Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 19:55:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3843 times
|
| |
|
|
Oh I hate when this happens--I had a most beautiful resonse in the making
and I accidentally closed explorer!! Grr!!!
K, here goes--take 2
Using West Wing for a basis of research on politics is like using Pretty
Woman for the basis of reasearch on prostitution. Pretty woman, however was
a fun movie, and the West Wing is a great show. I know that writers take
certain liberties of the truth to enhance their show. One doesn't have to
look much farther than U-571 and know that, not once in WWII, did the Yanks
capture an Enigma machine, to know that movies and the truth are slightly
askew. That said, watching the West Wing is a good start to begin the
discussion--Research into the issues with real facts can come later
My point was that this piece of paper is not a <insert deity or not if
you're an athiest> inspired writ--No one had a crystal ball and looked into
the future to cover all the things that needed covering. Educated guesses
from educated men is one thing, as well as covering the bases of the time.
Saying that Dubya cannot say 'God' either as himself or as his position
because it goes contrary to the separation of C & S is ludicrous at best.
Dubya has the freedom to say as he pleases--that's what the little blurb
from the WW was a bout, as well as your own Freedom of Speech.
About the pledge--it's not the issue--the issue there is bullies. Was it
the Pledge who beat up the kids at recess? Was it the Pledge that threw the
first punch? Soon there will be those that say that all kids must have the
same grade, whether they're smart or stupid, whether they pass or fail,
'cause it's the brainers that get picked on, or the stupid ones that get
taunted, or whatever. Saying that we have to get rid of something or stop
doing this or that 'cause the kids are feeling alienated is the tail wagging
the dog. Quote from a totally awesome movie--'Life isn't fair,
highness--Whoever says differently is trying to sell something.'
I wore a cub scout uniform to school every Tuesday, for my cub meeting was
after school down at the park. Did wearing the uniform cause some grief in
class and/or on the playground? Sure, but in the grande scheme of things...
whatever... This reminds me of a Calvin & Hobbes cartoon, when Calvin put
on his dad's glasses, walked into the living room and said 'Calvin, go do
something you hate--it builds character' in his best dad's voice. I always
loved that strip.
Wanna know why there's some dysfunction in schools--I'm not a 'Chicken
Little' saying all things are going to 'h-e-double hockey
sticks-in-a-handbasket' but there are problems--I was in one of our branches
a few weeks back (I work for a school bus transportation company up here in
the frigid north) and there was a clipping... 'from a disgruntled teachers
resignation letter: The teachers are afraid of the principal, the principal
is afraid of the superintendants, the superintendants are afraid of the
school board, the members on the school board are afraid of the parents, the
parents are afraid of the children, the children are afraid of nobody.'
Throwing so many things out there...
Bottom line, for me, is that we shouldn't appeal to the lowest common
denominator. We're not going to keep everybody happy, and instead of saying
'why bother?' or 'let's cave in to vocal minorities and lower the bar', let
us instead raise the bar--the bar on discussion, the bar on debate, and the
bar on doing what's right, what's Just, and what's ethically and morally
correct.
Appealing to athiests by taking the word 'God' out of institutional
vocabulary does none of that.
Dave
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> You would be well served not to use "West Wing" as your basis for research,
> or even for sound bites. It's terribly biased in the statist/socialist
> direction and the writers are quite skillful at twisting things to their own
> ends, as they have happily admitted. Think for yourself.
>
> Now then, as to this excerpt:
>
> "Judge: I would have strong objection, Mr. President, as I like cream as
> well, but I would have no constitutional basis to strike down the law when
> you brought your case to the Supreme Court."
>
> That is, in my view, not a correct interpretation. See the constitution
> itself, for example as found here (there are other places),
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.text.html
>
> specifically Amendment X
>
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
> to the people. "
>
> which was expressly put in to address the objections of the "Georgians"
> referred to in this excerpt:
>
> " Sam: In 1787 there was a sizeable block of delagates who were initally
> opposed to the Bill of Rights. This is what a member of the Georgia
> delagation had to say by way of opposition, "If we list a set of rights,
> some fools in the future are going to claim the people are entitled to those
> rights enumerated and no others..." "
>
> You'd have to see the Federalist Papers to determine if they really were
> Georgians or not, I don't recall.
>
> A law preventing cream in coffee is indeed unconstitutional, as are about
> 98% of the rest of the laws we have nowadays. The mere fact that courts
> don't find that way doesn't mean that it isn't unconstitutional, just that
> the constitution has been mostly abrogated.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
