PLAYPEN: Covid-19 Everything Political

[faberryman]

So we ought to take the kids away from 100 parents?  It's none of your business.

I was watching a video on Youtube the other day.  The father had his kid on top of a mountain that they both jumped off of each in their own hang-gliding outfit.  I think that's neglectful.  But that's me.  Everyone looks at these things differently. Certainly the parents thought they were doing the right thing based on their experience.  Isn't that what we all do raising our children.  Yet, often we are wrong.  But we don't punish parents If they screw up.  It's hard enough on a parent having lost their child that may have been due to their action or inaction. Putting them in jail ism inappropriate.  We don't need government bureaucrats interfering with parental decisions unless it's patently obvious there's neglect.  Families should be left alone and be responsible as they see fit.  These people appear to have been trying to do their best to help their child.

I just said that the parents were idiots, and it was behavior like theirs that explained why the United States has 50,000 new cases of COVID-19 a day. Really, how hard is it to wear a mask, practice social distancing, and wash your hands? Frankly, it is a national disgrace that so many Americans are unable or unwilling to do so.

As usual though, in three or four posts, you have gone completely off the deep end, hijacked the conversation, and argued that the conduct of the parents was not criminal, and that the state should not tell parents how to raise their children or put parents in jail. I don't know where all that came from, but for God's sake man get a grip.

[Alan Klein]

The US Constitution is an extraordinarily short document that will fit in your pocket. As originally written, in longhand on parchment, it is all of 4 pages long including all of the signatures. The first 10 amendments added another page. I mention this only to point out that it is a document that is long on the framework of government and relatively short on specific "rules" of governing which are largely left to the various branches of government contained in the framework to sort out. Just to be clear, I'm not saying there are no "rules" in the Constitution. I'm only saying that it devotes a good deal more time to laying out the structure of government than to what laws the Congress should pass, how the Executive Branch should implement them, or how courts should rule on those laws and implementations by which we are governed.

It was the object of a great deal of interpreting by its authors prior to ratification, subsequent to ratification, and by the generations that have followed for centuries. The brevity of the proposed Constitution, while it was being debated in the various states during the ratification process, required a lengthy series of 85 essays (now called the Federalist Papers) that interpreted the meaning, benefits, and words of the Constitution in order to promote the plan to the states and to counter the published essays of those opposed to the new Constitution in what have become known as the Anti-Federalist papers.

The Federalist Papers essays were written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who were the leading proponents of the need for a new Constitution, and by John Jay the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Because the vast majority were written by Hamilton and Madison, who were instrumental in the drafting and adoption of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers are given great weight and are the most referenced documents in court decisions aside from the Constitution itself.

Here's an excerpt from Federalist 34: "Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity." *The use of all capital letters in the word "capacity" is in the original document by Hamilton. It is has not been altered by me.

Not only did the authors of the Constitution begin to disagree with each other as to their interpretations of the intent and meaning of the document immediately after it was ratified, they changed their individual interpretations at different times and under varying circumstances. One example of this is Madison, who as a congressman in the first session of Congress following ratification, lead opposition to Hamilton's proposal for establishing the First Bank of the United States as unconstitutional, but was defeated. Later, when serving as President, he changed his mind and proposed establishment of the Second Bank of the United States (after the term of the First had expired) as he had come to believe it necessary for orderly government and therefore no longer interpreted it as unconstitutional. In fact, Madison as President reversed himself on many policies that he had earlier opposed on constitutional grounds.

So please forgive me if my eyes roll or I happen to cringe when I hear someone today claim to speak for what "all the Founders never intended" or intended.

From you quoted section from the Federalist Papers, the underlined portion concludes that the constitution incorporates human affairs throughout history that applies to all affairs whether they occured in the 1770's when the constitution was formulated until the present and future.  People don't change.  The constitution is a document for the ages.

However, if needed because something may have been missed, the bolded portion from that quote indicates that there is a method for changing the constitution.,  And that's the Amendment process that is allowed for in the Constitution.  There was no understanding that a future group of Supreme Court justices would change the meaning of the constitution that the founders spent so much considerable time debating and finalizing that they would want a judicial clique modifying what they fought for in the Revolutionary War.  Your selection from the Federalist Papers disproves the point you were trying to make rather than supporting the courts legislating from the bench by interpreting the constitution by some current concept of popular understanding.  Written words of the constitution have meaning. 

[Alan Klein]

I just said that the parents were idiots, and it was behavior like theirs that explained why the United States has 50,000 new cases of COVID-19 a day. Really, how hard is it to wear a mask, practice social distancing, and wash your hands? Frankly, it is a national disgrace that so many Americans are unable or unwilling to do so.

As usual though, in three or four posts, you have gone completely off the deep end, hijacked the conversation, and argued that the conduct of the parents was not criminal, and that the state should not tell parents how to raise their children or put parents in jail. I don't know where all that came from, but for God's sake man get a grip.

