| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/28 |
| 2009/5/1-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:52928 Activity:nil |
5/1 Who is Obama going to nominate to replace Souter?
\_ Obama said he would seek a nominee with a "sharp and independent
mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone
who understands justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or
footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the
daily realities of people's lives."
So much for interpreting the Constitution.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster |
| 5/28 |
|
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that the theory can be used by judges to inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation. edit Judicial Pragmatism Although "the living Constitution" is itself a characterization rather than a specific method of interpretation, the phrase is associated with various non-originalist theories of interpretation. Missouri v Holland 252 US 416 (1920), Holmes made this remark on the nature of the constitution. "With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of out whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago. The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment. We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved." According to the pragmatist view, the Constitution should be seen as evolving over time as a matter of social necessity. Looking solely to original meaning, when the original intent was largely to permit many practices universally condemned today, is under this view cause to reject pure originalism out of hand. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... This pragmatist objection is central to the idea that the Constitution should be seen as a living document. Under this view, for example, constitutional requirements of "equal rights" should be read with regard to current standards of equality, and not those of decades or centuries ago, because the alternative would be unacceptable. Original intent In addition to pragmatist arguments, most proponents of the Living Constitution argue that the Constitution was deliberately written to be broad and flexible to accommodate social or technological change over time. This decision to use "simple and precise language, and general propositions," such that the Constitution could "be accommodated to times and events," is often cited as the "genius" of the Constitutional framers, and is one of the main arguments for the Living Constitutional framework. These statements are seen as a call for respecting the text and meaning of constitutional language, but also for allowing contemporary needs or values to inform its application to modern events. Other Founding Fathers cited the need to interpret the Constitution in light of changing circumstances. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." edit Applying a living constitution One application of the Living Constitution framework is seen in the Supreme Court's reference to "evolving standards of decency" under the 8th Amendment. Amendment are not precise, and that their scope is not static. The Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. civil liberties is vital to the continuing effectiveness of our Constitutional scheme. Not only is it currently seen as unacceptable to suggest that minorities or women are not entitled to liberty or equal protection as they were not at the time of the Constitutional ratification, but neither do advocates of the living Constitution believe that the framers intended, or certainly demanded, that their 18th century practices be regarded as the permanent standard for these ideals. Living Constitutionalists suggest that broad ideals such as "liberty" and "equal protection" were included in the Constitution precisely because they are timeless, due to their inherently dynamic nature. Liberty in 1791, it is argued, was never thought to be the same as liberty in 1591 or 1991, but rather was seen as a principle transcending the recognized rights of that day and age. Giving them a fixed and static meaning in the name of "originalism," thus, is said to violate the very theory it purports to uphold. edit Disregard of Constitutional language The idea of a Living Constitution is often characterized as inherently disregarding Constitutional language, suggesting that one should not simply read and apply the constitutional text. judicial activism," a phrase generally used to accuse judges of resolving cases based on their own political convictions or preferences. The pejorative "Judicial Activism" is most commonly subjective, so it is not proper to classify all decisions made using the Living interpretation as activist. More properly, it could be argued that a Living interpretation leaves much more room for political bias than other interpretations, thus creating more opportunity for misuses of judicial power. edit Lawlessness Related to judicial activism, the Living Constitution is often characterized as a license for lawlessness, due to the alleged resulting absence of any fixed constitutional meaning. Again, however, whether a contemporary meaning or a historical meaning are more fixed or flexible is a matter of intense debate. Antonin Scalia: If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again.... In this sense it can be also be argued that the living constitution theory does not create lawlessness, but transfers the law making power from the legislative branch to the judicial branch of government. edit Comparisons In sum, it may be noted that the Living Constitution does not itself represent a detailed philosophy, and that distinguishing it from other theories can be difficult. Indeed, Living Constitutionalists often suggest that it is the true originalist philosophy, while originalists generally agree that phrases such as "just compensation" should be applied differently than 200 years ago. A Living Constitutionalist would not necessarily state, for instance, that the meaning of "liberty" has changed since 1791. It may be what it always has always been: a general principle recognizing individual freedom. The important change then might be in what is recognized as liberty today, that was not fully recognized two centuries ago. hile the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise. To complete the example, the question of how to apply a te... |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster have publicly supported the teaching of non-evolutionary theories, and infers that they therefore support the teaching of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Many of the "beliefs" proposed by Henderson were intentionally chosen to parody arguments commonly set forth by proponents of Intelligent Design. All evidence pointing towards evolution was intentionally planted by this being. edit Benefits of conversion Henderson initially gave the following reasons for converting to Flying S paghetti Monsterism: * Like the noodles they worship, Flying Spaghetti Monsterists have flim sy moral standards. |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence cl aims "Proponents of Intelligent Design regard it as a scientific researc h program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes. Note that Intelligent Design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not in telligent causes per se. In his view, questions concerning the identity of a designer fall outside the realm of the idea, since one cannot test for the identity of influences exterior to a closed system from within. edit Origins of the