Re: Markoff on Clipper III
At 10:20 AM 7/15/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
At 3:50 AM -0700 7/15/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:
At 09:35 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
Did you miss the part in the Constitution about "provide for the common defence"
That's a meaningless part of the Preamble.
Anyone who thinks substantive parts of the Preamble are "meaningless" is deserving only of contumely. Perhaps you should review your high school civics course--you did have one of those, yes?
David
Welcome to the list. Yes my high school Civics class was good. So were my law school Con Law courses. Yes, David I would say you practice "contumely" -- Rudeness or contempt arising from arrogance; insolence. But then so do I. I'll say again, the Preamble speaks of the reasons the drafters of the Constitution had for writing the thing, it does not set forth any powers of the federal government. Goals not means. GAK is a means not a goal. DCF
At 11:42 AM -0700 7/15/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:
At 10:20 AM 7/15/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
At 3:50 AM -0700 7/15/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:
At 09:35 PM 7/14/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote:
Did you miss the part in the Constitution about "provide for the common defence"
That's a meaningless part of the Preamble.
Anyone who thinks substantive parts of the Preamble are "meaningless" is deserving only of contumely. Perhaps you should review your high school civics course--you did have one of those, yes?
David
Welcome to the list.
Yes my high school Civics class was good. So were my law school Con Law courses.
Yes, David I would say you practice "contumely" -- Rudeness or contempt arising from arrogance; insolence. But then so do I.
I'll say again, the Preamble speaks of the reasons the drafters of the Constitution had for writing the thing, it does not set forth any powers of the federal government. Goals not means. GAK is a means not a goal.
Now that is a more useful and accurate statement than that substantive parts of the Preamble are "meaningless". As you must know from your Con Law classes, legislative intent is an important element of many Supreme Court decisions, and the Preamble is certainly as crisp and classical a statement of legislative intent as one can find. The specific point, of course, wasn't GAK but the silly dispute by one of our beloved nit-pickers of the assertion that the President took an oath to protect national security. By inclusion in his oath to defend the Constitution, given the bits I cited, he effectively did. Best; David
At 11:42 AM -0700 7/15/96, Duncan Frissell wrote:
Yes, David I would say you practice "contumely" -- Rudeness or contempt arising from arrogance; insolence. But then so do I.
That's not what my dictionary says, and what I said was that your message deserved it. Watch closely--there are some subtle distinctions between what you claim and what my dictionary says. Contumely is "harsh language, arising from haughtiness or contempt". In the case of your message, the harsh language it deserves arises from contempt for the way you said what you said. Harsh language need not be rude, and arrogance and insolence don't enter into my dictionary's definition (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition). Finally, saying that it deserves contumely is not itself using harsh language but rather is a fairly polite form of derision. Had I heaped contumely on it, that might have been using harsh language. I didn't, because that would have been counterproductive. Thus your accusation is invalid, despite your attempt to soften it with the "me, too". Ain't educated rhetoric grand. David
participants (2)
-
David Sternlight -
Duncan Frissell