An honest question to those on the left.

reply to post by Gryphon66

I don't see how anyone could argue that these quotes are taken out of "context." They all specifically address the question of the "living" or "changing" nature of the US Constitution. President Obama is not the first or the last to make statements like that.

The problem with a "living or changing" nature of the constitution is that you are then at the mercy of whim.

Personally, I would rather see the Constitution taken verbatim, as written, period. If changes are needed due to changing times, then use the process provided for in the Constitution for change.

Anything other than that is grounds for chaos. What if Congress passed a law requiring the elimination of the bottom 10% of society which was then brought before the Supremes who could rule that the law is constitutional and necessary "in order to form a more perfect union and to promote the General welfare" of these United States?

My example is a bit extreme, no doubt, but it wonderfully illustrates the problem behind interpreting the Constitution in whatever method "the times call for" since it is, after all, a living document (or double speak for: we will interpret it however the hell we want to and will not be required to actually follow the process for change (amendment) thereby eliminating the democratic and republican (as in republic) process from the decision. That way, a few people in power can twist the constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean and all the while exempting their decisions from ratification by the people of the United States.

reply to post by nwtrucker


If it wasn't an honest question, I wouldn't have bothered posting in this thread.

It is a question that needs to be asked, and you did so.

Thank you.

Hiho Bracken:

Good to see you. I do not have children of my own. I have helped my family raise several children one from a single parent home and two from divorced homes.

Congratulations on raising your two. Sounds like they're prospering! Traditional or non-traditional family, it's not an easy task.

Who can say what the NSA has or on whom? Who can say what dirty deals are done in the dark of Washington?

I can't. But call me stupid, I still have some faith in our broken system, and I have faith in the human greed for power.

Rand Paul is suing Obama over the NSA. I can't even conceive that if Paul thought he had a snowball's chance of having Obama either found guilty of violating his oath of office or if there were enough evidence to even merely make a big stink for the cameras ... that he wouldn't do it. Ergo Bachman, Cruz, Rubio, et. al. It's simply unfathomable to me that one of these wouldn't be going after him guns blazing.

I have said elsewhere that I am tremendously concerned about the boundaries of Executive Power ESPECIALLY under Bush II and Obama. Given which fact, I find it extremely GALLING to sound like I'm defending the current President when I say that:

1. His Executive Orders have not been as numerous nor as "power grabbing" as those of his predecessors (particularly GW Bush and Reagan).

2. The Executive Branch does have Constitutional empowerment to enforce the laws of the land. It just does. It is given leeway to make organizational and regulatory decisions which from what I see, is what is being done. About half of the ACA Changes so often trumpeted have been enacted by Congress, even though the Administration takes the blame.

Given the complexity of something like the ACA (which I despise more and more each day), I find it completely reasonable to act within the Executive power to smooth the implementation of a deeply flawed piece of legislation.

And now for pure opinionated speculation. Were I President of the United States, I would have no hesitation to follow the dictates of my conscience in regard to doing what was best for Americans. Let history and the Courts judge me if they can. I find the mealy-mouthed whining prostitutes in the Congress (Red Hat and Blue) to be among the most despicable humans I have yet encountered.

If the Congress is not going to do it's job, then by God, I would do what the country needed. Period. Let the chips fall.

I don't like Mr. Obama. I've wondered if it's racism, and it's not ... he's about a half a shade darker than my Scot-Irish skin. He just strikes me as being bad at his job. He can give a good speech now and again, but he doesn't seem to get anything done.

The ACA is a catastrophe. The implementation has been a greater catastrophe. THAT does fall at his feet.

All the tyrannical brouhaha coupled with the way I see the remnants of the Republican party and the Right Wing pandering to their own special interests with a 24/7 blame game ... I just don't see. My opinion.

Bracken, briefly:

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution ultimately. Executives and Legislators may bandy Constitutional theory about, as may we, for example, but to paraphrase Harry-A-Double-Truman ... the buck stops there.

