What Should Guide (inform for the Crits) Public Policy

Side conversation from Link

What are good documents or sources for pols to use to make policy decisions?

Several people criticized the Speaker of the House for stating the Bible guides him in everything he does.

They falsely tried to provoke the establishment clause and implied (openly stated) that it is concerning.

Ok, what documents/sources do the critics use?

And don’t even try to claim the Constitution. Neither side has followed it for so long the hypocrisy is liable to be lethal.

Where are you getting your morality?


Since “should” is in the title, I’m going to retract this.

I’ll start:

Documents that should inform :rofl: public policy:

  1. The Constitution; which was informed by the Bible.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be amended. And to amend it, a major part of society (both within government and among the electorate) have to be behind it. If there’s something wrong with the Constitution, or if something is determined to be missing, we’re not stuck with it.

But until it gets changed, its current content should be the framework for all government action.


Fair enough. Where does the morality to establish intent of the Constitution come from?

To know the correct changes?

That’s getting too far into the weeds for me.

I don’t consider it really a “moral” thing in the first place. At most, it becomes some overarching collective “morality” of society at large. That “morality” may or may not be something I personally see as a moral stance on the issue at hand, but I’m just one guppy in the entire societal ocean.

But you mentioned intent. We have history – no matter how hard Big Brother might try to hide it. But if we (generic) as the governed overwhelmingly want to change meaning from the original intent, we have the amendment process. The founders wrote that process into the Constitution for a purpose. Even if a hypothetical amendment wanted to move us to a monarchy or to pure communism, there is a process. Let the debate ensue. Let the chips fall where they may. It’s what our Constitution provides. It’s what we should stick to.

I doubt the Constitution will ever be amended again, certainly not anything meaningful way.

I would offer that the Constitution, at least one of them, is itself a statement of morality-the Bill of Rights.

Looking at the amendments, the changes have often been morally positive.

If it is going to change, should it not be for the “better” (more moral)?

Constitutions and governments are established by men, based on the morals of those men (used as a catch all for society). The constitution and government will only be as good as the morals guiding those who create them. While it would be hoped that those morals are grounded in universal just beliefs, man has free will, which means they can also reject universal just beliefs.

1 Like

Under current societal characteristics, I agree.

We’ve allowed “extra-Constitutional” methods to guide government for so long that it’s now the standard.

I was only commenting on what the Constitution SHOULD be vis a vis government guidance/control.

You and I would agree on that. However we’re only two guppies. Some day “societal morality” could morph into something totally sinister and be so widespread that it could drive the Constitution into evil corners of human existence. All we can do is exert our influence on our little eddies in the vast ocean of society, and hope that there are enough other guppies out there that our collective efforts avert such a change.

But never forget, there are counter-guppies fighting for the opposite.

Closer, I think. What is the source(s) of these “universal just beliefs”?

:point_up: counter-guppies. :point_up_2:

That depends on what the men believe in. For Judeo-Christian societies it is the Word of God. For others something else.

Do you want to direct this into a religious discussion?

Individuals can be guided by their own religions (whether formal or informal), but the Constitution itself is specifically amended to prevent its overall guidance to be religious. Nothing says its principles cannot agree with this-or-that religion, but it cannot say a given thing because this-or-that religion holds a particular tenet.

Can you give an example of “others something else”?

I don’t understand what that means.

Does that question say anything about religion?

The claim has been made, I am seeking to understand what other sources are acceptable. Or useful. Or in use.

In the other thread, “scientific studies” are a basis for public policy. Are they really?


In a perfect world, the constitution.

But since people are people, everyone’s moral core is going to come from a different source.

1 Like

The Chinese base a lot of it on Confucian ideals mixed with Mao Zedong Thought.

I feel like a simple 5 why interrogative is good enough to guide policy.