Colin: Guilty as charged.

Which is the point I was making from the beginning. Yet, here we are, debating whether I was being unfair in getting you to admit this.

So now I am being called out for being partisan. On this blog. Wow. Eric, if you are really concerned about partisanship then I would submit I am hardly the first or even most blatant offender around here.

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Before complaining about my “constant nitpicking and parsing” perhaps you should also look at your own posts. You’re a smart guy, I can tell. You are, in fact, very deft at subtly adjusting your arguments from post to post to avoid having to admit any errors of your own. It’s not easy to do. You’re obviously a pretty sharp cookie.

Unfortunately, the only way to debate someone who chooses to do this is to be specific about both what I am saying and what you actually said (not what you are claiming or insinuating was said). Unless I pin you down on what you actually are saying, you’ll just step to the side and deride from another angle.

For instance, I did not accuse you of “being partisan.” If I had, you’d have had a point. I said something rather more specific. But, as I said, you stepped a little to the side and claimed I was making a broader statement than I actually was.

What I said was this:

Additionally, you made it a partisan issue even though, when called on it, you admitted that the same could be applied to either side. You wrapped your compliment in an incorrect and unnecessary jab at liberals when you could have just said “people.”

Being partisan is understandable. You get things wrong, you see things with blinders on and you interpret facts in a way that best suits you. While I could have accused you of this, it wouldn’t have been fair. You could accuse me right back and you’d be right.

I accused you have making something a partisan issue when you knew that it was not. I accused you of intentionally leaving something out so that you could score cheap points.

And what did you do in response? You accused me of saying something I did not so that you could score cheap points.

Look, I don’t know you beyond the posts that you’ve made. It’s not personal, though if flattering yourself makes you feel better, have at it.

I’m fine with idiots saying idiot things. It’s to be expected. But you’re a smart guy who uses your wits to argue things you know are not entirely true. This is something of a pet peeve of mine, so if I’m being a dick to you – and I probably am – that’s why. It’s not personal.

Either way, I should probably be ignoring you. It would be better for everyone involved. No promises, but I’ll do my best.

Sorry, I just call em like I see em. Much of what the government does strikes me as wildly unconstitutional.

That’s pretty much what I am saying. Eric, however, finds me guilty of excessive partisanship.

This isn’t something on which I’m going to feign expertise, but given the dozens of diverse sources I’ve read suggesting that President Clinton was a driving force behind a balanced budget in the 90s, I’m going to hazard a guess: Interest on the debt runs ahead of your surplus. That doesn’t mean you haven’t balanced your budget, and that doesn’t mean your budget doesn’t have a surplus. It does mean that the debt would still increase.

Interest on the debt is part of the budget.

Ran the government in the black for a while. Or, even if you were to continue to insist upon this right-wing revisionism, ran it considerably less in the red (as President Carter did as well, by the way) than Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.

Quoting government stats is now “right-wing revisionism”? In any case, yes, the American economy boomed and provided massive increases in tax revenue that managed to almost sate the political class.

Well let me see if I can’t help you out. Emphasis should have been on the word necessarily, that is to say, certain sections are quite clear and set in stone – the first amendment, for example – while others are far more flexible and vague, including much of Article II.

Fair, although I don’t find Article II to be all that nebulous.

Well interpretations aren’t always obvious, are they? Why do we have courts?

Fair.

It’s not all up for interpretation, but much of it is. One could interpret the second amendment to grant rights to own an RPG, or one could interpret it to include the necessity of belonging to a militia to own any guns. Similarly the eminent domain clause of the fifth amendment was in 2005 interpreted to include economic development under the umbrella of the words ‘public use,’ infuriating those who disagreed with the interpretation. We have courts in the first place because language is inherently imbued with subtlety.

Again, assessing intent behind the words is of course up for debate. What is plain, however, is that we have strayed far from the document’s original intent. A document meant to serve as the basis for limited government with narrowly defined powers has given way to a federal government that involves itself in an ever expanding areas of our lives.

I understand that a government stuck in the 18th century is something of a libertarian dream, a joyous utopia of rugged frontiersmen Galts, but my advice to you is that you’re spitting in the wind.

The futileness of my cause makes it no less righteous.

Of course, and in so doing likely staved off the likelihood of future revolutions, save that bit of unpleasantness in the 1860s. They also made it next to impossible for the amendments, such that amendments have occurred about once every fifteen years, which is fine if you take a liberal view of congressional authority. The amendment process historically has been for major issues; it is the legal nuclear option when often more traditional means will do fine.

And of course for those smaller issues we have courts to interpret, an area we seem to agree on.

Quite so, the solitary and damning stain on Taney’s career. As is evidenced by later history though, the system of a living body of common legality through interpretation and case law is generally self-correcting.

I certainly hope so.

Article I, section 8, clause I, if you insist. You’ll note that the power to tax provides that such taxation must be done for the ‘common defence and general welfare’ of the United States. To my knowledge the phrase is not well-defined legally and may be used rather liberally. Social security is authorised under the same clause.

