Note: A lack of fixed rules and principles does facilitate cheating and deception. It conceals injection of mutually contradictory assertions to a discourse, which - in turn - allows for rigorously proving any proposition, whether true or false. This fact explains why those attempting to deceive by means of proving false statements (oftentimes, for their ideological or political advantage) resort to shifting arguments and other forms of flexibility, and - for this reason - advocate (like relativism and postmodernism do) abolition of fixed rules and principles.

Some recent research in biology and psychology suggests that
"the best deception strategy is a flexible one, as this ensures maximum success for deceivers while minimising the risk of being caught lying" and that "evolution favours the flexible liar".

Therefore, firmly sticking to objective truth, time-proven principles, and valid reasoning is a very successful line of defense against deception.

The remainder of this file should be covered and studied after completion of the section Constitutional Matters of the Lecture Notes.

Section 40 TuTh evenings only:

Click here for the most recent topic 

Section 41 MoWe mornings only:

Click here for the most recent topic 

• Watch for inconsistent or paradoxical (absurd) interpretations.

• Example. Test an interpretation with special cases to see if it leads to absurd conclusions. For instance, substituting "person" in 5th Amendment with "soldier of an invading army" or "assailant" does, like in: Miranda rule may hamper detainee trials

• Example of inconsistent interpretation in algebra. Any term within a self-contained document (for instance, the variable x in the equation, or the term "the people" in the Bill of Rights) has to be interpreted exactly the same way, consistent with the context of that document.

• Watch for conclusions that go against the purpose of the law.
  

• The purpose of the Bill of Rights and Amendment XIV was not to facilitate lawbreaking. Those bills, and the presumption of innocence, were enacted into the law in order to protect individuals from unduly or excessively harsh treatment by their powerful governments.
  
  
  
  

  Example: Extending constitutional protections to the enemies of this nation strengthens our liberties about as much as coaching hackers strengthens network security - it does not!
  
  
  

Example: Invoking First Amendment in an attempt to suppress (by the government) free exercise of religion.

Memorable quote: "The devil can site scripture for his purpose."

[Merchant Of Venice, Willam Shakespeare]

• Watch for "little-by-little" departing from truth and the law.

Example. Piling inference upon inference.

A derived consequence of the law may or may not be as valid as the law itself. In particular, it may or may not be valid premise in further derivations.
Remember the story of camel's nose under the tent:

  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/camels-nose-tent-aamir-qadri

• Watch for universalism.

  • Import/export of legal doctrines and laws between nations, under presumption that these doctrines and laws are universal leads to invalid and often absurd conclusions.
    
    

  • • Example. Incorporating foreign or international laws, legal doctrines, and court decisions into American (domestic) justice system weakens the U.S. Constitution, goes against the fundamental idea in Declaration of Independence, undermines sovereignty of the U.S., and submits "We, The People" to unaccountable powers that we neither elected nor authorized to govern us. This may well be the slickiest way to turn us all into helpless subjects. (Recall Prof. Rabkin's article.)
      

Comment: Some who, ostensibly, promote progress are trying to move the clock of history back to the times when the American people were subordinated to an unaccountable foreign power (King George). And what would the reason to strip the US of its sovereignty be? America has been the champion of freedom, prosperity, and high living standards for ordinary people. We did not try to conquer by force other nations, like Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, and others did. We do deserve to be a fully sovereign nation, which we are, so far.

Patriotic Americans are often charged with a "crime" of nationalism. The "rationale" behing considering it a "crime" is that in 1930 and 40's Germany, National Socialists, a.k.a. Nazi, carried out a brutal and devastating war against peaceful nations. It was not just nationalism, it was and invasive and violent form of it. American patriotism is not!





• Expanding the rights and privileges of class the people on others.




• Example. Assuming that individuals in different countries who share the Internet share their rights and liberties, too.

  
  

• Example. Internet discussion of what is legal and what is not often creates a confusion about the applicability of laws in one country to persons in another country.




Example. Allowing non-citizens to serve on juries in American courts submits U.S. citizens to  foreign jurisprudence.




Example. Giving foreign nationals the right to vote (directly or indirectly) in our elections and referenda, an inevitable consequence of imposition of the concept of "global community", will allow 1.2 billion of citizens of Communist China outvote 300 million of U.S. citizens. Do you think we will be able to resist replacing our free market economy (a.k.a. capitalism) with communism when the Chinese cast their votes? (See "Culture and psychology: You are what you eat" for an explanation why many Chinese citizens are leaning towards collectivism.)

• 
  
  Expanding individual rights on states or groups of individuals.
  
  

  Example. Giving an organization the right to vote in general elections. (Is not happening ... Not yet.)
  

  
  

  
  

  • Mixing the scopes of applicability of the rights and privileges

    Example. Confusing different classifiers: "people" (plural of "person") and "accused" of Amendments IV, V, and VI and in the presumption of innocence doctrine as if they were all synonymous leads to such absurdities as TV reporter's refering to someone caught on video shooting as a "suspected shooter".

  
  

  • Projecting one's own characteristics on others (a.k.a. naiveté).

  
  
  Example. Arguing that a new law to be passed will function well because "it will not cause ..." or that "no one will try to ..." (fill the dots with appropriate rhetoric) is a fallacy that often leads to "unintended consequences". Clik here for an illustration.
  

• Watch for "watering down" rights and liberties, usually  for "just cause" (remember the "Necessity" quote and the "When you chop wood, chips fly" infamous statement)
  

  
  Example. Amendment I protects controversial speech. Non-controversial speech does not need any protection. Unprotecting some controversial speech (e.g., "hate speech") may feel good by some but it chips away a little piece of our freedom.

• Watch for "anti-naturalistic fallacy" fallacy
  

  
  The mere fact that ought does not automatically follow from is does not mean that is can never justify ought.

• Watch for moralistic fallacy

  
  The mere fact that something ought be in a certain way doesn't mean that it is that way.