No I was not in Nam, but my husband was. My brother was. My cousin was. My friends were. Now I'll ask you. Were you there? When the boys came home did you have to deal with their anxiety? Have you lived with one, being there in the middle of the night when a nightmare strikes? Have you been in a room with 15 grown crying men as they agonize 25 yrs later over their experiences of coming home, which in most cases left deeper wounds than actually being on patrol and being fired at. Have you held them as they relived terrifying experiences. Have you been there Mackie? Were you there dealing with the protestors, helping them be heard. Were you there when after their departure from political activity, the extremists took over. Everyone has the right to critique the war. Just because he was there a whopping four months doesn't give him special privileges. 3 purple hearts for MINOR wounds, commendations he wrote himself up for. A silver star for finishing off a charlie that was already mortally wounded? Leaving his boat in violation of orders and placing his comrades in danger. The man is all about grandstanding. He was a family friend of the Kennedy's, still you actually believe this young Lt. KNEW about an obscure regulation allowing him to come home after 3 purple hearts? You're gullible. Kerry's goal in life was to emulate John Kennedy, to use Kennedy's road map in his own life.
I'm not even talking about the Gates and Buffets of this world. Are you jealous. Is this class envy. If Socialists had it their way, no one would ever be that wealthy. Tax loopholes? Yeah the code was written for corporations. So why aren't you one? If you aren't smart enough to protect your money, then loose it. Your big brown eyes, are they genetic?
Come one ART lets use a little common sense here. The principles of the Constitution, the way our government is suppose to operate for the benefit of everyone instead of the elite, has nothing to do with slavery and voting rights.
FYI, I've said the same thing for 20 years. Regardless who was President. Changing Presidents accomplishes very little. Go to the heart of the problem. CONGRESS. Ever been to DC? Spend some time there (not on the tours), that's an eye opener.
Yes, let's use a little common sense. To stick with a rigid literal reading of the constitution without allowing for the social changes that the founding fathers never considered or even thought possible is lacking in common sense. To say that socialism has nothing to offer to society is an extreme and narrow position, equal to saying that capitalism has nothing to offer to society. It is a balance between the needs of the individuals and the needs of the society that should take precedent. How can we be bound by a fixed and unalterable constitution designed for 13 colonies in a day where there wasn't the type of world economy and information exchange there is today? In the days of the colonists, there was no upward mobility for women and minorities, or most of the poor. Education was not available, etc. The Constitution has to grow with our society, and sometimes that means change. I am all in favor of common sense, and if Jefferson and Franklin were alive today I am convinced that they and others would be more of a social activist mind than a pure capitalistic intellect. I suspect they would be properly balanced between states rights and the need for a federal government to protect the rights of the smaller states and individuals...as well as balanced between the ideals of capitalism and the ideals of socialism.
cdbern, Great comments. The Dem's think attendance at a Guard drill 35 years ago is more significant than calling your fellow vet's war criminals and undermining support for the troops who were still under fire or in POW camps and didn't get to come home after a couple of scratches after 4 or 5 months. I fail to see how Kerry's brief service "earned" him the right to call his fellow vets war criminals. Or made it ok for him to be running around with Jane Fonda organizing demonstrations that undermined support for the troops, demoralized them, contributed to them being treated shamefully when they returned and made it clear to our enemy that all theyhad to do was stay the course and guys like Kerry would win the war for them. Of course, he had the right to do these things, at least after he was released from the Navy 6 months early (no favoritism there, right?). Probably he should have been courtmartialed for his activities prior to being released, but again, that's not nearly the story that Bush NG attendance is. But why can't Kerry own up to this history now? If he is so proud of his advocacy for Hanoi, why run as a decorated vet, when he pretended to toss his medals away in mock shame? Why claim to be part of the Band of Brothers when he backstabbed them to impress Jane Fonda? This is a disturbing pattern with Kerry. He tries out all sides of an issue, all the time posturing with great moral superiority. He voted agaisnt Desert storm, but that turned out well so he voted for the Iraq war, but then it became convenient to be against that, so he drops the Hnaoi John and becomes the War Hero, which he tried once before but that got him nowhere in Mass politics so he became Hanoi John. He voted for NAFTA and China trade normalization but he's shocked, shocked that jobs are going overseas. Benedict arnold CEO's to blame. Famously doesn't take PAC money, but somehow is the number one recipient of special interest money in the Senate, according to the Washington Post.
