|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| I don't think you articulated a single actual 'constitutional' issue. The word 'constitution' is not some magic word that you can throw into a conversation and like magic give it more significance. It is a fairly short legal document, not a total value system or lifestyle or ideology |
A document to be used as limitations on the government...not on the people.
However, I'm open to suggestions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It is a fairly short legal document, not a total value system or lifestyle or ideology |
I disagree with a portion of that...regarding ideology. If you are referring to political ideology, it is framed for a Republic, not a ruling federal government.
State sovereignty is truly a constitutional matter...though, open to interpretation...or is it?
Good points, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
But then again, the Republic and the constitution were meant for an enlightened citizenry...that can be defined in many ways, I admit.
Which brings us to "progressivism", 'conservatism" and "liberalism"...on the modern stage and at their roots.
But, you have to admit, that these terms are rarely, if ever, defined by the pundits in power. Thus, lack of definition can distort constitutional matters.
That is only my opinion though. I'm open to other's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is a fairly short legal document, not a total value system or lifestyle or ideology |
I disagree with a portion of that...regarding ideology. If you are referring to political ideology, it is framed for a Republic, not a ruling federal government.
State sovereignty is truly a constitutional matter...though, open to interpretation...or is it?
Good points, though. |
It was influenced by ideology, but is not an ideology into itself. The Declaration of Independence is much more ideological. Well, by the constitution itself, state sovereignty is very much open to interpretation, from the legislature and from the Supreme Court. The constitution was being 'interpreted' even as the founders were still alive, i.e. Marbury vs. Madison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It was influenced by ideology, but is not an ideology into itself. The Declaration of Independence is much more ideological. Well, by the constitution itself, state sovereignty is very much open to interpretation, from the legislature and from the Supreme Court. The constitution was being 'interpreted' even as the founders were still alive, i.e. Marbury vs. Madison. |
Good point. I will have to ruminate on that.
Then, that brings us to another issue...is the constitution a "living breathing document" in which, its context and narrative are subjective to the times?
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned...I have mixed feelings on that. Mortals are easily corrupted...or threatened.
But yes, the Declaration was influenced by ideology...I would say, well...guess, rather, from the Enlightenment era...when I say "from" I don't mean to pin point as an exact narrative.
Again, good points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Marbury vs. Madison. |
I'll have to do some research on that.
Madison is on my list to read, in regards to biographies. I just finished John Adams by David McCullough Great book...
I am currently reading Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow. I am about halfway through. I find it to be very good and proposes a different persona and narrative of the personality of Washington.
In fact...I just downloaded (Kindle be praise) [i]The Complete Works of John Adams" and [/i]Autobiography by Thomas Jefferson[i]..
.I really look forward to diving into these books.
But, Madison is on my list, along with Monroe and J.Q. Adams.
I feel, to better understand the nature of the foundation, is to go to its source(s). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| robbie_davies wrote: |
Again, the same ethnicity, Scots and Irish Gaelic are more or less the same language. I would also argue that the Scots, English and Welsh are of all the same ethnicity. |
Depends how you define ethnicity I suppose. Maybe its just degree of divergence.
Genetically the English are different from the Celts you mention. They're anglo Saxons.
And the northern English have different genetic markers to the southerners- a result of the danes invading centuries ago.
I agree that the Welsh, irish and Scots share a common, ancient genetic/ linguistic root. But over time they also have had different genetic inputs.
But to get back to the crux: ethnicity is far less significant than it was 100 years ago.
Most of the worlds conflicts now are because of Islam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
robbie_davies
Joined: 16 Jun 2013
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
Depends how you define ethnicity I suppose. Maybe its just degree of divergence.
Genetically the English are different from the Celts you mention. They're anglo Saxons. |
Some are, around the Southern and Eastern coast and the Midlands there is Germanic/Scandinavian DNA but most English people have their own unique DNA and then we have the Cumbrians and the Cornish who are ancient Celtic peoples but also English. It has only been discovered recently that the English, Welsh, Scots, Manx, Irish and the Bretons are all the same people.
| Quote: |
| And the northern English have different genetic markers to the southerners- a result of the danes invading centuries ago. |
Yep, that's right.
| Quote: |
I agree that the Welsh, irish and Scots share a common, ancient genetic/ linguistic root. But over time they also have had different genetic inputs.