concept For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature's " design" that operates for complex purposes indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The modern concept of Intelligent D esign is distinguished from the teleological argument in that Intelligen t Design does not identify the agent of creation, and its proponents see k to take the debate into the realm of science rather than just philosop hy. George James Allman: No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible in heredity and in adaptivity, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design. edit Portraying Intelligent Design as science Intelligent design proponents often claim that their position is not only scientific, but that it is even more scientific than evolution. Falsifiability) + Based upon controlled, repeated experiments + Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered) + Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more) + Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The few er which are matched, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any me aningful sense of the word. There is no way to test its conjectures, and the underlying assu mptions of Intelligent Design are not open to change. Intelligent design critics further point out that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence used by most courts. United States Supreme Court articulated a set of criteria for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, in effect developing their own demarcation criteria. the former being directed at t he public while the latter at their conservative Christian supporters, i s explained by Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, as being due to the Discovery Institute obfuscating its a genda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activi ties betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only Inte lligent Design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it." Theistic realism The Intelligent Design debate centers on three issues: 1 whether the definition of science is broad enough to allow for theori es of origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent designer 2 whether the evidence supports such theories 3 whether the teaching of such theories is appropriate in public educat ion. Intelligent Design supporters generally hold that science must allow for both natural and supernatural explanations of phenomena. They assert tha t excluding supernatural explanations artificially limits the realm of p ossibilities, particularly where naturalistic explanations fail to expla in certain phenomena. Supernatural explanations provide a very simple an d parsimonious explanation for the origins of life and the universe. specified co mplexity appear to make it highly unreasonable that the full complexity and diversity of life came about solely through natural means. Finally, supporters hold that religious neutrality requires the teaching of both evolution and Intelligent Design in schools, because teaching on ly evolution unfairly discriminates against those holding the Creationis t beliefs. Teaching both, Intelligent Design supporters argue, allows fo r a scientific basis for religious belief, without causing the state to actually promote a religious belief. According to critics of Intelligent Design, not only has Intelligent Desi gn failed to establish reasonable doubt in its proposed shortcomings of accepted scientific theories, but it has not even presented a case worth taking seriously. Scientists argue that those advocating "sc ientific" treatment of "supernatural" phenomena are grossly misunderstan ding the issue, and indeed misunderstand the nature and purpose of scien ce itself. Furthermore, if one were to take the proponents of "equal tim e for all theories" at their word, there would be no logical limit to th e number of potential "theories" to be taught in the public school syste m While Christian fundamentalists imagine their God to be the only deit y to be referenced, a cursory examination of mankind's belief systems re veals that there is a very large number of potential supernatural "expla nations" for the emergence and organization of life on earth, none of wh ich have any empirical support and all of which therefore are equally de serving of promotion as Intelligent Design. Proponents of Intelligent De sign, however, rarely if ever appear to note such alternative theologica l/supernatural possibilities, defaulting invariably to their particular interpretation of the Christian God. ma terialism in an attempt to erase religion from public life and view thei r work in the promotion of Intelligent Design as a way to return religio n to a central role in education and other public spheres. Some allege t hat this larger debate is often the subtext for arguments made over Inte lligent Design, though others note that Intelligent Design serves as an effective proxy for the religious beliefs of prominent Intelligent Desig n proponents in their efforts to advance their religious point of view w ithin society. edit Intelligent Design concepts The following are summaries of key concepts of Intelligent Design, follow ed by summaries of criticisms. Counterarguments against such criticisms are often proffered by Intelligent Design proponents, as are counter-cou nterarguments by critics, etc. Jacqu es Monod's Chance and Necessity provides a good discussion of the "trium ph" of the mechanistic view in biochemistry. Systems theory remained pop ular among social sciences long after its demise in the physical and bio logical sciences. Intelligent Design advoc ates argue that the systems must therefore have been deliberately engine ered by some form of intelligence. "--(Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference). According to the theory of evolution, genetic variations occur without sp ecific design or intent. The environment 'selects' variants that have th e highest fitness, which are then passed on to the next generation of or ganisms. Most Intelligent Design advocates accept that evolutio n occurs through mutation and natural selection at the 'micro level' suc h as changing the relative frequency of various beak lengths in finches, but assert that it cannot account for irreducible complexity, because n one of the parts of an irreducible system would be functional or advanta geous until the entire system is in place. Behe uses the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept. A mou setrap consists of several interacting piecesthe base, the catch, the s pring, the hammerall of which must be in place for the mousetrap to wor k The removal of any one piece destroys the function of the mousetrap. Likewise, biological systems require multiple parts working together in order to function. Intelligent Design advocates claim that natural selec tion could not create from scratch those systems ... |
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster have publicly supported the teaching of non-evolutionary theories, and infers that they therefore support the teaching of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Many of the "beliefs" proposed by Henderson were intentionally chosen to parody arguments commonly set forth by proponents of Intelligent Design. All evidence pointing towards evolution was intentionally planted by this being. edit Benefits of conversion Henderson initially gave the following reasons for converting to Flying S paghetti Monsterism: * Like the noodles they worship, Flying Spaghetti Monsterists have flim sy moral standards. |