Interesting...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...ZFJ/story.html

I hope they brought lots of magical underpants
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And generators, Feds just cut power.

[QUOTE=detbuch;1090046]
I see the Constitution as it has been the past 50 years I have been on earth. not thru a the lens of a time machine or literal like some read the bible.. we have elected officials representatives who are elected to govern, its Not the Bundys or BLM job to speak for me Demand change with the barrel of a gun or a flaming bottle of gas while hiding behind the Constitution to justify their action . use the ballot box


I also see theses militias as threats to the USA not heros like some feel they are .. they showed up with gun's to attempt to escalate and provoke most protest dont start that way .. most do end that way

you left one important part out about my service ,

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

unlike many I do not share in the Chicken little theory that the sky is falling every time the POTUS speaks or that we need to make america great again ! PS when did we stop being a great country?

just for the record, I didn't write anything in that post... I suspect Detbuch will have fun replying to it

fascinating isn't it...I don't think anyone has been threatened or injured to date and I don't believe religion has been brought up by the protesters as a motivation yet some are quick to characterize these folks as religious fanatics and domestic terrorists...while the same people... after Major Hassan screamed alou akbar and shot, killed and maimed a considerable number of innocents and was subsequently found to have ties to a radical cleric, claimed there was no religious component, he simply had emotional issues and it was just a case of workplace violence

Woa, is this what reason looks like?

No, it won't be fun. This constant reiterating what the Constitution was meant to be and what it has become is getting wearisome. Especially so when what I say is so misconstrued and made opaque by the mental blinders that so many have on the subject.

I understand the frame of mind through which wdmso reconstructs part of what I said and avoids the rest and most important part of it. I understand it very well. Most of the people I have known and lived with, have set ways of filtering information to fit what they already "know."

Having seen how wdmso did not grasp, or purposely avoided, the rational (I would say reasonable, but don't want to upset Spence who also usually fails to grasp or avoids what we would consider reasonable, but rather sees through the same filter as wdmso) . . . having seen how he did not grasp or avoided what you rationally replied in your dialogue with him by filtering it through his preset frame of mind, I can see the "reason," as Spence would describe it, behind his reply to me.

I doubt that wdmso will be swayed by my reply, but I will give it a half-hearted try. He says:

"I see the Constitution as it has been the past 50 years I have been on earth. not thru a the lens of a time machine or literal like some read the bible.."

Apparently, he believes that those past 50 years are the valid ones. Anything dating backward beyond those 50 years just ain't no good. And, I suppose, if he were to live another 50 years, the Constitution within that expanded time would also be seen by him as the one that counts.

His "time machine" comparison I don't quite get. The Constitution has not been buried with the intent that at some future date it would be opened and read, not to be considered an actual structure of government, but a relic for the amusement of some future generation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution has been on open display all those years and millions, maybe billions, of copies have been placed in text books, pamphlets, brochures, on internet sites, with the purpose, I'm guessing, that it be read, understood, and abided by. The same, actual one of over two hundred years ago is the one to which oaths of office are sworn to defend.

But if the "time machine" comparison is baffling, the notion that it is not to be taken literally ("like some read the Bible") is astounding. I understand that much of the Bible is considered metaphorical. But law? . . . understanding law as metaphor? . . . not taking law literally? What is the metaphor in laws against murder, or crossing against a red light, or not running a stop sign? What is law if it is not to be taken literally? A fairy tale?

Well, yes, if wdmso understands law as progressives do, it is sort of a fairy tale. Or, maybe it's more like a poem, or literary work, or even more like a Bible, which can be re-interpreted by every new critic. Given new insights over time, many of which contradict each other (but that is the nature of metaphorical interpretation). Of course, progressives don't want common folks doing the interpreting. That would be mayhem. And would give the wrong people undeserved power. That is to be left up to the "experts." The brilliant ones like Pelosi, Reid, McCain, and Bush, and Kerry, and Bernie, and especially progressive judges steeped in the metaphorical interpretation of the Constitution as a secular bible of sorts which must be constantly reformed and reshaped with ever new interpretations which give the new parade of high priests of government a god-like power to tell the people how they must live in order to enter an earthly paradise.

