Points to Ponder:

A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.[Alexander Hamilton]

Chief Justice Roberts's Long, Longer, and Longest Games

I have been saying something eerily similar about Chief Justice John Roberts for a long time. One point this article notes that I had not considered is reading the Chief Justice's concurrence on Citizens United as a template for how he would approach cases like Casey and possibly Roe as well. 

More on Wars Fought Without A Formal Declaration, Implied Powers, Early Supreme Court Precedents, Etc.

This is a draft from social media mostly composed on December 12, 2011.

This is written to in some respect complement two previous notes written which pertain to the subject of declaring war and the Constitutional issues contained therein.{1} My previous words will be in italics.

Having noted those things at the outset, it is interesting to note in a brief ado how so many writings in this medium are either written or republished{2} to address issues that come up in the standard stream of status line conversations and the like. The one you are reading now was occasioned by implication when I spotted the following typical misunderstanding of the Constitution as it pertains to the subject of war late last week. Without further ado...

‎Well, let's look at the facts. Are we "at war"? The congressional authorization allows operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, in response to terrorism.  

Never mind the questionable Constitutionality of that, as the Constitution only contemplates formal declarations of war,

My initial response was somewhat curt and read as follows:

No it does not. Few things annoy me more than so-called "Constitutionalists" who evince such ignorance of what the Founders intended and not a few completely misunderstand what is constitutionally permissible where war is concerned under the Constitution. 

On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Fought Without A Formal Declaration of War (circa December 26, 2007)

Not that the Founders themselves who wrote the Constitution would have any idea (and demonstrate through their actions in governing) what their own creation actually allowed or did not of course ;)

#######

I received the following response from the party the latter text was addressed to earlier today:

Shawn, with the exception of the Barbary Wars, which were authorized under the Constitution's "Piracy" clause, I believe I am correct in saying that the wars mentioned in your article which preceded 1812 were all on US soil.

Now it is not often that I am given an answer that completely surprises me but this one achieved that. Here is the problem with what was asked above in a nutshell: the reference to US soil is ambiguous. If we are talking about what currently exists as part of the United States then sure, that would be true but we cannot approach this matter anachronistically. Having noted that, let us consider all the wars I noted in the Ron Paul note{3} that preceded the War of 1812 as per your question starting with The Chicamunga Wars (1776-1794).

The Chicamunga Wars (1776-1794) were a series of wars technically spanning back to the end of the French and Indian War (1755-1763) but where the United States is concerned they are dated from 1776 when the colonies declared their independence from Great Britain. They were fought both in areas which were not part of the colonies though some of the battles and raids were fought in the western parts of some of the colonies.{4} But most of the fighting was west of the Appalachians, an area that the British in agreeing to the Treaty of Paris of 1763{5} in had ruled was off limits to colonial expansion. So if we were to access this matter technically and comtemporary to the time in question, the answer as to whether these wars were fought on US soil would be "yes and no." But either way, the parts of these wars that spilled over into the administration of President George Washington (1789-1797){6} were in no cases whatsoever fought under a formal declaration of war.

With the Northwest Indian Wars (1785-1795), they were fought in part because the Indians of various tribes and nations in those territories contested the claims to the land that the United States made. For that reason, to call the wars fought on that soil US soil is extremely anachronistic to no small degree. As with the Chicamunga Wars, the parts of these wars under the administration of President George Washington{7} were not fought under a formal declaration of war. So to answer your question with something that recognizes the state of thing at that time, the answer to your question would be "no" as those territories were not settled jurisdiction-wise between not only the Indian nations but also with Great Britain{8} at the time of the conflicts in question.

The Quasi-War with France under the administration of President John Adams was fought almost entirely on water so the answer where that one is concerned is a resounding no. And finally, the Battle of Tippecanoe (1811) could be answered with a "yes" to your inquiry because it was fought in the Indiana Territory after a pair of treaties were signed in 1795{9} which settled the jurisdiction questions of that area. So with all the wars noted prior to 1812, virtually none of them were fought on US soil if we judge the latter by what it was in its day rather than what it has become.{10} Having looked briefly at the wars you mentioned, let us now consider the First Barbary War along with the nature and purpose of the war powers in the Constitution of the United States.

You had stated that the Barbary Wars were were authorized under the Constitution's "Piracy" clause. Of course if this was so, then you need to ask yourself why this did not occur to the Founders who were operating government at the time? But anyway, let us touch on the First Barbary War now and see if what happened corresponds to what you have claimed. Among the first in President Jefferson's State of the Union address on December 8, 1801{11}, he apprised the congress of certain defensive measures he had taken:

I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean, with assurances to that power of our sincere desire to remain in peace, but with orders to protect our commerce against the threatened attack. The measure was seasonable and salutary. The Bey had already declared war. His cruisers were out. Two had arrived at Gibraltar. Our commerce in the Mediterranean was blockaded and that of the Atlantic in peril. 

The arrival of our squadron dispelled the danger. One of the Tripolitan cruisers having fallen in with and engaged the small schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant Sterret, which had gone as a tender to our larger vessels, was captured, after a heavy slaughter of her men, without the loss of a single 1 on our part. The bravery exhibited by our citizens on that element will, I trust, be a testimony to the world that it is not the want of that virtue which makes us seek their peace, but a conscientious desire to direct the energies of our nation to the multiplication of the human race, and not to its destruction.

He then went on to mention that he had gone as far as he could without congressional authorization of further action:

Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense, the vessel, being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew. 

The Legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offense also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries. I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstances of weight.

Notice how President Jefferson mentioned "authorizing measures of offense" and not specifically "a declaration of war"? And if you look at the entire text of his State of the Union address, there is never a mention of pirates anywhere in the text. The reason is this was not a matter of a stray ship or two but instead an actual state or nation we were dealing with here{12} and the piracy clause is not something that dealt with nations. Furthermore, the piracy clause was offensive in nature insofar that it allowed for not only defining piracy but also punishing it which involves an active or offensive element. But if you read President Jefferson's State of the Union, he took merely defensive actions. Therefore, President Jefferson did not have recourse to the Constitution's "Piracy" clause or feel that he was authorized to act under it in this instance. It stands therefore to look at if the Congress authorized any offensive action under the Constitution's "Piracy" clause since we all know they issued no formal declaration of war. Here is the relevant text of the Congress' authorization of President Jefferson to take offensive measures against the regency of Tripoli and its Bey.

