--I posted this in National Politics, but its not really about politics at all.
And I wanted to share it with the people who can't read it because they arent signed up.--
Tomorrow is the day that the nation goes out and completes a job that has already been in process now for a week in most places.
It will be as memorable, in its own way as the other date whose long dark shadow has defined this brief opening gambit to the millenial era: 911.
And in start contrast to the two black towers whose crumbling, crashing fiery whuump birthed a rough beast in the bethlehem of our remembrances, there will be more edifices pulled down, more tears, more of a sense of the world going through a change so fundamental as to be a work of astronomy rather than merely the progression of one event into the next.
Instead, the towers leveled will be the obsidian guardwalls of the sins of our forefathers, the tears shed will be the warm sunshiny tears of newly remembered hope and the cataclysmic even will not be an Eclipse but rather the planet moving out of shadow.
There was once a common truism oft repeated in half levity, half morosity that when our country, sprawling in its contradictory lush simple bounty and complicated gritty ambition, when that newfound superpower caught the sniffles, the rest of the world caught the cold.
Now we know that the metaphor extends to our spirits as well. When America trembles, when we lash out in anger, when we doubt the moral foundations of our actions, the world erupts in chaos, and the yellow dogs are set loose.
It has been 7 long years of the great American Darkness. Almost biblical in its length and just as terrifying in its immensity.
Let us consider ourselves lucky that despite a few burst wounds and some still bleeding cuts, that our great fortune was that we simply looked over the precipice of our schadenfreude, merely peeked into the cracks of our pandora's chirping box. We never quite jumped, never really opened the box on the demons contained within.
Perhaps it would be better to call it seven years of the American Shadow.
We toyed with the internment camps, we dabbled in the bloodgames, we talked about the midnight roundups, we rattled our own sabers and kept the dogs on a longer leash than safety would have condoned. But we took no plunge.
The things we didnt do, are still more frightening than the things we did, and for that we should forgive ourselves and the wretches whose role was to trot out the dark temptations to the body politic much.
But we should never forget.
And now we stand here, the long winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of our own sewn together projections who is about to take a dignified and handsomely executed oath of office sometime in the not too distant snows of January.
This is one of those moments where we move through motions made meaningful as much by their symbolism as by their effective reality. When this young and ultimately fragile man steps onto the podium to take his oath of office, it will be on the moondust of our racial lunar surface, and his one small oath will fulfill a promise made by the dead, kept by the faithful and witnessed by a new generation of the american fabric.
Its a beautiful idea, not just in the poetry of its expression, but in the reality of a billion dreams of justice in a world which never tires of spinning new webs of injustice.
Alot was made of the New Millenium. Billions were spent in celebrating its mathematical announcement, stars twinkled and drank under the glass forest of Chihulis wildest imagining, fireworks were expended, drunken kisses exchanged, wild bachanalian love made, plans and dreams consecrated considered and dismissed in anticipation of a moment that none of us really felt on the 31st of December, 1999 and which slowly dissipated until that black day in September drove nails through the palms of our idealism and thorns into the brow of our hopes.
But this is that true millenial moment, awaited so long that we have forgotten even its anticipation.
Forgetting for a moments the stooges and agents of darkness and war, letting courts and process and ostracized years of reflection claim their rightful dead, setting aside the tendril of analysis and blame and even reducing Obama down to his true role of National symbol, as all the rightful presidents have been regardless of their work or legacies.
This is finally that moment where we turn our face away from the darkness of the American Psyche, and towards the light of our common purpose and national desitiny as that freest and best of all nations. Where the weak can make themselves mighty and the opressed can wear even the emperors robes if they desire it and work for it long enough.
This is that Millenial moment at last, where we can see the evidence of old things passed away, and feel the embrace of a thing hoped for.
For Obama, whether or not he executes his office like a titan astride the earth or heals the sick or causes the blind to see, is once again more symbolically important than the effectivenessof his deeds might be.
When he takes the oath of office, in the transubstantiating property of politics and visual shorthand to a people that are once again strong through their diversity and jimcracky ingenuity, the world will be a changed thing forever, and in that moment the heat and intensity which drove the need for the change will dissipate into the laughter of victory.
Was this the hardship that we feared?
