Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Rules Clarification

Garth
@elbor
Join to bookmark20likesJoin to like7comments

You can’t play a game without understanding the rules. The Constitution is transparent, readable. It defines the rules with the Declaration included as context (We the people …). The Constitution is inviolate, except by amendment. Trump and his administration are simply pursuing clarification of the rules.

They will be (are) forcing a co-understanding of the rules by all parties – one by one. Once understood, we will know what we can do and what options and alternatives we have. It is necessary to do this. But it takes time.

In the last several decades, all parties were happy to pursue different approaches with hopes of being successful – instead of clarifying the rules. It will be easier to implement tactics once the rules are known.

If the Constitution is not inviolate excepting amendments, we have no Constitution. We have common law. All concepts (rules) are subject to change with time and society’s change. Perhaps “Render unto Caesar" no longer applies. Each religion will have its own secular governing rules (e.g., about rape, murder, hate). Perhaps how free speech is defined changes with societies and time -- it can morph, and morphing is acceptable and normal. That seems to match what is happening all across the world.

Only the USA has a constitution based on inviolate principles for all time, no matter where, when or how many hundreds of years have elapsed since they were uttered. The UK has the Magna Carta but no constitution. Other "democracies" have constitutions but absent inviolate rules. We were special.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (7)

  • Red Herring@EHerring
    ReplyingtoJimmy Carter

    Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

    The problem is exemplified in a supreme court justice Who does not know what a woman is.

    If this “justice” does not know the definition of a ” woman,” then how can We know this “justice” knows every, or any, word in the Constitution?

    Bingo. There are too many black robes whose decisions aren’t grounded in the Constitution but in Marxism.

  • Jimmy Carter@JimmyCarter
    ReplyingtoRed Herring

    Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

    The problem is exemplified in a supreme court justice Who does not know what a woman is.

    If this “justice” does not know the definition of a ” woman,” then how can We know this “justice” knows every, or any, word in the Constitution?

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Bingo. There are too many black robes whose decisions aren’t grounded in the Constitution but in Marxism.

    Their decisions ain't "grounded," they're flaccid. Influenced by the prevailing winds of popular culture.

  • AMD Texas@DarinJohnson
    ReplyingtoRed Herring

    Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

    The problem is exemplified in a supreme court justice Who does not know what a woman is.

    If this “justice” does not know the definition of a ” woman,” then how can We know this “justice” knows every, or any, word in the Constitution?

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Bingo. There are too many black robes whose decisions aren’t grounded in the Constitution but in Marxism.

    This isn't anything new when it comes to not being grounded in the Constitution. FFS, Roe v Wade was just Blackmun riffing on ancient Roman traditions that weren't actual traditions

Scroll for later comments
+2 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of seven comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.