A message to our Leadership in America

[SadisticNature]

Any document with a political process for amendments isn't really a protection at all. Ask any former slave owner about their constitutionally protected property and the lack of compensation (except you can't because they are dead).

If in 2240 America's demographics are dominated by Islam and they elect a majority in the house, senate and control the presidency, do you think a piece of paper is going to stop a constitutional amendment imposing sharia law?

The Treaty of Troyes did nothing to stop Valois from taking the throne of France from Plantagenet. That was a flimsy paper shield too.

As for the letter, I'm perhaps not as familiar with US politics as I should be, but to me I don't see how that person finds the republicans unappealing?

Is that points 3 and 9 through 12?

I think America would improve greatly if they had a Constitutional amendment protecting its citizens from pork spending.

[steelish]

[QUOTE=SadisticNature;836633I think America would improve greatly if they had a Constitutional amendment protecting its citizens from pork spending.[/QUOTE]

Now THAT would help! (But it would be considered unconstitutional, so it will never happen)

[steelish]

If in 2240 America's demographics are dominated by Islam and they elect a majority in the house, senate and control the presidency, do you think a piece of paper is going to stop a constitutional amendment imposing sharia law?

I won't be around in 2240, but I would hope that the people of Islam faith that are born and raised American citizens would respect the Constitution enough to follow it.

[Bren122]

That was a flimsy paper shield too.

When Sir Edward Grey informed the German Ambassador of the conditions Germany had to accept in order for Britain to stay out of World War One, the German Ambassador replied that "[You] are going to war over a piece of paper."
it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"
It is why a Bill of Rights is a limiting document; it sets out those elements that seem so important today but "in the future some fool will be of the belief that we are seeking to define the limits of freedom."
The post-modernist trendies of the left want to redraw the political landscape by modernising or introducing a Bill of Rights that set out the individual's obligations to the state and its members while doing away with those freedoms of choice that are inconvenient to the state. Such a document, far from reflecting the Rights of Man, are seeking to proscribe the model citizen and turning government from the servant of the people into the arbitor of the common good.

[steelish]

it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"

I could not have said it better. I think most people who do not live in the states and even some who do, fail to understand this. Our pride and sense of ownership as a U.S. citizen is being threatened by the very politicians who we (as a whole) elected to keep our nation great. I think this is what is most disappointing. A few bad apples in a barrel is understandable, but when almost the entire barrel is bad, it's crushing.

[DuncanONeil]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!

When Sir Edward Grey informed the German Ambassador of the conditions Germany had to accept in order for Britain to stay out of World War One, the German Ambassador replied that "[You] are going to war over a piece of paper."
it is not the paper or the words that are important but the spirit of the process; a commitment to the principle that all are equal before the law and that disputes can be resolved without resorting to "Rule .303"
It is why a Bill of Rights is a limiting document; it sets out those elements that seem so important today but "in the future some fool will be of the belief that we are seeking to define the limits of freedom."
The post-modernist trendies of the left want to redraw the political landscape by modernising or introducing a Bill of Rights that set out the individual's obligations to the state and its members while doing away with those freedoms of choice that are inconvenient to the state. Such a document, far from reflecting the Rights of Man, are seeking to proscribe the model citizen and turning government from the servant of the people into the arbitor of the common good.

[Energizer]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!

Saying things like "as are the vast majority of the left" is completely unfounded, and downright ignorant to say on anyones part.

Just present a counterargument and let people decide for themselves.

[Bren122]

Saying things like "as are the vast majority of the left" is completely unfounded, and downright ignorant to say on anyones part.

it's no worse than the common assumption on here that the majority of the right are heartless capitalists, neo-nazis or religious extremists. the truth is that the 'vast majority of the left' would like to see the constitution and the Bill of Rights interpreted more liberally; if Duncan feels that this is a mistaken position why can't he say so in those terms? how exactly is it a demonstration of ignorance? or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?

[DuncanONeil]

it's no worse than the common assumption on here that the majority of the right are heartless capitalists, neo-nazis or religious extremists. the truth is that the 'vast majority of the left' would like to see the constitution and the Bill of Rights interpreted more liberally; if Duncan feels that this is a mistaken position why can't he say so in those terms? how exactly is it a demonstration of ignorance? or are sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?

