Everything is NOT negotiable

In a free nation, laws generally are prohibitions of unacceptable conduct or practice. They are usually specific and are written in terms that are not ambiguous. For a law to work, it must be this way. If it is not, then it becomes “negotiable”- Like a rubber fence.

A free country can only exist in a state of Order, and that Order can only exist when two other conditions exist: One, the laws must be clear, just and fair and two, they must be upheld.

This is not to say some flexibility is unacceptable, but that that be the special exception after the fact, not something that allows the law to be diluted or ignored. Consequence may be negotiable, but the law must never be,

To achieve the state of order a free nation must have to exist, the laws must not be negotiable, or there is no law at all; everything becomes “negotiable”.

Certain elements in politics want to make all laws negotiable. That allows them to achieve a goal prohibited by law without having to change the laws. That also gives them the power to use laws as a weapon of convenience, applying them when that serves their purpose, brushing them aside when that is more beneficial. No nation can remain free under those conditions.

The founders of America were intensely aware of the importance of the structure of laws. In writing the Constitution, and they chose their words very carefully, so the meaning could not be misconstrued or negotiable- Lest they become Corrupted. They knew that corruption of the terms of primary law would inevitably lead to the neutering of that law... and the loss of the very freedoms it was written to protect.
The corruption of a law by making it's absolute language negotiable is in itself a grave violation, not only of the law, but of the spirit of the law and the very freedom it was designed to protect.

When the people who live by those laws refuse to respect them, they do become corrupted in practice- and that is our fault; our weakness... and will result in a consequence that is not a result of the law, but of our diluting and negotiating the meaning of the words it is written in.

Does this happen often?
Everyday. For example, the laws sees the word “shall” as a mandated requirement, a non-negotiable term. The same law sees the words “can” and “may” as providing options that are negotiable. It sees the word “infringed” as any form of interference of any kind.

The second amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

The terms “shall not” make this a fully prohibited, non-negotiable declaration. The word “infringed' makes that apply comprehensively, to any form of interference. The second amendment itself is being compromised every day, everywhere. While much of that is for justifiable purpose- it is still in violation of the Constitutional mandate, and thereby proven “negotiable” despite it being written with the express intent that it would never be so.
Negotiable often turns into manipulation and dilution of meaning itself, and that destroys the value of laws.

“Justifiable purpose” is also negotiable... and any negotiable authority is a dangerous one, and an avenue of invasion on the rights of the people of a free nation. This is the doorway to chaos; and it opens when government gives itself the right to negotiate the meaning of words, and thereby the meaning of laws and the honoring of laws. They do this not for the people- but for themselves. Law and order starts with the people at the top of the chain. IF they can negotiate the meaning and validity of laws, that can only result in the people feeling they have the same privilege.

The government works for the people- not the other way around. We pay the bills, the government is only a tool in the middle whose purpose is to manage the process of governance, to serve the best interests of the people, That requires Honor- and you have more than a right to demand it, you have a duty to demand it if you wish to remain free.

Congress and all of government has a duty to honor the laws, uphold the duty, conduct business honestly- and openly, not hiding process or conduct from the people they serve. When they do those things- regardless of party- they are negotiating YOUR value and power as a citizen, saying you have no right to see what they are doing or control it.
IF you allow them to dictate that to you- you have consented to it.

The people's voice in voting is not enough of a message to convince government to uphold that duty- but for the moment, it's the tool at hand. Tuesday, your vote should not be negotiable either- and you should vote with these thoughts in mind.

 

Oh bullfeces also.

ALL laws are negotiable. ALL THINGS are negotiable. You remind me of the people who say must never "interpret" the Constitution. Again, horsecrap, you HAVE to interpret something to apply it in any way at all.

You write with more than acceptable erudition. Please reexamine your basic premises to see if they make sense

 

the founders were members of the enlightenment, who valued reason, and recognized mans increasing wisdom over the ages, they had issues with "standing army's" from experience
the result is a poorly worded 2nd amendment to deal with those issues

 

@spiritgide

the laws regarding tax fraud, charity fraud, incitement to riot, counting of votes, protection of classified information, neopotism, and many others appear to be incredibly negotiable. does this legal absolutism about which you wax so eloquently apply only to tour opponents?

 

like the 1st, the government has no business pushing religion on the people, god in the pledge or on our money should be removed right?

or free speech, should be able to say what ever you want whenever you want... right? try that in a courtroom....

 

Of course everything can be negotiable, including your right to breathe. . People are not perfect- but that is hardly any excuse for being stupid and unwilling to make ourselves the best we can be.
The point is not the impossibility- but the need to keep what control your future on track and not allow your identity, your freedom, your future- to be negotiated away from you with the distortion of words.

Everything is negotiable- IF YOU ARE NEGOTIABLE. Your statement says that anything you are or would like to be- can be negotiated away from you, and you feel you have no choice but to participate in that.
A simple "No" is negotiable. Obviously- you are. negotiable.

Dragging people out of the quicksand of their own making is a thankless job. Those not ready for something better jump right back in for more of the same desperation.
Takes a kind of courage to overcome that. If that is the best you can do, or all that you want- so be it.

 

Pulled that out of your backside, because I said just the opposite.
And it's not absolutism. It's principle recognized and considered in the choices that are available.
People who argue for the sake of being argumentative never contribute. Reason is not present in that.

