Student Expelled for Tweet

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes... damn our Constitution and it's clauses that say the government should hold elections, pay politicians, guarantee a republican form of government to every state, ect.

What were we thinking having a Constitution to tell our government what to do? OMG!?!?

Don't be obtuse. He's referring to the "bill of rights" part and not the "literal functioning of the government" part, which is present in all constitutions and generally followed regardless of the nature of the regime. There are two parts to most constitutions--the definition of the way the government works, and then the limitations on it/definition of rights. Reg is only referring to the latter.

[Aeson]

Don't be obtuse. He's referring to the "bill of rights" part and not the "literal functioning of the government" part, which is present in all constitutions and generally followed regardless of the nature of the regime. There are two parts to most constitutions--the definition of the way the government works, and then the limitations on it/definition of rights. Reg is only referring to the latter.

I'm not being obtuse. I'm simply mocking a stupid argument.

Just because we choose to put "do this" in one part of our Constitution and "don't do this" in another doesn't mean it has to be that way. Not to mention that most "do this" can be reworded to "don't do this" and vice versa.

That said, reg clearly was trying to say that "do this" shouldn't be in the Constitution, as exhibited in his reply to BlackCat:

"The constitution has a list of powers that the federal government may exercise, and a list of things it's forbidden from doing" - reg

He fails to understand that the Constitution also has at least a few things that the government must do.

If a nation wanted to add "provide universal healthcare" to their "must do" list that is perfectly acceptable. It is far more acceptable than having some idiots of another nation tell them they can't do it for semantic or clause organization purposes.

[regexcellent]

HC has it exactly right. The "Basic Law" aspect of the constitution, stating how the government functions and elections are held, is separate from the enumeration of powers and the bill of rights. Article 1 Section 8 which lists the powers of the federal government forms a "whitelist" of things the government can do, while stating that anything necessary and proper to carry out such functions may also be done. The Bill of Rights forms a "blacklist" of what the government cannot do, ever, under any circumstances, even indirectly. It does not say that you have the "right" to "fair and just" working conditions by your employer. That's not a right. That's a constitutionally mandated regulatory scheme on private economic activity. The CFREU has that, which is ridiculous.

[DaShi]

Ah goalposts. So movable and inconsistent with past statements.

[BlackCat]

HC has it exactly right. The "Basic Law" aspect of the constitution, stating how the government functions and elections are held, is separate from the enumeration of powers and the bill of rights. Article 1 Section 8 which lists the powers of the federal government forms a "whitelist" of things the government can do, while stating that anything necessary and proper to carry out such functions may also be done. The Bill of Rights forms a "blacklist" of what the government cannot do, ever, under any circumstances, even indirectly. It does not say that you have the "right" to "fair and just" working conditions by your employer. That's not a right. That's a constitutionally mandated regulatory scheme on private economic activity. The CFREU has that, which is ridiculous.

This is simply idiotic. The american constitution was written a couple of centuries ago and is outdated. If it was to be written today, it would look totally different.

[regexcellent]

Probably not. The American constitution, is, in my view, brilliantly designed. The key aspect of it that makes it better than other constitutions is the fact that it pertains solely to matters of governmental power, and not governmental policy. That is the aspect I've been talking about.

[regexcellent]

It would probably be worse if it were designed today, but more to the point, I doubt that there would be policy in a rewritten American constitution because there's too much disagreement on that account to reach a suitable compromise wherein the States would all agree to ratify it.

[DaShi]

Kind of cruel and unusual, if you ask me.

[Aeson]

HC has it exactly right. The "Basic Law" aspect of the constitution, stating how the government functions and elections are held, is separate from the enumeration of powers and the bill of rights. Article 1 Section 8 which lists the powers of the federal government forms a "whitelist" of things the government can do, while stating that anything necessary and proper to carry out such functions may also be done. The Bill of Rights forms a "blacklist" of what the government cannot do, ever, under any circumstances, even indirectly. It does not say that you have the "right" to "fair and just" working conditions by your employer. That's not a right. That's a constitutionally mandated regulatory scheme on private economic activity. The CFREU has that, which is ridiculous.

You're both conflating "how it's organized" with "what it does", and seem incapable of understanding "what it actually could do".

[regexcellent]

What I'm articulating is that our constitution does not do something that many European constitutions or enumerations of rights do. I'm also saying that this particular thing they do, dictate policy, is something that they should not do. In particular, they should not conflate the proper notion of a right, which is something the government can't do to you, with economic regulation on what kind of agreements you can come to with your business partners (working in unsafe environments for low wages).

Yes, the American constitution could require the government to require employers to provide some kind of minimum wage or safe working environment. It doesn't, and it shouldn't, and moreover that would go entirely against the philosophy around which the document was written.

[Aeson]

Are you saying the thirteenth amendment shouldn't have affected working environments or wages?

[kentonio]

The Bill of Rights forms a "blacklist" of what the government cannot do, ever, under any circumstances, even indirectly. It does not say that you have the "right" to "fair and just" working conditions by your employer. That's not a right. That's a constitutionally mandated regulatory scheme on private economic activity. The CFREU has that, which is ridiculous.

So its ridiculous to say that people have the right to fair and just working conditions? Given that we all have to work during our lives, and work fills a huge part of each persons day, why exactly is it ridiculous to try and ensure that such an obligatory part of peoples lives is protected against unfair or unjust exploitation?

[Proteus_MST]

Maybe it goes contrary to the rights of big corporations to exploit their workers and save money by letting them work under unsafe working conditions (after all it is the big corporations who give all the money for the big parties and who therefore can expect that their interests are protected by politicians)

[regexcellent]

So its ridiculous to say that people have the right to fair and just working conditions?

Yes because that's not a limitation on government and therefore doesn't belong in a bill of rights. It's a legislative matter, not a constitutional matter.

[giblets]

Yes because that's not a limitation on government and therefore doesn't belong in a bill of rights. It's a legislative matter, not a constitutional matter.

How is that not a limitation on the government? The government can't allow "unfair" working conditions in that case.