Re: a good debate
>I get the feeling that your "constitutional >republic" is dependent upon<br />>having eligible voters be in synch with your >idealogical views.<br /><br />I rather keep feelings away from a debate. That website was one of many and<br />was chosen for its relevance in defining the differences between a Democracy<br />and a Constitutional Republic.<br /><br />>It frightens me just a little to hear terms like >voter "eligibility". while<br />>it is important to establish standards for >voting eligibility, I get the<br />>feeling that some would like to change that to a >different more restrictive<br />>standard, which could well lead to a shift in >power, and be the first step<br />>toward fascism.<br /><br />There isn't any room in the Constitution for fascism.
<br /><br />Yes, it's very important to have eligible voters. To be able to make an<br />informed decision on such a important issue of having proper representation.<br />For instance;<br />1. It's a very valuable tool to be able to understand public debate,<br />relevant news and discussion relating to issues and candidates. This won't<br />happen effectively if a potential voter can't understand the language.<br />2. As we witnessed last election, a voting populace that cannot understand<br />simple voting instructions leaves questions as to their competence.<br />3. "Motor Voter" and programs like it cheapen the voting experience. If one<br />isn't willing to make a simple effort in the voting process make the effort<br />more of a whim then a duty.<br /><br />Leftists have a running track record of promoting multi language ballots,<br />crying foul over legal elections that didn't go their way and "motor voter"/<br />whimsical voter manipulation programs. Leftists would rather have<br />uninformed, vulnerable, feeble, illegal, dense and lazy voters. The leftist<br />ideal is to have a dependant populace to perpetuate itself.<br /><br />>How else could one explain the fundamental >litmus test a specific course<br />>of action, according to the web site, at least. >That is, removing Bill Clinton from office. >While it is a bit dated, of course, it seems to >me the<br />>process we went thru was specifically >constitutional, with a very<br />>constitutional result. That you, or any other >group, may disagree with that result, is not >relevant.<br />>The founding fathers went out of their way in an >almost obsessive fashion to limit any one >group's power out of the realization that too >much power by any one group is the primary >threat to the republic.<br /><br />Sure, I'm not debating that or Clinton. He's a done deal. He was a fine example of bad leader, a terrible person and role model and lately, a<br />genuine threat to this country. He is also a disbarred lawyer, a liar, a terrible father and husband. And also someone who you think enough of to constantly defend.
<br /><br />>There are few absolutes in this form of >government, and the constitution is<br />>a maleable document, open to interpretation. It >is why the judges we choose are so important, as >they are the ones that interpret and mold what >the constitution ultimately means.<br /><br />There are more absolutes in the Constitution then you may want to believe. <br />The States have flexibility. It isn't the courts responsibility to set policy or promote political agenda. It isn't as much as interpreting the<br />Constitution as much as it is interpreting a particular laws Constitutionality. The original authors of the Constitution were clear,<br />simple and correct.<br /><br />"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry<br />ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the<br />spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be<br />squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable<br />one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William<br />Johnson<br /><br />Did my hero Thomas Jefferson lead you to believe the Constitution was open to todays corrupt convoluted interpretation? Again, STOP with the assault on the Constitution and YOUR WRONG interpretation of it. Try instead to learn from some great men who gave it all to a divine cause.<br /><br />>I think it is pretty foolish to try and decide >which is the "best" form of government. all >governments are only as good as the laws they >pass and implement, and situations are different >in one place or another.<br /><br />I think a lot of things are foolish. Debating and open civil discussion isn't foolish.<br />However, debating with emotion (feelings), using rhetoric as fact, and YOU participating in debate that YOU think is foolish, is foolish.<br />Plywoody, for someone that obviously likes to debate like you do, one would think you'd be more skilled at it.
<br /><br />>For example, a monarchy works wonderfully for >Monaco,<br /><br />Monaco, well here is a fine example of a major player and contributor to the world.
<br /><br />>A parlimentary Republic works well for some, and >has its good points and bad points, as does our >system.<br /><br />Maybe you can give credit where it's due. We are the most productive country in the world. This is US, me, you and why are you trying to tell me<br />different?
<br /><br />To take a page from your own pragmatist belief. If it were true it would be.<br />Since this Country is so great there must have been a cause. Since theirs isn't, ditto.<br /><br />>In short, there is no correct answer to the >question of which form of government is the >"best", as all forms of government are designed >to control its subject's behavior in some way, >be it for good or ill, and all are fraught with >dangers that require eternal vigilance to >maintain a proper, balanced course.<br /><br />Wrong, and yet not unexpected. The Constitution specifically limited government. That is the Constitutions sole purpose. It doesn't GIVE us<br />rights! IT LIMITS GOVERNMENT! I'm sorry you've learned differently. I'm not a subject.<br />Rather then pouncing on a link and looking for an argument. Use your own search engine and learn about the United States Constitution, its authors<br />and their writings. Learn about their thoughts on individual freedoms. Find something more honorable to defend then Clinton,<br />liberal/socialists thought and your desire to be a subject.<br /><br />BTW, if after all that and this, your still frightend, there is a church down the street.