But one wonders, if the Constitution is not to be taken literally, why should it be taken at all. And if it is constantly changing and reinterpreted, what, exactly are folks swearing to support and defend?

"we have elected officials representatives who are elected to govern,"

You mean those high priests of government who know better how to run our lives than we do? Who govern in favor of some and against others? Who have no stable, unchanging code of government by which they must abide, but can control and prosecute by the changing tides of their personal whims and interpretations (so long as its within the past 50 years ). But wait, even within that time span the "laws" have changed many times, each time giving the Federal Government more control over the rest of us. The constant flow of new "interpretations" grow almost weekly. Which "Constitution" was it, again, that you swore to support and defend?

"its Not the Bundys or BLM job to speak for me Demand change with the barrel of a gun or a flaming bottle of gas while hiding behind the Constitution to justify their action . use the ballot box"

I get the strong impression they are speaking for themselves and those who agree with them. And I don't get the impression that they are demanding change, but rather, trying to maintain some stable, predictable system of law. And it seems to me that it is the Federal Government which is constantly demanding change with the barrel of a gun and hiding behind a meaningless so-called "Constitution" which it has re-interpreted so many times in so many ways that it is not the same document that was written, but a fictitious one which is diametrically opposed to the original. One which is constantly molded into a metaphorical bible which the high priests of government hide behind in order to rule us with ever expanding power.

"use the ballot box"

Filter this through the blind trust you have in elected officials, but have you not seen how many times in the recent past what proposals the People of various states have voted for have been overruled?

"I also see theses militias as threats to the USA not heros like some feel they are .. they showed up with gun's to attempt to escalate and provoke most protest dont start that way .. most do end that way"

OK, you disagree with them. And they disagree with you.

"you left one important part out about my service ,

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Will you support and defend the Constitution of the United States against a domestic enemy when it is the Federal Government?

"unlike many I do not share in the Chicken little theory that the sky is falling every time the POTUS speaks"

It's the Constitution, not the sky, that is falling. And it is not because the POTUS speaks. It's because he and the whole progressive movement acts in ways that destroy it. It has nothing to do with Chicken little. And it is not just a theory, it is a fact.

"or that we need to make america great again ! PS when did we stop being a great country? "

I don't know. That "great" thing is a campaign schtick by someone who doesn't talk much about the Constitution. Someone who might actually be as much a tyrant as Democrats are. Don't know for sure. But, I think the ideal on which this country was founded is freedom. Individual freedom. Freedom from oppressive, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, government. Greatness is a consequence of that, not a goal.

This

BTW - the reasoning the Oregon folks are using, I don't know if I agree with or not, the fact that the family being sent back to jail after serving their prior sentence (this cannot be right??) is asking them not to do this in their favor. But I do get a kick out of this:

right...ignore them and they will get cold and hungry and go home, the left completely ignores the injustice of a judge arbitrarily ordering to extend a sentence sending Americans to back jail....and for what?...what happened to "no justice no peace"?

the leftist protesters make it hard to ignore them and there are many more examples than those two....the left finds endless excuses to defend and sympathize with their actions....


I still find the concept of "hiding behind the Constitution" as a pejorative and interesting one...at this point the Constitution is more like a bunker

Lets just agree to disagree ! but i find that doubtful with your opening statement " Having seen how wdmso did not grasp, or purposely avoided, the(your) rational" Because ideas and thoughts contrary to yours are Wrong end of story .. because you think the sky is falling and have facts OK sure you do, and its Democrats are to blame ok .

I do not think the sky is falling I do feel Conservatives only look back in Time ( time machine reference ) and Democrats tend to look forward . The Country is a living breathing thing it needs to evolve and the Constitution needs to evolve with it via the Laws of the land .. Its just the way I see it ..

that would explain the two geriatric lunatic democrat presidential candidates who appear trapped in the 1960's

Remember when (RINO) John McCain ran they said he was too old and out of touch yet both of their candidates will be as old and older than McCain was.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So according to you, the President (or Congress) gets to decide what the constitution means, in light of the times we live in?

