That's sounds awfully uninformed. Obama was utterly rogue w.r.t. the Constitution--spying on people, DACA, Obamacare, illegal appointments, and lot more.
Trump's been pretty good thus far, veering only in not fully undoing all of Obama's illegal stuff.
But that's just yet another vague characterization.
What principle do you think is outmoded? A free press? Elections? The ri ght to free speech? The right to a trial? Distributed democratic rather than concentrated autocratic government?
Do you think that men are no longer ambitious, or, unchecked, try to accumulate and exercise power in their own interest? Is there not still treason and crime today, or the need for a national defense, and a currency ?
These things haven't changed.
It's fashionable, but not sufficient to say calculus is invalid and wheels should no longer be round, simply because both are old.
Good luck with that one. You disobey an order in the military on the basis that you thought it was not in line with the Constitution, the military court doesn't agree with you and you get 20 years in jail or worse, convicted of treason. It doesn't matter what your oath is if the government doesn't agree with your opinion.
Silicon integrated circuits are "based" on sand, but they have nothing to do with beaches. Ultimately the law has less to do with what is "right and wrong" and more to do with what those in power think is the best thing to do, usually for them or their class.
I think you just proved the point I made above that the legal system is not about "right and wrong", but about the law. It's not a justice system, it's a legal system.
What you seem to fail to understand is that judges have the power to make decisions that are not in line with the law. They may be overruled, but that is someone else who is then doing the "wrong" thing. Ultimately the choice of "right and wrong" falls to the Supreme Court as they have the final say in all matters brought before them. They are only overruled by guns. But it the vast majority of cases they will uphold the law rather than do what is "right". In other cases they create law by defining what is intended for laws that are not clear or are being applied in new ways. Many times they see what is "right" for them, not the rest of us.
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
What's common is to admire the design and urge people to stick to it. That's a matter of principles, not word-worship.
Mostly not necessary--human nature is not essentially different today, not in the aspects the Constitution relates to. Men are still men, with the same basic motives and impulses they've ever had. Greed, envy, corruption, lust, power--none of those are new.
That is a most awful slander, and complete nonsense to boot. They could've established a monarchy and made themselves nobles. They didn't. Many of them destituted themselves, instead.
The U.S. constitution is a statement of principles, not policy, so it doesn't have that problem. Ours just says the federal government has the power over immigration and naturalization; the rest is left to Congress to enact and modify by passing appropriate laws.
Well that depends on the constitution, doesn't it? If it's a statement of policy toward Jews, that may well change over time. If it says people should be free to live their lives unmolested by their countrymen, foreigners, or their government--basic principles of liberty--that never changes.
The filter is *not* on the bottom. On mine the filter is just below the alternator and very hard to reach with any grip. They removed the petcock from radiators long ago so you now have to remove the lower radiator hose to drain the coolant. If they really think they don't need the oil drain plug, I can see how they would get rid of it. I just don't like it.
--
Rick C
Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms,
on the centerline of totality since 1998
It's not so much uninformed as incorrectly informed. James Arthur knows wha t every other right-wing lunatic knows, which is that Obama was a Democrat, and thus bad, so whatever he did was unconstitutional. Less biassed observ ers - and there are lot of them - beg to differ.
For one thing, Obama started off as a constitutional lawyer, and would have known how to do what he wanted within the constitution (which never was a tightly drafted document).
Ask any right-wing lunatic. Trump's a total disaster, and only the fatal di visions between the right-winger in the Republican Party and the far-right or Tea Party faction have stopped him from making a more extravagant mess.
s
right
n
Where does the "democratic" come from? The founding tax evaders were terrif ied by democracy, which they saw as mob rule, and wanted power concentrated in the hands of people who had enough money to be likely to have had an ed ucation.
Trump exists.
And the taxes to pay for them
s
The US constitution is based on a flawed philosophy - Moderate Enlightenmen t - which has been replaced by the Radical Enlightenment when it comes to c onstructing political constitutions.
It took Newton and Leibniz to invent calculus, and Spinoza to invent the Ra dical Enlightenment. The rearguard action against the Radical Enlightenment was rather better motivated than the reluctance to take up calculus, and h eld up progress for rather longer.
The US constitution embodies something closer to the political equivalent o f the phlogiston theory which was being discarded at much the same time as the US constitution was being drafted.
Anybody who admires the design of the US constitution hasn't seen anything better - that a matter of ignorance. James Arthur claims to know about othe r constitutions, so his ignorance is intentional.
The phrase "Those who own the country ought to govern it" goes back to John Jay, a founding father and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I t may be a libel, but he seems to have said it quite often.
dn't. > Many of them destituted themselves, instead.
Who? The founding tax evaders had been pre-empted by Franklin and Paine - t hey couldn't have got away with establishing a monarchy, or making themselv es nobles, but they could set up a political system with enough build-in po rk barrels to let them do just as well.
t
t
sn't
ver
e
f
ould
r
The US federal government molested whiskey distillers early on, by collecti ng a tax on the whiskey they distilled. It was enough of a molestation to i nspire a small rebellion.
You're wasting your valuable time arguing the toss with this Sloman sock- puppet, James.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.
And another conspiracy theory embeds itself into his brain...
But... then again... maybe it's true!
In that case, Bill, you have hidden talents!
Please let me take this opportunity to thank you for your many hundreds of insightful c and c++ posts in comp.arch.embedded under your "David Brown" pseudonym, over the past 20 years! :)
I wasn't planning on arguing, but it seemed a reasonable chance to explain why a document articulating timeless principles doesn't need constant updating to stay relevant and valid.
The U.S. constitution gives the power over immigration and naturalization to Congress, and the Congress can update and alter the applicable laws whenever it wants to.
The timeless part--Congress having the power, not the Executive--is in the Constitution. The changeable part resides in ordinary laws, easily updated and changed.
The policy can change however it has to without affecting the overall architecture & plan. That's part of the beauty of it.
I'd love to be able to make that claim, but I'm not silly enough to try to live up to it. My mastery of "c" stopped at "Hello world". I've still got m y copy of Kernigan and Ritchie - though my wife kept lending it to her grad uate students from time to time - but the situation that prompted me to sta rt getting into it didn't persist.
James isn't wasting his time. What he posts doesn't make much sense, but he does seem to have his quota or right-wing propaganda to churn out, and he doesn't much care who it gets ostensibly directed at, which frees him from the responsibility to change his arguments even if they've been comprehensi vely dismantled in earlier exchanges.
You and krw are clearly too dumb to notice this kind of point. James may no t be. He does sometimes give evidence of having read stuff that has been di rected at him.
He's working on it. He's plonked me - or claims to have - and now seems to be deciding that everybody else who tries to use rational argument on him is a sock-puppet of me, so presumably he's going to plonk them too.
I haven't been posting for quite that long (I have been programming embedded C for 20+ years, but not posting on Usenet all that time). But I'm glad my posts have entertained or enlightened at least one person :-)
I really can't figure out why CD thinks I am Bill. I guess we have some overlap in our viewpoints (compared to CD and some others here, we are both "leftist weenies"), but we have plenty of differences in opinions, lots of differences in knowledge and experience, and very different styles of writing.
I suppose if CD has plonked Bill and doesn't read his posts, then maybe he can't see such differences?
I suspect some random pattern-matching neuron fired. Normally such firings are "authenticated" and suppressed by the higher reasoning capabilities in the neocortex, but there's a lot of evidence that is deficient in CD's case.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.