An Open Letter to our Resident Constitutionalist

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Introduction and Background

For some time now (1) emilynghiem | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum and I have been sparring over various social and legal issues from decidedly different philosophies and perspectives. Those differences most often centered on LGBT issues, as has the most recent encounter:

Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!' | Page 45 | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum

It would be a gross understatement to say that we have differing views of the role of government in relation to social issues. Emely is a self-described Constitutionalist (1) which seems to fit well with her view that the courts should not be creating rights such as “gay marriage” but rather, should adhere to a more literal and limited view of the constitution.

While I believe in a living constitution, her views are more akin to a Textualist or Originalist interpretation. While there are nuanced differences among those modes of interpretation, the common denominator is a bent toward a conservative, as opposed to a progressive Moral Reasoning (2) approach. Lastly, the Constitutionalism being referred to is not to be confused with Living Constitutionalism(3) ( References appear below)

Adding to our differences is the fact that Emily has been adamant about accommodating all ideologies and points of view, imagining some sort of fantasy land were everyone could live as they wish in an environment free of conflict, as though that would be possible . I naturally took umbrage to that suggestion, the reasons for which I make clear in my letter. While at first I thought that taking such a position was the product of misguided idealism, I have come to see it in a different light, Now the letter
______________________________________________________________
Dear Emily,

The time has come to be direct and cut to the chase. You have been presenting yourself as someone who seeks to create some sort of Utopian promise land where everyone’s needs, beliefs and political ideologies are accommodated, although you have never actually explained how that would work in reality. The best that you offered was vague references to organizing people according to the beliefs by political parties or churches.

For a long while, I allowed myself to believe that this was all simply due to idealistic naiveite on your part. However, as we go along, I can not help be to conclude that there is something sinister and nefarious about your politics and philosophy. Your insistence on presenting all ideologies as equally deserving of consideration- where the oppressor is given a seat at the table alongside of the oppressed while government stays out of the way is a form of social Darwinism, and it is dangerous. Equality, which you claim to seek will never be achieved by subjecting one group to the capricious and arbitrary whims of the other when the balance of power is inherently unequal, and I think that you know it.

All ideologies are not equal because they have different impacts on different groups. The difference often comes down to-on one hand- the desire extend rights to others while doing so has little or no impact on those who oppose those rights. On the other hand you have those who are seeking to withhold rights and forcing others to live according to the beliefs and prejudices because of some irrational and nebulous fear.

Attempting to accommodate and appease all ideologies regardless of their agenda and intentions, while promoting limited government and a toothless judiciary is to empower the forces of tyranny. To do so in the name of greater freedom and equality is disingenuous and opprobrious. The simple fact is –that while the bestowing of rights does not have to be a zero sum game - there are certain groups, if given free reign, will indeed trample on and diminish the rights of others out of the irrational fear that allowing those rights will cost them something

I have (slightly) more respect for those who are upfront with their intentions to discriminate against and marginalize others, than I do for people who claim that they want freedom for all and push these Constitutionalist or Libertarian arguments as a means towards that end. Libertarians especially are fond of bleating about “freedom” and a limited government that does not intrude of people's lives. They shy away from promoting laws that they perceive as oppressive. They are also quick to shun measures like hate crime and anti discrimination laws. As such, they give a green light to those outside of government to do the dirty work for them. The result is that some are more free than others, but in reality no one is free until we are all free.

In any case, the outcome can only be socially regressive, which is why I found it especially laughable that you, at one point suggested that you are progressive. Progressives believe in progress. I am for moving forward. Your policies and philosophy would clearly take us backward. Game over Emily. You fool me no more .

Regards, Progresive Patriot

PS There were not “fine people on both sides” as Trump proclaimed after the Charlottesville Va. killing of Heather Heyer as Trump proclaimed.

________
Note(1) A constitutionalist is someone who believes in the principles of limited government and individual rights. The term is often used to describe someone who wants to adhere strictly to the constitution. It can also be used more generally to describe someone who believes that government should be limited by constitutional law.
What Is a Constitutionalist? - Constitution of the United States

Note (2) Another approach to constitutional interpretation is based on moral or ethical reasoning—often broadly called the ethos of the law. 1 Under this approach, some constitutional text employs or makes reference to terms that are infused with (and informed by) certain moral concepts or ideals, such as equal protection or due process of law. 2
Moral Reasoning and Constitutional Interpretation | Constitution ...


Note (3) The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments.
Living Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[pknopp]

We have covered these kinds of things many times. The government did not create gay marriage or marriage at all. Marriage has been around for centuries.

Government created benefits for being married.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We have covered these kinds of things many times. The government did not create gay marriage or marriage at all. Marriage has been around for centuries.

Government created benefits for being married.

Yes, well....ok

 

[Confederate Soldier]

We need an Iranian stance on LGBT issues.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Which is why all mature willing companions should be allowed to form marriage groups of their choosing. It shouldn't matter who or how many form that marriage group so long as all involved are mature willing companions.