That should scare the sh*t out of you.

If we want to change the Constitution, there is a mechanism to do that. That's why we have amendments.

According to your logic, a president can do away with free speech in light of the times? So if we have a black Presidnet, you'r eok with him making it a crime to say the n-word?

The only way to guarantee those freedoms, is to make them absolute, and not subject to the interpretation of whoever happens to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Otherwise thos efreedoms aren't guaranteed (as intended when America was founded) but rather they are something for POTUS to give and take away as he sees fit.

No, thanks.

Here! Here!

Do you see it that way because you thought it up on your own? Or are you accepting a progressive mantra because it sounds good, makes "sense," seems rational or reasonable?

Think again about a country being a living breathing thing. Can a country live and breathe on its own? Is it an actual organic being? Or is it a concept, an agreed to or forced union of actual, real, organic beings who do the living and breathing. And do they do so in unison? If a country were an actual living and breathing thing comprised of a multitude of separately living and breathing parts which breathed at different rates and lived in different ways (that diversity mantra so favored by progressives) it would be a very sick and dysfunctional thing. It would crumble and die a natural death.

That is why a country needs a rule of law which applies equally to all. And a free country (a free state as guaranteed in the Second Amendment) requires that those who minister the law do not do so as dictators, but as servants who stay within the bounds the People have prescribed for them. And the country, as such, must only evolve in the manner as the People make it so. And if all the People can evolve freely, than the People must account for that by abiding by a common precept, a rule of law which prescribes and permits that diverse evolution.

If the country evolves, not by the free actions and interactions of the People, but by edicts of a ruling class which go beyond the restrictions which guarantee a free State, then evolution is by edict, by fiat, by dictation which evolves the State from freedom to despotism.

And in the same manner, the Constitution is not living and breathing. It is a concept, an idea, a structure for a free State. It is a basic foundation for such a State. And when that structure in ways that transfer the rights and powers reserved for the People to the State, the State is less and less a free one. And, as transfers of power and rights occur, it becomes more and more a dictatorship.

There is built into the Constitution, a means to look to the future for change, there is an amendment process. It is intentionally difficult to amend, but that is a safeguard not a hindrance.

You could engage in that discussion, which I think would be instructive, especially if all of us did. Or you can just see it the way you do.

Jim, playing devils advocate here and I haven't read all the posts so I may be taking something out of context.

If you and I (or the Pres. and Congress) have a different interpretation of the Constitution, what happens?

Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not? However, you can't go to them and say "We're thinking of passing this law, is it legal?"

A very fair, thoughtful post (no sarcasm, I mean it).

"If you and I (or the Pres. and Congress) have a different interpretation of the Constitution, what happens?"

They negotiate, pass laws, and those laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court to see if they are constitutional.

"Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not?"

Yes.

But the POTUS shouldn't do something that's blatantly unconstitutional, such as forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs to further one party's agenda.

I would imagine that all Presidents have done things that some folks feel are unconstitutional. Sometimes it's a judgement call, it's not always obvious. Maybe it's rarely obvious.

But it's terrifying to me, that anyone would suggest that we just pretend it says something other than what it says, depending on the times. If we evolve over time, and we want to change the constitution to reflect that, we can amend it - it's not carved in stone. But if a POTUS or Congress can't get the support for an amendment, I don't want them ignoring the parts of the Constitution they don't happen to like. I feel Obama does this regularly. But I admit it's hard for me to be objective because I cannot stand anything about him.

Happy New Year Paul!

I think my response to this is a broad statment basically the same as above. If my guy is in, I prob. don't think an executive action/order is unconstitutional. If my guy isn't in, I prob. think it is unconstitutional.

Thanks and have a great 2016!

I commend your passion on the topic so what time in our history has the Constitution and the political powers and freedoms of Americans been in perfect harmony was the 18 hundreds 1960 70s or 50 s 80 90s or is it only been the last 8 years at these changes have been taking effect. I'm far from suggesting wholesale change of the Constitution I just don't understand where you guys get the idea that that's what's happening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd say it lasted just about until the ink was dry.

