Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
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
Why would you agree to disagree if you didn't think the thoughts and ideas with whom you were disagreeing with are Wrong?
.. because you think the sky is falling and have facts OK sure you do, and its Democrats are to blame ok .
I specifically said that the sky was not falling. I said that the Constitution was what was "falling." And that does not mean that I think the US as a political entity will no longer exist if the Constitution is defunct. It means that the structure of its government will be different--a structure which totally contradicts the Constitution and reverses the relationship of the People to government. Which, by the way, is one of the rational discussions you seem to want to avoid. It would be interesting if you did engage in that discussion. You are bright enough to, maybe, convince me to see things differently and agree rather than disagree. And, yes, the Progressive's are to blame. Of course, they don't think of it as blame, but see it as a credit.
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 .
Well, actually time machines do look forward to the future which is why they are meant to be opened then. But that's neither here nor there. Just a slightly loose use of metaphor.
Constitutionalists do not "only" look back in time. But as far as they do, understanding history is a fundamental key to living well in the present. There's that overused and often misunderstood idea that "those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." And looking forward does require some firm footing in the present, which is a result of the past. I suppose that's why you're less extreme about your version of which direction the Democrats look--the Conservatives, you say, ONLY look back in time, but Democrats TEND to look forward.
And the Constitution as was originally written was done so in full awareness of history and time and the future. That is why it was written to specifically delineate where political power lay and where it was limited. But NOT specifically burden enumerated powers with massive codification of law. Its intent and structure was to assure that ultimate power would not lay in the hands of some ruling class, but in the hands of the people. And that, even there, majorities of the people could not trample, by their common opinion, the basic or "unalienable" rights of the minorities.
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 ..
|
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.