And here is the problem. It strikes me as perfectly obvious what that means — that Congress can collect taxes to carry out its activities. It makes no sense that the constitution would have specific and enumerated powers and then obviate it with such language that opens the door for Congress to do pretty much as it sees fit.

Those decisions were later overruled by justices who read the same Constitution and reached completely different conclusions. The letter of the law is not always so clear cut.

I haven’t the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

This is coming from an advocate of an ideology that supports killing people based on who they choose to mate with because of books written millenia ago.

With regard to Eric’s point about unconstitutionality existing in either ideology, I do find it pretty troubling to see the charge of unconstitutionality used to score political points.

Don’t be such a baby. Liberals call out conservatives more often, conservatives call out liberals more often; that’s how blogs work. If I or you or anyone else is excessive or takes a stray step in our methods, one would hope we’d be more apt to focus on substance than sniping at our own side over process and procedure.

Then please explain how one can run a surplus without the debt declining.

This isn’t something on which I’m going to feign expertise, but given the dozens of diverse sources I’ve read suggesting that President Clinton was a driving force behind a balanced budget in the 90s, I’m going to hazard a guess: Interest on the debt runs ahead of your surplus. That doesn’t mean you haven’t balanced your budget, and that doesn’t mean your budget doesn’t have a surplus. It does mean that the debt would still increase.

Did what?

Ran the government in the black for a while. Or, even if you were to continue to insist upon this right-wing revisionism, ran it considerably less in the red (as President Carter did as well, by the way) than Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.

I don’t know what you are trying to say here. “Personally, it’s not that I don’t, it’s that I don’t necessarily…”?

Well let me see if I can’t help you out. Emphasis should have been on the word necessarily, that is to say, certain sections are quite clear and set in stone – the first amendment, for example – while others are far more flexible and vague, including much of Article II.

Look, the law either means what it says or it doesn’t.

Well interpretations aren’t always obvious, are they? Why do we have courts?

The Constitution either provides for certain limited powers or it doesn’t. If it’s all up for interpretation then it is essentially meaningless and defeats the purpose.

It’s not all up for interpretation, but much of it is. One could interpret the second amendment to grant rights to own an RPG, or one could interpret it to include the necessity of belonging to a militia to own any guns. Similarly the eminent domain clause of the fifth amendment was in 2005 interpreted to include economic development under the umbrella of the words ‘public use,’ infuriating those who disagreed with the interpretation. We have courts in the first place because language is inherently imbued with subtlety.

I understand that a government stuck in the 18th century is something of a libertarian dream, a joyous utopia of rugged frontiersmen Galts, but my advice to you is that you’re spitting in the wind.

And the founding fathers weren’t so arrogant as to think that they had all of the solutions. This is why the Constitution can be amended and why we have a Supreme Court to determine whether laws are in line with the Constitution’s principles.

Of course, and in so doing likely staved off the likelihood of future revolutions, save that bit of unpleasantness in the 1860s. They also made it next to impossible for the amendments, such that amendments have occurred about once every fifteen years, which is fine if you take a liberal view of congressional authority. The amendment process historically has been for major issues; it is the legal nuclear option when often more traditional means will do fine.

We also have to keep in mind, however, that just because the Supreme Court rules a certain way doesn’t mean that they are right. Dred Scott for example.

Quite so, the solitary and damning stain on Taney’s career. As is evidenced by later history though, the system of a living body of common legality through interpretation and case law is generally self-correcting.

But I am just dying to know how government-run health care is constitutional. Or the Department of Education.

Article I, section 8, clause I, if you insist. You’ll note that the power to tax provides that such taxation must be done for the ‘common defence and general welfare’ of the United States. To my knowledge the phrase is not well-defined legally and may be used rather liberally. Social security is authorised under the same clause.

Guilty as charged.

Where in this was the acknowledgment that the view of holding to a literal, specific view of the powers granted in the Constitution is an opinion? Because I don’t see it.

Where was it stated otherwise as fact?

This was you pretending to be polite while saying, essentially: “Thank you for admitting that my position is the default one and that you are deviating from it.”

Yes, I hold that going by the letter of the law and what the Constitution actually says is a superior method of interpreting it.

Additionally, you made it a partisan issue even though, when called on it, you admitted that the same could be applied to either side. You wrapped your compliment in an incorrect and unnecessary jab at liberals when you could have just said “people.”

That’s where I’m going with this.

So now I am being called out for being partisan. On this blog. Wow. Eric, if you are really concerned about partisanship then I would submit I am hardly the first or even most blatant offender around here. If you plan on calling everyone out who is partisan on this blog then you will be one busy dude. There’s this one guy — Oliver Willis I think is the name — who is particularly vicious in his partisanship that you may want to keep an eye out for.

I also find it instructive that you have taken far greater offense to what I said than the person I directed my comments at.

In fact, given your consistent nitpicking and parsing of my postings I would almost think that there’s something personal here, but I’m probably just flattering myself.

You made a mean-spirited backhanded compliment and I’m calling you on it.

Well, at least you are honest that you don’t think the Constitution should mean what it actually says. I wish the rest of the left would be as forthcoming.

Where in this was the acknowledgment that the view of holding to a literal, specific view of the powers granted in the Constitution is an opinion? Because I don’t see it.