I'm having so many problems with my computer right now I took the liberty of numbering each of your remarks and numbering my response accordingly. 1. The rigid literal reading of the Constitution IS FOR OUR BENEFIT. Donât think that because these men lived over 200 years ago they lacked foresight. While not all the framers of the Constitution were as well versed in ancient history as Jefferson, his knowledge had a profound effect on the body. He studied ancient civilizations, their governments and history like you study the market. Because of inherit attributes of human nature, history repeats itself if left unchecked. The constraints of the Constitution are for own protection. Its what perserves our individual and collective freedom. That document and the impact it has had on the lives of its citizens resenates around the world. What other country do people risk their lives to live in. 2. Donât confuse Socialism with social conscience. Without a social conscience, civilization becomes stagnate. Socialism limits empowerment, while social conscience is actually empowering. Socialism by its very nature robs people of the motivation to improve their own lives and the lives of those around them. Capitalism has its own reward. Many elements of the service industry, while capitalistic in nature, are actually the result of social conscience. 3. If I have a need, should I expect you to fulfill that need or take it upon myself? Caring for the sick, elderly, physically or mentally impaired is the responsibility of society. Necessity is the mother of invention. Americans today have relinquished personal responsibility onto the shoulders of government. Consequently, collectively and individually we are taxed to the point that many people are unable to fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Money we have sweated for is given to others who have no appreciation of our toil. It is squandered by the government and eventually finds its way into private hands, either within our own citizenry or other nations. 4. Some elements of the Constitution should remain unaltered i.e. the limiting powers of Government. The problems they encountered 200 years ago were not so very different than what we encounter today. Because weâre dealing on a larger scale, it seems more complex. The complexity is of our own making. The K.I.S.S. method is always the most effective. Instead of looking to change the Constitution, understand what it really is. Every time Congress wants to pass a new law, they should first ask themselves and inform âthe peopleâ where in the Constitution the power to make that law is found. 5. Well now, that is one of those things that had to evolve isnât it. The Constitution does not place limits on access. While not on the scale we see today, education was far more available than we think. Certainly the poor were less educated, but as time elapsed, it became evident that an educated citizenry was essential. There were several Colleges prior to the Revolution. 6. What parts have to change? What hasnât been accounted for? The Constitution isnât whats broken here. 7. Donât place any bets on that. While they were proponents of social equality, Socialism is one of the things they were trying to lead us away from. You can be a social activists and still conform to the Constitution. This is a Republic, not a democracy. There is no stability in true democracies where the will and WHIM of the people prevail. Inconsistancies from generation to generation undermines stability. Each generation has to function with the knowledge that the freedoms they enjoy today will be there tomorrow. 8. Individual rights are protected under the Bill of Rights. As for the States, the Constitution is quite clear about the role of the Federal Government with regards to its powers over the States. Bear in mind, as far as the Framers of the Constitution were concerned each State (and Indian Territory) is considered a separate Country within the borders of the United States. Thatâs why each has its own governing body. Unfortunately, many Americans either havenât learned this or have forgotten it. Politicians of the past have given up our sovereignty. The Federal Government has exceeded it power. The Constitution wasnât something just thrown together one summer. Jefferson in particular had been formulating in his own mind for some time the ideal government. Contrasting each idea against ancient history. Educators are great at espousing the virtues of the Federalists Papers. However it is the Anti-Federalists Papers that will expand your understanding.
Couldn't agree more. Kerry fails to understand the difference between leadership and a popularity contest. I am particularly bothered by his lack of loyalty to those who were giving their lives in support of their country. History presents its own defining moments. Right or wrong, blood is thicker than water. What ever happened to "no man left behind"? Going home early is one thing, going home honorably is another, going home and vilifying those left behind is quite a different matter. Additionally he has attacked Bush for wanting to drill in Alaska, then tells Hoffa Jr. if elected there will be drilling like never before. Good thing the camaras show both sides of his face. That way we know where he's coming from on every issue.
1. The rigid literal reading of the Constitution IS FOR OUR BENEFIT. Donât think that because these men lived over 200 years ago they lacked foresight. While not all the framers of the Constitution were as well versed in ancient history as Jefferson, his knowledge had a profound effect on the body. He studied ancient civilizations, their governments and history like you study the market. Because of inherit attributes of human nature, history repeats itself if left unchecked. The constraints of the Constitution are for own protection. Its what perserves our individual and collective freedom. That document and the impact it has had on the lives of its citizens resenates around the world. What other country do people risk their lives to live in. The problem with rigid reading of 200 year old documents is that few people use 200 year old dictionaries in the process. What a word means can easily change, as can the intent of the word when used. I have read some marvelous arguments about what the constitution is "supposed" to mean be changed dramatically when one or two words are interpreted differently. The problem with the English language is that it is evolving, not static. So reliance on 200 year old text without knowing exactly what the words were intended to mean is the issue. That is why as more and more time goes by, the more confusing it gets as people read the same words and arrive at different meanings. 2. Donât confuse Socialism with social conscience. Without a social conscience, civilization becomes stagnate. Socialism limits empowerment, while social conscience is actually empowering. Socialism by its very nature robs people of the motivation to improve their own lives and the lives of those around them. Capitalism has its own reward. Many elements of the service industry, while capitalistic in nature, are actually the result of social conscience. Socialism is a product of social conscience for some, and a means to have power over others for some. Socialism doesn't limit empowerment. Empowerment is an inside job. You are viewing everything through the lens of a capitalist. 