”The founding fathers designed a framework that would adapt over time, to the changing views of morality of its citizens, while retaining certain immutable tenets: the inalienable rights of men; the limited role of government; the checks and balances of power.
A moral code or view involves the treatment of a moral idea. As in our earlier example ‘deceit’ is a clear and fixed moral idea that may be viewed as good or bad depending on the context. (strategy in chess vs lying about a man’s character or conduct). Again, the story of Huckleberry Finn is a good example of how American views on morality have struggled and adapted within the constitutional framework.
”They attempt to redefine which rights are 'inalienable', and usurp equal protection, by attacking the rights of homosexuals.
Let’s get one thing straight. Human power organizations are corrupt whether they are political authority, social authority, religious authority, or tyrannical in nature. It does little good to point the finger at one with the implication that an alternative is clean. So, it must be with great humility that anyone endorses a particular agenda, while knowing the nature of the forces one is dealing with. Attempting to corrupt the system is an endemic problem related to political agendas and the pundits who bolster them.
I personally feel that the enumeration of what is considered to be inalienable rights of human beings should be broadened. I am one of the few here who would endorse a constitutional convention to take a second look at the founding premises.
Which inalienable rights in particular are you referring too?
What rights of homosexuals are under attack?
”They attempt to redefine the limited role of government by masking their acts under the cloak of security in the 'war on terrorism'.”
Help me here to understand what the new definition that is being proposed would be?
”They attempt to destroy the role of both the minority party and the judicial system with petty power grabs, such as destroying the long standing power of the minority party to fillibuster, and proposing legislature that is supposedly immune to judicial review.”
Power grabs are what political parties do. Lots of things get proposed. That is fairly meaningless until or unless the proposition becomes viable. What legislature is immune to judicial review?
”I am continually disturbed when I see studies like the recent survey of high school age children who were asked if they believe that right of freedom should be sacrificed for security, and the majority say yes.
OK.
I am disturbed when I see these neocons scream about 'activist judges', when they clearly have no clue what the phrase means. In fact, I believe their leaders know what it means, and how they are deceiving people into with these phrases, but they simply view them as code words useful in their relentless thirst for more power.”
I was under the impression that an ‘activist judge’ is one who goes beyond the role of interpreting law by engaging in social engineering of some sort. I would also believe that some Repubs would stick that label on any liberal judge just to cause them to lose their position … and visa versa.
”When will the people who have been deceived wake up and realize that they have been turned into dupes of the rich and powerful who lust for even more?”
Good question. |
