I thinkt here is a misconception that the US Constitution is some sort of vague ideological conceit. Actually it's a collection of laws written on paper. Once an amendment is added it becomes part of the Constitution. Nothing that is written in the Constitution can be unconstitutional. Sometimes you get crap amendments, but that's why we make it so hard to get amendments ratified.
The eighteenth amendment, the "prohibition" amendment, was part of the Constitution. Then, another constitutional amendment was added rendering the fourteenth unconstitutional. So, yes, an amendment can be later deemed unconstitutional, although it might sound incorrect.Originally Posted by eestlinc
Besides, I used the wrong word, anyway. It violates human rights, which I suppose is "vague, ideological conceit". There is no way around that. No amount of people rallying a mob cry about public welfare can change that that woman's rights were violated. Even if the majority rules for that, it is wrong.
"Unconstitutional" implies the use of judicial review. The 18th amendment wasn't declared unconstitutional, it was simply repealed.
I don't remember anything about the 14th amendment being declared unconstitutional, although it has been used in ways differently from that in which it was first intended. Actually, when it was passed the primary intention was to protect corporations, which the law regarded as individuals at that time, but it has since been used to ensure equal protection under the law to all citizens (which I find to be a far more worthwhile use of that amendment). Of course, history books will tell you that equal protection under the law was immediately enforced for all citizens, but the existence of Jim Crow laws for almost a century after the Civil War meant that that was not in fact the case.
I'm a philosopher before a politician. I should watch my words. =P That's what I meant, that it was repealed. I guess I was using the word "unconstitutional" to mean that it didn't belong in the constitution. Whatever, the point was made.
I corrected that mistake (accidently put 14 rather than 18) about two hours ago. o_O How did you catch it with such a late reply?I don't remember anything about the 14th amendment being declared unconstitutional, although it has been used in ways differently from that in which it was first intended. Actually, when it was passed the primary intention was to protect corporations, which the law regarded as individuals at that time, but it has since been used to ensure equal protection under the law to all citizens (which I find to be a far more worthwhile use of that amendment). Of course, history books will tell you that equal protection under the law was immediately enforced for all citizens, but the existence of Jim Crow laws for almost a century after the Civil War meant that that was not in fact the case.
Indeed. xD
I probably quoted it about an hour before I submitted it; sometimes I do that because I open everything in multiple tabs. Sorry about that. xDI corrected that mistake (accidently put 14 rather than 18) about two hours ago. o_O How did you catch it with such a late reply?
Then that would be consistent with the fundamental right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
This ruling puts the states' interests above that of the individual. That, in and of itself, is corrupt. Instead of the government serving the people, it impresses the people into servitude for the government, and the peoples' land to be appropriated at the government's whim.
Upon rereading Eest's quote, I realized that the SC could have ruled in a different way, namely by following the 5th amendment's spirit: the state gov't can take property if it's going to benefit the public (i.e. roads, public hospitals, public schools), but they can't take someone's property to give it to another private entity like is the case here, on the basis that "it'll bring more taxes".
And then there is Death
Both are wrong. The public is merely a collection of the individuals - you can't infringe upon the right of the individual for the "public good." To do so is to condemn us to the same moral premises as communism.
Then I suggest you stop using those roads/highways that were built using that amendment. Or the hospitals. Or the airports. Try to picture the US without the railroad, airports and highways and main roads. Only dirt tracks. Do you really think the US would be the first economic power if it hadn't at some point forced the dvelopment of infrastructures? France did it too. Most if not all of Europe does it too.
Laws are based on the same idea, too, you accept a reduction of your private liberties that in the end can/will benefit everyone. Same with taxes.
And then there is Death
The ends do not justify the means. Ever. To say that they do(when? "sometimes") opens the door to the justification of any depravity.
Do I think highways are a good idea? Sure. Does that justify theft of any sort, or violation of any sort of freedom? Absolutely not. There are other ways to get money besides that. I have NO obligation to the government or the State - they both have an obligation to ME, and to every other citizen.
"Don't think of what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."-(forgot who said that)
John F. Kennedy. And it was actually "Ask not," not "Don't think of."
Whatever lol i sitll got it on the spot though the gov. does have an obligation for the people and the people have an obligation for the gov. Such as paying taxes and such.
Like the current tax cuts are just horrible budgetting mistakes its not going to contribute to USA's economy or the almighty dollar which rank sunder the Euro and man i hate saying the word Euro.Yeah sure I can just goto Mexico and buy an xbox that cost 50 paso's.But i can goto Europe and buy an xbox that'll cost me a lot more in american bills.
This law right here is wrong but I think that theres a big hassle a commercial company has to go through in order for this to work out. You know people just don't sit there waiting for a human booster shot unless they want one.
What is a country? Is it the government? Is it one big intangible entity above everybody? Is it the land? Is it a collection of individuals?
What is good for the country? In what ways? Politically, aesthetically, ecologically, technologically, economically? Who decides?
Basically, it ends up being whatever people(what people? A "general consensus," i.e., the "average") feel, because there's no objective definitions.
Nothing is good for the "country." The "common good" is the good of the individual person, and the interests of the individual person begin and end at freedom and a right to live their own life. No other good has a rational basis for existence.
*slaps forehead* Silly me, I had forgotten you only think about yourself and expect everyone should do so.
Also, last I checked, you do have an obligation to your state, which is to pay taxes. It's bundled with all the "benefits" you can get (armed forces, police, jails...). I do not pay US taxes, I can't expect my opinion to count when laws are passed. Representation and taxation.
And then there is Death
Posting Permissions