3. If I have a need, should I expect you to fulfill that need or take it upon myself? Caring for the sick, elderly, physically or mentally impaired is the responsibility of society. Necessity is the mother of invention. Americans today have relinquished personal responsibility onto the shoulders of government. Consequently, collectively and individually we are taxed to the point that many people are unable to fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Money we have sweated for is given to others who have no appreciation of our toil. It is squandered by the government and eventually finds its way into private hands, either within our own citizenry or other nations. That some Americans don't take personal responsibility is their fault not the fault of socialism. It is nice to have a scapegoat for the problems of our society, but socialism is not the cause of our decline in this country. 4. Some elements of the Constitution should remain unaltered i.e. the limiting powers of Government. The problems they encountered 200 years ago were not so very different than what we encounter today. Because weâre dealing on a larger scale, it seems more complex. The complexity is of our own making. The K.I.S.S. method is always the most effective. Instead of looking to change the Constitution, understand what it really is. Every time Congress wants to pass a new law, they should first ask themselves and inform âthe peopleâ where in the Constitution the power to make that law is found. I would argue that the founding fathers would not encourage rigidity in our constitution or constitutional understanding. If that had been the case, they would never have allowed for constitutional amendments to change the constitution. 5. Well now, that is one of those things that had to evolve isnât it. The Constitution does not place limits on access. While not on the scale we see today, education was far more available than we think. Certainly the poor were less educated, but as time elapsed, it became evident that an educated citizenry was essential. There were several Colleges prior to the Revolution. Everything in society "evolves" in the sense of change. Whether or not it is "evolution" in a manner that is consistent with the wishes of the framers is a different matter entirely. The reality is that the constitution is no longer their constitution, nor their society....it is our constitution and our society. And when you and I are gone, it will belong to those who follow. At some point parents die and the children are on their own. Perhaps if people had a sense of ownership and responsibility for the constitution, they might read it, and take it more seriously. 6. What parts have to change? What hasnât been accounted for? The Constitution isnât whats broken here. That is your opinion. 7. Donât place any bets on that. While they were proponents of social equality, Socialism is one of the things they were trying to lead us away from. You can be a social activists and still conform to the Constitution. This is a Republic, not a democracy. There is no stability in true democracies where the will and WHIM of the people prevail. Inconsistencies from generation to generation undermines stability. Each generation has to function with the knowledge that the freedoms they enjoy today will be there tomorrow. Yes, there is whim and fashion in society. That is why the idea of a supreme court is a group of non fashionable and non whimsical individuals to determine what is actually constitutional. The concept is that our very best and wisest men and women (I doubt they would have wanted women on the bench back then) should be the arbiters. It is not easy to pass a constitutional amendment, and was the case with prohibition, an amendment can be rescinded or modified at a later time. The point is that socialism itself is not unconstitutional in nature. 8. Individual rights are protected under the Bill of Rights. As for the States, the Constitution is quite clear about the role of the Federal Government with regards to its powers over the States. Bear in mind, as far as the Framers of the Constitution were concerned each State (and Indian Territory) is considered a separate Country within the borders of the United States. Thatâs why each has its own governing body. Unfortunately, many Americans either havenât learned this or have forgotten it. Politicians of the past have given up our sovereignty. The Federal Government has exceeded it power. The Constitution wasnât something just thrown together one summer. Jefferson in particular had been formulating in his own mind for some time the ideal government. Contrasting each idea against ancient history. Educators are great at espousing the virtues of the Federalists Papers. However it is the Anti-Federalists Papers that will expand your understanding. You think my understanding needs expanding? More hubris.
ART, The problem with the concept of a "living Constitution" whose boundaries and proscriptions are molded to fit changing times and mores is the basic question of who does the molding. the Constitution already provides a process for amendment. It is cumbersome to be sure, but many amendments have been ratified. Instead of following this constitutional process however, liberal activists want judges to be in charge of altering the constitution. The problems with amendment by judicial fiat are manifold. One judge, ultimately approved by 5 Supreme Court judges can alter the basic law of the country, often in ways that would never have been approved had the Constitution's amendment process been followed. Such an outcome is profoundly undemocratic, and can set the country on a course not only not envisaged by the Founders, but the exact opposite of what theyintended. FDR's Court packing scheme, which he used to coerce the Court to approve his socialistic New Deal, is an example of what can happen. Moreover, the process is unfair, as it is typically a one-way ratchet. Liberal activist judges rule by fiat and invent so-called "constitutional" rights. Conservative judges are limited to precedent and the terms of the Constitution. So they tend to accept the prior rulings. If they followed the same process, total chaos would ensue as precedents would mean nothing. Many enlightened intellectuals, progressives and law professors understand the flaws in judicial fiat, but are willing to accept it so that thorny issues get decided the "right" way. Abortion is a perfect example. Everyone knows there is no right to abortion in the constitution, just as there is no right to homosexual sex. But many heaved a sigh of relief when a difficult issue was "decided" without input from the democratic process, which they regard as hopelessly narrow-minded, prejudiced and ignorant. The inevitable outcome of this process is a total breakdown of respect for the courts, which I believe is close to fruition. In addition, it threatens our liberties. A Court that feels free to ignore the Constitution can ratify actions by the other branches that those on the right and left find troubling. Two recent examples are certain troubling Patriot Act provisions and the Campaign Finance Law's restriction of core political speech.