in the Republican Party.
It could be said that the 1st Amendment of the constitution kills more than the 2nd Amendment.
Amendment 1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 2- 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.
I was going to go with "gunning" instead of "running", but I did not want it to suggest* a 2nd Amendment solution. But with Romney running on an ad that misunderstands English, that is only one bullet point to my argument. "You didn't build that." is completely out of context**. But out of context does not necessarily mean misleading.***
Post asterisks: The impact of the first amendment on what gets done has more impact on life and death than the fallacy that anyone is going to kill the second amendment.[**]
* b.s. (blog search) to be footnoted
** (no pun on con text but I need to replace[*] the Daily Rundown links)
*** not to suggest (not exactly)
[*] close enough for blog work
[**] There are very constitutional reasons for the political calculus of this rhetoric to influence and create reality. But from another dimention, NorMan GoldMan has a rhetorical rant (not not it) that could fit Romney's rhetorical style in a silly Obama ad that could decimate [***] the Romney race.
[***] Pardon the Palin term, but not her.
[Post bracketed asterisks: regarding the NG rant, "that" is not quite "it" but on target, in more ways than one. But in appreciation of the nature of our progress, it is not about any new legislation. It is not about obliterating the constitution or its amendments or even new amendments. Old taxes and legislation are always on the table, for all three branches of government, and the people are the deciders. C-heading and lede!]
[Follow-up of sorts. But first a note on "gunning" as a rhetorical term. I'm sorry I can't give proper credit, but it may be embedded in the links above. However, Lawrence O'Donnell, noting the Brian Williams interview of Romney was not my original follow-up, but may be on target (That is not a course.) Ouch. Guns don't kill people, people do. Find them(Ctrl F)? What about the law? Not for the silly season, or gatlin salad? And oh no, not atTax of the meta4rhetoric. I really think there is a problem with the use of Senator Thelma for Patty Murray, since she puts Boehnor at the wheel.]
[Transparency Destroyed?]
[Re-sorts of sorts... sort of, or not, of course. This was basically an exercise in logging some clips of some MSNBC shows.]
[My best to Wendy & Ed Schultz!]
[7-26-12: update and effect (label)]
[Scroll up to "Post bracketed"]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query constitution amendment. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query constitution amendment. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Friday, October 14, 2005
Original Intent?
Strict Constructionists?
Life begins at conception, what about right to privacy.
Yes? No?
Are either of these in the constitution? No.
But they both fall under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now this does nothing to make things any easier, except to prove that it is not as simple as those that have the answers think it is. Also that even their positions cannot be sustained without complicated gyrations, usually known as hypocrisy, that would be contrary to the "rights retained by the people" which are protected by powers reserved "to the people". This would stand orginal intent on it's head, while even the power of the people need to be checked.
See the link?
Life begins at conception, what about right to privacy.
Yes? No?
Are either of these in the constitution? No.
But they both fall under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now this does nothing to make things any easier, except to prove that it is not as simple as those that have the answers think it is. Also that even their positions cannot be sustained without complicated gyrations, usually known as hypocrisy, that would be contrary to the "rights retained by the people" which are protected by powers reserved "to the people". This would stand orginal intent on it's head, while even the power of the people need to be checked.
See the link?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Who Are They Calling Elitist?
By Eric Altermann
[now fully read]
My reply:
Who are the "cultural elite"? I think it is pretty "fair and balanced" to say that it is "people who only think they know better than you". It is also a label brought to you by people who don’t think they need to, and don‘t know they are, but don‘t either. The same people who brought you the "culture warrior". The same people who brought you "trickle down" * . The same people who brought you "lift yourself up by your own bootstraps". The same people who now probably don’t have boot straps, no matter how much they rely on the bottom line. The same people who think the bottom line is all that matters. The same people who don’t see people as the bottom line. The same people who see corporations as people. The same people who put people under the trickle down, rather than in the first line of the constitution. The same people who can’t read the second line of the constitution but can read the second amendment, and don’t worry again about the 1st amendment. Of course unless you are far enough above the line to own a corporation. And then of course it is best to forget about what people are, or what one owns, until of course, it comes to democracy. Then it is stay the course of course, don’t ask the people. But more important is, don’t ask, don't tell...US.