The declaration of war feature is for the United States to initiate war. However, if there is an attack on the United States by another nation or group that has declared war on us{13}, a formal declaration is not required. That said though, since The First Barbary War it has been customary to issue authorizations to use force and even at times lesser statues for much more limited military engagements. Hamilton explained the way out of Jefferson's dilemma as I noted here and will cite at the present time:

An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . ." But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view. [LINK]

It was not long after Congress voted on what we would call today an "authorization to use force" to give President Jefferson the sanction to take offensive measures against the Dey. The aforementioned measure included authorizing President Jefferson to instruct armed American vessel commanders to seize the vessels of the Dey as well as all his goods and also "to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

In other words, Congress circa March of 1802 recognized a state of war existed between the Pasha of Tripoli and the United States and accepted Hamilton's rationale on what the Constitution allowed for in the implementation of the war contained therein. Later on August 11, 1801, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Talbot vs. Seeman{14} and in the ruling stated the following:

"The whole powers of war being by the Constitution of the United States vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that Congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation, or partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, must be noticed."

Notice the delineation that Marshall makes between "general hostilities"{15} or "partial hostilities."{16} 

And while Hamilton's exposition{17} was the most influential explanations on this matter -in part because of Marshall's reforms of the Supreme Court decision process synthesizing the opinion writing process to make it more focused, they hardly innovated the concept. Indeed the pre-Marshall Supreme Court on August 15, 1800 with regards to another matter from the Quasi-War with France handed down a ruling in Bas vs. Tingy which set the first markers in place for this matter judicially.

In reviewing the above link, you can read all four Justices who ruled in favour of the lower court on the matter and interestingly enough, Justice Bushrod Washington{18} who was involved in Bas vs. Tingy was the justice who handed down the circuit ruling in Talbot vs. Seeman which at that point was on appeal to the supreme court.

In summary, there is ample cogent evidence from the early days of the Republic to refute the position of the so-called "Constitutional Conservatives" that a war requires a formal Declaration of War by Congress to thereby by considered constitutional. 

Notes:

{1} The notes were published both to Rerum Novarum and then later to Facebook. The first note in its Facebook version was published on January 13, 2009 with the title On Ron Paul and Wars Fought Without a Formal Declaration. It had previously been published to this site on December 26, 2007 with the title On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal "Declaration of War". The second note in its Facebook version was published on November 14, 2009 with the title Clarifying a Previous Facebook Note Posting on a Constitutional Issue. It was previously published to this site on March 7, 2009 under the title Clarification of a Previous Posting In Lieu of a Recent Posting.

{2} Often subjects repeat themselves later on in different print communication mediums and in those cases, if either time is not on my side to write anew on a subject or something previously written addresses the matter to at least a macro extent, oftentimes I will republish such a writing either from other writing mediums or within the various notes that have been posted to Facebook in my time here.

{3} See the first link of footnote one.

{4} Such as a bit of western Virginia and parts of North Carolina and Georgia.

{5} This was the treaty signed between Great Britain, France, and Spain in Paris formally ending the French and Indian War.

{6} That also goes for the parts of the war fought under the old Articles of Confederation (1777-1788) whereby the Continental Congresses at no time called for any formal declaration of war in any of these instances whatsoever.

{7} See footnote six.

{8} The British had not conceded the territories outside of the original colonies and they still had a claim of sorts on the Northwest Territory areas themselves. And though I am loathe to quote anything frok Wikipedia, on this matter they have a very succinct paragraph that explains it well so I will go against my ordinary inclinations and reference them at this time. To wit:

The Ohio territory was subject to overlapping and conflicting claims by the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Virginia, in addition to those by the Shawnee, Mingo, Lenape and other actual inhabitants, who were no longer considered tributary to the Six Nations. While the British had suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Yorktown (1781), there had been no decisive defeat for their Indian allies in the Northwest Territories. In addition, the Indian tribes in the Old Northwest were not parties to the treaty. Many leaders, especially Little Turtle and Blue Jacket, refused to recognize United States claims to the area northwest of the Ohio River. The British remained in possession of their Great Lakes forts, through which they continued to supply Indian allies with trade items and weapons in exchange for furs. Some in the British government wished to maintain a neutral Indian territory between Canada and the United States, but most agreed that immediate withdrawal was not possible without sparking a new Indian war.[2] The lingering British presence was not formally ended until their withdrawal from the Great Lakes forts pursuant to the Jay Treaty negotiated in 1794, and it would continue informally afterward until the War of 1812. [Wikipedia: Excerpt from their article The Northwest Territory]

{9} I refer here to The Jay Treaty (ratified by the Senate on June 24, 1795) and Treaty of Greenville (signed on August 3, 1795) which ended Northwest Territory jurisdictional questions with regards to the British and the participants in the Northwest Indian War respectively.

{10} The Quasi-War  being fought almost excluslvely on the ocean excepted of course.

{11} President Thomas Jefferson: State of the Union Address (circa December 8, 1801)

{12} Tripolitania was roughly one fifth of what is present day Libya.

{13} As the Dey of Tripoli did in the weeks after Jefferson's inauguration.

{14} A controversy from the previous Quasi-War with France under President John Adams circa 1798 under which no formal declaration of war was declared.

{15} Which is basically total war either initiated by the United States or responding to a threat where the nature is total and thus and requiring a formal declaration.

{16} Which is less than total war often initiated by other nations or peoples and does not require a formal declaration.

{17} Followed by that of Chief Justice Marshall's.

{18} A nephew of George Washington.

Supreme Court Rejects Home Searches to Seize Firearms by Police Under "Community Caretaker" Doctrine

This 9-0 ruling by the high court is encouraging.

