Vasko Kohlmayer at The American Thinker asks a great question facing us conservatives today.
Do we have what it Takes?excerpt from his artical
"But even as the American people are increasingly looking to conservatism for deliverance, we need to ask whether we have what it takes to tackle the existential challenges this country faces. Many of us may be startled by this question since we take it for granted that our side has exactly what America needs at this difficult hour. But even a quick look at the Massachusetts race should make it obvious why this question must be asked."
I have been struggling (for some time) with what and where you and I, as The People, if I may, want as a form of government. I believe that the Constitution, is not a living document with flaws. But is as written. But am I wrong?
Over the next few weeks, with your help, I will ask this very question. I plan on reviewing our Constitution, article by article, amendment by amendment. I want open honest debate and opinion. What changes, if any, would you make. What you really think our nation's beliefs are in this moment in history and the direction we should follow, as pertaining to the subject being discussed. I would like for all who respond to keep to the one item, and not referring forward to other articles or amendments, but as the discussion progresses referring back (as pertaining to the subject at hand) will be allowed. Each subject will be open for two days then will move to the next.
This is not a Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal or Progressive forum, it is open to all. I will not allow the name calling or rhetoric that normally falls into being. This is strictly something that I want to do for my own understanding of my fellow countrymen.
I want to now THANK all who participate. This blog will be changing to this open style forum. I will, in the days to come start a second with the day to day normal b.s.. I will annouce that blog shortly and hope you all come by. sharky
Without anything more to say, here we go....
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
EDIT: the comment moderation is lifted for two days (the time given for the post) for ease of open forum and refering into and back to the document being discussed will be allowed for ease of discussion.
14 comments:
you can depend on me to contribute, my friend. though i'll say right now you could write a whole book on this section alone and still miss out on all that it says, especially in regards to the intent of the writers of this document which is impossible to ascertain.
though i will say that this document along with the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation were strictly political documents not documents in regards to a society. and that they all need to be taken into consideration when we try to understand what this document means in terms of what it intended to accomplish and what it intended to avoid.
first thing we must realize is that a Constitution is a contract between two or more parties. and usually a constitution is a contract established with the people and the established goverment but this constitution is unique in that it is a contract between the states for the purpose of establishing a new government, one with limited powers thus leaving the states still soveriegn over the people of that state. and this should always be kept in mind when studying this contractual document
"I would like for all who respond to keep to the one item, and not referring forward to other articles or amendments,..."
i hate to say this but to discuss it with this restriction will result in a misleading understanding of the document, my friend. the reason being is that there is a connection between each and every part of the document and one might need to quote another section to support his claim in regards to a certain section.
Griper -- I agree whole-heartedly with you on all that you have said. And books have been written and will continue to be.
This is just a way for, me, to understand my fellow countrymen. There are many paths we as a nation can take at this time in history and I feel it is important, for me to see the will of my neighbor. Just what he will fight for. And most importantly -- WHY.
I know the discussions you have with people like 101. I respect his passion but do not agree with his ideology. Therfore this is why I'm doing this, a lesson to be learned for me. As my father told me as a wee lad -- 'if you depend on the people, you'll be let down everytime'. For this reason alone, I'm doing this, to see for meself the virtue of the people, my countrymen. Their thoughts and beliefs.
There is a new day on the rise, a shift that will make or break coming. And to hitch my wagon to so called conservatives that are wanting to manage instead of repeal wrongs, is something I simply can not do. This 'new conservative wave' can be just that, a wave, unless we harness it to use it's full meassure. So I must see to what ends we are willing to go. And that starts with knowing friend and foe.
Thanks my friend and look forward for more. sharky
Agree, but I want disussion at item at hand as written. I feel and may be wrong(and all input now is needed), that by forwarding into the document will blog this process down. Now on the other hand, by refering back to previous items will add to the object being discussed currently.
Like I said this is a work in progress and all points will be considered.
Will send my email address to you later and we can talk on this more, my friend.
