That is the debate. Just a quick thought.... Let us just put out there for our enemies what we will and won't do.... just as they do. Sure!
This is war, not a game.
If there is a debate on torture or not, let it be behind close doors. Keep them worrying about what we will do next.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Freedom comes from a difficult to change Constittion
In our country we have one opinion and "on the other hand" and we fight it out. Nothing wrong with that. For the life of the country it has been so.
So it is with the idea of Supreme Court justices. Strict Construction vs. A "living constitution. As you can imagine, I fall on the side of the SC's.
That is the route of freedom and freedom is what this country is about... or should be.
It is the route to a better life.
It is the route to a great country.
Here is why:
The constitution was constructed to make change difficult, except for those first 10 amendments. Since then it adopted amendments have been few and far between.
Difficult... the way it should be. It washes away the frivolous in time to think.
It makes us think, it makes us work and in the end it is better for all.
So to change we can go the hard route (amendments) or the easy route (judges that "find" new rights buried in the constitution).
If you have on burning issue, it makes sense to want a few judges give it to you than having go thru the amendment process.
the problem comes with someone else who has a 'burning" issue and it is not one you want.
So the "living constitution" judges make change easy. But that is just a end around of the process that has served us so well. It sidesteps the thinking process, it ignores the value of a long debate.
So ask your self if you want "my burning issue" to take the easy road and make it law over your objecctions.
The constitution, a wonderful think, it should be taught as thoroughly as some want birth control to be taught.
Freedom is not easy and it should not be made so.
So it is with the idea of Supreme Court justices. Strict Construction vs. A "living constitution. As you can imagine, I fall on the side of the SC's.
That is the route of freedom and freedom is what this country is about... or should be.
It is the route to a better life.
It is the route to a great country.
Here is why:
The constitution was constructed to make change difficult, except for those first 10 amendments. Since then it adopted amendments have been few and far between.
Difficult... the way it should be. It washes away the frivolous in time to think.
It makes us think, it makes us work and in the end it is better for all.
So to change we can go the hard route (amendments) or the easy route (judges that "find" new rights buried in the constitution).
If you have on burning issue, it makes sense to want a few judges give it to you than having go thru the amendment process.
the problem comes with someone else who has a 'burning" issue and it is not one you want.
So the "living constitution" judges make change easy. But that is just a end around of the process that has served us so well. It sidesteps the thinking process, it ignores the value of a long debate.
So ask your self if you want "my burning issue" to take the easy road and make it law over your objecctions.
The constitution, a wonderful think, it should be taught as thoroughly as some want birth control to be taught.
Freedom is not easy and it should not be made so.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