The simultaneous end of the American Shadow, and the fulfillment of the promise held sacred to the breast of the civil rights movement.
The Fathers and Mothers of this New American Century would be proud. Prudent Washington, Canny Franklin, and Liberal Jefferson for staying true to the course and Martin Luther King and dear sweet obdurate Rosa Parks for seeing a thing through.
Whatever your politics, whatever your philosophy, tomorrow is the doorway we will all pass through into a new world.
Quite nice Stephen, you do always have a way with words. Great use of alliteration by the way.
Tomorrow will be a day that defines Millenials just as much as 9/11: I will always remember where I was. :'(
For a generation crafted by fear of terrorists or school shootings, of war or natural disaster, of economic or social collapse...
Tomorrow will be the first time we will truly experience hope.
And as someone that marched in NYC against the War on 3/23/03, as a veteran political activist and actual taxpayer, as someone who has experienced financial and spiritual crisis over the last several years, it will be nice to finally get a break.
And maybe this site can finally get back to bickering about local urban development rather than national politics.
;)
Personally, i cant wait till this is over. I am sick of all the ads. I voted this morning in the heart of Springfield and it was smooth sailing!
I can't wait either. This forum has gone off track with the national politics debating and the problems that stem from them. We need to get back to being Jacksonville specific.
Could not agree with you more Lake. Let's get back to Jacksonville issues!
Quote from: fsujax on November 04, 2008, 11:19:56 AM
Could not agree with you more Lake. Let's get back to Jacksonville issues!
i completely agree. i remember telling our board about a year ago that this was going to be a very divisive election.
glad to see we all agree on moving back to jax issues!
Three cheers to that. Regardless of how this election pans out. Let the members of this site envoke some much needed change into the leaders of our Downtown and continue the fight to better our City. I for one am ready and eager to contribute in any way.
Quote from: Basstacular on November 04, 2008, 12:00:35 PM
Three cheers to that. Regardless of how this election pans out. Let the members of this site envoke some much needed change into the leaders of our Downtown and continue the fight to better our City. I for one am ready and eager to contribute in any way.
yes and in reality, as I think lake has pointed out before, whoever wins the Natl election has very little bearing on what happens right here in Jax.
Quote from: Driven1 on November 04, 2008, 12:03:41 PM
yes and in reality, as I think lake has pointed out before, whoever wins the Natl election has very little bearing on what happens right here in Jax.
I might have to bump this thread in a couple years. I would respecfully argue that you two are dead wrong about that.
Presumably, Obama will win. But he ran on a very nebulous platform, mostly focused hope, change, and vague policy statements that could be interpreted either way. It was a great strategy, and it seems to be paying off.
Depending on where Obama actually stands on free trade, this election could have a massive impact on Jax (remember, Obama has taken both sides of the issue, so it's hard to predict). If he creates an anti-free trade administration, Jaxport could be in for rough times.
Also, Obama has had some harsh words for major insurance companies. Of course, he's so damn good at walking the fence, it's really hard to predict what policies (if any) he will ever pursue. But if a Democrat majority decides to put the screws to "big insurance" that would obviously have a local impact.
Additionally, Obama has made some very vague statements about urban revitalization. We know that he favors massive spending increases for revitalization in distressed neighborhoods, but he has also (ominously) claimed that he doesn't necessarily want to keep an urban focus. What does any of this mean? Absolutely no one knows yet.
So I think the jury is still out on what bearing this will specifically have on Jax.
Joe - I guess I may stand corrected. My point is that usually the most impactful change to an area starts locally. If you are right, then hopefully at least some of the negative consequences could be balanced by getting better leaders right here locally.
^ We can certainly agree on that Driven1 :)
Quote from: stephendare on November 04, 2008, 12:19:04 PM
Actually the world will change radically for the good of us here.
:D
Anybody vote today? Delays?
I VOTED...NO DELAYS!!! WALKED RIGHT IN AND VOTED IMMEDIATELY. NO LINES, NO WAITS.
no lines, no waits for me either
Quote from: Driven1 on November 04, 2008, 01:56:00 PM
I VOTED...NO DELAYS!!! WALKED RIGHT IN AND VOTED IMMEDIATELY. NO LINES, NO WAITS.
