Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: Nothing sacred

Name one thing you think that 2/3 of both houses would agree on.   And then 
tell me if you think it is realistic that 3/4 of the states would agree on 
that.

You may not know what Prager is talking about.  But he did, and I do too.

Mike F.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Mike Findlay
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 10:49 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [DADL-OT] [Bulk] Re: Nothing sacred

I'll respond in greater depth when I'm sober and/or feel like it.   I just
didn't want your constitutionally illiterate response to go unchallenged.

Mike F.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Mike Findlay
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 10:40 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [DADL-OT] Nothing sacred

Sorry, you're flat out wrong.


Mike F.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 7:29 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Nothing sacred

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:

> > Wow, he sure dodged the question of *amendments*, there, didn't he?
>
> No, I believe he's talking about *interpreting* the constitution and/or 
> judicial activism, stuff like Roe v Wade, the Kelo decision, etc.

Well, that's all well and la-di-da, but if his point is that you cannot
believe both that the Constitution is "above" us *and* that it "evolves"
at the discretion of mere mortals such as yourselves, then he really,
*really* needs to address the question of amendments.

And does he?  No, he does not.  Doesn't mention them *at all*.

> Situations where *courts* have read things into the constitution that
> aren't in the text.

You mean, kind of like how pro-gay Christians say they are following the
spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law?  The fact that the
other group follows a different method of interpretation than you do is
*not*, in and of itself, a sign that they do not regard the text being
interpreted as "sacred".  They just interpret it differently.

> Amending the constitution is a very different thing and Prager is too 
> smart to be ignoring that.

Actually, he is too smart *not* to ignore it.  He knows that if he even
*mentions* amendments, he's opening a whole new can of worms.

This is especially true if the litmus test he's working with is gay
marriage.  As you may recall, there was a big push a few years ago to
*amend* the Constitution to prevent gay marriage -- which of course raises
the possibility that the Constitution could be amended in the *other*
direction, or that the Constitution is not sufficiently anti-gay-marriage
to begin with, at least from the conservative point of view.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot 


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot