[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

First off, I think this may be the longest sentence you've ever written.

Nah, I've written longer ones. Besides, it's actually two sentences. There's a period in there amongst all the words. But I hate that almost every time I type a word ending in ion I manage to add an extra "i" as in ioin. Can't always manage to catch and edit out the extra "i"s since so many words end in ion and I write such long winding and pompous sentences. Gotta work on that shorter, punchy, style.

Second, I think the tone of this opinion was very successful in gaining your attention. I'd suspect that the headline and opening salvo was meant to be taken a bit tongue in cheek.

Spot on. Not only the tone, style, shading, intent, and progressive view of govt. got my attention. Above all, his blatant, if not refreshing honesty. I don't think he meant any part of it to be taken as tongue in cheek.

Third, the opinion to me at least simply says we're using the Constitution as a divisive tool rather than a constructive tool and on this point I'd have to agree.

How do you use the Constitution as a divisive "tool" except by claiming that it stands in our way? Divisions of political opinion exist naturally outside of it. The Constitution unites divided opinions within a structure of government that allows those differing opinions to coexist. But its structure "divides" government powers in order to check and balance those powers against the tyranny of an undivided, unitary central government. It unifies the nation and guarantees the union of sovereign differences by dividing its own power. That is what makes it a constructive "tool" rather than a divisive one. Those who wish to eliminate the "divisive" checks and balances, as progressives do, in favor of a central power that acts in unison will impose favored opinions against the unfavored, and will be divisive of society.

Perhaps the author's message is this...try and figure out what's the right thing to do, then look to the Constitution for guidance rather than just looking to the Constitution for the solution. I've read the damn thing so many times I know I can't tell for sure what it's all about...especially that pesky Second Amendment.

-spence

Often the problem is not just the right thing to do, but who is to determine that right thing. The Constitution doesn't create solutions, it determines who is responsible for those solutions. Why we so often go astray and why it is so often hard to determine what the Constitution means is that power is expressed by those who do not have constitutional authority to express it. That is determined by the structure and language of the Constitution, and that is not vague or indeterminate. The problem with the progressive view of government is that ultimately a central group of experts have nearly unlimited authority to express and enforce power.