That's good. I am going in about 20 mins.
Quote from: fsujax on November 04, 2008, 11:10:15 AM
Personally, i cant wait till this is over. I am sick of all the ads. I voted this morning in the heart of Springfield and it was smooth sailing!
I don't know man. Hearing 40 to 60 year old ADULTS slander the hell out of each other can be entertaining. :)
I got up at 5 this morning, got the polls at 5:30am and there was like 80 people ahead of me!!! (should have left at 4) They finally opened up at about 6:50am, Cast my ballot at exactly 7:26 am got my sticker and was out the door heading to work.
Gotta love the sticker, when people ask "DID YOU VOTE?" I just point at the sticker and keep moving!! Stickers what a great invention!
Quote from: Coolyfett on November 04, 2008, 05:39:31 PM
I don't know man. Hearing 40 to 60 year old ADULTS slander the hell out of each other can be entertaining. :)
agreed...but (i know it's not my money) i generally disapprove of people spending 2.5 billion dollars on saying the same thing over and over again.
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2008, 12:46:11 AM
What else is there to say.
Hopefully a lot. Particularly, Obama has a lot he needs to say about concrete policy.
This race was won on personality, platitudes, and pent up Bush-frustration. Obama is an absolute Jedi at being able to walk the philosophical fence and sound like he respects and favors both sides of a controversial issue.
But come January, Obama will be president, and he'll have to start taking a real stand on actual issues. Does anyone care to speculate on what his positions will be? Presumably he will have to start alienating either the hardcore democratic base or the moderate swing voter.
Based on the popular votes of each stated and overall I am hoping he will be moderate. I know many on here have talked about the death of the republicans, but I don’t see it. Obama won the electoral, and the popular vote but the popular vote was no landslide. Taking into consideration the number of ticked off republicans that voted for Obama and the number of dems that voted for Obama even though they really wanted someone else....Obama, Pelosi, Franks, and group would be well served to cool it on the far left stuff and move closer to the center.
My biggest fear with Obama and group being in power now is a potential increase in entitlements, over taxing (really you can only tax people so much), and what his tax plan if implemented, is going to do to SS down the road. Hopefully four years is not long enough to destroy the US too much, or even better I am pleasantly surprised and they move more center. In either case, unless he is very moderate (hard to do with the people he owes), I think we will see the true conservatives come back in 2012! This is quite possibly the best thing that could have happened to the Republican Party….. Obama did not win alone; the conservatives helped him win in their quest to send the conservative party a message.
Some of the popular vote (NC, MO, OR) is still out, but at the moment Obama has 52%. That is more than Reagan got in 1980 (51%) and Bush got in 2004 (50.7%). Bush-41 got 53% in 1988. 1992,1996 and 2000 neither winner won even 50%.
This was the best showing in popular vote in 20 years, and the best DEMOCRATIC showing since 1964.
Republicans actually dodged a lot of bullets in the Congress, it could have been much worse.
I think in his heart and mind, Obama is much more moderate than he is perceived to be. I believe he is a true uniter as well. The Left will have to temper it's desires, because the country is less 'right' than it use to be, but is at least slightly right of center.
vic, as a student of election history (or at least it seems to me from your previous posts), I thought you would find this interesting. I posted it in another thread, but it is appropriate here too.
In a year when the mass electorate (and Florida) swung to an extremely liberal candidate - with the current GOP President sitting at only 30% approval - the GOP candidate STILL received 48% of the popular vote.
To put THAT in perspective, when Clinton won in 1992, the GOP received only THIRTY-TWO (32%) PERCENT of the popular vote - and George H Bush had a HIGHER approval rating then than GWB.
Your analysis is right, this is STILL a center-right country. Probably much more so than in 1992.
Quote from: Joe on November 05, 2008, 01:45:11 AM
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2008, 12:46:11 AM
What else is there to say.
Hopefully a lot. Particularly, Obama has a lot he needs to say about concrete policy.
This race was won on personality, platitudes, and pent up Bush-frustration. Obama is an absolute Jedi at being able to walk the philosophical fence and sound like he respects and favors both sides of a controversial issue.