Points to Ponder:

A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever may be its theory, must be, in practice, a bad government. [Alexander Hamilton]

Points to Ponder:

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever [Thomas Jefferson]

Points to Ponder:

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. [James Wilson]

A Plan To Pay Off The National Debt...
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is the text of a mostly finished Facebook note from November 4, 2017 which was completed recently for publication.

As of this writing, we are approximately $20 $26 trillion dollars in debt if we talk about the national debt alone.{1} To listen to many folks, the idea of paying this sum off is a pipe dream at best. I will concede that there is a serious lack of political will in both major political parties{2}; however, that does not mean that plans cannot be offered. I will now offer what I hope is a simple plan that everyone can get behind.

To start with, we need to abolish baseline budgeting. I am not going to go into this in detail right now but suffice to say, by statute all budgetary items are automatically increased and right now that is approximately 7% a year on every budgetary item. We then see stupid political fights if say Republicans propose to reduce that 7% on some programs to say 4% and Democrats disingenuously claim Republicans are “cutting spending” or some other stupid claim. Reducing automatic increases is never an actual cut in spending and only morons think it is. However, there are no shortage of morons who do not mind making these sorts of claims to try and score cheap political points by appealing to the rubes amongst the populace who have no idea how any of this works. But to return to the point at hand here: as long as the baseline budgeting model is used, a bias exists in the budgetary calculation method that favours increased spending.{3} And when spending increases are the default mechanism to any budgetary projections, that makes balancing budgets very tough not to mention actually paying down debt
.

So first step in the process is eliminating baseline budgeting and replacing it with zero based budgeting starting from whatever the budget was ten years ago. I picked the figure of ten years ago because the budget was already bloated like a hippo ten years ago at $2.98 trillion. Surely no one would claim the country cannot survive on a mere $2.98 trillion per year, right? So with that in mind, every budgetary item is rolled back to its spending level in 2008 and any items not in the budget at that time are subjected to the rules involved with zero based budgeting.

Zero based budgeting in a nutshell requires that all spending must be automatically 

justified anew each year or it will be eliminated from the budget. Zero based budgeting is not concerned with maintaining previous spending levels and places the default mechanism on budgetary reductions. So the first step in this plan is zero based budgeting so that we nip automatic budget increases in the rump from the get go.{4} The next part concerns actually balancing budgets.

I am going to part ways with many conservatives out there and say forget about a balanced budget amendment. Why? Because it is a true pipe dream. We will never get two thirds of both houses in congress to approve it so why expend energy on it? What we can do however is impose sequestration. And I propose we do this on every single item in the budget. Every budget item no matter what it is gets automatically cut every year. I propose a 5% sequestration on every budget item every year. This would remove the politics from various sides whining about any special favour being shown to one persons sacred cows over another because in this plan, everyone’s sacred cows get a 5% trim automatically.

Now as we start the process of operating with more of a balanced budget mindset, we can turn our attention to the debt itself. For it does not solve the issue of the debt to just run a string of balanced budgets if the overarching debt is not actually paid off. So here is the plan for that: establish a sinking fund. Alexander Hamilton put one in place in 1790 aimed at retiring 5% of the debt every year until it was paid off. And while it took a while to do, the debt was paid off in full by 1835.{5} So using a similar methodology, a sinking fund is established aimed at paying down 5% of debt a year. The money is apart from the budget and used only for paying down debt principal. How does it work?

The sinking fund uses the basic concept of compound interest to eradicate debt quickly. The origins of the idea date back to 14th century Italy, but I will start with 18th century Great Britain and the United States. William Pitt{6} employed the fund in the 1780s as British debt accrued at a rapid rate due to the war, and the US chose a similar path in the 1790s. A set amount of money was put aside every year to redeem outstanding government debt. The money was used to purchase public securities as an investment. Each year the interest gained on public securities was added to the fund. With the simple use of compound interest, the fund could grow significantly.{7}

As far as how the sinking fund would be funded, recourse can be had to what Alexander Hamilton said in The Federalist insofar as the advantages of consumption taxes:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them. 

Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference. In every country it is a herculean task to obtain a valuation of the land; in a country imperfectly settled and progressive in improvement, the difficulties are increased almost to impracticability. The expense of an accurate valuation is, in all situations, a formidable objection. In a branch of taxation where no limits to the discretion of the government are to be found in the nature of things, the establishment of a fixed rule, not incompatible with the end, may be attended with fewer inconveniences than to leave that discretion altogether at large.{8}

Now one reason why Hamilton’s original sinking fund while successful was at the same time erratic is it was not set aside solely for retiring the public debt. I am proposing therefore a greater restriction on this use of a sinking fund; namely, that it would only be used for retiring public debt. As for funding, I think it could be largely handled the same ways Hamilton funded his: through western land sales and consumption taxes on luxury items. The federal government owns a majority of the land among the western states but they also own land in other states. Perhaps a law that specifies a maximum of say 10% of a state's land in states admitted to the union prior to February 15, 1912{9} and a maximum of 30% of a states land in states admitted subsequent to that time can be held by the federal government with a ten year flex period to sell said land. There could also be specific types of taxes{10} formulated specifically for this purpose and it could be applied specifically and only for retiring public debt.

While far from complete, this is a broad based outline for being able to start the process of getting a handle first on deficits and then on the national debt which is in excess of $20 trillion now. Any solution needs to be bipartisan as well as handle budgetary items across the board so no favourites are played for anyone. And what needs to be recognized is that both budgets need to be cut as well as taxes raised and that the government cannot be trusted without constraints to do the right thing.
We can have contested arguments on a number of issues but the national debt as former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels liked to say is the new Red Menace and therefore we should agree to fix this bipartisan problem with a bipartisan solution.


Notes:

{1} I have no intention of touching on unfunded liabilities in this note as that is a subject best handled separately.

{2} It may exist in smaller political parties to a certain extent but as they are too insignificant to make a real difference, nothing more needs to be said about them on these matters.

