Inasmuch as the Constitution itself provides a methodology for changing it, one suspects that the Founders did not intend that leaving it ever inviolate was to be the standard for "upholding" it.
Do you believe that Lincoln was "not upholding" the Constitution consonant with his oath when he worked to pass the 13th Amendment?
What do you think Senator Obama would think about that?
I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. I share Linda's concerns, because I think that a McCain administration would follow the lead of the Bush administration in attempting to undercut the authority and balancing power of the Legislative and Judicial branches. This, indeed, constitutes "not upholding" the Constitution. You are introducing the matter of amendments as a red herring. Shame on you.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. I share Linda's concerns, because I think that a McCain administration would follow the lead of the Bush administration in attempting to undercut the authority and balancing power of the Legislative and Judicial branches. This, indeed, constitutes "not upholding" the Constitution. You are introducing the matter of amendments as a red herring. Shame on you.
McCain, yesterday, urged the Bush Administration -- on more than one occasion -- to immediately and uniliterally spend $1 trillion buying up home mortgages. Without congressional approval. Without oversight. Without any protection for taxpayers.
While technically it's not a violation of the constitution, I consider it part of the shift in power that I've seen since the Republicans regained office. The branches were set up to provide a system of checks and balances but Bush has been using the war on terror as an excuse to suspend (imho) civil liberties in ways that the authors of the constitiution could not have foreseen.
wwalkerjr, perhaps you might feel a little less blase about the prospect of pushes for radically reactionary Constitutional amendments, if you'd had to live through an entire election cycle where a central issue was the very real threat of a proposed Constitutional amendment to strip you of the right to marry the person you love.
"Right"? Really?
And where is that "right" embodied in the law, again?
And the same observations stand: Ain't never gonna happen, and everyone involved knew it. Constitutional amendments are just too difficult in times as hysterically partisan as these.
If I'm very obviously a quadriplegic and I threaten to kick your ***, are you worried?
Relax. Have a glass of wine. The sky is not falling.
Originally Posted by fencerchica
I think you're being deliberately obtuse here.
That's your prerogative. ( As is being wrong. )
I share Linda's concerns, because I think that a McCain administration would follow the lead of the Bush administration in attempting to undercut the authority and balancing power of the Legislative and Judicial branches. This, indeed, constitutes "not upholding" the Constitution.
No, it does not. There has always been a dynamic power struggle between the Branches. That, once again, is the way the system was designed.
Much as liberals love to wring their hands about having the Constitution "shredded" under Bush, I have lost no protected rights, and neither have you.
Maybe you should have a second glass of wine.
You are introducing the matter of amendments as a red herring. Shame on you.
Oddly enough, I would think that I probably know more about my intentions than you do. Perhaps you could stick to arguing about established facts and leave the mindreading to Kreskin...
Bush has been using the war on terror as an excuse to suspend (imho) civil liberties in ways that the authors of the constitiution could not have foreseen.
Name one. Please be specific. Vague charges that play to the gallery's prejudices are one of the other things of which Bush and indeed Republicans generally are often accused. Physician, heal thyself!
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Much as liberals love to wring their hands about having the Constitution "shredded" under Bush, I have lost no protected rights, and neither have you.
or conservatives decry the endless murder of the unborn
As a foreigner the one thing I find fascinating is how cheerfully Americans abjure the political process safe in the knowledge that the right thinking members of the supreme court will protect them .
Name one. Please be specific. Vague charges that play to the gallery's prejudices are one of the other things of which Bush and indeed Republicans generally are often accused. Physician, heal thyself!
*cough*HabeusCorpus*cough*
The Angel of Death Strikes!
If you can fool your friends, you can fool your enemies...
Sorry to have stepped away from this for a day but...
