were to go the way of "mob rule", then the people in rural America would always lose, and that's not the way a democracy works.
Anyway, tough topic to tackle, but necessary either way.
@davidpakman A couple of more thoughts on this topic. First, if federal judges were truly meant to interpret the constitution based on evolving standards of decency in a society, then why aren’t they elected directly by that society? Why shield these judges from societal input that will make them more responsive to society’s interpretation of these evolving standards? Second, it is not the case that constitutional pragmatism always leads to more personal freedom. It’s not a one-way street. Look no further than the pragmatic decisions in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty and Wickard v. Filburn that saw a radical curtailment in property rights and economic freedom theretofore enjoyed by citizens of the United States.
“Change is the only constant in life” - Heraclitus.
The smartest thing about the Constitution is not what's written inside, but that it was designed to be amended. Amendment by definition imply that it can be changed, updated, etc. Believing in the Constitution does not imply worshiping the text in it, but rather knowing that it can always be improved to better serve the ever evolving society. I think there should have been an Amendment explaining that :)
Society changes, but human nature doesn't. Study your history and how civilizations rise and fall. Political leadership regimes go through cycles of amassing power and rigging the societal structure for the gains of the elite at the expense of individual rights and freedom of thought. Such regimes either rot from corruption and inefficiency within, or get overthrown out of dissatisfaction by their own people.
The Constitution was carefully written using the wisdom of history and hardship experienced through fighting off such a tyrannical, abusive regime. It was designed to have meticulously thought checks and balances to keep government power from being too overreaching, implemented through the independent branches of the federal government, states rights, and the Bill of Rights protecting individual citizens from governmental abuse. Believe it or not, the Second Amendment is part of the package and one of those checks because an armed population is a lot harder for a self-serving regime to control (because they can vote with their bullets in a worst case situation).
It is people like you, David Pakman, who think they know better and are willing to throw out the old wisdom in favor of some new sort of banana republic that does not believe in empowering the individual. I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a society when I'm an empowered individual.
This is a false dichotomy question. You need to add the choices of "anarchism" and the anti-federalist position of "Articles of Confederation". Can you expand your presentation to include 4 choices?
I respectfully disagree. Acting pragmatically can have the effect of changing the meaning of the law and setting that in stone--having an ossifying effect--all without any democratic input whatsoever. This can lead to a very frustrated electorate that can go overboard in its reaction to stiff and unbending interpretations of laws which had no democratic input.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. If we can interpret it pragmatically, do we interpret all laws pragmatically? I don't think that any lawmaker votes on law that he or she believes should be interpreted later in a matter that contradicts the language of the statute.
Difficult question.
The constitution is our founding document, and for that reason alone it should be respected to some degree. However, yes, it WAS created in the 18th century and the world has truly changed since then. I do believe that the system in place for ratifying a new amendment is a bit antiquated, I would even go further to say our entire delegate process is antiquated, but I digress.
The reason why this question is so tricky is because it lacks any type of nuance. This question ultimately puts people in two camps, and any question that does this is a no no in my book.
Do I believe the constitution holds some unique truths and foundations for a civilized society?
Yes. The bill or rights alone is something that shook the entire world to it's core. It was uniquely different from what was going on in Europe at the same time. In Europe you saw constitutions arising as well, but they were usually centered around the benefits to a group of people, to society at large, to the collective. Our founding document was centered solely around the individual, and this is the single biggest reason that it needs to receive a high level of respect. Now, respect doesn't mean you can't want to change it. You can respect your 80 year old grandfather, but when he's pinching the butt of the waitress at IHOP, something's gotta give.
Do I believe the constitution is infallible and shouldn't be changed ever? No, and the majority of libertarians would agree. Like you said in your video, there is an amendment process. I do believe it is extremely antiquated, and I think we should have a much more direct way to amend the constitution. This goes hand in hand with my longing for a direct democracy through technology, like the block chain. However, it still should never be a "mob rule". We are a republic for a reason, and each citizen in each state has a say in their state, and then those states to the great whole. If we were to go the way of "mob rule", then the people in rural America would always lose, and that's not the way a democracy works.
Anyway, tough topic to tackle, but necessary either way.
@davidpakman A couple of more thoughts on this topic. First, if federal judges were truly meant to interpret the constitution based on evolving standards of decency in a society, then why aren’t they elected directly by that society? Why shield these judges from societal input that will make them more responsive to society’s interpretation of these evolving standards? Second, it is not the case that constitutional pragmatism always leads to more personal freedom. It’s not a one-way street. Look no further than the pragmatic decisions in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty and Wickard v. Filburn that saw a radical curtailment in property rights and economic freedom theretofore enjoyed by citizens of the United States.
Interesting questions I know you have interesting answers.
I did not spam :)
I think most of us are Constitutional
The constitution must be adhered to, it takes supremacy over things inconsistent to it
I think we should revise the constitution to fit the modern era, not consider it outdated and disregard it.
“Change is the only constant in life” - Heraclitus.
The smartest thing about the Constitution is not what's written inside, but that it was designed to be amended. Amendment by definition imply that it can be changed, updated, etc. Believing in the Constitution does not imply worshiping the text in it, but rather knowing that it can always be improved to better serve the ever evolving society. I think there should have been an Amendment explaining that :)
Society changes, but human nature doesn't. Study your history and how civilizations rise and fall. Political leadership regimes go through cycles of amassing power and rigging the societal structure for the gains of the elite at the expense of individual rights and freedom of thought. Such regimes either rot from corruption and inefficiency within, or get overthrown out of dissatisfaction by their own people.
The Constitution was carefully written using the wisdom of history and hardship experienced through fighting off such a tyrannical, abusive regime. It was designed to have meticulously thought checks and balances to keep government power from being too overreaching, implemented through the independent branches of the federal government, states rights, and the Bill of Rights protecting individual citizens from governmental abuse. Believe it or not, the Second Amendment is part of the package and one of those checks because an armed population is a lot harder for a self-serving regime to control (because they can vote with their bullets in a worst case situation).
It is people like you, David Pakman, who think they know better and are willing to throw out the old wisdom in favor of some new sort of banana republic that does not believe in empowering the individual. I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a society when I'm an empowered individual.
wait, ancaps even believe in having a constitution now?
This is a false dichotomy question. You need to add the choices of "anarchism" and the anti-federalist position of "Articles of Confederation". Can you expand your presentation to include 4 choices?
the constitution is basically gone now
in what sense?