But to get back to the crux: ethnicity is far less significant than it was 100 years ago. |
I totally agree, there hasn't been ethnic cleansing since the invasion of Iraq and the murder of 500000 civillians.
| Quote: |
| Most of the worlds conflicts now are because of Islam. |
I wonder what the Iraqis think about that statement? Seeing as it has been the Americans and their lackeys bombing the shit out of them for the past 15 years. The scoreboard is in our favour, I wouldn't argue that little spat was a bit of 'ethnic cleansing'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I have mixed feelings about the above editorial. On the one hand, I share Madison's disdain of factional and partisan thought, and I also take some issue with the quality of our higher educational system. On the other hand, I get the distinct feeling reading the editorial that the writer himself is probably in the grip of factional thought. Describing the Lifeline Program (which has existed since the 1980s, and which I believe was expanded to include wireless phones before Obama took office) as "Obamaphones," for example, is not the kind of rhetoric I would expect from a man genuinely committed to fighting factional thought. Nor is his inflammatory portrayal of progressive taxation. And most especially, nor is his attack on public health care. A man who can see that public roads and the military serve the common interest should be able to at least entertain the notion that public health care might achieve the same end, even if he personally disagrees with the policy. Overall, it seems like he's trying to express a worthy idea, but is inadequate to the challenge of getting over his own partisan political world view and doing so in a pure, clean fashion. Perhaps others will see it elsewise. |
You know what I noticed, the editorial only bashed the poor, as if they actually had significant power in our system. Talk about factions then talk about the health care lobby that got the ACA written how they wanted it. Talk about how the banking industry is still considered respectable after being the impetus for the financial collapse, and regularly committing fraud and only get smacked on the wrist, but oh how we Americans loathe the poor.
I think teaching students about American values is great, but we do not need to deify the founding fathers- what a wasteful self congratulatory exercise. I see no reason why we shouldn't look at the constitution critically (using the neutral version of the word) and talk about its shortcomings. Factionalism is baked into the way the system is designed. |
I'm with Leon on this article. Howard could not even get his Constitutional interpretation correct.
| Quote: |
| In law, this is most well seen with the General Welfare clause of the Constitution. There, it is clear and unambiguous. The politicians in Washington may only act, in limited and enumerated ways, and only if it benefits the entire citizenry. Hence, we build and maintain an American Army to protect us from foreign foes. We build an interstate road system to connect all citizens so commerce may run freely and efficiently. Our federal government is to make laws and take and spend our hard earned money, not to help one group over another, not to divide and Balkanize us, not to hand Obamaphones to one group, free healthcare to another and free contraceptive pills to yet another, but to unite us with common and vital government activity. |
First of all, the General Welfare clause occurs twice in the Constitution, once in the Preamble and once again as a clause which modifies the Tax and Spending power. Because of its locations, its not clear and unambiguous, and interpretation was required. The Supreme Court has decided the Preamble's General Welfare clause is a legal nullity, and the Federal government may only tax and spend for the General Welfare, and otherwise, the Federal government is limited in its scope and regulation to enumerated powers.
As for "Free healthcare," I assume he means the ACA here, the Supreme Court upheld the Tax provision as a valid exercise under the of the Tax and Spending clause even though the Tax was meant to encourage individual behavior, i.e. encourage people to buy health insurance. Why did the Supreme Court uphold it? Because the Federal government has the power to Tax and Spend for the General Welfare, and not simply just to raise revenue.
After this kind of a blunder, I don't see why you should trust anything Howard says afterwards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| robbie_davies wrote: |
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
Most of the worlds conflicts now are because of Islam. |
I wonder what the Iraqis think about that statement? Seeing as it has been the Americans and their lackeys bombing the shit out of them for the past 15 years. The scoreboard is in our favour, I wouldn't argue that little spat was a bit of 'ethnic cleansing'. |
Iraq was a hotbed of violence and oppression long before the us entered the fray. Now its split by sunnis and Shiites fighting over interpretations of islam.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are violent because of conflicts resulting from imposing sharia law.
And now you have Nigeria in turmoil at the hands of islamics. Not to mention all the islam-related conflicts in the recent past (Sudan, Somalia etc). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Islamic issues are as a result and a reacation to Western (European and American) involvement in their area. The middle east was and still is to a large extent tribal. Africa as well. Western countries and or corporations (oil companies mostly) arbitrarily divided up the region and installed the royal families we see today.