To fencerchica-I am sorry that you live in fear. I think I have a small understanding; I live in California, where the issue of the right to marriage is a constant issue. In this election, with very real state budget issues, very real infrastructure issues, very real education issues, very real pollution issues, people with nothing better to do than worry about other people's relationships, are promoting Proposition 8 to change the California Consitution to declare that marriage is "between a man and a woman". Here, there is a very real possibility that what is now a right can be taken away. (Fortunately, polls show that Californians will vote this proposition down.) But that only goes to illustrate my earlier point. California's Constitution can be changed quickly by a single Proposition. The Process to change the US Constitution is much more difficult. I am willing to bet that between us, we can name the 13 states that will not ratify the potential US Consitutional Amendment that you fear, even if it could get out of Congress.
To keith: Why is life only sometimes precious? How can Liberals be opposed to capital punishment for felons and unmoved by abortions?
And conversely, how can the Religious Right remain silent on capital punishment, but so vocal about murder of the unborn?
Why is life only sometimes precious? How can Liberals be opposed to capital punishment for felons and unmoved by abortions?
And conversely, how can the Religious Right remain silent on capital punishment, but so vocal about murder of the unborn?
And where is that "right" embodied in the law, again?
Human rights are not always legal rights.
Originally Posted by Inquartata
Relax. Have a glass of wine. The sky is not falling.
I prefer single-barrel bourbon, thanks... but there ain't bourbon enough in the world to do it. I agree that the Constitutional anti-gay-marriage amendment was a cynical ploy on the part of at least some of the people pushing it, but I disagree that it wasn't a plausible threat, considering how many states passed anti-gay-marriage bans via the legislature and via voter referenda around that timeframe.
Originally Posted by Inquartata
Much as liberals love to wring their hands about having the Constitution "shredded" under Bush, I have lost no protected rights, and neither have you.
I hereby order: [...] all property and interests in property of the following persons [...] determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense [...] to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or (B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; (ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or (iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
It's that B clause that concerns me -- and should concern all of us who blog, comment, organize, write letters, and otherwise exercise our rights to agitate against this unholy war. "Undermining the efforts" is a term that can be defined very, very broadly. And since those of us opposing this war have been told repeatedly, from the beginning, that our efforts to change our fellow citizens' minds were in fact treasonous acts that undermined the war effort, emboldened America's enemies, and harmed our troops, it's not unreasonable to believe that those warnings are now being backed up by official action. "At risk of committing significant acts of violence" is more overbroad weasel-speak: How many of us have said things that could be construed (at least by the certifiable paranoids in the White House) as a threat of violence against the Bush Administration?
This government has now asserted -- without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress -- its right to take away our houses, cars, savings accounts, the stuff of our lives, on the say-so of the President and his Treasury Secretary. They are not kidding. What we do here, what I am doing right now (unless I choose my words very carefully) is being done in defiance of the Law According to George Bush.
To keith: Why is life only sometimes precious? How can Liberals be opposed to capital punishment for felons and unmoved by abortions?
Because we don't believe a fetus qualifies as a life?
Or even more extreme, we don't believe destroying a grouping of a couple thousand cells (ie. an embryo) inside someone's body constitutes taking a life.
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,
Aureli pathetice et cinaede Furi
Random thought just came in my head seeing that: when the body rejects a fetus, is that manslaughter? If it's killing a life, and the body did it without you necessarily wanting it to, how does that get percieved?
The Angel of Death Strikes!
If you can fool your friends, you can fool your enemies...
Because we don't believe a fetus qualifies as a life?
Or even more extreme, we don't believe destroying a grouping of a couple thousand cells (ie. an embryo) inside someone's body constitutes taking a life.
I believe that in all the states, you do not become a person and gain the rights of citizenship until you are born. It is legal definition that is a bright line test. However, there are exceptions, as Scott Peterson found out. If you kill a pregnant mother in her third trimester, you can bet that you will be charged with two murders. Likewise, there is consideration of prosecution, on behalf of the fetus, of pregnant women who abuse themselves and the fetus with drugs, alcohol, etc during their preganancy. Clearly, the law is doubleminded.