But come January, Obama will be president, and he'll have to start taking a real stand on actual issues. Does anyone care to speculate on what his positions will be? Presumably he will have to start alienating either the hardcore democratic base or the moderate swing voter.
Yes, Joe and last night, unfortunately was not a good start for him. I actually TRIED to watch his speech, but it was just more of the mumbo, jumbo feel-good rhetoric. THAT is what is frustrating. The man STILL has not taken a realistic approach to any of the real issues. After a few minutes I just gave up waiting on him to start to tell me HOW he will actually lead. At that point it seemed hopeless and I just turned off the TV and went to bed. Here's hoping that he eventually realizes that the president really has to actually lead.
"and Barak's first words were of praise for his opponent"
Actually his first words were...
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
He praised his opponent several paragraphs into the speech :)
I noticed the same thing 77danj7. i was actually quite appalled at it. usually the first words out of a victor's mouth is (and should be) gracious praise for his opponent. not so last night. IMO, this is in character though.
Quote from: Driven1 on November 05, 2008, 10:28:36 AM
I noticed the same thing 77danj7. i was actually quite appalled at it. usually the first words out of a victor's mouth is (and should be) gracious praise for his opponent. not so last night. IMO, this is in character though.
As many of his supporters here... we will see LOL!
Quote from: uptowngirl on November 05, 2008, 10:41:17 AM
Quote from: Driven1 on November 05, 2008, 10:28:36 AM
I noticed the same thing 77danj7. i was actually quite appalled at it. usually the first words out of a victor's mouth is (and should be) gracious praise for his opponent. not so last night. IMO, this is in character though.
As many of his supporters here... we will see LOL!
touche'
Compare that to Sen. McCain praising Obama beginning in the 4th sentence right after...
Thank you, thank you, my friends. Thank you for coming here on this beautiful Arizona evening.
My friends, we have â€" we have come to the end of a long journey. The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.
Quote from: 77danj7 on November 05, 2008, 10:45:08 AM
Compare that to Sen. McCain praising Obama beginning in the 4th sentence right after...
Thank you, thank you, my friends. Thank you for coming here on this beautiful Arizona evening.
My friends, we have â€" we have come to the end of a long journey. The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.
and the thing i noticed about McCain (and that made my respect for him rise to a whole new level) was the sincerity in his voice when praising his country and his opponent. the same was missing when Obama finally got around to acknowledging McCain.
Agreed Driven...
I definitely don't see Obama being very bi-partisan especially if the reports are true that he has offered the chief of staff position to Rahm Emanuel who of course has told the republicans "to go f*** themselves."
Quote from: 77danj7 on November 05, 2008, 10:53:32 AM
Agreed Driven...
I definitely don't see Obama being very bi-partisan especially if the reports are true that he has offered the chief of staff position to Rahm Emanuel who of course has told the republicans "to go f*** themselves."
read the same report about Emanuel. yeah, did Pelosi REALLY think anyone believed her when she said they would be MORE bi-partisan if we gave them 60 senate seats!?!?
and what happened to Rahm's finger, btw???
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2008, 11:05:53 AM
I know. He certainly didnt have to follow Cheney's example on the 'go f#%& yourself remark.
I agree, he could've been the bigger man. Just shows that politicians are politicians, regardless of the current party label they wear.
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2008, 11:10:10 AM
Well weve got 8 years to look forward to bigger men. Luckily thats not a very high bar.
8 years? I thought it was four?
Quote from: vicupstate on November 05, 2008, 08:58:06 AM
Some of the popular vote (NC, MO, OR) is still out, but at the moment Obama has 52%. That is more than Reagan got in 1980 (51%) and Bush got in 2004 (50.7%). Bush-41 got 53% in 1988. 1992,1996 and 2000 neither winner won even 50%.
You forgot to mention that Reagan got 58.8% of the vote and won 49 states in 1984.
With this election, basically Obama managed to drive up the racist vote for him, bring out the welfare types in droves and fool enough suburbanites into thinking that he was a moderate. The stock market meltdown/credit crisis in Sept/Oct also put him over the top. As President, he will not have the benefit of being able to lie about his record or finesse his extremist views. It should be interesting and helpful to the Republicans in Congress in 2 years.
