Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 07/08/2009 View Tue 07/07/2009 View Mon 07/06/2009 View Sun 07/05/2009 View Sat 07/04/2009 View Fri 07/03/2009 View Thu 07/02/2009
1
2009-07-08 Caribbean-Latin America
What if Honduras happened in America?
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by gromky 2009-07-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11137 views ]  Top

#1 hell, potus and congress do constitutionally questionable things on a monthly basis. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what the "shot heard around the world a second time" will be started from. His hypothesis is a good benchmark but I don't think any slick potus would be that brazen - it would be very incremental & low key methinx.
Posted by Broadhead6 2009-07-08 01:02||   2009-07-08 01:02|| Front Page Top

#2 it would be very incremental & low key

Or a situation where He thought He had sufficient popular support to pull it off. See Honduras, Zelaya, 2009 for an example.
Posted by SteveS 2009-07-08 01:26||   2009-07-08 01:26|| Front Page Top

#3 What if it happened here?

There's already a bill in Congress to repeal the 22nd ammendment, which would open the door to Bambi Forever.
Posted by lotp 2009-07-08 07:16||   2009-07-08 07:16|| Front Page Top

#4 The wrong question is being asked. The real question is "What if Venezuela happened in America?"

I was writing on this very subject on the 4th: missed the local tea party because I felt I had to work through the intellectual ins-and-outs, but got bogged down when I got to the Civil War.

My thesis is that there is America and there is the United States. The Declaration of Independence was an expression of Americans, while the United States is a creation of Americans to implement a specific Constitution. In a sense, the Declaration is similar to a software requirements document, and the Constitution is similar to the design document implementing the requirements. Individual laws are similar to source code. Is the programmer loyal to the source code, the design document, or the requirements document? Should a Legislator be loyal to the Declaration, the Constitution, or the laws they make?

Up until now, the "game plan" under which everyone operated was that the laws are supposed to adhere to the constitution, which specified parameters for establishing and changing them and the Constitution itself. This is similar to revising and/or abolishing laws that contradict the requirements of the Declaration as hard-wired into the constitution (The Bill of Rights, whose restrictions are calculated to keep the government from committing the same offenses the King of England committed that are given in the Declaration).

However, what if one changes the constitution so that the laws violate the requirements specifications of the Declaration are now legal? After all, a change to the Constitution is a change to the design to implement the requirements, and it should be changed if the altered design generates code whose effects violate the requirements.

Let's take a look at some the offenses of the king of England that may seem familiar today:

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation,


A prince (or president), whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Thus, does no good to swear loyalty to a Constitution if the Constitution is amended to violate and destroy the values whose protection motivated the person to swear loyalty in the first place.

Two illustrations: a dog is renowned for the Loyalty it shows to its master, but that loyalty was created initially by the good deeds and good behavior of the master. What happens when the master goes bad and starts mistreating the dog? We continue to admire the loyalty of the dog, but the reason, cause, and point of that loyalty have disappeared.

The intent of marriage is to forge deeper and more permanent bonds between two people who love each other. We admire the faithfulness of the wife if the husband starts abusing her, but we call that relationship co-dependent when loyalty continues when the behavior starts becoming destructive. At what point in time should the wife realize that the reason, cause, and point of the marriage has disappeared?

At what point in time should the citizens of a constitutional republic realize that the reason, cause and point of their loyalty has disappeared when they are victims of laws that are now "definitionally legal" from the point of view of a constitution that was revised into something they would not have agreed with in the beginning?
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2009-07-08 09:48|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2009-07-08 09:48|| Front Page Top

#5 PTAH - awesome. When your finished w/your work could I get a copy somehow? I've been having similar discussions (in a round about way) on what is the line in the sand that gov't crosses in our country that gives the people the go ahead to remove elected officials forcefully. I'd hate to see it happen but I enjoy pontificating about it.
Posted by Andy Ulusoque aka Broadhead6 2009-07-08 10:51||   2009-07-08 10:51|| Front Page Top

#6 I recall hearing a phrase: The constitution is not a suicide pact. Is that the argument now?

I liken this to a ship (we here do know a bit about them).

This ship of the Laws of the USA has been in the water for too long, with only coats of paint merely hide flaws. It needs to be pulled up and have the riggings re-roped, sails replaced, and the hull cleaned of barnacles.

Modern ships have devices that limit growth of things on the hull. Perhaps that should be the first thing to attend.

This would call for term limits, certainly many of the barnacles are in your legislature for far too long.
Posted by Lagom 2009-07-08 10:53||   2009-07-08 10:53|| Front Page Top

#7 My favorite barnacle would be the one ensuring any member of the House or Senate , for however long, gets a lifetime hall pass and is exempt from the laws they passed regarding their benefits.
Posted by 746 2009-07-08 11:11||   2009-07-08 11:11|| Front Page Top

#8 Excellent analogies.