{3} Because the operative presupposition with baseline budgeting is that federal spending keeps pace with inflation.

{4} Considering that the total budget in 2008 was $2.98 trillion and the total revenue from 2018 is projected to be $3.65 trillion, we already start with a $670 billion surplus of funds for immediate debt reduction sans any increased amount needed to service interest on the debt that has increased by roughly ten trillion since that time.

{5} The budget already has funds for servicing the interest on the debt so it need not be dealt with here.

{6} The prime minister of Great Britain.

{7} Which considering the extent of our national debt would be of assistance in tackling it.

{8} Publius: Excerpt from The Federalist #21 (circa December 12, 1787)

{9} This would make the 10% threshold only apply to the lower 48 states.

{10} This would involve consumption taxes on luxury items.

Points to Ponder:

Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness. [James Wilson]

On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:

This was a response on social media to the following material:

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform

My words will be in regular font.

This should be a two way street. 1) If you mouth off to a cop (tell him to fuck off, call him a pig etc.)in the performance of his duties (traffic stops etc.) you should at least spend the night in jail. When I was growing up, a cop whipped your ass if you mouthed off and no one said shit about it. This was especially true with cops in the suburbs.

2) If you try to physically attack a cop on duty, it should be a felony if it isn’t already. If you happen to get a concussion in the process, tough shit!

3) Murder of a police officer should be an automatic federal death penalty-eligible offense. Since we are treating the Tenth Amendment as dead letter, might as well do it in favor of the good guys once in a while.

There is a difference between wanting effective law enforcement that respects the constitutional and civil rights of those they are supposed to serve and blowing the cops while making excuses for inexcusable violations of constitutional and civil rights with an Animal Farm view of things. Maybe someday you will realize this.

Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform:

1) Abolish civil asset forfeiture

2) Make falsifying a police report a felony

3) End qualified immunity

4) End no knock warrants

5) End warrantless searches

6) Make intentionally turning off a police body camera to conceal evidence a felony

7) Require at least a year's training for police officers before they are allowed to go armed into a community.

"One From the Vault" Dept. on "States' Rights"...

This note was first published in social media on August 26, 2011...

Gotta love pics like these, makes everyone think that the Civil war was all about Slavery.

Of course it was not all about slavery but the latter was a significant  part of the equation. All you need to do to realize this is look at the platform of the Democratic Party in the 1856 and 1860 elections to see the dominance of the slavery theme in that party's view of things.

Since the South separated like sniveling brats after the 1860 election when they did not win, lets look at the platform from 1860 to see what it was that they actually ran on:

Resolved, That we, the Democracy of  the Union in Convention assembled, hereby declare our affirmance of the  resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform of principles  by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing  that Democratic principles are unchangeable in their nature, when  applied to the same subject matters; and we recommend, as the only  further resolutions, the following: 

Since the 1860 platform was  mostly that of the 1856 convention with a few addendums, lets look at how many times slavery popped up in the 1856 platform now shall we?

The first part of the platform is basically the Jeffersonian model discredited both in the early Republic as well as by example in how things were generally governed prior to that point in time. The second half of the platform contains these references to slavery:

Resolved,  That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well-considered  declarations of former conventions upon the sectional issue of domestic  slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the states—

1.  That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or  control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that all  such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to  their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts  of the Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere  with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation  thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous  consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to  diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and  permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend  of our political institutions.

I am sure the slaves were happy about the arrangement. Moving on...

2.  That the foregoing proposition covers and was intended to embrace the  whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress, and therefore the  Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will  abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the  compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850—"the act for  reclaiming fugitives from service or labor" included; which act, being  designed to carry out an express provision of the constitution, can not,  with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or  impair its efficiency.

So first Congress has no authority on the matter and now they claim they will follow the compromise measure from 1850 set forth by that same Congress. To paraphrase the milk campaign: Got hypocrisy?

3. That the Democratic party will  resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation  of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may  be made.

Gee, there is sure a lot of talk about slavery for a party and a group of the country that did not fight to protect slavery is it not? And we are not done yet though...

4. That the Democratic party will  faithfully abide by and uphold the principles laid down in the Kentucky  and Virginia resolutions of 1792 and 1798, and in the report of Mr.  Madison to the Virginia legislature in 1799; that it adopts these  principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political  creed, and is resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and  import. 

Translation: The Democratic Party embraced sedition. Even Madison eventually wised up and recognized how utterly illogical and stupid his involvement in that enterprise was. Jefferson never did except when he was president he expected an even greater fealty to his government than the Washington and Adams administrations{1} demanded of them. Again, got hypocrisy?

And  that we may more distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party,  subsisting exclusively on slavery agitation, now relies to test the  fidelity of the people, north and south, to the constitution and the  Union— 

For the sake of economy, from that point on in the platform there were three additional numbered resolves, all of which  specifically mentioned slavery or involved slavery and one of the final two resolutions which also dealt with slavery. Geez, more on slavery.  But nah, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the Civil War and only  "ignorant people" would claim otherwise right xxx? ;)  There is more, let us look at the 1860 platform which as I said reaffirmed everything from the 1856 platform with a few more addendums:

2. Inasmuch as  difference of opinion exists in the Democratic party as to the nature  and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the  powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United  States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories,

Resolved,  That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme  Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional Law. 

But in the first part of the 1856 platform, they rejected a central bank which the very same Supreme Court they were now claiming to reverence had declared over forty years previously was constitutional.{2} So they laud the court on Dred Scott but explicitly reject it in areas where the Court  had already settled constitutional questions decades ago. Again, got hypocrisy?

Resolved, That the enactments of the State  Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law,  are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and  revolutionary in their effect.

Yeah, we do'nut want them blacks gettin' all edjucated and free.

But nah, those who talk about slavery being a major factor{3} in what brought about the Civil War, they are the "ignorant ones."

Bottom line: the South had some good  arguments to make on some issues but they chose an absolutely heinous and evil idea around which to pitch the center pole of their ideological tent. Furthermore, they proved after 1865 that all this talk about  respecting the Constitution and respecting the Courts was a bunch of  horse shit. Cases in point: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments which southern states tried to flout at every turn in various  ways once Reconstruction was over for nearly a century.

Im really sick of people thinking that The Stars and Bars stand for Slavery and Oppression when in fact its quite the Opposite to the Union considering the Union is all for Centralized Big Gov. Interference.

And  I am really sick and tired of "Lost Cause" sorts who make excuses for both the evil of slavery that they propagated prior to the war and the state of third class citizenry they sought to impose on an entire race of people. Thanks to the later segregation numbnuts, the states rights cause was stunted for over half a century while we saw a lot of federal overreach. It is after all kind of hard for a philosophy to be given credence by average people when that exact same philosophy was used to justify retaining slavery prior to 1865 and then regularly used to flout three duly ratified Constitutional amendments and the rights of American citizens after that point for nearly a century.

Notes:

{1} Which he and Madison agitated against back in 1798.

{2} Based on arguments that more than twenty years before that had convinced most of the Founders as well as President Washington. (And which President  Madison later on would come to recognize himself.)

{3} Arguably the most significant factor.

Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation
(George Washington's Code of Conduct)

1. Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present.

2. When in company, put not your hands to any part of the body not usually discovered.

3. Show nothing to your friend that may affright him.

4. In the presence of others, sing not to yourself with a humming voice, or drum with your fingers or feet.

5. If you cough, sneeze, sigh or yawn, do it not loud but privately, and speak not in your yawning, but put your handkerchief or hand before your face and turn aside.

6. Sleep not when others speak, sit not when others stand, speak not when you should hold your peace, walk not on when others stop.

7. Put not off your clothes in the presence of others, nor go out of your chamber half dressed.

8. At play and attire, it's good manners to give place to the last comer, and affect not to speak louder than ordinary.

9. Spit not into the fire, nor stoop low before it; neither put your hands into the flames to warm them, nor set your feet upon the fire, especially if there be meat before it.

10. When you sit down, keep your feet firm and even, without putting one on the other or crossing them.

11. Shift not yourself in the sight of others, nor gnaw your nails.

12. Shake not the head, feet, or legs; roll not the eyes; lift not one eyebrow higher than the other, wry not the mouth, and bedew no man's face with your spittle by approaching too near him when you speak.

13. Kill no vermin, or fleas, lice, ticks, etc. in the sight of others; if you see any filth or thick spittle put your foot dexterously upon it; if it be upon the clothes of your companions, put it off privately, and if it be upon your own clothes, return thanks to him who puts it off.

14. Turn not your back to others, especially in speaking; jog not the table or desk on which another reads or writes; lean not upon anyone.

15. Keep your nails clean and short, also your hands and teeth clean, yet without showing any great concern for them.

16. Do not puff up the cheeks, loll not out the tongue with the hands or beard, thrust out the lips or bite them, or keep the lips too open or too close.

17. Be no flatterer, neither play with any that delight not to be played withal.

18. Read no letter, books, or papers in company, but when there is a necessity for the doing of it, you must ask leave; come not near the books or writtings of another so as to read them unless desired, or give your opinion of them unasked. Also look not nigh when another is writing a letter.

19. Let your countenance be pleasant but in serious matters somewhat grave.

20. The gestures of the body must be suited to the discourse you are upon.

21. Reproach none for the infirmities of nature, nor delight to put them that have in mind of thereof.

22. Show not yourself glad at the misfortune of another though he were your enemy.

23. When you see a crime punished, you may be inwardly pleased; but always show pity to the suffering offender.

24. Do not laugh too loud or too much at any public spectacle.

25. Superfluous compliments and all affectation of ceremonies are to be avoided, yet where due they are not to be neglected.

26. In putting off your hat to persons of distinction, as noblemen, justices, churchmen, etc., make a reverence, bowing more or less according to the custom of the better bred, and quality of the persons. Among your equals expect not always that they should begin with you first, but to pull off the hat when there is no need is affectation. In the manner of saluting and resaluting in words, keep to the most usual custom.

27. 'Tis ill manners to bid one more eminent than yourself be covered, as well as not to do it to whom it is due. Likewise he that makes too much haste to put on his hat does not well, yet he ought to put it on at the first, or at most the second time of being asked. Now what is herein spoken, of qualification in behavior in saluting, ought also to be observed in taking of place and sitting down, for ceremonies without bounds are troublesome.

28. If any one come to speak to you while you are are sitting stand up, though he be your inferior, and when you present seats, let it be to everyone according to his degree.

29. When you meet with one of greater quality than yourself, stop and retire, especially if it be at a door or any straight place, to give way for him to pass.

30. In walking, the highest place in most countries seems to be on the right hand; therefore, place yourself on the left of him whom you desire to honor. But if three walk together the middest place is the most honorable; the wall is usally given to the most worthy if two walk together.

31. If anyone far surpasses others, either in age, estate, or merit, yet would give place to a meaner than himself in his own lodging or elsewhere, the one ought not to except it. So he on the other part should not use much earnestness nor offer it above once or twice.

32. To one that is your equal, or not much inferior, you are to give the chief place in your lodging, and he to whom it is offered ought at the first to refuse it, but at the second to accept though not without acknowledging his own unworthiness.

33. They that are in dignity or in office have in all places precedency, but whilst they are young, they ought to respect those that are their equals in birth or other qualities, though they have no public charge.

34. It is good manners to prefer them to whom we speak before ourselves, especially if they be above us, with whom in no sort we ought to begin.

35. Let your discourse with men of business be short and comprehensive.

36. Artificers and persons of low degree ought not to use many ceremonies to lords or others of high degree, but respect and highly honor then, and those of high degree ought to treat them with affability and courtesy, without arrogance.

37. In speaking to men of quality do not lean nor look them full in the face, nor approach too near them at left. Keep a full pace from them.