QuoteI think in his heart and mind, Obama is much more moderate than he is perceived to be. I believe he is a true uniter as well.
This would be great if it were true but NOTHING in his record suggests this.
Quote from: RiversideGator on November 05, 2008, 12:31:48 PMAs President, he will not have the benefit of being able to lie about his record or finesse his extremist views. It should be interesting and helpful to the Republicans in Congress in 2 years.
wait...he has a record? ;)
stephen your post is right...blank
his record is pretty blank of anything meaningful and important
god, this election is over... crawl into the bunkers and prepare for apocalypse if you must.
but i'm buying my tickets to the inauguration.
Enjoy it. The party's almost over.
Hey what's with all the president-elect bashing? It's very un-american.
Only the daily show can only sum up the past few days events with a single quote:
"Sarah Palin was tagged and released back into the wild" ahhhh, so soothing on the ears.
Don't hate on your president-elect people, that means you're a terrorist.
Quote from: David on November 06, 2008, 11:50:24 PM
Hey what's with all the president-elect bashing? It's very un-american.
Only the daily show can only sum up the past few days events with a single quote:
"Sarah Palin was tagged and released back into the wild" ahhhh, so soothing on the ears.
Don't hate on your president-elect people, that means you're a terrorist.
According to the Democrats circa 2005, dissent is patriotic. So, I am just being very patriotic. ;)
http://www.cafepress.com/1stamendzone
Dissent is an essential aspect of the American political system. Have at it.
It is the "you are either with us, or you're against us," or the "if you don't like the president/ praise the government/wear a flag pin/or say the pledge/etc, then you are not patriotic" attitude that most betrays the American commitment to free speech.
I don't have to like what you say--and believe me, most of the time I do not--but I will defend your right to say it. I would argue, however, that dissent in this forum is most effective when it is well reasoned, deftly and logically argued, and civil in tone.
Quote from: 77danj7 on November 05, 2008, 10:26:25 AM
"and Barak's first words were of praise for his opponent"
Actually his first words were...
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
He praised his opponent several paragraphs into the speech :)
I get so tired of hearing him talk about things such as "the dream of our founders" and the "power of our democracy." I am not sure he is even qualified to be an attorney. When I took my oath, I had to swear to uphold the US Constitution and I am confident he did as well. Given that, I am not sure how you can stand on a platform and spout patriotic rhetoric and then outline policies which destroy the very things our founders desired to protect. His 2001 interview is very telling. In that interview he stated he is disappointed that the US Supreme Court has not overcome the restraints the US Constitution placed on government. First, let us remember the Supreme Court was created by the power granted in Article III of the Constitution. Second, the Supreme Court was created to uphold the Constitution. I am not sure if Obama missed that day in law school but it is pretty simple stuff. To sum that up for everyone, the US Supreme Court was created to ensure the Government was restrained. Maybe Obama and Thomas were playing hooky together as they both seem to have missed some key points to our legal history.
Another contradiction to his rhetoric is that the founders carefully drafted the Constitution to limit government involvement in personal affairs. The founders were tired of being taxed to death, nor did they want to have their guns taken away, their religious rights diminished, etc., etc., etc., etc. If you want rights taken away, Obama is your man and I have 4 words for you ... "Employee Free Choice Act," read it, understand it, and watch the Democratic congress pass it by Valentines day. If that happens, 6.1% unemployment will be a thing of the past as blue collar work leaves America faster that than you can say “Oprah.â€
He may be the president elect of America but that does not make him my president. Now to be fair, I do hope he is every bit as successful as most Americans thinks he can be. If he is, that means he has proven me wrong which would be a great thing for all Americans.
Quote from: JaxByDefault on November 09, 2008, 12:08:56 AM
Dissent is an essential aspect of the American political system. Have at it.
It is the "you are either with us, or you're against us," or the "if you don't like the president/ praise the government/wear a flag pin/or say the pledge/etc, then you are not patriotic" attitude that most betrays the American commitment to free speech.
I believe the phrase was "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists" and you are therefore using it out of context.
Quote
I don't have to like what you say--and believe me, most of the time I do not--but I will defend your right to say it. I would argue, however, that dissent in this forum is most effective when it is well reasoned, deftly and logically argued, and civil in tone.