A favorite of mine has been the concept of the Declaration as a blueprint, the Constitution as a foundation & framework and federal laws, rules & regulations along with lower levels of government as the materials that give substance and form to the structure erected upon the Constitution's base. The consequences of nailing multiple layers of shingles over each other or hanging multiple layers of wallboard but never removing the old stuff are illustrative of what happens when a regulatory regime simply piles on new requirements haphazardly.

I quite like the software requirements document / design document / code in that context as well. Though my knowledge in that arena is a bit dated I recall that there's a good bit of scholarship showing the rapid rise in the probability of failure to even complete a software project as the required number of lines of source code grows (probably true of most disciplines but the scholarship on software development is pretty black-and-white). We might look at a piece of legislation or the overall amount of laws, rules & regulations implemented by a government and conclude that at some point the entity itself becomes so large as to foreclose any possibility of success beyond what is experienced via mere chance.

Posted by AzCat 2009-07-08 12:24||   2009-07-08 12:24|| Front Page Top

#9 What if Honduras happened in America?

We'd probably shoot him. Dead men lead no rebellions, and all that.
Posted by mojo 2009-07-08 14:56||   2009-07-08 14:56|| Front Page Top

#10 This whole discussion is frightening, necessary but still. Like many of the RB crowd I have spent a large portion of my life in shithole countries. The ONE lesson I have learned with all of them is how very fragile democracy is. What triggers failure in my feeble experiences, I'm being humble here but screaming, is two fold. First is the senario talked about with a leader that was elected wanting to retain power. The analogies below are great examples. Power grabs like that are just that, but.

The second and more sinister is the "We need to redo our Constitution because it is old and not relevent" crap. The Philippines is going through this right now, GMA is trying to create a constitutional crisis to stay in power. We all have issue with the constitution, it does need some work, and thats the trap. Who will do it? I tell you history is the teacher here and it is done by who ever is currently in power. We open the door on an overhaul and Pelosi, Reed, and Zero WILL rewrite it. Those that say anything against it will be outcast as part of the problem. It is then only a few steps to a kinetic environment. Zero is slick, he has a playbook, if anyone here thinks they will get a say in the overhaul of our political or constitutional life under Obama they are kidding themselves.

I don't care how screwed up our constitution is, right now, right here in time, in this nation we need to hold it with our lives, leave it alone with no change, defend every word in it, good or bad, it at all costs. Our very existance depends on it. Otherwise we will live Obama's vision of the constitution, brownshirts and all.

That document has lasted longer than any other in the course of history if anyone here thinks they can rewrite it better is a self induldging fool. A bit emotional, I know, but from the heart.
Posted by 49 Pan 2009-07-08 15:09||   2009-07-08 15:09|| Front Page Top

#11 in order to legally change the constitution congress would need to go through the constitutional process of amending it - not an easy thing to do, even w/the donk majority.

I love our constitution, I'm proud to take the oath periodically to defend it. It's just too bad that it's not always interpreted w/original intent nor does anyone hold congress and potus really accountable when they circumvent it. Other then term limits and a few loop holes (like the improper interpretation of anchor babys as American citizens) I'd leave it as is. It's not the constitution that's the problem, it's the people that don't honor their constitutional oaths and the ignorate electorate that keeps sending these hacks back to DC.
Posted by Andy Ulusoque aka Broadhead6 2009-07-08 15:32||   2009-07-08 15:32|| Front Page Top

#12 ignorate = ignorant.
Posted by Andy Ulusoque aka Broadhead6 2009-07-08 15:33||   2009-07-08 15:33|| Front Page Top

#13 PTAH - awesome. When your finished w/your work could I get a copy somehow?
Thanks, but It was merely an exercise to help me solidify my thinking.

I've been having similar discussions (in a round about way) on what is the line in the sand that gov't crosses in our country that gives the people the go ahead to remove elected officials forcefully. I'd hate to see it happen but I enjoy pontificating about it.

Ah, now that's precisely where Pan's comment (#10) fits in: BY DEFINITION, things done according to the constitution ARE LEGAL, while things done contrary to the Constitution ARE ILLEGAL. The situation in Honduras and what the Military did WERE LEGAL because they were done to Protect their constitution which was being violated. My concern would be the amendation of the Constitution a-la Venezuela's that turned it into something else that we would NOT support originally.

I should point out that the doctrine of Judicial Review essentially makes the Constitution THAT WHICH THE SUPREMES SAY IT IS. In a way, the Judges have effectively taken over how the Consitution is interpreted, and declared private interpretations as "illegal". Remember, "LEGAL" IS A RELATIVE TERM, and is based

Pan's concern is that disaster is sure to follow if we do not embrace the Constitution. The signers of the Declaration were very much aware of, and very much respected, such sentiments, but again I point out that the issue is not choosing between mob rule and a democratic constitutional republic, but a different question of "Which version and whose vision of the Constitution are we being told to embrace and obey without question?"