38. In visiting the sick, do not presently play the physician if you be not knowing therein.

39. In writing or speaking, give to every person his due title according to his degree and the custom of the place.

40. Strive not with your superior in argument, but always submit your judgment to others with modesty.

41. Undertake not to teach your equal in the art himself professes; it savors of arrogancy.

42. Let your ceremonies in courtesy be proper to the dignity of his place with whom you converse, for it is absurd to act the same with a clown and a prince.

43. Do not express joy before one sick in pain, for that contrary passion will aggravate his misery.

44. When a man does all he can, though it succeed not well, blame not him that did it.

45. Being to advise or reprehend any one, consider whether it ought to be in public or in private, and presently or at some other time; in what terms to do it; and in reproving show no signs of cholor but do it with all sweetness and mildness.

46. Take all admonitions thankfully in what time or place soever given, but afterwards not being culpable take a time and place convenient to let him know it that gave them.

47. Mock not nor jest at any thing of importance. Break no jests that are sharp, biting, and if you deliver any thing witty and pleasant, abstain from laughing thereat yourself.

48. Wherein you reprove another be unblameable yourself, for example is more prevalent than precepts.

49. Use no reproachful language against any one; neither curse nor revile.

50. Be not hasty to believe flying reports to the disparagement of any.

51. Wear not your clothes foul, or ripped, or dusty, but see they be brushed once every day at least and take heed that you approach not to any uncleaness.

52. In your apparel be modest and endeavor to accommodate nature, rather than to procure admiration; keep to the fashion of your equals, such as are civil and orderly with respect to time and places.

53. Run not in the streets, neither go too slowly, nor with mouth open; go not shaking of arms, nor upon the toes, kick not the earth with your feet, go not upon the toes, nor in a dancing fashion.

54. Play not the peacock, looking every where about you, to see if you be well decked, if your shoes fit well, if your stockings sit neatly and clothes handsomely.

55. Eat not in the streets, nor in the house, out of season.

56. Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.

57. In walking up and down in a house, only with one in company if he be greater than yourself, at the first give him the right hand and stop not till he does and be not the first that turns, and when you do turn let it be with your face towards him; if he be a man of great quality walk not with him cheek by jowl but somewhat behind him, but yet in such a manner that he may easily speak to you.

58. Let your conversation be without malice or envy, for 'tis a sign of a tractable and commendable nature, and in all causes of passion permit reason to govern.

59. Never express anything unbecoming, nor act against the rules moral before your inferiors.

60. Be not immodest in urging your friends to discover a secret.

61. Utter not base and frivolous things among grave and learned men, nor very difficult questions or subjects among the ignorant, or things hard to be believed; stuff not your discourse with sentences among your betters nor equals.

62. Speak not of doleful things in a time of mirth or at the table; speak not of melancholy things as death and wounds, and if others mention them, change if you can the discourse. Tell not your dreams, but to your intimate friend.

63. A man ought not to value himself of his achievements or rare qualities of wit; much less of his riches, virtue or kindred.

64. Break not a jest where none take pleasure in mirth; laugh not aloud, nor at all without occasion; deride no man's misfortune though there seem to be some cause.

65. Speak not injurious words neither in jest nor earnest; scoff at none although they give occasion.

66. Be not froward but friendly and courteous, the first to salute, hear and answer; and be not pensive when it's a time to converse.

67. Detract not from others, neither be excessive in commanding.

68. Go not thither, where you know not whether you shall be welcome or not; give not advice without being asked, and when desired do it briefly.

69. If two contend together take not the part of either unconstrained, and be not obstinate in your own opinion. In things indifferent be of the major side.

70. Reprehend not the imperfections of others, for that belongs to parents, masters and superiors.

71. Gaze not on the marks or blemishes of others and ask not how they came. What you may speak in secret to your friend, deliver not before others.

72. Speak not in an unknown tongue in company but in your own language and that as those of quality do and not as the vulgar. Sublime matters treat seriously.

73. Think before you speak, pronounce not imperfectly, nor bring out your words too hastily, but orderly and distinctly.

74. When another speaks, be attentive yourself and disturb not the audience. If any hesitate in his words, help him not nor prompt him without desired. Interrupt him not, nor answer him till his speech be ended.

75. In the midst of discourse ask not of what one treats, but if you perceive any stop because of your coming, you may well entreat him gently to proceed. If a person of quality comes in while you're conversing, it's handsome to repeat what was said before.

76. While you are talking, point not with your finger at him of whom you discourse, nor approach too near him to whom you talk, especially to his face.

77. Treat with men at fit times about business and whisper not in the company of others.

78. Make no comparisons and if any of the company be commended for any brave act of virtue, commend not another for the same.

79. Be not apt to relate news if you know not the truth thereof. In discoursing of things you have heard, name not your author. Always a secret discover not.

80. Be not tedious in discourse or in reading unless you find the company pleased therewith.

81. Be not curious to know the affairs of others, neither approach those that speak in private.

82. Undertake not what you cannot perform but be careful to keep your promise.

83. When you deliver a matter do it without passion and with discretion, however mean the person be you do it to.

84. When your superiors talk to anybody hearken not, neither speak nor laugh.

85. In company of those of higher quality than yourself, speak not 'til you are asked a question, then stand upright, put off your hat and answer in few words.

86. In disputes, be not so desirous to overcome as not to give liberty to each one to deliver his opinion and submit to the judgment of the major part, especially if they are judges of the dispute.

87. Let your carriage be such as becomes a man grave, settled and attentive to that which is spoken. Contradict not at every turn what others say.

88. Be not tedious in discourse, make not many digressions, nor repeat often the same manner of discourse.

89. Speak not evil of the absent, for it is unjust.

90. Being set at meat scratch not, neither spit, cough or blow your nose except there's a necessity for it.

91. Make no show of taking great delight in your victuals. Feed not with greediness. Eat your bread with a knife. Lean not on the table, neither find fault with what you eat.

92. Take no salt or cut bread with your knife greasy.

93. Entertaining anyone at table it is decent to present him with meat. Undertake not to help others undesired by the master.

94. If you soak bread in the sauce, let it be no more than what you put in your mouth at a time, and blow not your broth at table but stay 'til it cools of itself.

