View Single Post
Old 09-09-2019, 10:00 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 21,224
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
When the debate is focused the operations of the US government, especially as it relates to citizens, the Constitution and related case law is the only thing to be referred to, or relied on. Anything else is asking for the advent of either autocracy or anarchy with plenty of nasty crap in between.

The only other alternative is to advocate for scrapping this compact and, as the Declaration suggests, whenever a form of government no longer meets the needs or desires of the people,
". . . it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It's simple, advocate for the formation of a new government, founded on different principles that you feel will be more conducive to the needs and desires of the modern enlightened Progressive.

The fact must at least have some rational relationship to the debate. Feel free to advocate for public policy to align with these utopias of safety and freedom that you have in mind, but those arguments have no weight in altering the ambit and action of the Constitution. The only way to do that is with an amendment using the process set-out in Article V, granting the federal government new powers to effect those changes.

And again, the Constitution doesn't change because of public opinion and the powers conveyed by the Constitution can not retroactively alter the foundational principles. Yes, I know laws can change, I also know that Trump's election has only postponed the eventual death of the Constitution and this Republic. Such an outcome has been acknowledged from the very start. as The Constitution Center reminds us:
". . . upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health."
That so many have been either indoctrinated, brainwashed or imported that do not cherish and respect the founding principles and consider them binding, certainly means that the days of this experiment are numbered. That's why I do enjoy the debate. As long as my arguments leave people like you countering them abandoning reason and appealing to emotion and to what other countries do, there's a chance to sway opinions .. . Thinking people can be brought to the correct conclusion, and opponents, hopefully they will realize they need to just get honest, stop the BS and argue straight-up against the Constitution.

I do think it's amusing that you feel I should respect to your right to argue for ignoring the Constitution because you are pleading for the pure and progressive path of world harmony but you feel I'm "scared" to argue that we abide by the rules, thus my opinion is marginalized. Good God, I do detest the emotional equivalencies of the left.
You argue as if the constitution stands entirely on the inviolate, perpetual existence of the 2nd Amendment. I do detest the emotional fragility of the right that requires constant assurance from the grim death grip on their guns.

Originally Posted by Abatis
Sure would be ironic if the rights to abortion and contraception and LGBTQ rights could all be extinguished because of liberals success in legislating and Courts affirming, their hostility for the 2nd Amendment and RKBA.
QED. And are you seriously arguing that the conservative right and the 2nd Amendment stands to protect human rights from the progressive left?

Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
As an aside (but not really) the only reason I voted for Trump was his promise to nominate originalists to the federal judiciary. I'm happy, no, elated at the progress on that front and those judges and Justices have the opportunity to slow, not necessarily repel, this march of the anti-constitution forces of the left.
Any port in a storm. Colour me shocked.
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.