* (nfr) - This is an actual footnote from Wikipedia **:
"A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[4]
And from the other "fair and balanced" perspective called denial, Thomas Sowell wrote of The "Trickle Down". Economics Straw Man (nfry), and claimed: "No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man." Who apparently is not elite enough to be an economist ***, but was allowed into the ranks of politicians, businessmen and budget directors.
** Now, Wikipedia should not be considered the most authoritative source, but it is usually sourced, so don't be elitist. And reading footnotes might put you in that crowd or is it not needing them.
***(The strawman and Stockman (nfry), not Sowell (nfry) .)
[now fully read]
My reply:
Who are the "cultural elite"? I think it is pretty "fair and balanced" to say that it is "people who only think they know better than you". It is also a label brought to you by people who don’t think they need to, and don‘t know they are, but don‘t either. The same people who brought you the "culture warrior". The same people who brought you "trickle down" * . The same people who brought you "lift yourself up by your own bootstraps". The same people who now probably don’t have boot straps, no matter how much they rely on the bottom line. The same people who think the bottom line is all that matters. The same people who don’t see people as the bottom line. The same people who see corporations as people. The same people who put people under the trickle down, rather than in the first line of the constitution. The same people who can’t read the second line of the constitution but can read the second amendment, and don’t worry again about the 1st amendment. Of course unless you are far enough above the line to own a corporation. And then of course it is best to forget about what people are, or what one owns, until of course, it comes to democracy. Then it is stay the course of course, don’t ask the people. But more important is, don’t ask, don't tell...US.
* (nfr) - This is an actual footnote from Wikipedia **:
"A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term "supply-side economics" was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[4]
It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory. [5] - David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director "
And from the other "fair and balanced" perspective called denial, Thomas Sowell wrote of The "Trickle Down". Economics Straw Man (nfry), and claimed: "No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man." Who apparently is not elite enough to be an economist ***, but was allowed into the ranks of politicians, businessmen and budget directors.
** Now, Wikipedia should not be considered the most authoritative source, but it is usually sourced, so don't be elitist. And reading footnotes might put you in that crowd or is it not needing them.
***(The strawman and Stockman (nfry), not Sowell (nfry) .)
Friday, November 14, 2008
Throwing this out.
Cut tax breaks for advertising. That would probably make them more efficient, but it would certainly not help Palin's crusade.
As long as I am tossing out nuggets, how about:
One stockholder: One vote!
If you want more than your share? Buy it. *
Now that is tergiversation.(Changing one's opinion.)
Actually a ludicrous leap, but which demonstrated tendencies to let the market fix it. But maybe a tax break for investors up to a limit, per company, to distribute the vote. If you want more than one vote, buy shares in more than one company. Maybe corporations need a new hierarchy **. They are not in the constitution, but the word "welfare" is.(Pre-amble) There are three branches of the government, and the separation of press and business is as important as church and state, though not directly a corollary or balanced. (First Amendment) The point is (well) there is a lot of water under the bridge or rubric of precedence, which may be undermining our fundamentals, AKA "the people".
* update: The irony or unsatire slipped in here. I was going to clarify the Buy It crack, but I had already explained the ludicrous leap: Tax incentives or regulations which would revalue the voice of people and money.
** corporations are not in the constitution, they are and have been constituted by government and people. With all the irony of the moral hypocrisy over the death penaly and cloning, just how have we allowed the creation of such Leviathans.
As long as I am tossing out nuggets, how about:
One stockholder: One vote!
If you want more than your share? Buy it. *
Now that is tergiversation.(Changing one's opinion.)
Actually a ludicrous leap, but which demonstrated tendencies to let the market fix it. But maybe a tax break for investors up to a limit, per company, to distribute the vote. If you want more than one vote, buy shares in more than one company. Maybe corporations need a new hierarchy **. They are not in the constitution, but the word "welfare" is.(Pre-amble) There are three branches of the government, and the separation of press and business is as important as church and state, though not directly a corollary or balanced. (First Amendment) The point is (well) there is a lot of water under the bridge or rubric of precedence, which may be undermining our fundamentals, AKA "the people".
* update: The irony or unsatire slipped in here. I was going to clarify the Buy It crack, but I had already explained the ludicrous leap: Tax incentives or regulations which would revalue the voice of people and money.