Iraq as a country was a forced integration of at least 3 different people/religious sects (kurds, Sunnis and Shi'a). The same thing was done to Africa. Its tribal. A Nigerian would tell you he's Nigerian but to another Nigerian he is Ibo, Yorubu, Hausa, etc.
The native Americans were that way which is why it was easier to fight them. They were different tribes who never did or had to work toghether and form aliances before.
Europe's tribalism during the Roman Empire (gauls, goths, vandals, visigoths, etc.) eventually morphed into natinons and nationalism.
Islam is for all and intents and purposes is a belated reaction to Western involvement in the area and that involvement was largely negative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Islam is for all and intents and purposes is a belated reaction to Western involvement in the area and that involvement was largely negative. |
Muslims view the entire globe as "their area".
That is why they are trying to take over our countries. World domination is the game plan of islam, and has been since its inception.
If they can do this via the back door-ie immigration- all the better.
Afghanistan used to be a bhuddhist country til muslims swamped it. So did numerous other lands. Muslims have been infliltrating, subverting, then dominating country after country for the past millenia. It is not a "reaction to western involvement", it is simply the modus operandi of that religion. Expansionism by force and intimidation. Once a country has fallen under the grip of islam, it disappears forever into oppression, violence and backwardness.
If you can't see the pattern then you need to get educated.
Most of bigvernes gripes revolve around muslims not integrating. I'm in agreement. But he should not then prejudice against all other non-white cultures on the basis of race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
The Islamic issues are as a result and a reacation to Western (European and American) involvement in their area. The middle east was and still is to a large extent tribal. Africa as well. Western countries and or corporations (oil companies mostly) arbitrarily divided up the region and installed the royal families we see today.
Iraq as a country was a forced integration of at least 3 different people/religious sects (kurds, Sunnis and Shi'a). The same thing was done to Africa. Its tribal.
A Nigerian would tell you he's Nigerian but to another Nigerian he is Ibo, Yorubu, Hausa, etc.
The native Americans were that way which is why it was easier to fight them. They were different tribes who never did or had to work toghether and form aliances before.
Europe's tribalism during the Roman Empire (gauls, goths, vandals, visigoths, etc.) eventually morphed into natinons and nationalism.
Islam is for all and intents and purposes is a belated reaction to Western involvement in the area and that involvement was largely negative. |
You are missing out over a 1000 years of Sunni/Shia sectarian rivalry and almost 500 years of Ottoman imperialism.
I dont disagree that western nations and empires intervened for their own selfish reasons, but I think trying to explain every current issue through that prism is a tad Eurocentric.
These conflicts and rivalries are the result of local factors that have their origins in those regions. Everything from the rise of the Mahdi to the twin towers is always done primarily for reasons related to power struggles between Middle Eastern actors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| robbie_davies wrote: |
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
Most of the worlds conflicts now are because of Islam. |
I wonder what the Iraqis think about that statement? Seeing as it has been the Americans and their lackeys bombing the shit out of them for the past 15 years. The scoreboard is in our favour, I wouldn't argue that little spat was a bit of 'ethnic cleansing'. |
Iraq was a hotbed of violence and oppression long before the us entered the fray. Now its split by sunnis and Shiites fighting over interpretations of islam.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are violent because of conflicts resulting from imposing sharia law.
And now you have Nigeria in turmoil at the hands of islamics. Not to mention all the islam-related conflicts in the recent past (Sudan, Somalia etc). |
Sri Lanka and Myanmar make me think Buddhism is the cause of the world's conflicts. The Balkans in the 90s made me think Christianity was a serious problem.
Afghanistan is not violent because of imposing sharia law, nor is Pakistan. There was no religious aspect to Somalia's problems until a few years ago. Guess what? The USA is a big reason why al-Shabab now has some power and influence. Iraq WAS a hot bed of opression- just like dictatorships everywhere- but violence? Not until the USA rolled in, woo hoo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aq8knyus
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Location: London
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Iraq WAS a hot bed of opression- just like dictatorships everywhere- but violence? Not until the USA rolled in, woo hoo! |
I know this is not my argument, but there was quite a lot of violence involved in the gassing of thousands at Halabja.
There was also a lot of violence in the aftermath of the Gulf War where a sectarian terror was launched against the Shia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
