Debate:Is the United States Constitution True?

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by LogicMaster777.

Proposition

I think it's something people take on faith rather than reason or evidence. LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the United States Constitution true?

From LM777's talk page "Constitutions are generally imperatives, not informative. It's a little odd to talk about truth in them. The sentence "Pass the salt." isn't really true or false. The closest you can get is whether or not you were then passed salt. This would imply that truth is a matter of enforcement. So, the constitution is true if the laws it makes are enforced."--TiaC (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If one were to take "the constitution shall be the highest law of the land" as the literal truth, would that be based on faith or evidence?LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's enforced, so it's a law of the land. There isn't really any law that takes precedence over it, so it's the highest law. Therefore, evidence. (This is of course only referring to human laws, obviously physical laws take precedence. No one really thinks that the constitution claims to overrule physical laws though.)--TiaC (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If we say it becomes true because "it's enforced", isn't that a fallacious appeal to punishment/appeal to the stick? Could we prove the Koran to be true by "enforcing" it?

No, because the claims made by the Constitution are claims about what the government will do. If the government does these things, then the Constitution is true. The claims the Koran makes are not only claims about what Muslims will do. The part of the Koran that says that Muslims pray facing Mecca multiple times a day are shown to be true by Muslims doing this. The parts that claim that God spoke to Mohammad are obviously not affected by whether belief of this is enforced. You've made this exact same argument before, it has never worked. Appeal to punishment is only for when a threat is used to command someone to agree with you. I never said that if you should accept my argument or I will punish you. Don't make this argument again if you want anyone to take you seriously. --TiaC (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do we mean by enforcement if not punishments or threats of punishments?LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If you say x is true because someone else will do the enforcing instead of you, then does it become non-fallacious? Like, if I said x is true not because I enforce it but because someone else will, then does it become a reasoned argument?LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What matters is not who is doing the enforcing, but whether the punishment is related to the conclusion being drawn. "Vote for me or he'll punch you." is this fallacy, "Vote for me or the economy will continue to tank" is not.--TiaC (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If we said the Koran is enforced, therefore it is proven it is the supreme law, would you except this as proven true through enforcement?LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

talk:LogicMaster777|talk]]) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC) +

If we said the Koran is enforced, therefore it is proven it is the supreme law, would you except this as proven true through enforcement?LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

−

The obvious problem there is that not all of the Quran can be directly enforced: for example, you can't order the police to make it so that Allah made the heavens and the earth, or make a law that makes Allah prepare a fire for the infidel. You can create a state which enforces Quranic law (which would indeed make that law "true" in the sense the constitution is true) but that's not the same thing. King Skeleton (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In a nation where the parts of the Koran that are directives on what actions to take are enforced and not overruled by any higher law, then those parts of the Koran are the supreme law of the land. However, as I said earlier, truth of imperative statements is a bit odd. All you've really shown is that the parts of the Koran that tell Muslims to do things can be viewed as defining that Muslims do these things. So, when you have a nation that enforces that Muslims do these things, that bit defining Muslims would be true. However, this does not affect the truth of every part of the Koran that is not defining what it is to be Muslim. It is impossible to enforce that Allah created the universe. (Not to enforce belief in this, but to actually make it true that Allah created the universe.)--TiaC (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If by enforcement we mean punishment or threats of punishment, then how is arguing P therefore Q if P=punishment and Q= constitution supreme law not an appeal to consequence? Is it falsifiable?LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, Dipshit, if the Constitution was not enforced, then it would obviously not be a law of the land. Therefore, the punishment is relevant to the conclusion and this is not a use of the fallacy. I'm insulting you because I told you not to make this argument again and you were too muck of a fuckwit to pay attention to it, just like you have not learned anything from any of the other times you've tried this argument. Tell you what, if you try this again, I'm going to ban you for a bit as it will convince me that you are just trolling and trying to waste everyone's time. (That threat is not itself appeal to the stick because its goal is to compel a certain action, not to claim something is true.)--TiaC (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not an argument. I'm asking you to please clarify the position. An argument is a series of propositions leading to a conclusion. Asking you to explain how you reach the conclusion is not an argument. "if the Constitution was not enforced, then it would obviously not be a law of the land." therefore "It is enforced So it is law of the land". Where P is "Punishment" and L is "Constitution is Law of the land", so therefore the consequence of punishment proves the proposition? If ~P->~L therefore P -> L? Is this how you would put in symbolic logic?LogicMaster777 (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Can your Ad Baculuum be falsified?LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It is in fact an argument, albeit a badly-applied Socratic one. (You have a very clear position in this debate. Claiming to be unbiased and purely motivated by curiosity is highly dishonest.) Now, you have had it explained why this is not Ad Baculuum at least five times on multiple pages. If that has not got the information through your thick head, I don't think anything will. Tell me, what definition of "law of the land" are you using to include things that are not enforced? The argument I made would be falsified by the Constitution not being enforced and therefore not being a law of the land. Let L be the property of being a law of the land. Let E be the property of being enforced. ∀x(L(x)→E(x)) ∴ ∀x(~E(x)→~L(x)) --TiaC (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Can the U.S. Constitution be proven to be true?