"(A)re sweeping assumptions and statements the sole province of the left?"
Unfortunately that is often exactly the case. I received a message today from MoveOn railing against Visa, in particular, and credit companies in general for not dropping the processing fees for contributions to Haiti. Completely ignoring that the seklf same companies are making their own donations.

[DuncanONeil]

Saying things like "as are the vast majority of the left" is completely unfounded, and downright ignorant to say on anyones part.

Just present a counterargument and let people decide for themselves.

In the case of the message in question it comes from an observation of actions and comments.

And I do believe that; "The entire Constitution is a limiting document" IS a counter argument!

[Bren122]

You are incomplete in your understanding of the document, as are the vast majority of the left. THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION IS A LIMITING DOCUMENT!!!

I am not a leftie, Duncan.
"Freedom must be defined in order that it may be grasped."
A constitution or treaty is only as effective as the spirit that motivates it; the British in WW1 felt strongly about the preservation of the Belgian political entity from its long association with Flanders in general. Germany had no such feelings and thus, despite being a co-signatory of the Brussels Treaty, had no compunction about violating it.
If America did not have an underlying belief in the concepts of equality, liberty and fraternity then the documents themselves would mean nothing. we know this for the US constitution, as important a legal and political milestone as it is, has only worked once. the constitution and the Bill of Rights are meant to be a formalisation of underlying principles; as perspective on those principles has changed, so the documents have been changed, whether by judicial judgement or the ammendments process.
courts, police, parliaments, etc only work when they are allowed to work; if you did not agree with a judgement in a legal case you can easily go into a court room and redress that judgement with a gun. but if everyone does that why have a court system in the first place? similarly the first move in a dictatorship is to ensure the political compliance of the judiciary as an entity. the American system can be biased by political appointments but not to the point of removing opposing judges in order to replace them with your appointees.
The British and Australian (and NZ and Canadian) systems are built on common law and parliament, etc but, really, they are defined by the collective understanding that the alternative is chaos. you don't need a Bill of Rights unless you are trying to impose a certain point of view as being the sole basis of argument; the beauty of the Westminster System is that it can move back and forth between the two opposites and find a middle ground that might not make everyone happy but is a workable solution to diametrically opposed views. if you look at the gun debate in America, which is severely limited by the 2nd Amendment, it promotes extremist positions that ultimately fail to address some of the legitimate concerns that an unlimited gun control policy has allowed to foster. (why does the average citizen NEED a grenade launcher?)

[DuncanONeil]

I can accept many of the things you say.
But not in reference to the bill of rights being better if the meaning changes from day to day.
Also gun rights in the US are not without limit. Anything resembling an M203 is illegal for private ownership, if functional.

I am not a leftie, Duncan.
"Freedom must be defined in order that it may be grasped."
A constitution or treaty is only as effective as the spirit that motivates it; the British in WW1 felt strongly about the preservation of the Belgian political entity from its long association with Flanders in general. Germany had no such feelings and thus, despite being a co-signatory of the Brussels Treaty, had no compunction about violating it.
If America did not have an underlying belief in the concepts of equality, liberty and fraternity then the documents themselves would mean nothing. we know this for the US constitution, as important a legal and political milestone as it is, has only worked once. the constitution and the Bill of Rights are meant to be a formalisation of underlying principles; as perspective on those principles has changed, so the documents have been changed, whether by judicial judgement or the ammendments process.
courts, police, parliaments, etc only work when they are allowed to work; if you did not agree with a judgement in a legal case you can easily go into a court room and redress that judgement with a gun. but if everyone does that why have a court system in the first place? similarly the first move in a dictatorship is to ensure the political compliance of the judiciary as an entity. the American system can be biased by political appointments but not to the point of removing opposing judges in order to replace them with your appointees.
The British and Australian (and NZ and Canadian) systems are built on common law and parliament, etc but, really, they are defined by the collective understanding that the alternative is chaos. you don't need a Bill of Rights unless you are trying to impose a certain point of view as being the sole basis of argument; the beauty of the Westminster System is that it can move back and forth between the two opposites and find a middle ground that might not make everyone happy but is a workable solution to diametrically opposed views. if you look at the gun debate in America, which is severely limited by the 2nd Amendment, it promotes extremist positions that ultimately fail to address some of the legitimate concerns that an unlimited gun control policy has allowed to foster. (why does the average citizen NEED a grenade launcher?)