But to all -- this is open and all input will be considered. sharky
it's a good work too. one that should always be kept open as far as i'm concerned. for how can we determine the direction this nation should take if we are not in agreement with the interpretation of the map given us.
so, i'll start this off and allow everyone to feed off of what i say.
the first thing that is needed is to understand the meaning of the words in this contract and the first word that we must consider is the word "people".
the word people is commonly used as the plural of person but that is incorrect. the plural of person is persons. people is a collective word and correctly used only when speaking of a collective. synonyms for this word could be state, nation, club, society or whatever word describes the collective best.
thus the first sentence of the preamble could have read, "We, the States, in order to form a more perfect nation..." and it would have been more clearer in regards to intent.
What the Hell, I leave for a few months and you take me off your blog list????
Griper -- Looks like its me and you. So... my one thought on this preamble is the word -tranquility or maybe to insure is where the problem lies. The word itself means -- free from agitation of mind or spirit; free from disturbance or turmoil. Now at the time of its writing, 13 states without the media blitz and mouth pieces of opinion spewing all day, this was achievable or should I say MORE achievable. But to insure it today, pfft. Only State media controll would cure that and we know our feelings on that.
I know it was only meant as a guildline to the follow text found in the Constitution. So to find fault to the premable is humurous at best. The only thing I would have added was to clarify the legality of it. Silly maybe, but as legal as it may have been intended, the law ( or congress and Senate) skirts it at best.
On to your concern about looking forward as reference points, I will add the amendment that coincides with the particular artical and section. This should clear it up, but as said it is a work in progress and any suggestion will be taken into the thought process.
Griper, I want to say Thank you to you for your support here. Maybe this will grow, maybe not. I just hope that an open look at what all the hub bub going on about government, that taking an open and honest look at to what we're bickering about, could put to rest some of it. Then we can make the right decissions about our future path. Maybe I'm fooling meself. sharky
Marilyn -- my love, I havn't forgot about you. There are some changes in play here and you will be in those as will all others. Some house cleaning and rearranging. sharky
Oh, glad to see your still the fiesty bird. Keep kicking!
Landshark - I find your idea intriguing, and thought provoking.
To the degree I am able I would enjoy being involved in your "project."
Griper alerted me to your rather phenomenal undertaking, I applaud you for this effort.
There will be some in your readership that won't get active, however will gain by your commitment and attempt to achieve a greater understanding of our constitution.
ahhh sharky,
"insure domestic Tranquility,"
good find. i never really gave that phrase much thought myself until you brought it up. upon pondering over it though in light of it being a political document we can see how too.
we first must remember that the States were sovereign states, which means that they had all of the powers of any state including the power to wage wars. and when we look upon the Constitution with this phrase in mind we see that those powers relinquished by the states to a centralized government was to insure that there'd be no reason for inter-fighting among them as Europe was notorious for throughout history.
the civil war proved them wrong tho. they had hoped that the Supreme Court could settle any problems peacefully.
just a sidenote. here would be one place where i'd need to go forward to cite clauses to support my claim.
Rnat -- Thanks, this is something I hope more will come to. And I do understand that many,I'm afraid, won't touch. But I do hope. As for myself, I know I'll learn from you guys some of the thoughts that on the subject that will help me with mine. I've read all the documents available and will reread them as we progress for a refresher of the noodle. I know this surge in conservative values is a good thing, I just hope that maybe with a little more understanding of what we are trying to conserve will keep us on track. To quote the Who, 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' and 'won't get fooled again'. sharky
Griper -- Just the kinda of answer I was fishing for. Your right, the forefathers had watched the in house fighting of europe and was damn hard pressed not to allow for it here.
After much thought on it, I think you're correct in the refering forward, I just don't want it to "blog" down the item currently being discussed, if you you what I mean. Some will argue forward instead of staying on point. We will cross that path as we go, but your right - it will have to be open for referals. Thanks. sharky
test
Post a Comment