Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
Thanks for the lesson.
I am by no means a constitutional "expert." Just a fellow citizen who believes we would be governed best if we faithfully governed according to it. So I try to, what I consider, appropriately and necessarily understand it. I think that it is nowhere near as difficult to understand as our agenda driven politicians would like us to believe. In my opinion, the difficulty in constitutional interpretation occurs when politicians legislate outside constitutional bounds and Supreme Court Judges try to make the Constitution fit their legislation rather than to decide that it is unconstitutional. And that difficulty is compounded when those Justices are personally sympathetic to what they consider higher ideals, or more "equitable" social outcomes no matter if the legislation is originally and textually unconstitutional. So tangled, convoluted, even rationally ridiculous arguments become necessary to make constitutional text fit their personal preference.
I don't intend to give "lessons." Just want to have rational and honest discussions.
If Obama nomiates a so-called moderate, the Senate will be playing a tough hand; delay delay delay, and hope the GOP candidate wins, of they will have to obstruct nominees for 4 more years
|
As I have been trying to tell some of the more optimistic "conservatives" on the forum, that what is left of our founding system of government, of whatever it is that they consider "conservatism," is dangling by a thread which is thinner than a hanging chad.
The Progressives have been absolutely persistent in changing our system of government. The "conservatives" just react every now and then, and think that any victory will be permanent. That the price of liberty is eternal vigilance doesn't seem to penetrate the average "conservative" mind.
So, yes, you are right. Not only the Senate, or the Republican Party been reduced to playing a tough hand, but the fundamental nature of how we are governed is as well.
I think that some "liberal" minds might be persuaded to preserve our founding system if their understanding of the difference between unalienable rights and government granted rights was fully informed. I keep hoping for discussions along those lines, but we just seem to stay stuck on if what politicians do "works" within the parameters that those politicians prescribe. Basic, foundational, principles are not regarded. Which why, in my opinion, things seem to "work" for a while, then the illusion stops working and things get worse. We get further in debt. We breed more poverty. We create more conflict and divisiveness. We eviscerate the individual differences that comprise our famous "e pluribus Unum" all in the name and quest of a so called diversity which actually herds us into conformity.
Sorry for the bloviating "lesson." I didn't mean it to be that. Just trying, probably futilely, to stimulate a discussion.
Yes, as you say, the Senate will be playing a tough hand if it remains in Republican hands and the Democrats win the presidency. But much of that is due to not playing as tough as the Democrats the past eight to twenty years. So now they pay the piper. Their fear of main stream press and the supposed moderate center has been at the expense of their supposed faithfulness to the Constitution. So now they are backed into a tiny corner not just of preserving their power, which is not so important to the rest of us, but preventing the appointment of a majority of progressive judges which basically means the final end of the Constitution as written, and the final touch and implementation of reversing the relation of American citizens to their government.
By the way, if the Republicans had the courage to be tough, the number of Supreme Court Justices does not have to be nine. Congress decides the number and can change it. If the Republicans maintain control of Congress, they don't really have to fill a vacancy. Of course, there is that perception thing. And because we are ignorant of reality, we are driven by perception