My reply is no. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Can the U.S. Constitution be proven to be false?

Is the constitution=true a falsifiable hypothesis?LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the constitution=false a falsifiable hypothesis? - I hope you see the problem with this type of enquiry... ScepticWombat (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Provide a logical argument to prove that the U.S. Constitution is true.

If the constitution is true and if you can prove it do so here using a logical argument and/or formal logic proof.LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You need some historical background information on why we have the U.S. Constitution and maybe every single damn constitution in the world before you start asking such ridiculous questions because the Constitution is totally made up by Invisible Pink Unicorn. But here are some key points behind the Constitution.

1. We are a democracy.
2. Democracies are essentially a contract between regular citizens and leaders on how to govern their state.
3. This Constitution was created by people dissatisfied with no representation, and in some counties, the colonies were frustrated by unquestioning rule.
4. The Constitution was ratified by generally all states, who have representatives, those who are elected by everyday citizens to represent us.

Unlike the Bible, which is a collection of allegories and other mythology by some authors, the Constitution in principle allows people to change their government while the Bible adheres to a set of rigid rules that must be followed. LEFTYGREENMARIO 20:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Like the bible, the constitution went through a ratification process. How is this proof of its truth value? Can we prove anything to be true with ratification? When a jury ratifies a verdict, they weigh facts and EVIDENCE in coming to a conclusion. Is the ratification of the verdict in itself proof of guilt or innocence? LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bible did not go through a ratification process unless you believe that the Councils of Nicaea consulted directly with the original authors of the Bible (or God); it went through an editorial process, the decisions of which were ratified. It's not the same thing.

And we've already told you the definition of "true" you're trying to foist on us does not actually apply to ideas. When you make dinner, is the recipe "true?" King Skeleton (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Controlled experiment

Propose a controlled experiment to prove the constitution as true or false.LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Propose a controlled experiment to prove the British Monarchy as true or false.

Propose a controlled experiment to prove the Roman Republic as true or false.

Propose a controlled experiment to prove China as true or false. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does this remind me more and more strongly of another individual fixated on (bad) logic?--ZooGuard (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Umm, cool story? Prove wormholes since it is equally relevantLogicMaster777 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

??? Non sequitur much? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Provide a logical argument why the U.S. Constitution is false

OK, here ya go. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we believe in the constitution if it is proven false?

If the constitution were proven false, should we still accept it as true?

Should we believe in the constitution if it is unproven either way?