Jefferson very clearly sums it up in the quote I gave from him. He said very clearly that changing the Constitution (including changing the interpretation of same, I guess) should only be undertaken in the GREATEST need. he suggested learning to live with things the way they were written. However, ... for example ... what does "general welfare" really mean? Then or now?

I'd love to see a lot more respect for the American way from all parties, literal and political. I'm afraid that may be passe, though. The last thing I want to hear is the hypocrites waving the Flag in one hand and taking a bribe in filthy lucre with the other.

And that is every danged one of them. In my opinion.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Good to see you too again!

Kudos on helping out raising kids...that is what family is all about!

I hate to say it (will have to find something else to debate about, I suppose) but I agree with everything you said. I have often stated, with no small bit of controversy kicked up, that leaders should lead. That means at times they have to take the unpopular path, no doubt about it.

However...this part:

All the tyrannical brouhaha coupled with the way I see the remnants of the Republican party and the Right Wing pandering to their own special interests with a 24/7 blame game ... I just don't see. My opinion.

I feel like I do get it (warning: opinion). Our POTUS is arrogant to a degree that exceeds any president in my lifetime save, perhaps, Nixon. I feel like most of the brouhaha between parties is orchestrated in order to deflect ill feelings by the populace away from the govt and towards the opposing party, thereby leaving the Union safe and comfy.

Therefore, the Repubs will pick at whatever scab seems the most inflamed, and the Dems will do the same: The Repubs are being obstructionists!! The Dems are driving the country into the poor house! (both parties are...this is clear) and of course, with an unpopular Pres, he is breaking the rules! (IMO...they all are to some degree, and more importantly, they are not conducting the govt to be "for the people" or even, often, for the best of the Nation.)

This is why I have a deep distrust of all things Fed atm..and to make things worse, the president is a jerk. lol

Scary when we agree, eh?

You know, I've LOOKED for that arrogance everyone talks about in Obama. I've looked for the tell-tale reptilian/Sith/cold dead eyes ... and I don't see them. I feel no threat from the guy. He seems like a really slick salesman that has no back office. He can promise but he can't deliver. He doesn't like to scrap, that's for sure. That's probably the source of my distaste for him, come to think of it, LOL.

But, I'm a fairly decently intelligent and sensitive guy. I really, really don't like bullies. I see Mr. Obama as a bumbler at worst. Maybe I'm just missing it.

I used to have great respect for the Republican party. Oh, I had my differences with them and some parts of their platform, but they've always seemed, during my lifetime at least, to have their crap together on a level the Democrats could only dream of. Watching the Democrats try to get anything done is like watching chickens trying to work Calculus problems ... they just don't have the capacity, though that doesn't keep them from cackling.

I know that's biased as heck and I make no apologies. That's my opinion, your mileage will vary.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Gryphon66, WOW, so much for not being left or right...

Actually, I google a lot...mostly for spelling....lol. My cursive talents of 40 years ago won't work on a keyboard. Incipient dyslexia, I fear. My dislike was for links, not googling.

The dislike of "links" links with my dislike of taking a quote of a Founding Father and using it as, say "proof" that he/they weren't Christians. That mechanism has been used by posters more than a little. Using that example, one would have to study/research his entire life. His growth, errors, conduct under trying times, et al...then one might be able to assess whether he was a "Christian" or not. (I am not a practicing Christian, by the way) .

You cite valid quotes that are eg.s of the views of individuals. My point is many are not valid. When it comes to religious beliefs of the forefathers unless it is a definitive statement on way or the other, I'm not buying a singular quote as "gospel".

As far as Limbaugh and the "right spin machine"-you gave yourself away with that one- of course the Obama quote I refer to would come from a "right" source. The left media, which you seem to ignore/not mention wouldn't be interested in pointing it out. obviously.

