Replies

Many thanks all, do continue, this is excellent...The point about conserving the revolution and America as exemplar was particularly illuminating. If I could clear up a few points though?
I am not a troll, nor am I a democrat trying to convert conservatives. It strikes me that if I were a democrat I would be best advised to try to convert the "floating voter" rather than a thriving explicitly conservative forum. Free Republic is unlikely to provide fertile ground for Democrat propaganda.

Also, question 10 seems to be generating considerable ire. Whilst I am interested in a genuine response, and I do not support the proposition in the question, I feel it is worth pointing out a few things about British history in this period. The rationale for much British military action at this time was not selfish empire (at least not in public). The British invasion of Egypt was "to restore order" and to bring Egyptian finances and administration back into shape. The government at the time proclaimed that this would be temporary. The advance into the Sudan was an early example of the fight against the Islamic extremism of the Mahdi (General Gordon, Omdurman etc). The Boer War was started in defence of the democratic rights of British subjects in the Boer Republics. Britain was the only global superpower at the turn of the century, according to the definition of being able to fight a great war in two theatres. In addition, Britain as understood by comtemporaries included the autonomous dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa), which with a little imagination could be compared to states.

There were considerable differences which it would be wrong and foolish to ignore, even besides the obvious time and space differences, but I thought it might be worth clarifying why some people have tried to draw comparisons here, and why it is at least worthy of response rather than dismissal as ridiculous.

Also, I realize the two questions concerning repealing and amending the constitution technically can be the same answer, as an amendment is needed to repeal another amendment. However, please accept my apologies on this point, and assume that I meant a fresh addition to the consitution. Also, I would broaden this question on further reflection to include alterations to procedure, precedent and custom e.g the role of the Supreme Court, or the practice of filibustering.

Also, question 7 posits a choice which is obviously not entirely representative of all of the possible foreign policy options- any other directions for 21st century American foreign policy would also be of interest.

Thanks once again