Will do. ;)
Quote from: RiversideGator on November 08, 2008, 04:39:46 PM
Quote from: David on November 06, 2008, 11:50:24 PM
Hey what's with all the president-elect bashing? It's very un-american.
Only the daily show can only sum up the past few days events with a single quote:
"Sarah Palin was tagged and released back into the wild" ahhhh, so soothing on the ears.
Don't hate on your president-elect people, that means you're a terrorist.
According to the Democrats circa 2005, dissent is patriotic. So, I am just being very patriotic. ;)
http://www.cafepress.com/1stamendzone
Nope. According to republicans anytime they're in power, questioning your leader means you're unamerican and you're an evil doer.
Stop being a terrorist and support your president sir.
Quote from: GatorDone on November 09, 2008, 12:14:05 AM
I am not sure he is even qualified to be an attorney.
I abhor the idea of test for bar admission based on legal philosophy. Whose do we use -- mine or yours? Who decides if originalism, letterism, or living constitutionalism carries the day?
Differences in legal philosophy have existed since the era of the founders. They continue today. I find Scalia's school of constitutional interpretation lacking in many ways, but I do not think his adherence to originalism mitigates his competence as an attorney. I vehemently disagree with his interpretation of many constitutional provisions, but I assume that as a justice and a legal scholar he sincerely loves the constitution.
Obama will have to swear a second oath to uphold the constitution when he is sworn into office. In all, I have confidence that he will uphold the constitution better than his predecessor's early administration and the 2001-era legislature.
To be honest the idea of a return to a Nation based on Laws not men will be every bit as rapturous as any prevailing legal theories.
Nice sentiment, but laws have to be applied -- a process that will always include the women and men of the bar.
Disagreements on legal theory do not mean we are no longer a nation of laws. If anything, they evidence a clear and passionate dedication to the letter and spirit of those laws.
For those who doubt President-elect Obama's dedication to consititutional scholarship or ability to unpack complex legal issues, the following link is a critique of Obama's teaching materials by his peers: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/inside-professor-obamas-classroom.
Quote from: stephendare on November 09, 2008, 07:00:49 PM
Now at last, they will be applied.
... and if he and his Congressional cohorts don't like the law they will just eliminate it. You know we are not suppose to infringe on the rights of those wanting to harm our country but we should stand by as the media uses information taken in an even more intrusive and illegal way for monetary and/or political purposes.
Quote from: JaxByDefault on November 09, 2008, 01:15:03 PM
Whose do we use -- mine or yours? Who decides if originalism, letterism, or living constitutionalism carries the day?
I think you missed the point of my first post as my original statement had nothing to do with the legal philosophy applied to the Constitution. Since you brought up the subject, I personally believe in the original intent of the Constitution but reasonable people can disagree. The problem I have with Obama is his actions do not tell me that he believes our Constitution is a meaningful document - which I believe is an essential job function of an attorney and the President.
Quote from: JaxByDefault on November 09, 2008, 01:59:31 PM
Nice sentiment, but laws have to be applied -- a process that will always include the women and men of the bar.
Disagreements on legal theory do not mean we are no longer a nation of laws. If anything, they evidence a clear and passionate dedication to the letter and spirit of those laws.
For those who doubt President-elect Obama's dedication to consititutional scholarship or ability to unpack complex legal issues, the following link is a critique of Obama's teaching materials by his peers: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/inside-professor-obamas-classroom.
I have no doubt that Obama knows constitutional law quite well. I believe he taught the subject. This is why so many of his interviews sound like navel gazing law school bull sessions. The problem is Obama subscribes to the wrong theory of constitutional law. Specifically, he believes the Constitution is an evolving document which "evolves" by judicial fiat whereas I, and many conservatives, believe that the Constitution has a fixed meaning and purpose until such time as it is amended using the proper, legal channels.
Quotethe Constitution has a fixed meaning and purpose until such time as it is amended using the proper, legal channels.
This is my belief as well. If the Constitution is flawed as has been shown in the past. Amend it properly. If there is a "right to privacy" ie abortion... then amend the constitution.
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2008, 09:39:47 AM
How Clintonian of the two of you.
If things are so obvious that any reasonable person can see them plainly do you really have to spell it out.