OK. To the quote itself-I did say paraphrased- I am trying to recall where I got it from, I've been straining for that answer since reading you last post. All I can come up with a little closer to accurate recollection "The Constitution (covers?) what the government can't or shouldn't do and say nothing about what it should do/ be responsible for. That's closer.

I'm fairly sure it wasn't Rush. I will try to find it...I do enjoy our conversations, by the way. I guess I'm a dialogue guy, not a link guy. I voice my opinions, they are opinions only....

Even the Rush quotes you came up with and the counters to them are viewed by me with skepticism. Virtually every, diatribe against Rush that I've heard and when I cared to listen to him, his explanation seemed valid, I can't think of an exception.

It is said that it's the victors that write the history. That used to be true enough. These days, with the web, the losers get to write history as well. We now have enough "parallel universes" on events to give me headaches. Hence, dialogue, not links for this old boy....

reply to post by bbracken677


Oh and of course, you could say this is the extension of the campaign to a 24/7, 365 day a year campaign. Non-stop campaigning using all the negativity available. He (party) who spins best, wins most.

The notion of the 24/7 campaign, I believe, originated with the Clintons and was further enhanced by Bush the 2nd. Now it seems to have spread to all corners of DC....

I don't believe I have ever, in my lifetime, seen such a train wreck as we are watching now. lol Reminds me of an old joke:

Bob ran into the railroad control office screaming: "there are 2 trains heading right towards each other on the Coachilla line! They will collide in about an hour!! We gotta do something!"
The boss, Joe, sat there for a moment and then in his deep drawl told Bob to call BR-549 and explain the situation.

Bob responds: "Can they fix this?"

Joe: "Hell no...that's by brother-in-law and he ain't never seen a train wreck like this one"

Trucker:

I haven't given myself away with anything. Stop trying so hard to pigeonhole. Can any reasonable person NOT see Rush Limbaugh as the Clown Prince of the Right ... didn't he declare himself the only true Republican leader a few years ago?

The quote you've heard is that Limbaugh episode filtered over and over through the right-wing machine I will bet you.

Do you dispute that both "the left" and "the right" have their own echo chambers? Surely not.

I'm neither right nor left because I despise misleading information most of all.

There is no right or left. It's a dog and pony show. Beginning, end, middle.

I'm still just not getting your comments about my quotes though. Thomas Jefferson is one of the fundamental figures in the founding of the country. Edmund Randolph was one of the Framers at the Constitutional Convention. Holmes is considered one of the greatest Jurists in American HIstory. It's not like I picked Joe Schmoe from Idaho and posted what he thinks.

But, whatever.

reply to post by bbracken677


Heh. Yeah. /smileandnod

Here's another in the same vein:

"Be certain that the light at the end of the tunnel is not merely an oncoming train."

reply to post by nwtrucker


While quoting Jefferson etc is cool...and sheds some light on things, I feel (specially quoting Jefferson regarding the Constitution) that interpreting the Constitution based on what he felt, thought and wrote at the time is selling the Constitution and what it actually says short.

I admire Jefferson...I eat up everything I can get on the guy...fascinating, character, brilliant, horrible farmer lol. But! Even thought he wrote the lion share of the document...there were other voices there as well. Others had to be placated or satisfied to get the document ratified. Therefore, relying on his writings to interpret those passages which seem to not need interpreting (to me, anyway) is forgetting about the rest of the Congress and the process it went through (the Constitution).

Case in point: There is exactly ONE sentence that covers religion and govt. "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion". Because that clause (often referred to as the "Establishment Clause") was written by Jefferson the interpretation of it is solely dependent on writings of his regarding how he felt a strong need for a wall between religion and govt. I also feel the same way. Bad things can happen when the 2 are in bed together and often has in history.

HOWEVER...there were other framers of the Constitution. The clause, in and of itself, seems rather clear. The intent is to prevent the Congress from establishing a Federal Religion (such as the Church of England and what it represented to the English, at the time). This, to me, seems clear. The fact that the statement is as simple as it is clearly leaves open the State's Rights to establish their own religion (remember, The Republic and what it means?).

