Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:01:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
868 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
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.
|
What can I say? You set yourself up for the obvious. It needed to be said to
draw you off your high horse, but you if you wish to remount... :-)
| |
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.
|
If we continue to pass judgment on it, then the document remains living, not
simply a 200 year old fossil. If you have a problem with the decision to leave
things alone, then that is a different argument.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Good, I got you to think through part of that. Now, please address whether the
same process (process, not any given specific decision) happens in the United
States and then apply that to your pond analogy above.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Ummmmmm...so? They continue to pass judgment on it. They are not held prisoner
by it. I don’t always agree with those judgments, but I do agree that the core
rules should be hard to 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 took the same reading comprehension test in college that my sister was
taking at the same time in high school. The high schoolers were somewhere
either side of 20-35 (on a 1-100 scale of difficulty). The highest in my
college course was 63. I started the course at 89, and finished at 100
(fiendishly precise writing).
So, either I have slipped or am I’m doing this to try and get you to reassess
your own flawed original analysis.
| |
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...
|
Perhaps, then, your message is going astray, and you may wish to rethink what
you actually said.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