95. Put not your meat to your mouth with your knife in your hand; neither spit forth the stones of any fruit pie upon a dish nor cast anything under the table.

96. It's unbecoming to heap much to one's mea. Keep your fingers clean and when foul wipe them on a corner of your table napkin.

97. Put not another bite into your mouth 'til the former be swallowed. Let not your morsels be too big for the jowls.

98. Drink not nor talk with your mouth full; neither gaze about you while you are drinking.

99. Drink not too leisurely nor yet too hastily. Before and after drinking wipe your lips. Breathe not then or ever with too great a noise, for it is uncivil.

100. Cleanse not your teeth with the tablecloth, napkin, fork or knife, but if others do it, let it be done with a pick tooth.

101. Rinse not your mouth in the presence of others.

102. It is out of use to call upon the company often to eat. Nor need you drink to others every time you drink.

103. In company of your betters be not longer in eating than they are. Lay not your arm but only your hand upon the table.

104. It belongs to the chiefest in company to unfold his napkin and fall to meat first. But he ought then to begin in time and to dispatch with dexterity that the slowest may have time allowed him.

105. Be not angry at table whatever happens and if you have reason to be so, show it not but on a cheerful countenance especially if there be strangers, for good humor makes one dish of meat a feast.

106. Set not yourself at the upper of the table but if it be your due, or that the master of the house will have it so. Contend not, lest you should trouble the company.

107. If others talk at table be attentive, but talk not with meat in your mouth.

108. When you speak of God or His attributes, let it be seriously and with reverence. Honor and obey your natural parents although they be poor.

109. Let your recreations be manful not sinful.

110. Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.

Raising the marginal cost of tyranny

The above link goes to an old argument for a well armed populace from the old days at Samizdata for those who are interested.

Federal Judge Dismisses Nick Sandmann’s Lawsuit Against The Washington Post

It is sure nice to know that at this stage of the process, major newspapers can libel minor children and incite mobs against them for being politically incorrect and not face repercussions financial or otherwise. 

Anyone who cannot set aside their political biases and see the problems here are themselves part of the problem.

Briefly...

In doing an archive search for something from 2004{1}, I stumbled across a brief miscellaneous musing from that time that expressed an opinion I no longer recognized as my own. Here is that thread:

Briefly on the Unconstitutionality of Brown vs. Board of Education, Etc.

An inevitability that one runs across when they muse and write on subjects over a span of time is that from time to time, they will discover that they have changed their view on some issues. I noted last year this phenomenon when trying to pinpoint exactly when my view changed on another particular political issue{2} after a similar archival discovery. On the above issue however, it is not to my knowledge a subject I have explicitly discussed at any other time. For that reason, a similar pinpointing of when my position changed would be very difficult to do.{3}

If I was to summarize the substance of my current view on the matter; it would essentially be in a macro sense{4} the fundamentals of Judge John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v Ferguson: a ruling which indirectly informed the majority decision of Brown v Board of Education.

I note these things at the present time in the interest of both accuracy and fairness. And though I have no intention of delving into this matter in the foreseeable future; if I do, it will be from a different application of the foundational presuppositions that I have operated from throughout the lions share of my adult life.

But enough on that for now.

Notes:

{1} On a matter totally unrelated to the content of this posting.

{2} On the Changing of One's Positions (circa January 31, 2018)

{3} And quite likely impossible to do based only on perusing this site's archives.

{4} I say in a macro sense because there are some particulars to Justice Harlan's dissent which I do not concur with.

9-0: SCOTUS Rules That Eighth Amendment’s “Excessive Fines” Clause Applies To The State

I have written on civil asset forfeiture before{1} and it is a major issue with me. I am pleased to see the above unanimous decision of the Supreme Court which will serve as a good foundation for being able to go after civil asset forfeiture abuse at the state level.

Note:

{1} Here is one example from recent years:

Briefly on Civil Asset Forfeiture (circa June 3, 2017)

Briefly...

Not having a State of the Union (SOTU)delivered in speech form is not the end of the world. For those who do not know, presidents have a variety of ways they have met this constitutional requirement. However, the manner of delivery was not uniform historically.

President Washington delivered his addresses at the old Federal Hall building in NYC from 1790-1796. President Adams followed suit for his addresses which were done in the Senate portion of the building from 1797-1800. President Thomas Jefferson who was a poor public speaker and also shy opted to write his and deliver it to the papers in 1801. That established a precedent for all subsequent presidents from 1802-1912.

President Wilson reintroduced the oral speech delivery in 1913. However, from 1918-1920, he was too ill to give it orally so he submitted it in writing to the press. President Harding returned to oral delivery of the speech in 1921 and 1922 and President Coolidge followed suit in 1923. Starting in 1924 though, Coolidge eschewed the oral delivery and submitted a text to the papers instead: something President Hoover did for all four of his SOTU's from 1929-1932. Then President Roosevelt in 1933 cemented the oral delivery of his addresses in 1933 in the House chamber before a joint session of Congress and all his successors followed suit through to 2018 with the time of said speeches being fixed to late January-early February in 1934.

More on Conservative Judicial Activism:

This to a certain extent continues the thread topic located HERE.

Roberts invented a farcical excuse to rule the unconstitutional law constitutional -- changing his vote from one to strike down the unconstitutional law to one to preserve it 

Actually, that is not true. Roberts did not go along with the absurd notion of the minority that they could not sever the mandate and therefore had to strike the entire statute. (Talk about judicial activism!) He was willing to strike the Medicaid expansion and the mandate but when told it was all or nothing, he sided with the backup argument of the government that the mandate could be read as a tax -incidentally, something the Senate themselves made clear before they passed the statute to begin with.

I do not see SCOTUS going along with the "it is not severable" nonsense this time around any more than they did previously. However, they could very well rule the mandate is no longer constitutional since it cannot be read as a tax anymore and has already been ruled unconstitutional under the commerce clause. (And thus sever it from the statute which would make the statute an unworkable mess.) If I was to guess offhand, that is what I suspect they will do with two of the most ardent (and in this case, hypocritical!) "it cannot be severed" folks from 2012 no longer on the court.