 

I think he said it per the last President, and nepotism was definite going on in the White House, as well as many other things Trump did, that many of us thought were just not allowed, but he got away with it

 

If he did, he certainly was not out of line with the precedents set before him. I've never argued that Trump was flawless; the man has many aspects of personality that people don't like.
Those matter in terms of general popularity, but usually have little relevance to competence. It is, unfortunately, a job where millions of people think they must micro-manage it for you.
I think most people, if they ignored the celebrity aspect of it and looked at the job itself- would never want to be president.
I feel that the most relevant factor of a person holding office is how well they get the job done for the country and the people. I don't care if the people they hire are friends or not, so long as the performance is what it needs to be.
No other job on the planet has so many people who have no capacity to understand it or do it demanding the right to dictate how it will be done.

To be honest about it, we the people are the employers of our politicians. If we were rating both employees and employers- neither would get a respectable score.
We need a better kind of relationship.

 

ok, but that ruins the argument in the op, if we excuse Trump because people did some things before him, then we can excuse everyone in the future by that logic, do you think Trump should have got a free pass?

 

Do you think that others who have set the precedent should get a pass, but Trump should not?
The concept of things not being negotiable is that a law or rule says what it says, not what you want it to say at your convenience. Applies to all, or applies to none.

When laws or rules are not upheld, they lose power and there are no laws or rules. That is how the unwritten rules are established; it's no different than a child knowing that a 9pm bedtime rule doesn't really mean 9 pm. It's what we say, but not what we allow.

When laws are applied selectively for political purpose, it gets worse- they become weapons for those in power to use against hose who are not.

Either way, we suffer the consequences for failing to uphold the rules and apply them consistently. That consequence is invariably harmful overall.

You don't have to punish people who won't play the game by the rules, and that usually doesn't work anyway. What you have to do, if you want the game to work- is to exclude them from the game.

Riverboat gambling rules.
No cheating. No bottom dealing. No hold-outs. All cards on the table. If you caught cheating, you get thrown over the side.

 

there is no precedent for much of the crap trump has been able to negotiate. maybe if snowden had been president he could declassify everything as soon as he was caught.

 

Article V of the Constitution makes Federal law including the Constitutional changable and negotable.

 

but that is what he is saying, doesn't have to be a precedent, just someone doing something bad in the past, means anything a new President does is ok, cause another President did something - yep, snowden could just think it and it be so

the decalcification issue will be interesting going forward, any president can now, after someone in their own party is caught with classified info, say, oh btw, I declassified that before I left

 

I think if you do the crime, do the time.... I do think not holding Trump accountable will have consequences in the future

 

Thanks for a good thread. I'm reminded of what Mr. Justice Brandeis said: the law will be respected when it is respectable.

 

But the left has made every possible effort to "hold trump accountable". Seems Trump's biggest "crime" is offending the left.....
and that is a one-sided view that has nothing to do with justice of accountability.

The same people who scream for that are willing to ignore, to literally pretend they don't see far more critical and criminal acts by others. That is selective application of law- and I assure you, the WILL have consequences for the future. It's a policy no honorable man would endorse. Going on right now, in politics near you.

 

Of course- that is a critical aspect of law, it should always be so. It's also a work in progress. Law will not improve until the people will support long-term goals over short term emotions, things like that.
But I think we need to start soon, and that means upholding the laws we have, so that the order required to rationally change anything can be restored.

 

Our Constitutional rights aren't negotiable.

You say Congress' power to demand Trump's tax returns is set in stone because the law says the tax returns "shall" be given to the Ways and Means chair upon request and the "legitimate legislative purpose" is anything Congress says it is. It's high time you applied the same standard to the Bill of Rights. "Shall not be infringed" is set in stone and is inflexible.

 

Do they apply to the people you support?

 

Should Clinton's case be reexamined and the same legal standard applied to her that you want applied to Trump?

 

Sprintenmouth never saw a word he didn't like. "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead" -Samuel Clemens

The problem is "The Founders" NEVER meant OUR Constitution to be a chiseled block of granite. They meant it to be a living breathing document that SERVED us, not the other way around. OUR Constitution is a negotiated document that is, as you put it, very well worded ... generally speaking. The Second Amendment is the exception to the rule. You left out this part: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. Clearly they were tying the right to bear arms to "the Militia". Over time what the "Militia" IS has changed dramatically, however you define it I think it can be agreed that it is no longer anything like what it was when OUR Constitution was written. BUT! The current (legal) interpretation of the Second Amendment is that ALL Americans are part of "The Militia" and have a right to keep and bear arms without infringement ... apparently. <- That's insane but that's the non-negotiable "law" we are operating under.

My personal belief is that, that interpretation (no matter how insane it is) DOES NOT prohibit investigating gun violence, or requiring minimum competency of knowledge and mind and body to buy and bear arms. But, that's NOT how it's being interpreted. So, passing any legislation that regulates firearm possession is nearly impossible in These United States. And our dumbass's are paying the price in murdered loved ones.

 

Not holding Clinton accountable is having concequinces, now. Was she worth it?

 

There's no way the 2nd Amendment was giving the right to bear arms to the militia, because it literally says it gives the right to bear arms to the people.

 

yes. if hunter's laptop is guilty, electrocute the damn thing. if pelosi broke into his own house and hit himself with a hammer, impeach nancy!