No Joe, not that at all. I think that it is neither irelevant or hoary, it is neither boring or pendantic, it is a framework, a trellis on which all the achievments of this country rest. Nobody ever said it couldn't be amended; I love the fact that it can and that it was. But amending the constitution is to affirm the principles it rests on. The whole idea that it can be amended and has been means that far from being irelavent, it is more relevant then ever as Marshall said, "a constitution for ages to come it must be capable of being adapted to meet the various crises of human affairs." This does not mean that the foundation of a free democratic society, that checks and balances- that these things are irrelevant, far from it. The interesting thing to me is that roughly 1-10 are for the people, and 11-15 for the people, and then 16-27 are largely for the government? Why is that? Especially XXVII....27....

look at the first ten amendments:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


How could we possibly say these sentiments are irrelavent. If anything we should rember that our ancestors struggled to keep these intact and whole for us, to make them a reality and to make it very difficult for anyone to take them away. Words on a paper, right? Well, I disagree a living document that gives meaning to each genertion and if it must be changed to meet tragedy and crisis, can be. A document such as this is extremely rare in the history of civilization. Exceedingly so. When Ceaser Rodney and Delaware's signers plastered their John Hancock on this baby, what a day it was.

The single most signficant act in the last 300 or so years that document is; when my grandfather served as a tail gunner in WWII this is what he fought to protect, when my uncle sits atop an aircraft carrier today it is for this. Not for Jane Fonda's new book, not for Scott Peterson or Michael Jackson or the trival and petty hatred of small minds; no way. So that all of us get the chance to enjoy a unique type of life that people in slums in Delhi- where I used to live and where corruption plays a huge role in day-to-day life-don't get to have. That we get a a chance an oppurtunity and we get to work for something better, individualistically, shrewdly, greedily at times, but for ourselves and our country too, if we so choose. You aren't going to get that if we were to go to say Columbia. Now if it is making a good thing even better, than I agree with what you are saying.....if you mean we should discard it, then I think-not to sound too politically incorrect or flip- you need a check up from the neck up.

quote:

No Joe, not that at all. I think that it is neither irelevant or hoary, it is neither boring or pendantic, it is a framework, a trellis on which all the achievments of this country rest.

And frameworks can be improved upon.

quote:

Nobody ever said it couldn't be amended; I love the fact that it can and that it was. But amending the constitution is to affirm the principles it rests on.

Its principles are in the eye of the beholder. When those principles are good, we keep them. When they are not (the inequal treatment of citizens -- blacks and women being denied the vote, for instance), we don't. Principles change.

quote:

The whole idea that it can be amended and has been means that far from being irelavent, it is more relevant then ever as Marshall said, "a constitution for ages to come it must be capable of being adapted to meet the various crises of human affairs."

Exactly. It's relevant because we keep it relevant. It has no special power of its own to stay relevant, except that situations warrant as such.

quote:

How could we possibly say these sentiments are irrelavent.

Some of them are, some of them aren't. The idea of a 'militia', for instance, is no longer relevant to our times -- and, I acknowledge as a staunch supporter of what the second amendment *has become*, we have adapted the 2nd amendment to fit our times.

For instance, I can't own a Predator drone. Does that infringe my right to keep and bear arms? In the literal sense, sure. In reality, it makes good policy that I can't.

quote:

If anything we should rember that our ancestors struggled to keep these intact and whole for us, to make them a reality and to make it very difficult for anyone to take them away.

This is called pragmatism -- a system which is harder to change is more resilient, so long as change is not impossible when it's important. The idea is to shield the constitution from any given public whim.