[steelish]

A constitution or treaty is only as effective as the spirit that motivates it

And therein lies the problem. I think there is plenty of spirit in America to motivate it, unfortunately, the voters haven't been paying much attention for a great many years now and instead of voting based upon principles, many have been voting based upon popularity, or "gee, I've heard of this person but not that one", or even "he's cuter than the other guy". (Yes, I once heard an 18 year old girl say that when she voted for the first time and I wanted to throw up). Many Americans are a bit ignorant when it comes to making a knowledgeable vote, and that stems from the fact that they can't foresee an America other than the one they grew up in. They think it will be as usual...life goes on unchanged. Unfortunately, they are now learning that is not the case, and many Americans are researching, learning, and watching politicians much more closely than they ever have before. Talk of politics used to be practically nonexistent - now it's everywhere; in restaurants, at the workplace, etc. The actions of the current administration has done more to wake up Americans than 9/11 did! For that, I thank them.

The spirit of America is going to show itself at the voting booth this year, for that you can be sure.

[Bren122]

And therein lies the problem. I think there is plenty of spirit in America to motivate it, unfortunately, the voters haven't been paying much attention for a great many years now and instead of voting based upon principles, many have been voting based upon popularity, or "gee, I've heard of this person but not that one", or even "he's cuter than the other guy". (Yes, I once heard an 18 year old girl say that when she voted for the first time and I wanted to throw up). Many Americans are a bit ignorant when it comes to making a knowledgeable vote, and that stems from the fact that they can't foresee an America other than the one they grew up in. They think it will be as usual...life goes on unchanged. Unfortunately, they are now learning that is not the case, and many Americans are researching, learning, and watching politicians much more closely than they ever have before. Talk of politics used to be practically nonexistent - now it's everywhere; in restaurants, at the workplace, etc. The actions of the current administration has done more to wake up Americans than 9/11 did! For that, I thank them.

The spirit of America is going to show itself at the voting booth this year, for that you can be sure.

The Baby Boomers thought that because they had 'changed' they had an opportunity to change the world. But they had not 'changed', they had simply been fed a load of mythologised moral and social simplicity and became disillusioned when the world turned out to be more complicated than they thought. they passed on a cynicism to their children and grandchildren that it didn't matter what they did, you couldn't change the ways of the world.

the new generations, 'X' and especially 'Y', are starting to realise that the Boomers sold them a bill of goods. they are starting to realise that while a few dedicated people might not make a lot of difference, doing nothing has certainly never changed the world.

[steelish]

The Baby Boomers thought that because they had 'changed' they had an opportunity to change the world. But they had not 'changed', they had simply been fed a load of mythologised moral and social simplicity and became disillusioned when the world turned out to be more complicated than they thought. they passed on a cynicism to their children and grandchildren that it didn't matter what they did, you couldn't change the ways of the world.

the new generations, 'X' and especially 'Y', are starting to realise that the Boomers sold them a bill of goods. they are starting to realise that while a few dedicated people might not make a lot of difference, doing nothing has certainly never changed the world.

But it's not about "changing the world". At least, it isn't for me. I cannot change Iraq and their beliefs...I cannot change the bitter relationships that exist within Ireland...I cannot change Israel. The only thing, we, as Americans can do is try to set an example to the rest of the world by continuing to be a free nation with a big heart. To do this we need to preserve our freedoms, and to me, we are on our way to losing a great many of them.

[DuncanONeil]

"Sold them a bill of goods"? You consider work hard, save for the future, attend church regularly, and be honest in your dealing with others a "bill of goods"?

The Baby Boomers thought that because they had 'changed' they had an opportunity to change the world. But they had not 'changed', they had simply been fed a load of mythologised moral and social simplicity and became disillusioned when the world turned out to be more complicated than they thought. they passed on a cynicism to their children and grandchildren that it didn't matter what they did, you couldn't change the ways of the world.

the new generations, 'X' and especially 'Y', are starting to realise that the Boomers sold them a bill of goods. they are starting to realise that while a few dedicated people might not make a lot of difference, doing nothing has certainly never changed the world.