Odd, given your statement, above, that both of the 'good ideas' that you mention were amended into the Constitution.This is flawed on two levels. The first that a good idea is necessarily popular with people in Congress. And second that a good idea is popular with the general population. Ending slavery was a good idea. However highly unpopular with a large number of states. So was giving women the right to vote. A highly unpopular idea. A good idea does not depend on popularity.
Wow your complete inability to grasp the entire point of that post is almost retarded.
That's far superior than the notion that it means whatever you want it to mean, which is the central tenet of liberalism.
Odd, given your statement, above, that both of the 'good ideas' that you mention were amended into the Constitution.
That's relevant.... how?76 and 131 years later, yes...
That's because you failed to make a point. You held up women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery as objectively good ideas (which they are) that might not come to fruition if left up to popular sentiment or legislative action despite the fact that both of them were addressed via the Amendment process.
That's relevant.... how?
This is flawed on two levels. The first that a good idea is necessarily popular with people in Congress. And second that a good idea is popular with the general population. Ending slavery was a good idea. However highly unpopular with a large number of states. So was giving women the right to vote. A highly unpopular idea. A good idea does not depend on popularity.
I did. How long it took to make these changes is meaningless; that the chages were made thru the amendment process - as opposed to an interpretation of the living constitution based on the argument that they are 'good ideas' - is the relevant point.Read what Hatuey wrote:
I did. How long it took to make these changes is meaningless; that the chages were made thru the amendment process - as opposed to an interpretation of the living constitution based on the argument that they are 'good ideas' - is the relevant point.
Again -- how is this relevant to what I said?A) The Constitution guarantees all states a republican form of government. That passage has been in there from the beginning, and could easily be interpreted to include minorities and women. But no, that would be "judicial activism," right? Better to deny people their rights for decades. :roll:
B) The North was OCCUPYING the South and FORCED the states to pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. If they were dealing with any issue other than slavery, most people would view these changes as illegitimate. They were hardly passed through the traditional amendment process that the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Slavery was hardly abolished through the typical amendment process. It was done so at the barrel of a gun.
I suspect you wouldn't like it if activists held state legislatures hostage until they ratified an amendment that, say, spelled out the power of Congress to be involved in health care and environmental policy?
Again -- how is this relevant to what I said?
Yes, the people had to do it. War, Amendment process, it's the people who - for better or worse - decide.
Ethereal said:Do you honestly think a judicial activist could have abolished slavery or imposed women's suffrage from the bench?
Ethereal said:Who appoints the judiciary? Who appoints the person who appoints the judiciary?
Ethereal said:I don't understand your point.
Cry on, wussie-boy -- no longer having to listen to you trying to blame your rather vast intellectual and emotional shortcomings on my refusal to play your pre-pubescent games will make my life so much the better.I abso-****ing-lutely KNEW you were going to respond with that asinine statement that you always do whenever you're backed into a corner. God you're annoying. I'm ****ing done with you, as usual. I'll debate Ethereal instead, since he actually has a brain.
So then forcing legislatures to ratify an amendment at the barrel of a gun is a legitimate way to amend the Constitution? Where does the document say THAT?
I don't know, but they certainly could have tried. The Constitution explicitly guarantees the states a republican form of government. It isn't much of a stretch to interpret that as including women's suffrage and minority rights...unless, of course, you are wedded to an "original intent" interpretation.
The President and the people. Are you suggesting that it's just as hard to re-interpret the Constitution from the bench as it is to pass a constitutional amendment? The legal history of our country would beg to differ.
If the amendment process is coercive, it's hardly legitimate, right? So I don't see why you tout the 13th amendment as an example of the success of our amendment process being used to implement a good idea. It took a civil war and an occupation of the South, and was hardly passed because that's what the southern states WANTED.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?