This was you pretending to be polite while saying, essentially: “Thank you for admitting that my position is the default one and that you are deviating from it.”

Additionally, you made it a partisan issue even though, when called on it, you admitted that the same could be applied to either side. You wrapped your compliment in an incorrect and unnecessary jab at liberals when you could have just said “people.”

That’s where I’m going with this.

No, in this case it is that simple. This is what I was responding to:

I don’t care what they’d think about it. I try to base my opinion of a law strictly on its merits, and not on my guess at the opinion of men dead 200 years who wouldn’t fully grasp the issues relevant to the world in which we now live.

If you don’t base opinion on what was intended and instead prefer undefined “merit” as your criteria then you don’t favor going by the letter of the law. As I read this the poster is saying that we shouldn’t follow the letter of the law. He even later conceded that his view has some issues and could never really be put into practice.

My response was to thank him for the acknowledgment and wish that others would be this forthcoming with their views.

You’ve then extrapolated that into something else.

And while I am well aware that there are competing views — such as the “living constitution” — I happen to think that they are extremely misguided and wrong. Yes, that is my opinion rather than fact. All law is opinion. I don’t know where you are going with this.

I don’t even know what this means.

Sorry, I hit submit before being finished and edited and then got called away from the computer. Let me restate.

You basically set the standard for the correct way to interpret the Constitution, then denigrated people for not being clear that they’ve deviated from your interpretation. You framed it as if people had decided that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says it means, but it’s just not that simple.

I know you believe that a very strict, literal reading of the Constitution is proper, but that’s your opinion, not fact.

No one is under any obligation to come out and say “I have deviated from the communally accepted method of interpreting the Constitution” because there isn’t one.

Yes, we could be clearer that we aren’t bound by literalism, but doing so would be clarifying, not required.

More insanity.

Then please explain how one can run a surplus without the debt declining.

Good for you guys, though. Searched far and wide for a metric to denigrate President Clinton’s fiscal conservatism.

I wasn’t the one that brought it up.

Were I you guys – and not just a party hack on your side, but an honest gent like yourself – I’d just be trying to figure out how he did it.

Did what?

<Personally, it’s not that I don’t, it’s that I don’t necessarily, particularly since it’s so open to interpretation. If a law has merit and wasn’t preapproved by dead people, I’m still all right with it. Legally, I understand that view has some issues and could never really be put into practice, which is why I fully support both the amendment system and the liberal view of the elastic clause.

I don’t know what you are trying to say here. “Personally, it’s not that I don’t, it’s that I don’t necessarily…”? Look, the law either means what it says or it doesn’t. The Constitution either provides for certain limited powers or it doesn’t. If it’s all up for interpretation then it is essentially meaningless and defeats the purpose.

Look, none of this is to denigrate the constitution. It’s a phenomonal foundation for a liberalised republic built on reason. I’m just not that concerned what George Washington would have thought about digital copyright fair use provisions, or a proposed restriction on assault weapons.

And the founding fathers weren’t so arrogant as to think that they had all of the solutions. This is why the Constitution can be amended and why we have a Supreme Court to determine whether laws are in line with the Constitution’s principles.

We also have to keep in mind, however, that just because the Supreme Court rules a certain way doesn’t mean that they are right. Dred Scott for example.

But I am just dying to know how government-run health care is constitutional. Or the Department of Education.

Agreed.

I hate to pull out a “you too!” argument, but this was such bullshit that I don’t know what else to say. You’ve decided to be very literal in regards to Constitutional law, then chide people for not wearing a sign that says “I’m less literal about the Constitution than Colin.”

I don’t even know what this means.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. And I’ve tried. Using many, many words.

I like to use words.

Interest, and probably also inflation. Doesn’t mean the great fiscal conservative president of the past quarter-century didn’t balance his budget.

Good for you guys, though. Searched far and wide for a metric to denigrate President Clinton’s fiscal conservatism. Were I you guys – and not just a party hack on your side, but an honest gent like yourself – I’d just be trying to figure out how he did it.

Well, at least you are honest that you don’t think the Constitution should mean what it actually says. I wish the rest of the left would be as forthcoming.

Personally, it’s not that I don’t, it’s that I don’t necessarily, particularly since it’s so open to interpretation. If a law has merit and wasn’t preapproved by dead people, I’m still all right with it. Legally, I understand that view has some issues and could never really be put into practice, which is why I fully support both the amendment system and the liberal view of the elastic clause.

Look, none of this is to denigrate the constitution. It’s a phenomonal foundation for a liberalised republic built on reason. I’m just not that concerned what George Washington would have thought about digital copyright fair use provisions, or a proposed restriction on assault weapons.

–Marshall, CJ, in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407 (1819).

Funny, I think the same could be said about the right. The role of the Executive Branch went against both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution for 8 years, and on matters more troubling than just spending.

I hate to pull out a “you too!” argument, but this was such bullshit that I don’t know what else to say. You’ve decided to be very literal in regards to Constitutional law, then chide people for not wearing a sign that says “I’m less literal about the Constitution than Colin.”