Should we believe in it on faith even if it is unproven?LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's usually taken as an axiomatic truth (ie self-evident, as the document itself says). Axioms are used as the beginning of reasoning because it must begin somewhere (eg the proposition "words mean things" is rather hard to prove without assuming it to be true or disprove without self-negation). King Skeleton (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So it is the same as my constitution in this respect, right?LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sure, there's nothing magic about it, it's just a list of things the authors think will make a functional society. The difference is in that people accepted that it was the law of the land and actually set up the structures it describes. Think of it like two drawings of bridges, one of which was actually built. That one is useful for addressing the structure of the real bridge if we need to, but it's no less a drawing than the other. King Skeleton (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a logical reason why we should accept it as true that the constitution is highest law? What?LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The arguments presented in it are why people abide by it. In a sense, the Constitution is itself an argument for the establishment of a particular kind of government. People agreed with the argument, so they established that kind of government. The reason your constitution did not do the same is because nobody agreed to allow it to be enforced, nobody agreed to help you enforce it, and you yourself do not have the power to enforce it. Note that the final one by itself is irrelevant because if you had the power to ban people and everyone still disagreed with you you would have to ban everyone, which would result in a "state" which consisted of you. This would mean most of the terms you stated could not actually apply, so you would be a failed government. King Skeleton (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

To give you an example of what the constitution actually is, let's say we're planning to build a ship. We draw up a document which describes what the ship we're going to build is going to look like based on what we think we want it to do. Then we describe each part of the ship so people can actually build them; for example, we describe the dimensions of the rudder and what the hinges will need to be made from. Now, at this point there's no ship, no rudder and no hinges. We're just imagining it based on how we think it should be.

If we never actually get around to putting together the parts of the ship we're describing, the plan we made is basically just round-robin fiction; it's an idea of a ship that never was. But if we do build the ship, the plans become plans of a real ship, and we can reference them if we want to know things about what the ship is and how it works.

The US Constitution is almost entirely concerned with establishing what the state bodies of the US will be and how they will interact with each other. Sure, the state bodies aren't quite as solid as a rudder, but if we actually create, say, a senate of two representatives from each state, each having one vote, and we tell them to fuck off after six years, then the first line of section three of the Constitution refers to a real thing. So if you want to see if the Constitution refers to something real, look for the government it describes.

As to why the Constitution is the highest law, that's just by nature. The government can't make laws above the laws which say what the government actually is without acting outside of itself, it would be a nonsensical contradiction. In the case of our ship plans, it would be like trying to make a change within the plans that somehow transcends the plans.

Also, I should apologise: the line about "truths which are self evident" is in the Declaration of Independence, but it's still useful as a statement as to the purpose of the government. King Skeleton (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Is an elephant true?

No, it's a pachyderm _{(itself an untrue statement in a strictly Linaean sense, since this order is now considered an obsolete concept)}. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

An elephant isn't an elephant? What is an elephant then?--Coffee (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Elephants are obviously true. Rhinoceroses are right out. --Ymir (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"An elephant isn't an elephant?" - is of course another question entirely. My answer addressed the initial question ("Is an elephant true?"). The statement "an elephant is an elephant" is of course true by definition. Nevertheless, your follow-up question is right out of LogicMaster777's play book, so, well done. :-) ScepticWombat (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, to really make sense as question it should have been " Isn't an elephant an elephant?". I continue to maintain that an elephant is, in fact, an elephant. If anyone seriously feels that this can be disputed then they are echoing logicmaster - not I.--Coffee (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

My reply wasn't meant to suggest that you're actually on LogicMaster's one-man team. I simply thought that your initial question was a good spoof of LM (hence the "well done"), and that your response to my initial reply was another illustrative parody of LM, because it followed the same switcheroo:

1) Start by asking a nonsensical question (the nonsensical bits being flawed (use of) terminology),

2) when it's pointed out that the problem is with the terminology, start asking inane questions to which the answers are obvious, while also

