Subject:
|
Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:47:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
416 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Then perhaps you do not understand that the document is holding you hostage
> > to reason and change.
>
> That's a ridiculous statement. And it is so poorly supported by any
> meaningful argument as to be pointless to debate the matter.
What I mean is that rather than debate these issues, we get an argument that
goes like this: "It's in the constitution, so we can't change it". I find
that "ridiculous". Here is an example:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20010704.shtml
==+==
Al Gore declared that "the Constitution is a living and breathing document
... intended by our Founders to be interpreted in the light of the
constantly evolving experience of the American people."
George Washington was truly familiar with what was intended by our Founders.
He said this in his Farewell Address: " ... the Constitution ... till
changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly
obligatory upon all ... " He emphasized his point with these words: "Let
there be no change by usurpation ... it is the customary weapon by which
free governments are destroyed."
==+==
If you read the rest of the text, I found the comment about the 10th
amendment to be interesting.
>
> > The fact remains that (as I understand it) GWB can erode your rights with
> > only 25% of the vote.
>
> No, that would be false. GWB might wish to errode my rights, but that would
> be what is so great about our system of govt. (at least ideally) inasmuch
> that he can't actually accomplish such a goal long-term. What can you
> possibly be talking about, BTW?
So what does it take to "erode your rights" then?
>
> And I said "ideally" because I am not sure any govt. actually runs in the
> precise manner in which it was envisioned. We have social contracts that
> are in a state of flux -- half planned, half expedient. I doubt you can any
> more easily defend the govt. under which you live than can we in the U.S.,
> but it doesn't much interest me to put the matter to a test because of the
> time involved in making an obvious point.
>
> > It is not 100% relevant, but I did enjoy this:
> > http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/letter_from_america/newsid_72000/72371.stm
>
> Cooke's nonsense is just that. Our Constitutional govt. is not perfect, but
> it is easily the match of any other democratic govt. in the world today --
> and far better than most.
I am not saying it is not.
> This talk about enumerated rights vs. unenumerated
> rights is pointless in light of the fact that we also have the 9th
> Amendment, which reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
> rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
> people." This was popped into place to appease the Anti-Federalists if I
> recall rightly. I expect it should be enough to satisfy you as well, Scott.
By giving the Cooke URL I was not trying to make a specific point - I just
found it interesting... esp since the quote I used in the subject line
agrees with my text quoted by the troll who started this thread.
>
> BTW, Appeals to authority only work when the authority cited makes sense.
>
> As someone essentially disinterested in the ongoing Scott and Larry show I'd
> just like to point out that, and this despite the fact that I occasionally
> agree with some of what you have to say, the overall tenor of your many
> posts is usually on the order of a briefly written troll. Trolls that
> others occasionally fall victim to answering (::sigh::). I suspect deep
> down you are better than this, and I appeal to that side of you to be the
> author of future posts.
Thanks for your comments Richard. I see nothing wrong with making concise
statements, but I do not consider myself a troll (and that is the truth).
There are others who do troll... but that is up to them. This whole thread
was a troll (in my opinion) to take the heat of other issues. I expect I'll
get a called troll for saying that. But look at the facts:
1. Why start a new thread when he could have replied here:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13712
Where my point was that the constitution is not perfect. Instead a new
thread is started and I am quoted out of context.
2. Why did the person who does not "plough old ground" start the thread
anyway. It has all been said before:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=11507 (3 months ago)
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8728 (9 months ago)
and at least once before then.
So, am I the only "troll"?
Scott A
Scott A
>
> -- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
43 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