The constitution is written this way not because it is some Godly document, as you seem to put it on such a pedestal, but because it makes good pragmatic sense to do so.

quote:

The single most signficant act in the last 300 or so years that document is; when my grandfather served as a tail gunner in WWII this is what he fought to protect, when my uncle sits atop an aircraft carrier today it is for this. So that all of us get the chance to enjoy a unique type of life that people in slums in Delhi- where I used to live and where corruption plays a huge role in day-to-day life-don't get to have. That we get a a chance an oppurtunity and we get to work for something better, individualistically, shrewdly, greedily at times, but for ourselves and our country too, if we so choose. You aren't going to get that if we were to go to say Columbia. Now if it is making a good thing even better, than I agree with what you are saying.....if you mean we should discard it, then I think-not to sound too politically incorrect or flip- you need a check up from the neck up.

LOL... We're essentially saying the same thing.

The constitution is a damn good document. It's important. Amending it should not be taken lightly.

That's something we all agree upon. All I'm saying is this:

None of that means that any particular part of it is 'right', by definition, or that invoking the fact that something is in the constitution wins you an argument.

Rather, what it means is that each part of the constitution, when you talk about it, you have to back it up independently of its being in the constitution -- with facts and logic.

For the most part, the ideals and rules enshrined in the constitution stand up under logical scrutiny. That's why, overall, it's such a good document.

But that doesn't mean they all do.

Joe,

Of course that is not what I am saying. I merely point out that the Constituion is a framework our ancestors developed and for us to respect before we go making changes to it. I look now at the zillion volumes of the Code of Federal Regulations in dismay. Anyway, my point is that the Constition makes the point that there are certain universal truths that are relevant. Like it or not, agree with it or not, Americans by and large assert that they were "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights... among them life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Now that point may not stand up to scrutiny, nonetheless, it is precisely what we assert to be a true and resounding truth for the betterment of human life. It may seem perfectly logical to argue that killing old people to make way for the young is a reasonable and good thing to do given the fact that the world is "overpopulated" but I think we could reasonably say it is not something we should do. Or, if you do not like this example I can think of many where the logical thing to do, does not mean it is the best thing to do and without a framework of principles I think it is hard to make any logically concrete statements. So we as Americans assert that our constituion is the special inheretence of our ancestors and should be protected and gaurded, defended and have made provisions for its change in times of need. But the logic of that does not exist in a vacuum; it is not cut adrift from history. Rather the document exists within a very particular set of historical circumstances, and outlines a unique revoltionary system to balance people within society.

quote:

It may seem perfectly logical to argue that killing old people to make way for the young is a reasonable and good thing to do given the fact that the world is "overpopulated" but I think we could reasonably say it is not something we should do.

Well, let's get into this. What we do with the elderly is of great interest to me.

Let's say that we can (expensively) cure Alzheimer's, and most of the lingering physical and mental problems that come with aging, such that people can maintain a standard of living much akin to a 70 or 80 year old until... 120 or so.

Now, let's say that the treatment is not so expensive that only a few elderly could afford it (given their own fortunes and the money their kids and possibly grandkids would pitch in), but expensive enough that the kids and possibly grandkids of these elderly would have to make large, significant sacrifices in their own lives, of their time and their money, to give their grandparents another 20-40 years of comfortable life. And though one might try to weasel around it, it's essentially killing their parents to *not* sacrifice for this treatment.


At what point do we draw the line?


I'd like to know. Because, you see, my grandfather passed away in hid mid-nineties recently. It was peaceful and a good way for him to go and I had a wonderful time with him before he did...

...But now my grandmother's living with my family (not me personally, I'm off at college). My grandmother has dementia and psychosis, and essentially requires constant care and supervision roughly on the level of an infant or toddler, and her health is a very large financial investment. Her health seems largely dependent on her living with us and enjoying constant human contact; in other words, if she gets put in a home, she'd probably waste away and die of the bad health that comes from loneliness and despair within a year or so.


But living with my parents? She's only 78. She's in better health than my Grandfather was at that age, and he made it to 97. She could easily be around for the next 20 to 30 years, depending on medical advances and what happens in the meantime.

