Which brings us (well, you… I don’t live in the US) back to the problem of having a 21st century nation run on 18th century ideas on how things should work, because it’s too hard to make changes to the Constitution…
Over, no. Alongside, yes.
Then maybe you’ll be so good as to present “absolute proof” that originalists are using the doctrine of original intent to disguise their purely partisan intents. Or that you can tell originalists are lying by the fact that their lips are moving. (But wait! Weren’t their lips moving, and yet they were not lying?) In fact, I’ll settle if you can merely present “absolute proof” that Scalia was disguising his partisan intents when he decided that a statute banning flag burning was unconstitutional.
I do believe the Supreme Court’s new conservative majority is not planning to impose their purely partisan intents on us. But of course I’m not sure what you mean by “their resolutions.” Perhaps you can give me an example? What sort of “purely partisan” ambitions do you suppose that the Supremes will impose upon us? And what separates your assurance from the frequent assurances we received around here that if elected, Bush would re-institute the draft?
“Frequent assurances”? You must have been visiting a different board in 2000 and 2004. I can’t recall that being a claim even once, (although it certainly could have been expressed that Bush would need to re-institute the draft on a couple of occasions). It was hardly a frequent theme (much less a frequent assurance) of anyone that I can recall.
Don’t let other folks’ rabid partisanship lead you into making their sort of broad and insupportable claims.
That claim was made several times on this board, although I wouldn’t say it was “frequent”, and I have no idea if EC was one of the folks making that claim.
I do not recall making that claim, probably because I think it would be political suicide for Bush. He’d love to do it if he thought he could get away with it.
There is no evidence that he’d “love to do it”. The only evidence for politicians who would “love to do it” that I know of is the few Democrats who have explicitly called for a draft-- like Charels Rangel (D-NY).
How amazing that a document written long ago happens to agree with the preferences of the political philosophy defined in terms of reluctance to accept change. :rolleyes:
I do not recall making that claim, probably because I think it would be political suicide for Bush. He’d love to do it if he thought he could get away with it. He’s trying to drown Santa!
Hell, I had 20 minutes to kill.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5462567&postcount=7
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5452001&postcount=43
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5452018&postcount=44
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5361010&postcount=54
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5729081&postcount=10
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5317101&postcount=10
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6292607&postcount=1
Please note post #2 in the first thread. This is by no means a comprehensive list; I got tired and quit.
Of course, it wasn’t just on the boards that people were saying such things:
I’ll stipulate that some people do just what you’re saying. But considering jurists on both sides of the aisle have to some degree referenced the original intent of those who crafted the Constitution many times in the past, I refuse to believe that anyone who looks to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution = woman-hating fundamentalist. Some of the very decisions that have increased (and dramatically so) the rights of women in this country have in their very decisions references to the original intent of the crafters of the U.S. Constitution.
Indeed, the “right to privacy” an important right that was instrumental in the Griswold and Roe decisions was not a right that the jurists who wrote of it felt they were “creating.” They clearly imply that they were just elaborating on a right that the founding fathers already accepted was there. Some of them going so far as to say, it’s such a fundamental and obvious right the founding fathers never felt the need to specifically outline it in the Bill of Rights, and considered it covered by the IXth Amendment.
That’s really not the case at all. The thing about the Constitution is it is very broad, rarely specific, and only intended as a framework. The Founding Fathers very much intended for the law, society, and etc to change, progress, and etc over time. Considering the very broad powers of the legislative branch, and the fairly sweeping terms used in the constitution, there’s tons of “wiggle room” for the state to advance its laws through legislative acts, without ever needing to modify the constitution.
Amendments are there for when society has said, “hey, here’s something we really need to be permanent, to be a cornerstone right/idea in our society.” So for example, instead of just passing a law prohibiting slavery, we passed an Amendment to the constitution. Meaning years down the road if a pro-slavery President was elected with a majority in Congress, he still wouldn’t be able to reverse this decision.
The specifics of the U.S. Constitution and its first 10 amendments enshrine things, for the most part, that the Founding Fathers believed were timeless. You could bring James Madison back from 1789 and ask him what he thinks about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and etc, and he’d still maintain they were inviolable rights. That’s why they’re enshrined in the Constitution, because the Founders felt they were dealing (in regard to the Bill of Rights) with “natural rights” that, regardless of how society changed or progressed, government should never be able to infringe upon or take away.
The Founding Fathers also had the foresight to recognize, “Hey, we might have gotten something wrong. Or hey, something may be worth adding.” So they established a process by which we can change the framework of our government if there is a strong consensus in society that said framework needs changed.