It may not be perfect to all but it is perfect for all . Brilliant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It has been happening incrementally, getting some traction in the latter 18 hundreds. Picking up pace from there. Booming in the FDR administration. Then incrementally wavering but almost always proceeding in "taking effect" until the latter 20th century when the pace picked up again. And it is trying to race toward some supposed finish line. The "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama promised.

If your vision, what you "see," is limited to the cocoon of your adult life span, you may not "see" much difference. Some for sure. But not necessarily, for you, that significant. But if you can widen the lens of your vision to include recorded American history, the change is massive. You would notice, whether you agreed with it or not, a near total inversion of original constitutional intent. Progressives absolutely agree with that inversion. They have said so--confidently at first, then more secretly, and now are beginning to lose some of the shackles of fear that Americans would disapprove of what they actually believe about the Constitution, individual freedom, and unalienable rights. But their "narrative" still has to be couched in Orwellian language where a form of slavery is said to be freedom, or with slogans from the far left similar to Nebe's saying that "freedom is the buzzword of fools." We have slowly been conditioned to accept, bit by bit, not really noticeable in generational time spans, that "too much" freedom is not a good thing. And this is reflected not only in the increased power of the President, but even worse, in the divergence of the Supreme Court's expansion of its judicial philosophy from its first applications of judicial review to the current judicial philosophies of loose rather than strict construction which have evolved to the extent that judicial interpretation need not be bound by the Constitution, but can reflect a judges personal social views.

The wholesale change in the Constitution, which you say you don't suggest, has happened. But if you "see it" from your little time span, it doesn't seem so great.

ah so now the point emerges

"And it is trying to race toward some supposed finish line. The "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama promised."


You seem to be stuck on the partisan argument it's the progressives Fault as if Republicans have never held office

Then all I can suggest go back to September 17, 1787 when it was signed to your utopia America.. Change is inevitable its 2016 But I would say I Have the same freedoms as my father had and his father had his father I cant speak beyond that
But I would say they all had the same conversation about the Constitution some time during their Lives .. with wars and race and immigration these conversations come with Change Conversation with Armed Men like in Oregon is a Hostage negotiation hiding behind the Constitutional right of protest

It has slowly and steadily eroded from its initial writings as has the interpretations. Some of that erosion has been good, some has been bad. But the core tenets are freedom and liberty, intertwined, for the citizenry. There was a rather monumental dustup over bits of the Constitution and some interpretations significantly drifted at point.

But it has changed and people are not as free today as 50, 100, 150 170 years ago. So while their are far more people in Freedom (beyond superb) the individual freedom is comparatively reduced.

It is necessary to have the conversation.

I am biased having spent time in places where freedom and liberty is stifled.


Probably, but that is a bug, not a feature.

:cheers2:

Agreed, I probbaly wouldn't be complaining as much if Bush used executive order to do something I agreed with. Human nature, I guess.

Have a great 2016 too, Paul.

If rights are unalienable, the conversation would normally be about how to protect them from government abridgement. Since unalienable rights cannot be more so, the only direction a "conversation" can go is to make them less so. Conversations about how to keep nibbling at the edge of those rights, are conversations about how to make them less unalienable, and more under government supervision. That has been the irreversible trend of Progressive conversation. And, without a historical perspective, and without the understanding that rights which are given can be taken away, the inevitable future is the complete supervision of all rights by government. If that is your preference, a conversation about that is welcomed by me. If you so wish to converse.

And one does not "hide" behind constitutionally guaranteed rights if he practices them. On the contrary, he/she, is sustaining their existence. A sort of use it or lose it.

Just a few good old boys never meaning no harm...

The government closed its offices in Oregon days before the armed takeover due to fears of violence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory

The Federal government acts like a bully, they should expect resistance


http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016...trol-proposal/

interesting article
I'm glad there are people who fight back against things that are not right