Anything less is a denial of their right to live in a free society!

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We need an Iranian stance on LGBT issues.

Thank you for that well thought out and articulate response to an imortant and complex constitutional issue . Clearly you must have advanced degrees from the finest institutions of higher learning n fiels such as constitutional law, psycholog, sociology and human sexuality. Please keep sharing ypu brilliant pearls of wisdom. You raise the bar on the level of intelectual discourse on the USMB! God bless you!

 

[theHawk]

PS There were not “fine people on both sides” as Trump proclaimed

You’re right for once. There are no fine people on your side.

 

[theHawk]

Thank you for that well thought out and articulate response to an imortant and complex constitutional issue . Clearly you must have advanced degrees from the finest institutions of higher learning n fiels such as constitutional law, psycholog, sociology and human sexuality. Please keep sharing ypu brilliant pearls of wisdom. You raise the bar on the level of intelectual discourse on the USMB! God bless you!

No, he is right. We’ve played into this “tolerance” stance on homosexuality for far too long. It went from “consenting adults in the bedroom” to cross-dressing trannies indoctrinating children in elementary school and drag shows for kids.

There is a reason God has always been clear on it, it is to be snuffed out as soon as possible. Zero tolerance for evil child groomers and homosexuals.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Introduction and Background

For some time now (1) emilynghiem | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum and I have been sparring over various social and legal issues from decidedly different philosophies and perspectives. Those differences most often centered on LGBT issues, as has the most recent encounter:

Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!' | Page 45 | US Message Board Political Discussion Forum

It would be a gross understatement to say that we have differing views of the role of government in relation to social issues. Emely is a self-described Constitutionalist (1) which seems to fit well with her view that the courts should not be creating rights such as “gay marriage” but rather, should adhere to a more literal and limited view of the constitution.

While I believe in a living constitution, her views are more akin to a Textualist or Originalist interpretation. While there are nuanced differences among those modes of interpretation, the common denominator is a bent toward a conservative, as opposed to a progressive Moral Reasoning (2) approach. Lastly, the Constitutionalism being referred to is not to be confused with Living Constitutionalism(3) ( References appear below)

Adding to our differences is the fact that Emily has been adamant about accommodating all ideologies and points of view, imagining some sort of fantasy land were everyone could live as they wish in an environment free of conflict, as though that would be possible . I naturally took umbrage to that suggestion, the reasons for which I make clear in my letter. While at first I thought that taking such a position was the product of misguided idealism, I have come to see it in a different light, Now the letter
______________________________________________________________
Dear Emily,

The time has come to be direct and cut to the chase. You have been presenting yourself as someone who seeks to create some sort of Utopian promise land where everyone’s needs, beliefs and political ideologies are accommodated, although you have never actually explained how that would work in reality. The best that you offered was vague references to organizing people according to the beliefs by political parties or churches.

For a long while, I allowed myself to believe that this was all simply due to idealistic naiveite on your part. However, as we go along, I can not help be to conclude that there is something sinister and nefarious about your politics and philosophy. Your insistence on presenting all ideologies as equally deserving of consideration- where the oppressor is given a seat at the table alongside of the oppressed while government stays out of the way is a form of social Darwinism, and it is dangerous. Equality, which you claim to seek will never be achieved by subjecting one group to the capricious and arbitrary whims of the other when the balance of power is inherently unequal, and I think that you know it.

All ideologies are not equal because they have different impacts on different groups. The difference often comes down to-on one hand- the desire extend rights to others while doing so has little or no impact on those who oppose those rights. On the other hand you have those who are seeking to withhold rights and forcing others to live according to the beliefs and prejudices because of some irrational and nebulous fear.

Attempting to accommodate and appease all ideologies regardless of their agenda and intentions, while promoting limited government and a toothless judiciary is to empower the forces of tyranny. To do so in the name of greater freedom and equality is disingenuous and opprobrious. The simple fact is –that while the bestowing of rights does not have to be a zero sum game - there are certain groups, if given free reign, will indeed trample on and diminish the rights of others out of the irrational fear that allowing those rights will cost them something

I have (slightly) more respect for those who are upfront with their intentions to discriminate against and marginalize others, than I do for people who claim that they want freedom for all and push these Constitutionalist or Libertarian arguments as a means towards that end. Libertarians especially are fond of bleating about “freedom” and a limited government that does not intrude of people's lives. They shy away from promoting laws that they perceive as oppressive. They are also quick to shun measures like hate crime and anti discrimination laws. As such, they give a green light to those outside of government to do the dirty work for them. The result is that some are more free than others, but in reality no one is free until we are all free.

In any case, the outcome can only be socially regressive, which is why I found it especially laughable that you, at one point suggested that you are progressive. Progressives believe in progress. I am for moving forward. Your policies and philosophy would clearly take us backward. Game over Emily. You fool me no more .