You should have spent forty minutes and eliminated the posts/threads where the matter was discussed as an issue of the ongoing Middle Eastern wars (even noting that the draft was going to occur even if Kerry was elected). That would have reduced your list by about 80%
I will admit that the topic came up more often than I recalled, but it hardly rises to the level of “frequent assurances” that electing Bush would be the trigger to reinstate the draft. In fact, most of the references look very much like the expression that the administration (not necessarily Bush) “would need to re-institute the draft” that I mentioned, not claims that electing Bush would be the cause a new draft.
I had to get to your sixth link before I actually dicovered a single poster in a single line claiming that he believed that the election of Bush would result in a new draft. And he declined to defend his opinion. (Most of the other threads–and all the responses to that one poster–tended to say that while a drain on our military might require a draft, it would be political suicide for anyone to ask for one (and it was claimed that the two Democrat congrescritters who entered legislation regarding a draft had done so only to embarrass Bush.))
So there do not actually appear to have been “frequent assurances we received around here that if elected, Bush would re-institute the draft.”
Riiight. It was mere happenstance that the possibility kept getting discussed again and again in summer and fall of 2004. Had nothing to do with the election. No glaringly obvious inferences to be made at all. :rolleyes:
Well, we can argue about whether or not it was “frequent,” but it was an assurance made surprisingly often around here (although folks from both sides of the aisle rebutted the assertion, too). A brief (and far from exhaustive) search has yielded the following examples:
Here’s a thread called “The draft IS coming. You heard it hear [sic] first.”
Here’s a thread called “draft: pentagon making plans for draft.”
Here, by ElvisL1ves (emphasis added):
Although I don’t think this was an unsupportable assertion, I appreciate the reminder.
I didn’t mean to imply that you did make that claim. If it sounded like that’s what I was implying, then I apologize.
You may infer whatever youwish, but the statement to which I initially responded was that we had “frequent assurances” that electing Bush would lead to a draft.
What we find in the examples you provided are a number of discussions about the possibility of a draft being needed to handle the increasing calls for troops from out limited supply as it became clear that the war was going to drag on much longer. Of your fifteen citations, the first had no occurence of any poster declaring that Bush’s election would result in a draft and the sixth thread had a single statment, voiced as pure opinion, to that effect.
I did not say that the topic never arose, only that it was rare enough to no register on my memory. In fact, the vast majority of the posts on the topic were either questions about the possibility (based on troop levels and the length of the war) or dismissals of the possibility (based on the political consequences).
So, you may infer to your heart’s content and roll your eyes until you are dizzy, but the claim that “we received” " frequent assurances . . . around here that if elected, Bush would re-institute the draft" are simply not supported by the evidence. There certainly were a few such claims, but rather fewer than earlier claims that we would find stockpiles of WoMD in Iraq. 
I don’t understand why you’re standing on the technicality that most of the posts weren’t specifically contingent on Bush’s election or re-election. How could he do anything if he wasn’t President?
Here is the equivalent argument:
A, B, C, and D: Bush is going to invade Belgium next year.
E: People are saying that if Bush is still President next year, he’s going to invade Belgium.
tomndebb: Nobody is saying that!
E: A, B, C, and D just said it!
tomndebb: Where in any of their posts did it say anything about Bush still being President next year?
It’s kind of implicit.
No.
The better analogy, (there is no “equivalent” argument that does not torture reality), is:
Out of 100,000 posts, the topic of the draft occurs in about .07% of them. Of that number, the specific claim that Bush will institue the draft if elected occurs fewer than 12 times.
Assertion: We received frequent assurances around here that if elected, Bush would re-institute the draft.
tomndebb: I don’t think that was anything like a frequent occurrence.
(Note, that I did not say that it was never said, so your hypothetical is already distorting the argument outside the realm of reality.)
Response: Sure there are, I can find five or six claims that we might be able to use to infer that someone, somewhere on this board might have thought that might happen, even if we can only find about six instances in the 18 months prior to the election. That is just FREQUENT!
(Note that this is in reply to Freddy the Pig’s analogy and I am not asserting that either of the other parties are actually arguing that way.)
The claim as defended by Freddy also ignores the various posts that speculated that we would need to insititute a draft even if Kerry were elected, simply based on manpower constraints. Remember, Kerry did not campaign to pull out of Iraq. So much for the “implicit” nature of those discussions.
Fine, argue all you want about how many posts are necessary to rise to the level of “frequent”. But don’t stand on the asinine technicality that the posts weren’t explicitly contingent on Bush’s re-election.