Quote:
Well, now, this does sound like a fun discussion. Hope y'all don't mind me droppin' in. Myself being a white male Christian Southerner and all, maybe my thoughts don't count, but here goes.
The first ten amendments weren't a compromise, they were written to clarify and protect rights. Compromise involves partially abandoning your principles, whereas the Bill of Rights was simply a clarification of the Founders' principles. And the wording is very, very clear in all of them - only wilful ignorance allows people to misinterperet them.
As for that last part - why must things like this always get brought up when the discussion has nothing to do with them? Boyd was clearly talking about governing principles, not specific morally questionable laws.
It seems like any time someone brings up the Constitution, some person has to go "OMG they mistreated women and minorities!" This, despite the fact that generally speaking, the person is NOT suggesting repealing all but the first ten amendments - though there are a few amendments I would like to see gone, 14th, 16th, and 17th specifically. Anyway, the later amendments (that nobody is suggesting repealing) corrected the mistreatment problem, thereby making any attempt to associate small government with racism/sexism TOTALLY invalid.
Q9, it is obvious you did not see the part where I said I wanted to have fun with it. That means don't get your knickers in a twist. Don't take it too seriously. I'm also a white male southerner. My religion is my own business, at least as long as certain people don't have their way.
Isn't it interesting how things change. Until the Blue Dogs got knocked out, conservative democrats had quite a bit of influence in their party. Some past Republican presidents were fron the liberal wing of their party. I also find it interesting that the Liberals are the moderates in the UK, between the Conservatives and Labor. Labels and polarization. Change is not always progress, at least to me.
Oops.
I actually didn't see that part. Sorry.
Well, now, this does sound like a fun discussion. Hope y'all don't mind me droppin' in. Myself being a white male Christian Southerner and all, maybe my thoughts don't count, but here goes.
The first ten amendments weren't a compromise, they were written to clarify and protect rights. Compromise involves partially abandoning your principles, whereas the Bill of Rights was simply a clarification of the Founders' principles. And the wording is very, very clear in all of them - only wilful ignorance allows people to misinterperet them.
As for that last part - why must things like this always get brought up when the discussion has nothing to do with them? Boyd was clearly talking about governing principles, not specific morally questionable laws.
It seems like any time someone brings up the Constitution, some person has to go "OMG they mistreated women and minorities!" This, despite the fact that generally speaking, the person is NOT suggesting repealing all but the first ten amendments - though there are a few amendments I would like to see gone, 14th, 16th, and 17th specifically. Anyway, the later amendments (that nobody is suggesting repealing) corrected the mistreatment problem, thereby making any attempt to associate small government with racism/sexism TOTALLY invalid.
Q9, it is obvious you did not see the part where I said I wanted to have fun with it. That means don't get your knickers in a twist. Don't take it too seriously. I'm also a white male southerner. My religion is my own business, at least as long as certain people don't have their way.
Isn't it interesting how things change. Until the Blue Dogs got knocked out, conservative democrats had quite a bit of influence in their party. Some past Republican presidents were fron the liberal wing of their party. I also find it interesting that the Liberals are the moderates in the UK, between the Conservatives and Labor. Labels and polarization. Change is not always progress, at least to me.
Oops.