** corporations are not in the constitution, they are and have been constituted by government and people. With all the irony of the moral hypocrisy over the death penaly and cloning, just how have we allowed the creation of such Leviathans.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Relative Exceptionalism
American Exceptionalism, was coined by a Frenchman.
[But here are more links]
** not to suggest more than civil disobedience(but Relative in the lede)
[Meanwhile, there also may be room for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. But that is problematic, in that I suggest a choice. Or rather politics might make it. The idea is not that dangerous, but putting any parameters on it, is what would make it a deal breaker. If it could be the GOTV for 2012, it might make for good dialogue for the Republic.
Follow-up: Tragedy or not[! Still Life with Romney.]
American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other countries. In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation,"[1] and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840.[2] Historian Gordon Wood has argued, "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy."[3]Well, not literally. It was actually first used by Joseph Stalin.
The specific term "American exceptionalism" was first used in 1929 by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin chastising members of the American Communist Party for believing that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions."[4]Speaking of original intent*:
Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense.[1][5] To them, the United States is like the biblical "shining city on a hill," and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.[6]But here is the trigger** for my lede. See *** there:
Since the 1960s "postnationalist" scholars on the left have rejected American exceptionalism, arguing that the United States had not broken from European history, and has retained class inequities, imperialism and war. Furthermore, they saw every nation as subscribing to some form of exceptionalism.[7]
Which communities use lethal force for crowd control? Anyone with health concerns should be careful where they press their 1st amendment rights.*mine was in the lede(pre-wiki)
[But here are more links]
** not to suggest more than civil disobedience(but Relative in the lede)
[Meanwhile, there also may be room for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. But that is problematic, in that I suggest a choice. Or rather politics might make it. The idea is not that dangerous, but putting any parameters on it, is what would make it a deal breaker. If it could be the GOTV for 2012, it might make for good dialogue for the Republic.
Follow-up: Tragedy or not[! Still Life with Romney.]
Friday, October 07, 2005
Preamble and ForeMost
The Constitution: Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
BUT NOT PREEMPTED NOR THE END ALL.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
BUT NOT PREEMPTED NOR THE END ALL.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Supreme Court Jest Ice?
Where is the ice going? Well here is where it is coming from:
The New Yorker*: Rational Irrationality.
Well, not exactly: Obamacare Supreme Court Case is a Bad Joke.
Actually I will be intentionally preemptive**.
Bottom line, I have yet to read the article, but wanted to jump*** on the band wagon.(NOT!)
Not to make a federal case out of it, but I do intend to read more on this later.
* not that I have read it yet, but I like the heading.
** Jujitsu before reading.
*** case study[!] Reid sarcastic[!] Me...not read[!]
[3-29-12 ALEC: Stand your Ground, Supreme Court Activism/ both sans comment.]
[Follow-up:
Seattle Excerpts, interesting hodge-podge of exchanges. If the constitution is not a living document, what is federalism? Killing two ironies in one comment?
Justice Antonin Scalia: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the court to do that? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we're going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler: Well ...
Times "seemingly split over ideology"/
But Roberts and Kennedy also asked enough pointed questions of the law's challengers to give the overhaul's supporters some hope. In any event, justices' questions at arguments do not always foretell their positions.Activism: "Justices Split".
Intentionally: Read Healthcare Jujitsu, Political Jujitsu, what's the difference? The party and the people. It would seem to me that Obama is the master, even without single payer as a goal. It might be called "free market" jujitsu where that is what could be flipped by even an option. The "free market" economic fantasy is under threat of being flipped as the fraud it is, under even the offer of competition. Maybe there is the jest ice.
^ now that is an irony
^^ see bold "two" link re:cubed, but apologies for last four links.^^^
[Fixing News: as opposed to breaking, I must update the Fixing . But what kind of market is it when if you don't participate you die? Ask Raw Money. On the other hand, he is correct: "We can't play the game like that." Let alone are banking and insurance really commerce? I they aren't, maybe they aren't people, maybe they are Leviathan? i.e. governments bailiwick or not!][Ed on Hannity: the journalist calling the journalist read, or the con calling the convict con(pot meet kettle/camel meet domino) ]
[3-30-12 Justices Meet...
Book Review De...viewed... not to put a spin or pun on it. But I will depun a bit on the self-fulfilling profits. ]
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Divided Government!
Accountability:
Rachell Maddow on Olbermann
Olbermann Redux? GoLeftTV
What is divided government? The Constitution. The three branches of government; the legislative, the executive and the judicial.
