Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:04:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
756 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Funny that--and if a group of men were to write up a list of, say, laws that
I would like to follow, when would I want those laws to be written? Say,
200+ years ago before there were street lights, law enforcement, cars, and
the like, or say, in 1982?
|
So, you are saying that Canadians will completely trash by 2182 what was
written in 1982? That the Canadians of 1982 were incompetent? Sounds like
the problem is in Canada, not America. :-)
| |
How about a ‘constitution’ that changes and adapts itself tothe changing
times and ways that we deal with issues, instead of a ‘constitution’ that is
static, unchanging (niggle here but all in all-y’all don’t want it to
change)?
|
We have methods of change built in. By your comments I take it that you
don’t understand that.
|
Oh I love it when people say that others don’t understand... throw the
argeuement into question by alluding to ignorance or incompotence... nicely
done.
I’m well aware of the evolution of the laws. I’m also aware of the ability to
strike and or modify parts of the constitution if they are found to be archaic.
But, of course, anyone points out that it may be worth looking into something
they consider ‘archaic’, “oh no! Can’t look into it--there’s nothing wrong with
it!”
Well there is something wrong with it if people are dying due to adhering to an
archaic section. But y’all don’t want to hear about it.
| |
| |
You know what happens to ponds and such when they don’t move, don’t change,
aren’t constantly refreshed? They become stagnant and putrid. Sure things
grow in them, but things that we equate with ‘nice, clean, and healthy’
aren’t amongst them.
|
So, Canada built a stagnant pond in 1982 that will need to be drained and
refilled? Glad we built a filtration and renewal process in ours. :-)
|
Nice analogy. But as flawed as your interpretation of mine. As far as I know,
laws are there to be adhered to. If a law is found to limit freedom, that
specific law is updated/changed--the whole book isn’t thrown out. Much like
Ontario recently allowing gays/lesbians to marry. We didnt’ throw out the whole
book, we changed the law governing marriage.
| |
| |
Evolving with the times, I think, is a much better way of doing things.
Sure there are some ideas that ‘span generations’--I’m not suggesting write
a new constitution from scratch every January 1st--this isn’t some sort of
‘slippery slope’ arguement. But when certain issues and ideas become
outdated, they should be re-examined and/or eliminated. “But we can’t do
that ‘cause it’s *The Constitution!*.”
|
We do that all the time, we just usually come to the conclusion that the
basic concept was fairly sound.
|
The basic concept is fairly sound. But it’s not *completely* sound. Listening
to “Constitutionalists” (and some folks around here) however, that piece of
paper needs no change.
| |
You do understand that that is an especially lame conclusion? Gosh, I hate
to be using the Scott Arthur method of answering everything with a question,
but don’t you think that what you are suggesting is exactly writing a new
constitution from scratch every January 1st?
|
Never said that. Not once. Bruce, you’ve always had a better reading
comprehension than that. The terms ‘evolve’ and ‘update’ do not mean ‘throw
out’ and ‘start over’.
Yes I do say “That piece of paper written 200+ years ago”, but that’s in
response to those that say “Hey, it’s the *Constitution*!!!” And I’ve made it
known that I’m *very* appreciative of the 1st...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
161 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
|
|
|
|