What is the meaning of 'is'?
The neoconservatives drove this country straight into a ditch. Its hard to get worked up about their opinions much anymore.
When will the Left drop the "neoconservative" line??
Quote
River, we have seen your Strict Construction opinion of the Constitution in action over the issues of unwarranted searches via electronic surveillance, torture, and whether or not the treaties of the United States have the weight of Law granted to them in the Constitution.
The cases and situations you are referring to are not inconsistent with a philosophy of strict construction.
Quote
Your opinion as to the bizarre and traitorous 'Unitary Executive" theory and your condemnation of the Constitutionally described role of the Speaker of the House to travel to foreign countries and fact find did not seem to waver one bit in the face of your 'strict constitution' nonsense. Please spare the gastric processes of the people around you by nevery using the argument again.
I am not even sure what you are talking about here frankly.
Quote
You just spent three years of the most anti constitutional argumentation that I every thought it would be my dishonor to listen to, and Im afraid youve poisoned your own well on this.
Amusing that someone who just voted for the most radical Presidential candidate in American history would attempt to claim that he was a supporter of the constitution as written.
Quote
You are correct that a real conservative believes in strict construction of the constitution.
Thank you.
Quote from: RiversideGator on November 12, 2008, 12:48:19 AM
The problem is Obama subscribes to the wrong theory of constitutional law. Specifically, he believes the Constitution is an evolving document which "evolves" by judicial fiat whereas I, and many conservatives, believe that the Constitution has a fixed meaning and purpose until such time as it is amended using the proper, legal channels.
So its not a living, breathing document that evolves over time...I would submit that the authors of it would not feel the same way.
That said, since it is a staic document....please show me where in the Constitution things like abortion are talked about....my understanding is that if the Constitution doesn't state something, then its left up to the states to make their own rules....so why do so many "strict constructionists" so bent on outlawing abortion?
Why is the supreme court so bent on making rulings on it then? Shouldn't it like marriage be left up to the states to decide?
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 12, 2008, 02:47:07 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on November 12, 2008, 12:48:19 AM
The problem is Obama subscribes to the wrong theory of constitutional law. Specifically, he believes the Constitution is an evolving document which "evolves" by judicial fiat whereas I, and many conservatives, believe that the Constitution has a fixed meaning and purpose until such time as it is amended using the proper, legal channels.
So its not a living, breathing document that evolves over time...I would submit that the authors of it would not feel the same way.
That said, since it is a staic document....please show me where in the Constitution things like abortion are talked about....my understanding is that if the Constitution doesn't state something, then its left up to the states to make their own rules....so why do so many "strict constructionists" so bent on outlawing abortion?
No one says it is static!! >:( ::) The framers CLEARLY understood that the document would change. In fact these very gifted people gave us a mechanism to make changes. It has been used many times. ALL I AM SAYING is IF you think something should be a right... LETS GET IT IN WRITING!! Healthcare? Abortion? Gay Marriage? The right to drive?? I dont care... use the process that was given to us. Then there is NO NEED to let political appointees (SCOTUS) to tell us what THEY THINK something says. If we had used the amendment process the issue of abortion would have been decided already. If you want a right AMEND the document.
rant over...whew... :)
Amen brother!
Quote from: uptowngirl on November 12, 2008, 02:49:37 PM
Why is the supreme court so bent on making rulings on it then? Shouldn't it like marriage be left up to the states to decide?
the Supreme Court has not weighed in on marriage to my knowledge...and they haven't made any major new rulings on abortion since 1972.
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 13, 2008, 10:48:58 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on November 12, 2008, 02:49:37 PM
Why is the supreme court so bent on making rulings on it then? Shouldn't it like marriage be left up to the states to decide?
the Supreme Court has not weighed in on marriage to my knowledge...and they haven't made any major new rulings on abortion since 1972.
True, but will be soon, and has been in the state and district courts. If true protection is required, then a constitutional amendment should be made. I am not sure how that would work since certain states have already voted to amend their individual constitutions to ban it. I am (obviously) not a lawyer so have no idea what the repercussions would be. I would find it interesting to see how an overturn of the majority of voters wishes could be squashed by the courts, as the law stands now.