Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by tilly, Aug 28, 2018.
Thanks for the updated info. I thought they were not fulfilling their end of the bargain.
Historically, it's probably had the most impact of any single government document, but it's hardly perfect. The fact that 200+ years on we're still having significant disagreements over what the heck some pretty basic clauses actually mean is proof of that. Perhaps some of the vagueness is a feature, not a bug, designed to allow subsequent generations the flexibility of interpretation. Whatever the case may be, the constitution as it stands is must be read in conjunction with the hundreds of years of case law that gives its words specific meaning. You can't have one without the other, since without the shepherding of the Courts, the bare text would have undoubtedly been scrapped long ago in favor of something much more specific.
I think I originally joined GC when y'all were allied with ESPN. But I don't remember what my old username was.
As a pragmatist, that is my view.
If you feel it's "original intent" really "doesn't matter much at this point", then I think reasonable minds could interpret that as you feeling it is out of date.
Perhaps you worded it poorly, but those are your exact words counselor.
Me too, but even sooner I think. I was once volh8trg8tr lol.
As I said, I am a pragmatist, Tilly. I am not an intentionalist. That is why the intentions of the founding fathers don't mean much to me. I view the Constitution as being written in such a way that it can evolve with society. In that vein, I see the vagueness and broadness of it as features that ensure its continued vitality.
I support the 2nd Amendment.
It is interesting that a conservative roll call thread morphed into a referendum on gay marriage.
I think it helps to point out one of the real quandries for the definition of "conservative", and one of the real deltas between some conversatives (libertarian leaning) and the Pub party.
Social conservatism is rooted in both religious values and opposition to social change. We need to tell people what they're allowed to do, based on our values.
Libertarian leaning conservatives are rights respecting... do what you want as long as you're not hurting anyone else.
So the definition of "conservative" can't effectively include both at the same time as they are diametrically opposed. The Pub party made their choice, embracing the social/religious conservatives, and no doubt a wise choice from an electoral POV.
As a result you see a lot of independents who are rights respecting, fiscal conservatives with no party representation. But definitely consider themselves conservative.
Especially the 21st
Very thoughtful post and I think you are dead on. It is my observation that the Pubs did make the choice towards social conservatism under the influence of groups promoting their interpretation of morality. Fine with me if that represents the majority but it does leave out a whole lot of other folks - folks that prefer self determination. There is a void in the middle between far right, whatever Trump is and the far left that would seem prime ground for another party or movement from one of the existing parties.
Most of the time when it comes to politics I feel like a stranger in a strange land.
My apologies to Heinlein.
Yep, I was telling 715 that just yesterday.
That is always my befuddlement the morning after election night. Great book btw and one of maybe only 2 or 3 sci-fi books I've ever read.
They are supposed to be developing a series for Syfy based on it. Not sure how closely it will follow the book.
Don't apologize to Heinlein, he was a legit fascist.
I was not interested in politics when I first read Heinlein.
The books are pretty good, though in some the militarism creeps through, particularly Starship Troopers.