Pan's comments and that of the first two paragraphs of the Declaration contain part of the answer: the current trouble-cost [TC(now)]created by the current interpretation of the Constitution is compared against the trouble-cost created by changing it [TC(ch)]. As long as perceived TC(ch) is higher than perceived TC(now) (based on raising the value of TC(ch) (as pan is doing), or lowering TC(now) (as the MSM is doing now)) nobody in their right mind would change the present situation.

Broadhead6's concern is very much immediate: he wants to defend the Constitution, but I think his oath requires he defend the most recent version of it as amended and interpreted by the Supremes, not some private interpretation of an earlier version. Thus, the threat of Venezuelan-izing the Constitution so the honorable army is either rendered immobile, or legally used against true reformers.
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2009-07-08 15:35|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2009-07-08 15:35|| Front Page Top

#14 Remember, "LEGAL" IS A RELATIVE TERM, and is based

Urk, let me inish that sentence:Remember, "LEGAL" IS A RELATIVE TERM, and is based on what the Constitution says is permissible, while "ILLEGAL" is based on what the Constitution says is forbidden.
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2009-07-08 15:37|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2009-07-08 15:37|| Front Page Top

#15 It nearly did happen in 2000.
Posted by Iblis 2009-07-08 15:50||   2009-07-08 15:50|| Front Page Top

#16 If any of you bright and incredibly patriotic and cynically far-seeing people want something to go on, there is the "Contract with the Constitution" and the accompanying "instructions, citizens for the use of" that the SA Tea Party Committee developed over the last month or so. Think of it as the next step after a couple of really inspiring and fantastically morale-raising parties. This kind of effort will take it to another level.
It's not just enough to swap sarcastic comments on a blog - we have to focus on those we elect - either those in office already, or those who we will elect in the near future. (Feel free to download, and use - please, that's what we intended it for!) Gov. Perry of Texas, no matter what else you might think of him, came to our event and publicly signed off on it, so did Jeff Wentworth, and we will - have no doubt about that part - be using this on other elected officials, at every level. Sign, or face the wrath of engaged and furious citizens. The ambition of our chairman (a retired AF Captain named Robin Juhl) is to have politicians, or aspiring politicians, about wet their pants when they hear that someone from the Tea Party is waiting in the outer office to have a quiet word with them.
Posted by Sgt. Mom">Sgt. Mom  2009-07-08 19:42|| http://www.celiahayes.com]">[http://www.celiahayes.com]  2009-07-08 19:42|| Front Page Top

#17 Broadhead6, you can always find Ptah's thoughts, whether finished or inprocess at his blog. I go there irregularly, then gorge on everything he's done since my last visit... which always takes some time to digest. :-) Ptah is that very dangerous thing, an engineer-philosopher with strong writing skills.
Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife  2009-07-08 20:08||   2009-07-08 20:08|| Front Page Top

#18 *blush* Thank you TW. I have not written at my Blog very little since march of last year because my writing has been almost exclusively devoted to writing essays at another website under my own name that explore the implications of a radically different way of looking at and living the Christian life using a form of analysis I've come to call theo-engineering. The results, though preliminary, have revolutionized my spiritual life and walk, and that of a co-researcher.

Much of what is objectionable in Political Islam and especially Talibanism is Sharia laws that attempt to enforce moral behavior from the outside because the religion supplies little to no hope of defeating lusts and temptations from within. I believe many Muslims support such a regime in the belief that some external control on personal behavior are better than none. My experiences indicates that there is a far superior way of suppressing the passions and lusts within that would strongly resonate with such people, and not just in that culture, to the point of wholesale abandonment of Islam in favor of a version of Christianity whose power would be daily demonstrated in the ease with which such passions are suppressed. We won't get the ones motivated by lust for power, but that is mostly in a leadership whose main lever of power within their subjects is the use of a religion that demands a righteousness that only obedience to the point of Jihad can attain.

Granted, such a massive exodus of people out of Islam and into Christianity would cause great heartburn among the MSM and liberal intelligensia, but you can't make omlettes unless you break the eggs.
Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2009-07-08 21:48|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2009-07-08 21:48|| Front Page Top

23:10 Sockpuppet of Doom
23:09 CrazyFool
22:55 Don Vito Crolutle2068
22:46 Don Vito Crolutle2068
22:43 Barbara Skolaut
22:26 Don Vito Crolutle2068
22:23 Classical_Liberal
22:15 GirlThursday
22:12 Don Vito Crolutle2068
22:08 Don Vito Crolutle2068
21:48 Ptah
21:46 ed
21:43 Frank G
21:35 ExtremeModerate
21:22 Barbara Skolaut
21:18 Pappy
20:53 Besoeker
20:49 Alaska Paul
20:47 Besoeker
20:45 Frank G
20:25 Besoeker
20:23 trailing wife
20:23 airandee
20:22 SteveS









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com