"We the people..." begins the preamble.
The first amendment notes the press and a fine example here of the press
Rachell Maddow on Olbermann
Olbermann Redux? GoLeftTV
What is divided government? The Constitution. The three branches of government; the legislative, the executive and the judicial.
"We the people..." begins the preamble.
The first amendment notes the press and a fine example here of the press
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
One man, one vote for knot?
Or Naught?
Senate defeats amendment to Iraq Supplemental.
And Party NOT?
By my calculation, one vote may make a difference but only be part of the dance move. As I understand the 50 to 48 defeat of the removal of conditions to the Iraq Supplemental bill, of the 48 Dems and two independents(Liebermann & Sanders), two others crossed party lines(Hagel and Sanders), and two did not vote (one each party).
So one switched vote could have placed this on the dance card for a political shuffle, and still there be the political dance of the veto.
The prerogative which Bush sees is his job is a side step of the constitution which puts the power of the purse in congress's steps, not to mention much more.
[1:30 PM the dance goes on, on the Senate Floor, at this moment with Sen. Linsey Graham doing the finest political two-step in place as he literally/physically rocks as he speaks, doing everything he can before the next dance as he predicts a veto.]
Senate defeats amendment to Iraq Supplemental.
And Party NOT?
By my calculation, one vote may make a difference but only be part of the dance move. As I understand the 50 to 48 defeat of the removal of conditions to the Iraq Supplemental bill, of the 48 Dems and two independents(Liebermann & Sanders), two others crossed party lines(Hagel and Sanders), and two did not vote (one each party).
So one switched vote could have placed this on the dance card for a political shuffle, and still there be the political dance of the veto.
Speaking to reporters, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) was conciliatory, but only to a point: "We ought to reach out to the president and say, 'Mr. President, this is not a unilateral government. It is a separation of powers, and the Congress of the United States . . . has taken some action. You obviously disagree with that. Where are the areas of compromise?' "
The prerogative which Bush sees is his job is a side step of the constitution which puts the power of the purse in congress's steps, not to mention much more.
[1:30 PM the dance goes on, on the Senate Floor, at this moment with Sen. Linsey Graham doing the finest political two-step in place as he literally/physically rocks as he speaks, doing everything he can before the next dance as he predicts a veto.]
Thursday, March 25, 2010
FAUX CAMP (II)
My reason for bumping up, the extended portion of FAUX NEWS, is Rachel Maddow and the Constitution, namely the 1st Amendment,
regarding the free press, not my extended references in this blog.
NOT TO MENTION FINALLY THE BILL IS BLOOMIN' DONE>
I propose that Republicans are furthering their childish rhetoric to get attention as they are really running from a free press, in the likes of MSNBC. Not to mention the questions that they would have to face in the likes of Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann(and Lawrence O'Donnell*). Dylan Ratigan and Chris Matthews are no slouches, but the latter is a bit too sophisticated for my taste at times.
I can understand now why Scott Brown in Massachusetts is running against Rachel Maddow since he actually thinks she is campaigning against him, when it is really he who is running on running from her.
* Lawrence O'Donnell catches the reality in this link on Olbermann's Countdown.
BTW: FOX's whole existence was built on the myth of the liberal media, aka The Mainstream Media, and it is a shame that it justifies MSNBC's approach or calling it out and calling on the country to wake-up and behave. And Lawrence, in seque[oops/Segue] to Rachel: not today, but between you and I, yes we did![oops and bold updated 3-26-10]
regarding the free press, not my extended references in this blog.
NOT TO MENTION FINALLY THE BILL IS BLOOMIN' DONE>
I propose that Republicans are furthering their childish rhetoric to get attention as they are really running from a free press, in the likes of MSNBC. Not to mention the questions that they would have to face in the likes of Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann(and Lawrence O'Donnell*). Dylan Ratigan and Chris Matthews are no slouches, but the latter is a bit too sophisticated for my taste at times.
I can understand now why Scott Brown in Massachusetts is running against Rachel Maddow since he actually thinks she is campaigning against him, when it is really he who is running on running from her.
* Lawrence O'Donnell catches the reality in this link on Olbermann's Countdown.
