vision2020
US Constitution and Mutating Ethics
Everyone:
There are cases where the will of the people does not determine law when a
legislature or the judiciary will vote or rule to put law into practice that
clearly goes against the will of the people as expressed via voting. The
independence of the judiciary is in part in place to act as a mitigating
force to prevent the possible damage that could be done by the masses making
very unwise decisions in the voting booth. In effect we have checks in our
system against the full unbridled expression of democracy, and the authors
of the US Constitution deliberately intended to create these. The electoral
college for the election of US President was instituted in part to create a
buffer intended to interfere with the direct election of President! There
was some lack of trust in the wisdom of the masses by the framers of the US
Constitution.
I disagree with Ed Evans that the US Constitution is a document that can
mutate into something that would contradict the fundamental ethical
principles it is understood it stands for. Of course he needs to make this
claim, insofar as he thinks the Bible (am I wrong, Ed?) is the ultimate
unchallengeable source of unchanging ethical rules, which necessitates there
be no other competing documents that could also offer unchanging ethical
standards that can guide people and society. But the standards of the US
Constitution do follow certain ethical rules which can be defended on
rational and empirical grounds that do not render them subject to the kind
of mutations that might, for example, allow the US Constitution to become
the legal basis to allow racist slavery, when now it is used as a legal and
ethical guide to outlaw slavery. This is just one example.
Ted
>From: thansen@moscow.com
>To: eevans@moscow.com, vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: On losing the election
>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:35:36 GMT
>
>Greetings Visionaires -
>
>Ed Evans stated:
>
>"Purely hypothetical, but...
>
>Suppose your own ideals and the "will of the people" start to drift farther
>and
>farther apart. If the above process determines the concrete rights and
>wrongs,
>what do you do when the process goes against you? Would you change your
>worldview and admit you were "wrong?""
>
>The "process", as defined in the US Constitution, will not likely go
>against me
>during my lifetime. Should a majority of the people feel differently than
>I do
>as to the way the country should be governed, that is "our" perogative.
>Having
>retired from the Army, and been around this marble a few times, I don't see
>myself packing my bags simply because the will of the people does not
>coincide
>with mine. That is where the difference exists between liberal "elitists"
>(an
>oxymoron if I ever heard one) and religious fundamentalism. I am willing
>to
>live in a world that I realize is not perfect and still share a pot of
>coffee
>with my neighbor.
>
>Take care,
>
>Tom Hansen
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
> http://www.fsr.net/
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Back to TOC