Why is it when you can't find words to argue against my points you have to resort to a personal attack? 

[TechTalk]

People don't change.  The constitution is a document for the ages.

Of course people change. Perhaps you don't, but other people do and often quite a bit over time. Everything changes over time. The knowledge of people changes, their sentiments, their opinions, their understanding of the world and others in it changes with time. If it were not so, we would still be living with a lot of very undesirable attitudes and activities from our distant and not so distant past which by current standards are abhorrent to most rational and decent people. As people change, so do the nations in which they live.

And along with all of those changes, interpretations of documents change. Few people are still consulting their Bibles in New England to justify the drowning and burning of witches or reciting scriptures in the South to justify slavery or segregation. And the point of what I wrote, which you managed to miss, was that even the authors of the Constitution themselves such as Madison changed their own interpretations of it over time and had differing interpretations from each other immediately after it went into effect. Hence the additional point that anyone that claims to speak today for what the founders interpreted the Constitution to mean are on a fool's errand.

Your selection from the Federalist Papers disproves the point you were trying to make

You didn't get the point that I was making. But then again, I didn't write it for your benefit. I thought that would be a fool's errand as well.

[TechTalk]

Written words of the constitution have meaning.

Of course the written words of the Constitution have meaning. It's up to individuals to interpret for themselves what those words mean to them.

As I've stated, the meaning of those words varied at different times to the people that wrote them and among those that wrote them. I have no trouble accepting the fact that individuals will interpret the meaning of what others write or say differently from each other. That too is part of human nature. And much to the irritation and distress of those who cannot fathom that anyone could hold an opinion different to their own as to the meaning of the words in the Constitution, the debates over meanings and interpretations will go on unabated.

[jeremyrh]

Yes, contact tracing is key to nip any outbreaks in the bud.

To underline its importance, in the UK the world-beating test and trace system has been outsourced to the landlord of the Fox and Hounds in Batley.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/07/several-pubs-in-england-close-after-positive-coronavirus-tests

[Alan Klein]

Of course people change. Perhaps you don't, but other people do and often quite a bit over time. Everything changes over time. The knowledge of people changes, their sentiments, their opinions, their understanding of the world and others in it changes with time. If it were not so, we would still be living with a lot of very undesirable attitudes and activities from our distant and not so distant past which by current standards are abhorrent to most rational and decent people. As people change, so do the nations in which they live.

And along with all of those changes, interpretations of documents change. Few people are still consulting their Bibles in New England to justify the drowning and burning of witches or reciting scriptures in the South to justify slavery or segregation. And the point of what I wrote, which you managed to miss, was that even the authors of the Constitution themselves such as Madison changed their own interpretations of it over time and had differing interpretations from each other immediately after it went into effect. Hence the additional point that anyone that claims to speak today for what the founders interpreted the Constitution to mean are on a fool's errand.

You didn't get the point that I was making. But then again, I didn't write it for your benefit. I thought that would be a fool's errand as well.

People don't change regardless of the age.  They're just as prideful, selfish, egocentric, and power hungry as they were millenia ago.  The Constitution was constructed with the hope it would prevent the concentration of power which always takes away the liberty of the people the government is suppose to serve.  Regardless of who's right about interpretation, there's no denying that the concentration of power in Washington and within the various states has continued unabated for over 200 years especially since the Depression.  Before than, 3% of the country's productivity was under government control.  Today taxes eat up of 25% and probably double that this year with all the printing.  Government controls practically ever aspect of our lives.  The Founders didn't want that.  They wanted a free people and I think we've lost a lot of that because the COurt has ceded the power of the People to the government. 

[faberryman]

More Than 40 Hospital ICUs In Florida Have Hit Maximum Capacity With Zero Beds Available

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/07/more-than-40-hospital-icus-in-florida-have-hit-maximum-capacity-with-zero-beds-available/#608532be3e70

Masks, masks, we don't need no masks.

[Chris Kern]

The Founders didn't want that.  They wanted a free people and I think we've lost a lot of that because the COurt has ceded the power of the People to the government.

I just checked with "the Founders" and they assured me you are not authorized to speak for them.  (Ben Franklin, still sharp as a tack despite his advanced age, said he doesn't even remember you being in attendance at the Philadelphia convention while they were writing the constitution.)

[jeremyrh]

More Than 40 Hospital ICUs In Florida Have Hit Maximum Capacity With Zero Beds Available

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/07/more-than-40-hospital-icus-in-florida-have-hit-maximum-capacity-with-zero-beds-available/#608532be3e70

Masks, masks, we don't need no masks.

Where's Kitchen when you need him?

[Peter McLennan]

CONSERVATIVE People don't change regardless of the age.

There.  Fixed it for you. 

