[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

>But what is true and what will hold up in court are often not the same
thing, 
>so one should beware of such arguments.

While it is obviously true that the two are not necessarily identical and I
am not sure that anyone was equating the two, truths like the meanings of
laws are relative to those who are doing the defining of them and are using
them.  Truths unlike laws are not really binding on anyone in terms of
carrying any societal sanctions for violating them or disagreeing with them.
As documents, the truth and legal status, meaning, and significance of the
documents in question are open for question and problematic (you can believe
what you want and I can believe what I want as to the substantive truth of
their contents and assertions as well as the substantive meanings of their
contents and their significance); however, as legally binding prescriptions
concerning the formal structures, processes, and procedures of government
and governance, The Declaration of Independence and its assertions are not
are not legally binding on anyone (we are not talking about questions of
morally binding or not) and do not establish any institutional requisites or
institutional structures or processes.  They only make a statement of
autonomy and give arguments that serve as the grounding for the declaration.
The Constitution, on the other hand, is a different matter; it does
establish and set up not only the structures and processes of government and
governance but the binding foundational grounding and context for the legal
system which is to operate and be regarded as legitimate.

You want to argue philosophy, morality, and religion; I am not really
interested in that for now.  You want to link the empirical documents and
systems to some higher philosophical, moral, and religious authority,
principles, and beliefs as if they were not only logically necessary
concrete expressions of such ideas and ideals but the fundamental basis and
context in which the legitimating and justifying standards against which
those documents, the legal system, and the actions of the members of the
society are to be governed and measured. That is fine by me; but I do not
have to agree with you on any of that.  Just as you issued a warning against
those who confound "truth" with "legal" and argue that constitutionality and
legality are relative affairs whose meaning within this society are defined
by the courts and the judges who populate them; I will issue a warning
against those who would dogmatically insist that one should measure things
against a higher standard that they have a corner on the market when it
comes to knowing and understanding the meaning of.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Illyes [mailto:illyes at uiuc.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 11:34 AM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON; Peace-discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

Wayne writes "The Declaration of Independence is the Charter document for 
these United States. If you invalidate that the whole thing falls apart, 
because it is the foundation. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the 
By-laws."

It is commonly noted that the Declaration of Independence is not a part of 
the legal basis of the US government. Technically, this is true, but watch 
out for the word "legal". This is brought to you by the same folks who 
claim that a law is unconstitutional only if the court finds it so. But 
what is true and what will hold up in court are often not the same thing, 
so one should beware of such arguments.

I side with Wayne on this one, and against the lawyer lobby which 
represents that it is the final arbiter of truth. Most folks who fought and 
won the Revolution did it for "...all men are created equal, that they are 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these 
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these 
rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers 
from the consent of the governed..." It's their call. It is also the 
standard against which the Constitution and the law must be judged (by the 
governed, not by the court).

Bob