It was supposedly between an ACLU representative and a conservative lawyer and the burning question was whether the word meanings of the Constitution have changed or remained constant, or something like that.
The ACLU guy was young, idealistic, and way out of his league. The Conservative Lawyer had expensive looking hair, and was apparently unbounded by the inconveniences of fact.
Before the thing started I had no clue as to which side each lawyer would be on. I read the Constitution as pretty solid for the most part, but I do think you have to remember the day and time it was written and understand the intent, not the wordage of the founders of our great, but deteriorating, nation.
The Con lawyer was big on saying things like the Liberal court is going to force homosexual marriage on us and has outlawed the Pledge of Allegiance...neither of which is true...quite the opposite, in fact. Courts are merely saying that homosexuals must be allowed the exact same privileges as any other citizen and that no agent of the Federal government is allowed to "force" anyone, particularly a child, from swearing a pledge under some god of the state.
...And...Shotgun weddings being pretty much impossible to set up in these kinds of situations, no one will be forced to marry a homosexual,.
The ACLU guy was big on facts, the Conservative guy was big on fear...Neither one made any kind of a case, whatsoever, for his side of the argument, but the members of the audience who had the pre-existing condition of conservative leanings came away even more afraid of being forced to actually coexist with a gay person and thinking that the Bill of Rights probably never should have been passed in the first place.
Those with leftish tendencies came away realizing that the Bill of Rights is hanging by a thread under a conservative government, that there is no "Right to privacy", and since the Constitution never mentions the word "Democracy", that is the reason Geroge Bush could be elected President by the Supreme Court.
I don't know if I have made it clear that it is the "Conservative" side that thinks words can't change meanings.
I did not ask a question when the opportunity arose, but I wanted to. I wanted to ask about the darling of the conservative movement, the Second amendment. Here it is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The day that was ratified, the word "Arms" meant essentially muzzle loading guns, big and small. If the Conservative position is correct, how can that word "Arms", be taken today to refer to 50 caliber repeating firearms capable of shooting down a jet aircraft? Wouldn't that be the Liberal interpretation?
I guess I just don't understand.
Courage,
Steve
*****
In reading about the 2nd amendment I ran across this statement:
"Perhaps in the 1780's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern. Today, the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law. For the leader whose unstated aim it was to seize the nation, the task would be more than daunting - it would be next to impossible. The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan -- it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction."
Really?
Here's a good discussion for you:
2nd Amendment
Got this in the mail bag...Could that be PW?
No comments:
Post a Comment