3) implying that your opponents are idiots who, in the case of this spoof, think elephants don't exist. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Pachydermata is no longer acknowledged as a valid taxon, but that that doesn't mean the term "pachyderm" can't be applied to thick-skinned mammals anymore. Names of various obsolete taxa have survived through such informal use up to this day. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

True? False?

converse is/should fallacy detected! It's rare people go the other way and interpret a suggestion of how things should be as an objective statement of how things are. The constitution exists. People use it to frame, guide, and understand government behavior. Is this too complicated? Ikanreed (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Is atheism true or false? It exists, therefore it must be true. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 21:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Remind me why we're supposed to care what you think? King Skeleton (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Is atheism true or false? It exists, therefore it must be true." I've reached the point where even statements like this falls into Poe territory, but surely, nobs/Rob is just presenting a silly spoof on LogicMaster777, right? ScepticWombat (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking at this for an example of Rob's debating "technique." Basically it's a matter of semantics where you find words which have definitions that look like they support you, then argue that those are the only correct interpretations of those words, in that case cross-referencing unrelated uses of similar words as if one defines the other. In Biblical studies this is done by inerrancy apologists; they'll get a copy of one of the Concordances and pick definitions to suit their "harmonisation" without any regard for whether the use actually makes sense in context. Actual Bible scholars call it "illegitimate totality transfer."

You can see the same approach in that weirdy argument he made where he argued the original Latin definition of "religio" is the correct definition of the English word "religion." That one was a suppressed correlative / lost contrast fallacy, because he was trying to alter the terms of the argument so that one of two contrasting terms was encompassed by the other. You can see the same fallacy in the is it art? / is it a game? debates where one side will try to use a definition of art or game that prevents anything from being excluded from it, even though that can't possibly be the definition their opponent is using. King Skeleton (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the US Constitution spontaneously create goats?

Discuss.--Madman (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Yes, I think all goats believe that the omnipresent U.S. Constitution started it all. LEFTYGREENMARIO 23:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and ultimately this generates The Men Who Stare at Goats. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution Myth vs. Fact.

Read the original U.S. Constitution of 1791 for what it says and what it does not say. Here is a Word document, in Google Doc form, of the original U.S. Constitution of 1791.

(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z_i8tC4gepB0Mxg97tgZk9MojOSL3js-3_DVQKr3zwg/edit)

With it you can do a Word search "Find and Replace" for such missing phrases as "voting rights", "citizen rights", "citizenship", "electorate", "corporations", "corporate personhood", "church", "opportunity", "political parties", "privatization", "state sovereignty", "wealthy", "elite", "slaves", "Capitalism", "Conservatism", Republican Party", "Democratic Party" and "Democracy". On the other hand, the words "religion", "slavery", and "welfare" appear only twice each, while the words "taxes", "rights", and "liberty" are mentioned three times each, "money" is mentioned six times, and "war" and "government" are mentioned nine times each. It mentions "citizen" twenty-four times and "states' 133 times, and "union" seven times.

However, what you also will not find in the original constitution is any mention of citizen rights, or who are citizens. That did not come until after the Civil War with the 14th amendment in 1868. Which means, as a lot of people don't believe, that the constitution is flexible and adopts with changes in society. It also means that only an elite group, a minority of the people, got to choose the select group that would run the country for the 77 years before it was amended to add the 14th amendment.

So how was a citizens determined?

Articles of the Confederation - Article IV

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them."

THUS, YOU WERE NOT A CITIZEN IF you were an indentured servant, a slave, poor, a fugitive, or a person who wanders from place to place like a woodsman or mountain man.

Amendment 10 of the constitution - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Note that the word "respectively" places the importance of the state ahead of the will of the people.

Articles of the Confederation - Article X

"The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite."

THUS, A SMALL GROUP OF ELITES RULED FOR SIX MONTHS EACH YEAR WHILE CONGRESS WAS IN WINTER RECESS.