It is fairly intuitive, that despite the legal test, most people would say that a baby/fetus is a person 2 minutes before it is born, a week before it is born, a month before it is born.
I have a friend who works in a neo-natal intensive care unit. They can save babies as early as 25 weeks now. Philosophically, when did that collection of cells gain our respect? Or gain its soul?
The dilemma is that, because of our biology, there are two lives involved, the fetus' and the mother's. How can we fairly adjudicate the rights when the interests conflict? I don't believe that there is a simple, universal answer.
As I have indicated, I am opposed to taking of life, whether by abortion or capital punishment. However, in the case of abortion, I accept the legal status quo, as a decision by the mother and her physician. I don't believe that the state (government) can offer a better, more informed postition.
It is one of the tragedies of an imperfect world.
I'm not opening up an argument here. You asked how can I believe these two things that seem to be at odds with each other. Your post is nice I guess but not relevant to any of the lines of inquiry.
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo,
Aureli pathetice et cinaede Furi
or conservatives decry the endless murder of the unborn
Some conseratives, true enough. Maybe you are not aware that there are more than one variety of us?
I myself am an economic/government or "Goldwater" conservative. I am about as strongly pro-choice as one can get, for example.
As a foreigner the one thing I find fascinating is how cheerfully Americans abjure the political process safe in the knowledge that the right thinking members of the supreme court will protect them.
Fallacy of bifurcation, I'm afraid. I said no such thing, and it is not a matter of the choices being limited to one of two extremes. Balance of powers, remember? "Dynamic struggle" for dominance?
If one's arguments are strong ones, there is no need to resort to making a caricature of your opponents. If one's arguments are not strong enough, perhaps one should examine why one still feels compelled to assert them...
Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi
*cough*HabeusCorpus*cough*
See a doctor, I am concerned about that cough. Maybe a shrink while you're at it, because I am informed that the right you mention hasn't gone anywhere.
Originally Posted by fencerchica
Human rights are not always legal rights.
Yes, I suppose they are whatever you or your favorite sharing/caring organization decides they are, right? Rather Humpty-Dumptyish if you ask me.
I prefer single-barrel bourbon, thanks... but there ain't bourbon enough in the world to do it.
Sure there is. You just haven't drunk it all yet.
I disagree that it wasn't a plausible threat, considering how many states passed anti-gay-marriage bans via the legislature and via voter referenda around that timeframe.
Was it anything like 2/3 of them? ( I count 25 with constitutional measures. )
As wwalkerjr adverted, it didn't even get as far as the ERA. There has been no real push for a federal constitutional amendment beyond the social conservative bloc of Congressmen. How is this a threat?
Tempest in a teapot. It's not much different than the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act---which is actually a law. Certainly nothing innovative. And that it "worries" bloggers is not proof that it has actually taken away any right...
It has also not to my knowledge been tested in the courts.
Has it even been attempted?
Back to the Wild Turkey with you.
Last edited by Inquartata; 10-02-2008 at 04:52 PM.
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Fallacy of bifurcation, I'm afraid. I said no such thing, and it is not a matter of the choices being limited to one of two extremes. Balance of powers, remember? "Dynamic struggle" for dominance?
It was directed at the general observation that the balance of powers somehow guarantees something in and of itself. It does not. No bifurcation occurred as you appear to be arguing that people worrying about the loss of 'constitutional' rights amounts to fretting over an impossibility.
Consider, if you will, the impossible set of possibilities that could result in the supreme court deciding to re-interpret that comma. Or decide that it had a historical brain freeze when it decided that there was a constitutional right to privacy.
See a doctor, I am concerned about that cough. Maybe a shrink while you're at it, because I am informed that the right you mention hasn't gone anywhere.
Meh, it is there, unless they decide that you don't get to have it because they feel the need to take it away in your particular case. So, in a way, you are right. In other ways, you are wrong.
The Angel of Death Strikes!
If you can fool your friends, you can fool your enemies...
Originally Posted by Inquartata