"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On Dialogue)

The following was originally planned as a column for Where Peter Is when I was still involved in that project.{1} It seems appropriate at the present time to revisit it with a few minor tweaks considering the material to be forthcoming on this humble website in the coming months. Without further ado

[It] seems appropriate before delving into the most controversial material that I have involved myself in for some time the importance generally speaking of how dialogue should be conducted yet almost never is -even among those of good faith. The principles are ones we can all benefit reflecting upon particularly when the matters of discussion are ones where emotions can override reason and logic: a problem that in this day and age is nearly an epidemic both within and without the Church.

With those factors in mind, the following is a flashback to the archives and material from a Joint Statement on Dialogual Principles that preceded a written dialogue on a controversial subject matter back in 2008...

---

It is with no small degree of chagrin that we take a jaded view of the lacuna in modern life of genuine dialogue. The latter when properly understood is both difficult and also potentially rewarding. Most definitely it is not aimless bantering or a series of monologues as much of what passes today for "dialogue" actually is. Instead, dialogue properly conceived and carried out contains a dynamic constituent to it. 

As Catholics we are the beneficiaries of ancient truths which to some extent admit of variations in application depending on particular times, circumstances, etc. However, there are also core principles which do not admit of an expiration date and which sadly we see given little if any accounting these days in much of what passes for public discourse. The degree of ignorance of people (some of whom considering what they claim for themselves should know better) of fundamental principles of proper conduct is appalling. There are however two ways to deal with this. We can either curse the darkness or try and light a few candles. With this statement of joint principles as well as the dialogue to follow, we intend to aim at the second approach. 

We have an interest both for ourselves individually as well as to assist the common good generally in handling this matter in accordance with principles that are at the core of how Catholics should conduct themselves when confronting another person with opposing views. But these are not principles which are strictly speaking matters of faith only. We believe faith and reason cannot contradict and that reason is a natural light given to us all by the Creator as one way we are made in His image. It is therefore a crime to denigrate reason the way many people do and sadly, not a few Catholics fall prey to this. 

We intend in this dialogue to show a proper respect for the rigours of proper logic and reasoning while doing our best to set an example for others of how a dialogue should be conducted. We trust that readers will see if they are of good will that in the sources about to be cited, while of an authoritative character for Catholics, the principles being touched on are and should be by logical extension universal. For example, there should be a general principle of what is and is not a dialogue and how one is properly conducted. We intend to propose one in this thread which will serve as a point of reference for us in the following undertaking but which has an applicability which we believe is universal. 

The ancient concept of dialogue was codified by Pope Paul VI in his inaugural encyclical letter as "[the] internal drive of charity which seeks expression in the external gift of charity" (Ecclesiam Suam). It therefore must have charity at its core which St. Paul declared was "patent, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, not rude, seeks not its own interests, is not quick tempered, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, does not brood over injury, does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth." (cf. 1 Cor. xiii,4-6). 

So if dialogue has at its core charity and all that term encompasses, this by logical extension means that the parties actually listen to one another. Clarifications if requested by one party are complied with by the other. If in the process, someone encounters a principle, an argument, an approach to something different than what they have seen before, it involves considering that information and seeking as far as possible to assimilate it into the matrix of their own view to the extent they can. It may even require modifying one's view either in part or wholly. 

Dialogue is indeed all too rare today because it takes genuine effort and shuns the kinds of strawman caricatures, sound-bytes, etc. that play into what passes for much of modern discourse. Pope Paul noted that the following characteristics should accompany a dialogue and we note them here as principles that we will endeavour to follow at all times on the subject before us as much as any other. 

First of all, dialogue requires by its very nature clarity or as Pope Paul noted "the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). We will strive at all times to be intelligible to both each other as well as the readers of what we will present. 

Second, dialogue requires a degree of humility because as Pope Paul noted "[i]t would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). 

We will certainly strive to persuade others to give consideration of our positions as they will be outlined. We will also in recognizing these principles not make a demand on each other or others -viewing what we will say and how we shall say it as either standing or falling on its own merits or lack thereof. 

Third, dialogue requires a confidence by both parties "not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). We expressly recognize in each other the good will to dialogue and would ask of those reviewing what we will present the same courtesy as well. 

Fourthly, dialogue requires adaptation to the characteristics of the audience or "allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, (Mt 7.6.) particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile" (Ecclesiam Suam 81). This is a difficult areas to navigate because people's understanding can vary significantly; we will however do our best which is all anyone can do really. Having noted the principles and procedures we intend to follow, a bit needs to be said on the subject of criticism itself. 

Society today has an overly critical component to it that often seems to want to criticize as if the latter is an end in and of itself instead of a means to an end. Fundamentally and in principle, neither of us has a problem with criticism -indeed we intend to criticize the positions of the other on the subject in question. But we do not intend criticism for the sake of criticism as that is of no value. In a dialogue, criticism can suit a useful purpose to enable people to explain themselves better, to account for weaknesses in one's position, etc. and therefore be of a constructive nature. It can also give people cause to reassess their views and (in the words of Benjamin Franklin) "question a bit of their own infallibility."

We are both willing to consider the possibility that we may be wrong and indeed it would seem strange for us to expect either each other or anyone reading what we write to reconsider their views where ours may be different if we somehow were unwilling to do the same thing ourselves. 

Another problem of modern life is the loss of a habit of mind that allows differentiation of arguments from quarrels with the result that disagreements or attempts at correction tend to be destructive rather than constructive. This is a trap we intend to avoid to the best of our abilities. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 10, 2008)]

The above material can be viewed as a formalization of how I approach the subject of dialogue on all subjects now as it serves to weed out a lot of pretenders who merely talk about these matters but have no intention of actually engaging them in a rational and ethical manner.

Note:

{1} On My Resignation From Where Peter Is, General Concerns For The State Of Public Discourse There and Elsewhere, Etc. (circa August 6, 2018)