Now consider the Connecticut Compromise of 1787 which required the upper house [the senate] to be weighted equally between the states. Each state would have two representatives in the upper house. This gave away the power of the majority of population and gave it to an even smaller group of senators who can at any time stalemate the entire congress. In those days it was only a handful of people. As the nation would grow, most of those states would turn out to be small states. Thus, today a minority of the population have more control over their government than does the majority. Which is why congress today is in such a state of chaos.

Now consider that this move gave a multinational corporate oligarchy the ability to intervene in government to get government to intervene in business to the advantage of the politically influential business over its competition, its employees, its customers, taxpayers and the electorate by simply funding the campaigns for both parties in congress. The Supreme Court would end up recognizing this right of the corporate oligarchy in its Citizens United decision which gave corporations personhood. An example of this is how the newly elected GOP rushed through a bill written by Citibank, that was hidden in an unrelated appropriations bill that would prevent a government shutdown. This bill allowed the too-big-too-fail banks the right to continue making the risky proprietary investments for themselves that got us into the 2008 financial crisis and would guarantee that the taxpayers would once again bail the banks out if they failed.

PragmaticStatistic (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read the constitution plenty of times, thanks. I'm not sure what you're trying to establish through random word-counts of it. You seem to be acting like the strawman LogicMaster here is so desperate for, where the words of the constitution are actually magic, and aren't just codified statements about the intended nature of US governance. Ikanreed (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

One big myth being advanced today on Conservapedia is that the Bill of Rights creates and enumerates certain "unalienable rights." If Conservapedia does not convince you by logic it will use subliminal messaging by pipe links of various words to its article on "unalienable rights." By definition, an cp:unalienable right is granted by God (and not by the King of England). However, the Supreme Court (and the judiciary as a whole) are sworn to uphold the Constitution, so the Bill of Rights as interpreted by the courts, defines the rights in American society rather than a group of theologians. Of course, Conservapedia is now advocating that if the judiciary does not come up with the "correct" answer, God gives Americans the right to ignore the wrong answer and instead rely on the "Best of the Public", particularly if they have encamped in Idaho with machine guns. Hclodge (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, that's a pretty natural misunderstanding on their part given that the declaration of independence advances the idea of inalienable rights, less than a decade before that. Ikanreed (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ikanreed, did you read it for what you want it to say? If you read the constitution so many times obviously you did not analyze it for what it says and does not say. You just took it literally. You evidently missed the fact that all the participants who signed the constitution were the elite businessmen of their time during the early stages of the U.S. Industrial Revolution, when society was adapting to the growing economic political power of the regional and local business man; and the fact that both the American Revolution and concurrently running Industrial Revolution were started in the corporate Charter Colonies of New England where they had the right of self-governing under a corporate contract with the king until he took those rights back. The first grist mill was in Saugus, MA in 1646. The largest iron blast mill was in Lakeville, Connecticut in 1762. So which signatures on the constitution of 1791 or Declaration of Independence where signatures of the common man? And who exactly had the right to vote as specified in the constitution of 1791? It wasn't specified was it? Instead citizenship was limited by the Articles of Confederation.

Consider me pretty well informed on the context of the constitution's creation, its creators, and the problems the US government had. I'm not actually sure what point you're trying to advance aside from the accusation of ignorance. So... I straightforwardly disagree about my own ignorance. Ikanreed (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, all participants were NOT elite businessmen of their time. You had a decent amount of soldiers, lawyers, and so on - but not what qualified as elite merchants.

Still don't know what point you're making about the AoC, as it has no legal significance once the USC was in place. Same with the DoI; no legal significance whatsoever. --Castaigne (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I love pseudolaw crankery.

Point of order: On the creation and ratification of the U. S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation were invalidated as a legal document and any definitions of citizenship contained therein do not apply. Therefore, the legal definitions of what counts as a citizen are solely defined by statute of Congress.

So, strip any references to the Articles of Confederation out of your argument and try again.

And really, conspiracy theories about ALEC? Oh, please. --Castaigne (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)