Regards, Progresive Patriot

PS There were not “fine people on both sides” as Trump proclaimed after the Charlottesville Va. killing of Heather Heyer as Trump proclaimed.

________
Note(1) A constitutionalist is someone who believes in the principles of limited government and individual rights. The term is often used to describe someone who wants to adhere strictly to the constitution. It can also be used more generally to describe someone who believes that government should be limited by constitutional law.
What Is a Constitutionalist? - Constitution of the United States

Note (2) Another approach to constitutional interpretation is based on moral or ethical reasoning—often broadly called the ethos of the law. 1 Under this approach, some constitutional text employs or makes reference to terms that are infused with (and informed by) certain moral concepts or ideals, such as equal protection or due process of law. 2
Moral Reasoning and Constitutional Interpretation | Constitution ...


Note (3) The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments.
Living Constitution - Wikipedia

I have to laugh, YOU want to force your beliefs and ideas down our throats in the name of Progress yet you deride her belief system. WE aren't going to worry about "pronouns", we aren't going to worry about "misgendering" anyone. We don't need Drag Queen shows in our schools and we aren't interested in your form of "diversity".

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Thank you for that well thought out and articulate response to an imortant and complex constitutional issue . Clearly you must have advanced degrees from the finest institutions of higher learning n fiels such as constitutional law, psycholog, sociology and human sexuality. Please keep sharing ypu brilliant pearls of wisdom. You raise the bar on the level of intelectual discourse on the USMB! God bless you!

I honestly don't give two shits one way or another.

 

[sparky]

All ideologies are not equal because they have different impacts on different groups. The difference often comes down to-on one hand- the desire extend rights to others while doing so has little or no impact on those who oppose those rights.

Vermont passed civil union in the late 90's, which resulted in a flood of rich gays , because we were the then only state in the union to extend that freedom to them.

The impact was profound, because they infiltrated our political landscape , and imposed their ideologies upon us

It's been this ever since>>>

~S~

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Adding to our differences is the fact that Emily has been adamant about accommodating all ideologies and points of view, imagining some sort of fantasy land were everyone could live as they wish in an environment free of conflict, as though that would be possible . I naturally took umbrage to that suggestion, the reasons for which I make clear in my letter. While at first I thought that taking such a position was the product of misguided idealism, I have come to see it in a different light, Now the letter.

Believe me, I sympathize with you. I encountered Emily a couple of years ago, and asked her to list out how to do it, or consider my way for organizing it, as a starting point. I am pretty sure that the American founders recognized the same possibility that Emily seemingly describes, but they had to try and put it together with considerably much less technology than what we have today.

If you are interested, would you like to review my idea, and maybe, I can answer the questions that you directed to Emily about how to get to a utopia?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

You raise the bar on the level of intelectual discourse on the USMB! God bless you!

Do you think you can handle my level of intellectual discourse?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

We have covered these kinds of things many times. The government did not create gay marriage or marriage at all. Marriage has been around for centuries.

Government created benefits for being married.

Why are you derailing the discussion?

 

[sparky]

Do you think you can handle my level of intellectual discourse?

do you think we can define constitutional equality juxtaposed to a living document's socio-political implications Professor ?

or am i aiming too high?

~S~

 

[$ecular#eckler]

do you think we can define constitutional equality juxtaposed to a living document's socio-political implications Professor ?

or am i aiming too high?

~S~

I am not sure about what you are asking. What do you mean by "constitutional equality," and "a living document's socio-political implications"?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, he is right. We’ve played into this “tolerance” stance on homosexuality for far too long. It went from “consenting adults in the bedroom” to cross-dressing trannies indoctrinating children in elementary school and drag shows for kids.

There is a reason God has always been clear on it, it is to be snuffed out as soon as possible. Zero tolerance for evil child groomers and homosexuals.

The topic is Constitutionalism vs others views on Constitution interpretation Can you address that instead of just mindlessly whining about your fear of gay people?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you think you can handle my level of intellectual discourse?

I already have

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Believe me, I sympathize with you. I encountered Emily a couple of years ago, and asked her to list out how to do it, or consider my way for organizing it, as a starting point. I am pretty sure that the American founders recognized the same possibility that Emily seemingly describes, but they had to try and put it together with considerably much less technology than what we have today.

If you are interested, would you like to review my idea, and maybe, I can answer the questions that you directed to Emily about how to get to a utopia?

Sure, bring it on

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Vermont passed civil union in the late 90's, which resulted in a flood of rich gays , because we were the then only state in the union to extend that freedom to them.

The impact was profound, because they infiltrated our political landscape , and imposed their ideologies upon us

It's been this ever since>>>

~S~

I have no idea what you're talking about or how it is relevent to the topic. How did they impose their ideology? By daring to demand equality. Straight people have been imposing their ideloogy on others for a long time now.