BTW: FOX's whole existence was built on the myth of the liberal media, aka The Mainstream Media, and it is a shame that it justifies MSNBC's approach or calling it out and calling on the country to wake-up and behave. And Lawrence, in seque[oops/Segue] to Rachel: not today, but between you and I, yes we did![oops and bold updated 3-26-10]
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Establish-ment words.
"The ruling was attacked by supporters of the law, which was passed by the Legislature with bipartisan support in 2004."
"It's another case of an activist court trying to legislate from the bench," said Republican Rep. Thad Balkman. "It's unfortunate that a single judge is trying to rewrite the law."
Focusing just on the comments which sound very familiar but are indeed a bipartisan problem: pardon me, but it is the job of a judge, to interpret the law and the constitution and cause executives to follow and representatives to sometimes have to rewrite the law, regardless of the legislative support, or an executives interpretation of the law.
Period. Not. That is the we part.
There should be equal but separate branches or jobs of government that seem to be preempted by preempting intelligence. The only job beyond those, that need more responsibility and accountability is the press that is our job one(see amendment I).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Ronald Reagan would have said about this: "There he goes again" and worried about the government being "here to help you". Well.. Uhh... there is a difference between establishment, the verb and the noun and "we" take both. "We the people of the United States, (are) in order to form..." that are the hard work.
Sorry, a little Bushism crept in too.
"It's another case of an activist court trying to legislate from the bench," said Republican Rep. Thad Balkman. "It's unfortunate that a single judge is trying to rewrite the law."
Focusing just on the comments which sound very familiar but are indeed a bipartisan problem: pardon me, but it is the job of a judge, to interpret the law and the constitution and cause executives to follow and representatives to sometimes have to rewrite the law, regardless of the legislative support, or an executives interpretation of the law.
Period. Not. That is the we part.
There should be equal but separate branches or jobs of government that seem to be preempted by preempting intelligence. The only job beyond those, that need more responsibility and accountability is the press that is our job one(see amendment I).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Ronald Reagan would have said about this: "There he goes again" and worried about the government being "here to help you". Well.. Uhh... there is a difference between establishment, the verb and the noun and "we" take both. "We the people of the United States, (are) in order to form..." that are the hard work.
Sorry, a little Bushism crept in too.
Friday, September 06, 2002
Complications:
[Prior to the selection of the President, I urged following the process. It should have ended up in the hands of the electorate, a political process, but endorsed by the constitution. Instead it ended at the hands of the Supreme Court,(a political process) with questions left unanswered as time ran out aided by the court itself. It was an exception to any court precedence].
Letters to the Editor: Seattle Post-Intelligencer November 21, 2000
COMPLICATIONS
Process may be slow but it must be allowed to play itself out
I certainly hope this country doesn't remain divided over this election. But what's wrong with standing up for what's right? Both sides can believe they're right, but they can't both have it their way. That is why we have a constitutional process that's more complicated than just deciding by the popular vote. It's what many have fought and died for.
It's not up to one side to declare a winner before the process has completed. It's the duty of both sides to see it's completed right. But what is right? It's better to make sure this is determined by the legal system than settle for unanswered questions.
It may even turn out that the process needs a correction. But by settling for less, we may never find out. Ending up in the highest court may answer questions about the process and point to problems in it, decades faster than going through the process of a constitutional amendment.
Court decisions may even allow the process to continue and not address the immediate questions. The ugly partisan process may still have to play itself out. But we should respect the process, regardless of who's right. Or many have died in vain.
Letters to the Editor: Seattle Post-Intelligencer November 21, 2000
COMPLICATIONS
Process may be slow but it must be allowed to play itself out
I certainly hope this country doesn't remain divided over this election. But what's wrong with standing up for what's right? Both sides can believe they're right, but they can't both have it their way. That is why we have a constitutional process that's more complicated than just deciding by the popular vote. It's what many have fought and died for.
It's not up to one side to declare a winner before the process has completed. It's the duty of both sides to see it's completed right. But what is right? It's better to make sure this is determined by the legal system than settle for unanswered questions.
It may even turn out that the process needs a correction. But by settling for less, we may never find out. Ending up in the highest court may answer questions about the process and point to problems in it, decades faster than going through the process of a constitutional amendment.
Court decisions may even allow the process to continue and not address the immediate questions. The ugly partisan process may still have to play itself out. But we should respect the process, regardless of who's right. Or many have died in vain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)