I like logic as many others do. It is one of my favorite subjects.
The U.S. constitution is rich in logic. One of the things that I admire about it is the checks and balances between the three branches of government; it is probably one of the richest in logic.
Even if the writers of the U.S. constitution have committed the original sins of excluding the natives and the abducted from the political process, they have written such a rich document that, to this day, shines logic to the world.
I think that so many people find the current debate between the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government very much interesting.
Some analysts have suggested that this disagreement is indicative of a constitutional crisis. That suggestion is refuted by the fact that the third branch of government, the judicial branch, remains to be the arbiter of the disagreements between the legislative and executive branches according to the constitution, that it is working, and that there is no constitutional crisis as long as the judicial branch continues to work. Irrespective of what the outcome of the disagreements might be, the fact that the logic in it is functioning in a civil way is admirable.
In other words, the fact that the judicial branch remains to be the arbiter of the disagreements between the legislative and executive branches indicates that the constitution remains a functioning document. It is admirable that the process is more interesting than the outcome.
As a student of renaissance scholars, I have wondered about what made the writers of the constitution think so deeply and write a constitution so rich in logic. I have a limited understanding of the history of the medieval period anarchy in Europe. Yet, my limited understanding suggests that it was utterly a barbaric period.
Perhaps, a juxtaposition of ancient Athenian democracy and the medieval period anarchy in Europe is likely to explain the richness of the U.S. constitution and that it may be one of the reasons why its founders thought so deeply in writing it. Whether its origin is Athenian, Aztec, Buddhist, Mesopotamian, Pharaonic, or Messianic, civility is indispensable. Without those people who walked with their bright ideas, this world would be a dark place.
Many people equate civilization to the objects or products of civility. For me, one of the markers of civility, despite committing the original sins, is the various mature ideas that the writers of the U.S. constitution debated and put in it. Obviously, the constitution has become a functioning document that shines rich logic to this day and into the future. For other people, the invention of aviation, for instance, is a marker of civility and hence civilization.
A juxtaposition of so many flying objects in the air and in space and at the same time so many homeless people on earth, including in the U.S., does not appear to be suggestive of a functioning civilization. Perhaps, this juxtaposition is suggestive of its exploitation.
Many people may remember one music in English that has the following line in it: Paradise is a place on earth. Logic suggests that if such a place exists on earth, it ought to be a place where food and shelter aren't scarce for anyone in it. In other words, in a place called paradise, food and shelter ought to be available to everybody in it. This is a very simple logic.
Does loyalty to something other than the constitution open a door for exploitation of logic and civility? It goes without saying that any loyalty that is not to the constitution bears on the logic in the constitution. This bearing inevitably leads to a clash between logic and that kind of loyalty.
Confidence in loyalty by anyone leads to one suggesting an act of capital crime in the middle of a big city and not lose any support from one's followers. Confidence in logic dictates that that kind of act would be unlawful.
It can be argued that in the clash between the ideas of classical Athenian democracy and civility on the one hand and the medieval anarchy in Europe on the other hand, logic won against barbarism and led to the birth of the U.S. constitution. It can be further argued that social ills have the propensity to lead to social solutions.
The acts of barbarism that can be considered social ills may not be readily apparent to our younger generation. Perhaps, the acts of one Taliban militant against Malala to hinder her pursuit of education and knowledge can be cited to the younger generation as an example of an act of barbarism. This can be further generalized to say that whether it is done by a western Taliban or an Afghan Taliban, the acts to hinder the pursuit of education and knowledge is a simple example of barbarism.
If my limited reading serves me well, knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge was what at least some of the writers of the U.S. constitution did in order to produce it. What they were able to produce nearly two and a half centuries ago is shedding light on logic, loyalty, barbarism, and civility.
When logic bears on loyalty other than to the constitution, the former is likely to win in a constitutional society. In this kind of society, in the clash between logic and loyalty, logic wins, barbarism convulses, and civilization triumphs.