Question from Young John Q. Public.
I know a precocious student of 16 whom I will call "Johnny." He gave me permission to post a question he e-mailed me--because I promised that I had smart friends who would like to help. And here's the thing: Johnny asks huge, earth-shaking sorts of questions that require answers that may be beyond me. If you can help, please leave Johnny your thoughtful comments. (And be nice!)
hello. i think that the biggest problem at the moment is the state. speaking of which, why do you support the constitution? why does anyone have the right to compel others to obey a document they've never signed or consented to?
posted by S. at
9:00 AM
16 Comments:
Begin by thinking of it this way: what is the alternative? Not the alternative in your imagination--because we can imagine anything. But given thousands of years of human history, we know some things are real possibilities, and many others are unworkable. That said, what alternatives does history prove? What are the realistic options besides our Constitution? And start with a Christian worldview, if you will, i.e., man was created by God, man sinned (and sins) and lives today in a fallen, sinful state. Man or men will only be redeemed by Christ's sacrifice.
What I'm getting at is that people are bad. Not all people at all times, but there is enough bad that it has to be planned for. History certainly proves that. And most governments are based on other views, often the view that people are good, or the king/dictator is good, or more often, the state is the ultimate good, the state is the redeemer of the people (but this usually requires exterminating millions first, as in Communist Russia and China).
Back to the Constitution. All governments require people to submit to their authority. Don't they? Seriously, can you think of any that don't--that ever lasted? I can't. Every government requires its people to submit. But thanks to the Magna Carta and etc., we at least have a voice. I'm sure you are aware of all the ways in which you vote and those you elect represent you. If their actions do not satisfy you, you vote for someone else.
As for submission to the Constitution, that is up for grabs too. Hard to believe, but there's not a line in the Constitution that cannot be amended away by the very legislators you personally elect. But the vast majority of Americans still believe in the Constitution and would never dream of amending it away in whole or in part. In legal terms, their signatures on the very document can be imputed. You can impute mine--I would gladly sign the original. I don't agree with many Court decisions of the last fifty years--which have done more damage to the face of the Constitution than Michael Jackson has done to his own. (But these changes can also be amended.)
That brings me to what I think is a far better question: Why do we allow nine judges (who cannot be voted out of office) to control and change the meaning of our nation's DNA.
I hope this helps. Let me also say, I have a bunch of smarty-pants friends who might be able to comment. Can I post this on my blog, along with your question? I'll change your name.
(He said yes.....)
By
S., at 9:10 AM, January 25, 2006
Bigshots have tried for over 200 years to find a better plan. So far little success has come their
way. A few minor changes have been made, but the blueprint for self-government designed in the
Constitution has endured because it works best. Personally I think that is because many if not most
of those who framed it sought God's guidance, and I think He answered their prayers. Other countries,
large and small have tried to find better ways, as well. But no one enjoys our standard of living,
so they must not have succeeded.
By
Anonymous, at 8:34 PM, January 25, 2006
i am the one who asked the original question. firstly, i prefer to be called "Bob A" (my name is not john), and secondly, i am actually 18 years old. (and yes, i am a u. s. citizen.) i responded to steven wales' post by e-mail and he said he would post that later, so i guess i'll wait for him to do that. until then, i shall respond to cliff:
if the constitution is really an agreement between citizens, then why has no one ever signed it? why is it that businessmen are always careful have all their important agreements written and signed, yet the government enforces a contract that it does not expect anyone to sign? where would the end of litigation be if anyone could go into a court and have a contract with no signature enforced on the basis that they assumed that the other party wanted it, or that it was in their best interest?
also, revoking one's "citizenship" is useless because the government will always try to enforce its laws on everyone on the vast tracks of land it pretends to own.
if the government prevents me from committing some crime against you, that's a legitimate act, but it cannot legally prevent me from committing an imaginary "crime" which is not a crime at all on the basis that it contracted with you to do so. if a group of people make a contract with someone else to deprive me of my life, liberty or property, it cannot authorize them to do so. such contracts have as much legal validity as the agreements entered into between pirates.
(that minors are not considered to speak for themselves is ridiculous and of little significance, since all humans have a right to property and to use it and exclude others from it in whatever way they wish; if they did not, then their guardians (parents, state, or whatever) could torture or kill them if they thought it was "in their best interest". since people's desires are subjective, only they can decide what's in their best interest, and their actions will always benefit them ex ante.)
By
Anonymous, at 1:42 PM, January 26, 2006
Hey Bob! Thanks for writing. I will post your other comments as a "post" as soon as I can. Now to your comments above:
Who says? I mean about rights. Who's to say? You seem to be arguing from a natural law position, but that has never been accepted in many places. Being an American, it's a natural place to start because John Locke, Hobbes, and others started there. But the idea of inherent rights is anything but universally accepted. It IS accepted here, of course. But many governments would scoff at the notion. (Myself, I tend to wish natural law was more instinctive for me.)
