Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
just for the record, I didn't write anything in that post... I suspect Detbuch will have fun replying to it
|
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.