Subject:
|
"Centuries old piece of paper" still pretty darn good
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:45:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
126 times
|
| |
|
|
In: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13712
Scott Arthur derides the US constitution with these words:
> It means that we have a legal framework which reflects the way
> we live today. We are not held ransom by a bunch of politically
> appointed lawyers arguing over semantics based on a centuries
> old piece of paper.
Well that "centuries old piece of paper" (parchment, actually) has kept us
free, despite his scorn for it.
Freer than he is, in fact, although he'll never admit it.
He prefers to be ruled by fiats and regulations often developed and imposed,
without specific debate, by ministers who serve a government elected by a
bare majority (or less if it is a coalition) and protected by empty
assurances of rights rather than by principles that take a lot MORE than a
bare majority to overturn, because they are Constitutional Amendments.
Here's an op ed piece I found rather touching.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20011011.html
Read it.
... and think about what it says before you (collective you, I mean any of
you, not just Scott) slur those who are true to its principles even if they
oppose the whim of the moment, or slur those who would take up arms to
defend it, here OR abroad, or slur those who think we do live in the best
and most free country in the world and are proud enough to say so.
I know who my friends are. And who they are not.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
43 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