It's the same with your views of what constitutes legitimate government action. In Anglo-American law we have always evaluated government actions based explicitly on a sense of natural law or what is the natural order of things. But that is a unique view that many peoples and governments and lawyers do not share. (This is one area where lawyers critical. Depots--e.g. Richard III--say things like "first let's kill all the lawyers" because they know the lawyers will to some degree be better able to defend the people from an over-reaching government. Or one can always hope....)
In addition, there are well-known philosophers who came up with this notion of natural law and the idea that both man and the government occupy God-given roles that can be discerned via reason. The idea is originally Greek, made popular by Plato, and then modified by various Early Church Fathers, during the Enlightenment. But I'll address this another time--if I feel up to it.
As for no end of litigation, you make a fine point as a matter of rhetoric. But implied consent is a well-established legal argument. Arguments over contracts involve lengthy discussions of implied consent, of offer and acceptance, and many offers can be accepted by performance, regardless of any and all words to the contrary (not unlike Jesus' story about two sons, one who says he'll serve his father but doesn't, the other says he won't, but then does. The second demonstrated implied consent. He became a party to the contract with his father, even though his words would appear to abrogate just such a contract. *I call it a contract just for the sake of argument.)
Fine discussion, all of you. I know Bob will not be the only one to benefit.
By
S., at 5:29 PM, January 26, 2006
i argue from natural law for one because most humans know instinctively that it's wrong to commit such acts as theft, murder, arson, and so forth; most people know that it's wrong to commit murder even if it saves the lives of five others. if justice isn't a natural principle, then what of all the crimes that have happened in the course of history? were they mere events, like the orbit of the planets, or rain?
also, if justice isn't a natural principle, then, what are we talking about? the most we could say is that it seems good to us that we obey the state, or not obey the state, and no one's preference would be any better than anyone else's.
i didn't say that implied consent doesn't exist; that wasn't what cliff seemed to be suggesting. if citizens implicitly consent to the constitution, then how do they do so?
By
Anonymous, at 7:42 PM, January 26, 2006
Bob, Your defense of natural law is excellent. I was just trying to point out that these political/philosophical questions require shared beliefs. And in your latest comment, I see many that you and I share with most of the country.
I think the last question you raise is great. We've pared the issue down to one narrow question. (Lawyers and judges love this sort of thing.)
...Unfortunately, I don't know the answer! :-) I mean, I could make something up, but I can't give you the answer you deserve. But I'll get back to you tonight or tomorrow.
By
S., at 8:13 PM, January 26, 2006
Here's something slightly helpful:
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/29208
By
S., at 8:31 PM, January 26, 2006
Oh--and I noticed that my comment about narrowing the question was off. The truth is, we're back to something only slightly different from your original question. But I like it better as stated above.
By
S., at 9:59 PM, January 26, 2006
my answer is that they don't; the constitution has no authority.
By
Anonymous, at 9:17 AM, January 27, 2006
What do you mean? Sure, the Constitution has no authority over your soul or your beliefs or your heart, or whatever it is that is the essence of your "personhood," but if your actions get out of line, you'll discover some serious authority.
By
S., at 9:31 AM, January 27, 2006
what i meant was that since no one consents to the constitution, the government can't rightfully enforce it.
By
Anonymous, at 12:34 PM, January 27, 2006
But everyone does consent to it. (Here we go again) :-) If they didn't, they would certainly be trying to get out from under it. Modern Americans may be lazy slobs sometimes, but there's no shortage of activists. Yet, I never heard of any group (of any meaningful size) trying to get rid of the Constitution. The lack of any efforts to abolish its authority is at least "some evidence" (a legal 'term of art') that it has such authority.
But I take your point.
By
S., at 1:07 PM, January 27, 2006
...the fact that it (the constitution) allows itself to be questioned is an indicatioin of it's genius...one doesn't have to "obey" the document...everyone has choice...obey it or not...i don't really care...but as a society...we have decided on what is acceptable (often times we are way off as a people)...that it is supported is a sign that the largest portion of americans recognize the value of being governed "by the people"...because that would be us...and if we don't like what's going on...we have the power to change...it often takes a long long time to do what's right (hello slavery)...but for the most part...as a people...we desire the majority rule/minority right...
or i would just tell him to go somewhere else if he doesn't like it...tell him to try the congo.
By
Anonymous, at 1:34 PM, January 27, 2006
Or maybe you just done told him yourself....
(E meet Bob....)
By
S., at 2:30 PM, January 27, 2006
Well I personally think Bob has met his match!
By
Anonymous, at 8:04 PM, January 27, 2006
Just so long as you both realize that Bob is reading all of this.... (But yes, met his match in E, I get it.)
By
S., at 11:22 PM, January 27, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home