HOWEVER...instead of simply passing an Amendment, the Courts have taken it upon themselves to interpret a simple sentence to mean all kinds of things that I (ME) am sure would have our founding fathers turning in their graves. Interpretations, I might add, that without Jefferson's writings would seem totally ... what's the word(s) I want here....un-constitutional? Ignoring the meaning of the words coming off the document? Inserting your own political views?

Making it clear: I am NOT in favor of combining religion and govt in any way other than perhaps to acknowledge the origins of our country and the document. I AM in favor of Amendments (following the Constitutional process) to define the modern needs of the Constitution and our govt, thereby preserving Democracy in lieu of something "feeling" a bit more tyrannical by allowing the Court system to legislate from the bench totally surpassing the Democratic process.

Therefore I say to hell with the Living Document. It is what it is and if we don't like what it says, well...it says we can change it. There is how the document should live....not by freaking interpreting it however the F I feel at the moment.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Gryphon66, Hey, I'm tired and hungry...going out for dinner, now. I must be missing your point on the quotes. My point was I have distrust of the links, of the motives of those that not only put up the links, but the source of those links. Verification is tough. so on.

You point out/trash the right wing source-that must include their links- I don't like them as a class. Both sides...well the right B.S. is slightly less malodorous the left's....for me, anyways. LOL

reply to post by bbracken677


I wish I had time for a fulsome response to you, but, you do realize that they actually sent Jefferson OUT OF THE COUNTRY during the Constitutional Convention (to France, as Ambassador, because they knew he'd take it). Jefferson wasn't at the Convention and Virginia was represented by James Madison, aka the Father of the Constitution. Madison was a bit more grounded than Jefferson, who would have probably swayed everyone with his passion and got little done in the way of a stronger governing document (because there is NO DOUBT that until his Presidency, Jefferson was a rabid anti-federalist.)

I'll try to say more later. Good show though.

reply to post by nwtrucker


I'm focused on the right-wing crapola because that's what's being presented here. The left is just as cattywonkered in their own ways. (and now my Southern is showin')

Enjoy dinner, and goodnight.

Gryphon66
reply to post by bbracken677

 

I wish I had time for a fulsome response to you, but, you do realize that they actually sent Jefferson OUT OF THE COUNTRY during the Constitutional Convention (to France, as Ambassador, because they knew he'd take it). Jefferson wasn't at the Convention and Virginia was represented by James Madison, aka the Father of the Constitution. Madison was a bit more grounded than Jefferson, who would have probably swayed everyone with his passion and got little done in the way of a stronger governing document (because there is NO DOUBT that until his Presidency, Jefferson was a rabid anti-federalist.)

I'll try to say more later. Good show though.

Good deal!

Another problem I have with our govt and leaders is simply this: Why are none of them jumping up and down regarding the patriot act and how that law is as unconstitutional as any law passed in the last 200 years? To me, that is the classic example of how our current govt (of the last 14 years) spits in the face of our founding fathers and tramples all over the Constitution.
No need to go into huge detail, just the fact that the govt can enter and search our homes without a warrant, the fact that they can eavesdrop on our most private of conversations, the fact that they can track our every move through life without just cause or "due process" should have our venerable and noble (??) leaders jumping up and down in protest.

The problem is we, the people, have not done our part to assure the supremacy of the Constitution...that we have not done our part to limit the powers of govt. as provided by the Constitution...that we have not done our part to rest control of the govt from the special interests is our shame. To depend on those who make law, interpret law and execute the law to observe the limits of the Constitution is to allow the fox to guard the henhouse.

reply to post by nwtrucker


I would say that decisions need to be made locally where feedback can be felt, physical absence is noticeable, and local idiosyncrasies make the system unwieldy to outsiders. This could mean moving back towards our roots as a confederation of states.