All the while having dementia and being a constant pain to deal with, requiring someone to be with her 24/7, the attention level an infant requires. And a very large financial investment, to boot.


My parents are 48 and 47, respectively. They're just getting to the point in their life where they'd soon like to start enjoying all that they've frugally saved up over their life, go on some vacations, try new things, and really *live*, freed from jobs and a kid to raise, now that I'm off at college.

And then this gets dropped on them. She could easily be around until *my parents* are 78. This is the part of their life that they've spent the past 10 to 20 years preparing for, and it's looking like unless my grandmother unexpectedly dies, that's going to be cruelly yanked away from them -- unless, of course, they were to essentially send her off to her soon-to-come death in some home, something you find morally repugnant.

What's your answer to what we do with the old people in cases like this, eh?

Nature had it laid out convenient for us, before we got very good at phramaceuticals and surgery. People begat offspring, and then they died to make way for the next generation.

We've broken that cycle. What do we do now?

If there is such a thing as Karma, my parents would have a Nirvana's worth saved up by now. They're practically saints. And now it's looking like the prime of their life is being stolen from them by my grandmother's resilience.

The immense strain, phsyically and financially, is getting to them. I can see the onset of depression in my mom, who sometimes now just goes for long, aimless drives when she can just to get away. At the dinner table, my father has a giant fern he's nicknamed "The sanity plant", conveniently positioned between him and his mother so that for fifteen minutes out of his day he doesn't have to look at her -- such minor respites keep him from cracking and breaking down. He's an unbelievably strong man, and always has been, but caring for my grandmother, and the prospect that he'll spend the next couple decades doing so, has taken its toll. Hair is starting to fall out in more places, he's starting to look more "weathered", and sometimes he gets the hard, distant stare in his eyes of a man who's seeing his entire future slip away from him.


What do we do with the elderly? What happens when, in some way -- it's us or them?

Joe,

hi. I am sorry to hear of your grandfather and I understand your case; equally I understand the responsibility we all have to our parents and grandparents. I too have taken care of an aging father whose death eariler this year was hard but by no means unexpected. I feel that all of us are born with burdens- and if only all of our burdens could be to have our family with us when we are old!

If only we could care for our elders in the way they cared for us when we were children; this is a burden, real suffering too, but I would not have traded it for more time with my collegues or at school. Caring for a person who is our progenitor, or our grandparent is a great blessing...remember that if we expect to live a life without suffering we will all be disappointed. I had to delay so many things like school, marriage, family becuase of my Dad.

And during his pain I resented it, and I resented him for being sick, at an age when most of my friends were learning advanced history, starting careers, having kids; I was caring for a dialapidated older man; but I did it, I did not enjoy every day, I lamented the fact of my birth some days; good days were few and far between. Now that he has died, I realize his death taught me more about responsibility then 4 years of undergrad and two years of grad school. Taught me more about life and the mechanics of death, reminded me that I too will get old this way.

I only hope someone takes care of me as conscientiously as your parents take care of their mom. This is something we all have to bear, and by and large the strain, in the end, is relased on death and through the catharsis that comes with it. I would give up my MSM to have my father back; as a matter of fact there are a number of things I would relinquish just to be able to express to him how thankful I am that he did his duty for me. We all make choices, I chose my father over myself. I want no awards or martyrdom, but I do want him to know how very dear his life was to me and how precious the short time we had together was.

In Armenia, children say that if your father, wife and son are taken and held and you can only choose one, which would you choose? Choose your father, becuase you can find another wife and make another son but you only have one father. This attitude is common among Greeks,other Hellenes and Italians. This may sound extreme but to them the mark of a truly human civilization is one that emphasiizes family, and all the heartache that they can bear, theirs tends to be more protective of its children and elderly; and by and large does not divorce human life from very funny notions of familial responsibility; certainly many would argue pragmatic expediency against the chance to protect the weak but it is a hardship we all must bear. I do not see any panacea that could replace what the hardship with my dad taught me.