Monday, January 21, 2013

The political threat becomes clearer

I pointed out the other day that President Obama and his allies are a major threat, not just to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, but to the entire Constitution.  They don't see it as a bedrock foundation, binding on public law, political policy and jurisprudence;  instead, it's a 'living document', to be reinterpreted at will and disregarded when it's inconvenient.  Those of us who regard it as the framework of our Republic are dismissed as old fogeys, stick-in-the-mud has-beens who 'cling to our guns and religion' and are an obstacle to 'progress'.

A number of reports today reinforce that perspective.

As I said before, all the signs point to a concerted, deliberate attempt to sideline conservative and classic-liberal concerns, to ignore the Constitution, and to rule by mobilizing mass support for initiatives that may actually contradict the foundation of our constitutional Republic.

It's going to be a long fight, friends, and probably a very dirty one.  The other side has few if any principles, largely because they appear to deny the existence of any independent, objective moral or ethical foundation.  We're seeing the "If it feels good, do it!" generation on the march.  It's a pretty sickening sight.

Gird your loins.  The battle has begun.



Will Brown said...

That's just bad strategy, Peter. Don't fight your opponent on his chosen ground (and from a base of his determination, no less), co-opt his position by creating an alternative option that achieves his stated goals via constitutionally compliant means.

Use religious tenets to advance science instead of resisting scientific change. Jewish/Islamic kosher/halal food preparation rules might be a useful concept in this regard.

Use the basic Bill Of Rights as a context around which to build a principle to guide all technology development maybe.

Don't gear up to go down fighting; steal the wind from the other guy's gunboat sails instead.

skreidle said...

As I understand it, the proposed amendments to the filibuster are not to eliminate it, but to return it to its traditional form: If you want to filibuster, you'll hold the floor as long as you want, not just threaten a filibuster in the face of a cloture vote.