Moving back from a globally entangled public-private hybrid system that vaguely resembles feudalism towards a bottom-up democracy short of forcibly redistributing property and reorganizing society is a daunting task. Beyond the obvious term limits, publicly funded elections, jurors in the SCOTUS, prosecute corruption as treason, the biggest suggestion I would make is to abolish the federal reserve and tie the value of the dollar to the availability (not price) of consumer necessities, in such a way that a fortune made at the detriment of the national quality of life is worthless, but a rising tide truly lifts all boats by increasing the value of the dollar already in your pocket.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Gryphon66, I didn't say "your" quotes. I said "not saying you. just saying".

Where the quote example came up was the Christianity of the Forefathers. Many posters has used quotes from them, selectively culled to make a point, in this case, that they weren't Christians, per say.

My point is quotes on the character/beliefs of an individual especially his faith cannot logically be cubbyholed based a quote.

You yourself, have stated that it's congress that have used their agenda to stonewall the president. You have also said that there is no left-right, that your neither left or right. Your said Obamacare is a disaster.

in just this one thread I could select individual quotes from you and paint you in every possible political "slot" I chose.

None would be accurate. That's what I'm saying about quotes, IN GENERAL. Not yours.

Oh, by the way. I will take those good old days over these days in a heartbeat.

The passage of the Patriot Act (the fact that they had the Patriot Act up and ready to go in 25 days) was the first chink in the armor of my patriotism. Not only is it the most unAmerican legislation imaginable, but there is no way that document wasn't sitting on a desk ready to go.

They're all sold-out whores, our Congress. I know, so what else is new.

reply to post by nwtrucker


I disagree with you in general, Trucker, about the value of quotes. I didn't dip into the pool of the Christian Nation debate, I merely addressed the "living document" concept of the Constitution and noted that President Obama is not the first, nor the last, to view it in that way.

Sure, some random quote from something I said here can be taken out of context. But there are times when quote are reliable (in the minutes of a Constitutional Convention, or in an official ruling of the Supreme Court). The texts of those documents at those times are structured to state principle, which is all I passed on here.

However, this poor horse is now hamburger, so, let's move on.

Gryphon66
The idea that religion itself is an overwhelmingly positive factor in society is also fallacious. There are many proofs for this assertion which are off-topic here. There are many that are free of any belief in God, gods, spirits or whatever one's favorite fetish to shake is ... and are highly ethical beings. Ethics and morals arise from human society, not as dispensed from on high.

I agree...and don't. Religion is always a tough subject so I'll just give my example to explain. I don't practice any religion but was raised roman catholic. I encourage my family and children to attend church. I do so because I believe there may be something that created everything and I believe in many of the biblical examples and rules. Example...thou shalt not kill...respect thy mother and father, etc. I think religion has a lot to offer people if it is taken with a grain of salt, and dissected by intelligent people. In short...I believe it has a purpose.

I think we humans and society in general have f'ed up religion. It isn't meant to be taken literally (IMO). It is a guide, a set of examples that may or may not apply to everyone all the time. If we all tried our best to follow the good parts of religion, even though we will fail at times...we would be better people. Its kinda like a diet...you can fail and go on a binge, but the next day start the diet again. You are not evil simply because you fail at perfection. But you may be evil if you never try.

On a different level...I want there to be a God. I like that idea. I also like the idea of a Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster and Aliens. I don't really want them disproved. They create a feeling of a magic in the world. An idea of what is possible and a mystery. I am not convinced there is a God, but I want to believe there is. So...I'm not convinced all the things in the Bible are to be followed religiously, but I see how following many of them religiously make us better people.

I guess what I'm saying (again) is that if you make everything, every action "acceptable", eventually your standards are in the mud. And that there are consequences to society for every bit of lowering standards. One may be fine, but when you lower them all...anarchy is born. And I don't mean the "cool" anarchy...I mean the lawless end-of-society anarchy. We are getting closer and closer to no morals. And that is a scary and dangerous place to be.