Juan Cole can't understand. . .

[Amianthus]

No, I don't think so.  As far as I can see, it was your post (Reply #11) which first mentioned either slavery or the 14th in this thread.

My post (Reply #11) says, in it's entirety:

And then there's this concept of majority rule which the current GOP leadership is fully prepared to sabotage.

So, if the majority voted to reinstate slavery by a simple 51%, you'd be good with that?

No mention of the 14th Amendment in there at all. First mention of the 14th Amendment is Reply #23:

<<So is the Constitution "dead" on that point? Or is it a "liveing" document adaptable to the moods of the day?>>

Why ask me, what would I know?    Is the "mood of the day" in the State of Georgia a pro-slavery one?  In that case, why don't you enslave somebody and challenge the constitutionality of the 14th in Court?   Then you could get a more authoritative view on how adaptable the 14th Amendment is to the moods of the day.

So, you brought it into the argument. Care to enlighten us as to what the 14th Amendment has to do with slavery?

[Michael Tee]

Ooops, my mistake.  I thought it was the 14th that abolished slavery, but it was actually the 13th.

So my references to the 14th should have been to the 13th.

[Plane]

Here's what you asked me, plane:

<<So is the Constitution "dead" on that point? ["That point" being the legality of slavery]  Or is it a "liveing" document adaptable to the moods of the day?>>

And I suggested that you try to find out by enslaving someone and fighting the legality of  it out in court.

<<You cant sue to prove the constitution unconstitional.>>

I didn't say you should sue, but somebody else would sue to protest the enslavement on the part of your newly enslaved, at which point you could bring any challenge you liked to the 14th Amendment and find out from the court itself how adaptable it (the amendment) was to the moods of the day.

And I could conceiveably take advantage of the flexability of the language to prevail , because the Constitution is a liveing document ?

[Michael Tee]

<<And I could conceiveably take advantage of the flexability of the language to prevail , because the Constitution is a liveing document ?>>

Within reason, you could, although probably not to endorse your enslavement of another person.   "Living document" does not mean that it can be twisted into whatever anyone wants it to be.

[sirs]

Sure it does.

[Plane]

<<And I could conceiveably take advantage of the flexability of the language to prevail , because the Constitution is a liveing document ?>>

Within reason, you could, although probably not to endorse your enslavement of another person.   "Living document" does not mean that it can be twisted into whatever anyone wants it to be.

That is exactly what I am afraid it does mean.

Somethings yo want to be flexable , like your knee joints , some things you want to be stiff like the foundations of a large building.

Which quality do we want for the constitution?

[Michael Tee]

<<Somethings yo want to be flexable , like your knee joints , some things you want to be stiff like the foundations of a large building.>>

Your metaphor sucks.  The Constitution is neither a knee joint nor a large building.  If your knee joint were totally flexible, BTW, your legs  probably would not be able to bear your full body weight.  Similarly with building foundations - - make them too rigid and they are less able to withstand seismic shocks.

<<Which quality do we want for the constitution?>>

I would say, unless you have figured out a way to return modern society to an exact replica of 18th century America and keep it there, you definitely would want a reasonably flexible Constitution.

[Plane]

<<Somethings yo want to be flexable , like your knee joints , some things you want to be stiff like the foundations of a large building.>>

Your metaphor sucks.  The Constitution is neither a knee joint nor a large building.  If your knee joint were totally flexible, BTW, your legs  probably would not be able to bear your full body weight.  Similarly with building foundations - - make them too rigid and they are less able to withstand seismic shocks.

<<Which quality do we want for the constitution?>>

I would say, unless you have figured out a way to return modern society to an exact replica of 18th century America and keep it there, you definitely would want a reasonably flexible Constitution.

This is probly the reason that the Founders wrote in some purposefull ambiguitys , even more the reason that they reserved some functions to the states and the people.

But where it is firmest is where it limits the ability of the governmental parts and provided for frequent elections ,so that the people won't have to overthrow the government just to get some change.

[Michael Tee]

<<This is probly the reason that the Founders wrote in some purposefull ambiguitys  . . . >>

They may indeed have done so, but can you provide any specific examples?

<<But where it is firmest is where it limits the ability of the governmental parts and provided for frequent elections ,so that the people won't have to overthrow the government just to get some change.>>

Do you ever get the feeling that the system has been "gamed" so that the Framers' original intentions regarding frequent elections have  been thwarted?

[Plane]

<<This is probly the reason that the Founders wrote in some purposefull ambiguitys  . . . >>

They may indeed have done so, but can you provide any specific examples?

  The right to privacy is implied rather than stated , the powers and functions not directly claimed by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

<<But where it is firmest is where it limits the ability of the governmental parts and provided for frequent elections ,so that the people won't have to overthrow the government just to get some change.>>

Do you ever get the feeling that the system has been "gamed" so that the Framers' original intentions regarding frequent elections have  been thwarted?

 No, Not really ,origionally the Senate was appointed rather than elected, after "The Treason of the Senate"  was published, elected Senators were introduced as a reform measure, so we have more election than origionally. The most flexable part of the Constitution is the unlimited ability to add admendments , but with a process so difficult that admendments are not added frequently or capriciously.

[Michael Tee]

<<The right to privacy is implied rather than stated >>

Well, strictly speaking, that is not an ambiguity.  An ambiguity is a sentence or phrase or even a single word that is capable of two or more different meanings.

<< the powers and functions not directly claimed by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.>>

That's also not an ambiguity.

[Plane]

<<The right to privacy is implied rather than stated >>

Well, strictly speaking, that is not an ambiguity.  An ambiguity is a sentence or phrase or even a single word that is capable of two or more different meanings.

<< the powers and functions not directly claimed by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.>>

That's also not an ambiguity.

I seem top have chosen the wrong word then.

What is a better word for refuseing to be specific?

Such as not defineing the requirements of citizenship?

The Constitution is full of this sort of thing.

[Michael Tee]

I can't think of a single word.  You could just say that the Constitution leaves a certain issue unaddressed, or is silent on it.

[Plane]

I can't think of a single word.  You could just say that the Constitution leaves a certain issue unaddressed, or is silent on it.

There are lacuna of this sort on several subjects , some that we have record of being discussed in the first Congress.

Most of these guys were already experienced leaders in the British tradition, includeing flexability on purpose was not beyond them.

[Michael Tee]

I don't think they were intentionally ambiguous on issues which were apparent at the time.  Ambiguity would make no sense, certainly there would be some issues that were difficult to resolve but what was the point of all the congresses, caucuses, meetings, debates etc. if not to resolve or compromise thorny issues?  (I stand to be corrected with regard to issues which you claim were publicly debated but never addressed in the final draft.)  I think flexibility comes into the picture mainly if not exclusively in cases which could not be foreseen in the 18th century but resulted from the centuries of progress thereafter in society and human knowledge and capabilities.