[Robert Roaldi]

People don't change regardless of the age.  They're just as prideful, selfish, egocentric, and power hungry as they were millenia ago.  The Constitution was constructed with the hope it would prevent the concentration of power which always takes away the liberty of the people the government is suppose to serve.  Regardless of who's right about interpretation, there's no denying that the concentration of power in Washington and within the various states has continued unabated for over 200 years especially since the Depression.  Before than, 3% of the country's productivity was under government control.  Today taxes eat up of 25% and probably double that this year with all the printing.  Government controls practically ever aspect of our lives.  The Founders didn't want that.  They wanted a free people and I think we've lost a lot of that because the COurt has ceded the power of the People to the government.

In which case, shouldn't Trump's authoritarian streak worry you?

[TechTalk]

However, if needed because something may have been missed, the bolded portion from that quote indicates that there is a method for changing the constitution.,  And that's the Amendment process that is allowed for in the Constitution.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the part of my quotation from Federalist 34 that you put into bold type has zero to do with the amendment process. The statement has no relationship of any kind with what you interpreted it to mean.

If you had taken the time for a cursory glance at the context in Federalist 34, you would have understood that the entire statement is referring to taxation. The statement is answering objections, raised by those opposed to the Constitution, to the granting of a nearly unlimited power of taxation to the Federal government. It's discussing taxation, not amendments. You missed the meaning entirely by assuming you knew what the words meant and then jumped to a conclusion.

Something was indeed missed, but putting it in bold type didn't prevent you from missing it. That something missing was the context of the words you quoted, emphasized with bold type, and then interpreted with a completely different meaning from their original intent. It leads me to believe that perhaps you're not the one that should speak on behalf of all the founders and framers. After all, words have meaning.

To aid you in future discussion, I'll let you know now, that all of the Federalist essays from 30 thru 36 deal with the subject of taxation. And since you enjoy spinning the founders' writings on taxation into entirely different subjects, here is another that you can ponder from Federalist 36... "as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"

[Alan Klein]

I just checked with "the Founders" and they assured me you are not authorized to speak for them.  (Ben Franklin, still sharp as a tack despite his advanced age, said he doesn't even remember you being in attendance at the Philadelphia convention while they were writing the constitution.)

I remember very clearly being there.  He was busy flying his kite out the window at the time and just didn't notice. 

[Alan Klein]

In which case, shouldn't Trump's authoritarian streak worry you?

No because we're protected by the constitution.  Whenever he's strayed from the constitution, as all presidents do, the courts pull him and them back. 

Another fear that the founders concerned themselves with, was the tyranny of the people to vote themselves a free lunch and destroy the country which is happening currently.  Both parties can't stop printing money.  Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't protect us from the people's stupidity, greed and covetousness.   Long after the virus has passed, we'll be left with the damage we've done to the economy.  If you think the fights about how to handle Covid are disturbing.  Just wait when people are starving and we fight over the limited monetary resources that are left.

[Alan Klein]

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the part of my quotation from Federalist 34 that you put into bold type has zero to do with the amendment process. The statement has no relationship of any kind with what you interpreted it to mean.

If you had taken the time for a cursory glance at the context in Federalist 34, you would have understood that the entire statement is referring to taxation. The statement is answering objections, raised by those opposed to the Constitution, to the granting of a nearly unlimited power of taxation to the Federal government. It's discussing taxation, not amendments. You missed the meaning entirely by assuming you knew what the words meant and then jumped to a conclusion.

Something was indeed missed, but putting it in bold type didn't prevent you from missing it. That something missing was the context of the words you quoted, emphasized with bold type, and then interpreted with a completely different meaning from their original intent. It leads me to believe that perhaps you're not the one that should speak on behalf of all the founders and framers. After all, words have meaning.

To aid you in future discussion, I'll let you know now, that all of the Federalist essays from 30 thru 36 deal with the subject of taxation. And since you enjoy spinning the founders' writings on taxation into entirely different subjects, here is another that you can ponder from Federalist 36... "as far as there may be any real difficulty in the exercise of the power of internal taxation, it will impose a disposition to greater care in the choice and arrangement of the means; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society. Happy it is when the interest which the government has in the preservation of its own power, coincides with a proper distribution of the public burdens, and tends to guard the least wealthy part of the community from oppression!"

You were the one who cherry picked the portion of the Federalist Papers, not me.  If those words had a different context, you should have provided it. That's not my job.  I was responding to the words you posted.  Words do count.

[TechTalk]

You were the one who cherry picked the portion of the Federalist Papers, not me.  If those words had a different context, you should have provided it. That's not my job.  I was responding to the words you posted.  Words do count.

I provided the source. You made the choice to ignore it. Imprudent choices may lead to a rush to judgement. Choices have consequences.

[Alan Klein]

I provided the source. You made the choice to ignore it. Imprudent choices may lead to a rush to judgement. Choices have consequences.

None of this changes my point. Human characteristics don't change.  The constitution is a document for the ages. 

[faberryman]

None of this changes my point. Human characteristics don't change.

Anybody got a banana?

[Peter McLennan]

None of this changes my point. Human characteristics don't change.

I (obviously) disagree.  They can and they do.  It's called "progress".