To: AFPhys; Red Phillips
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMMON DEFENSE, does not translate into provide for the common offense unless you adopt the left wing view of a living constitution that can change meaning along with the times and want to change meanings of words ala Orwell's 1984.
While not a paleo or a Libertarian, I can understand why the new conservativcs set the other side of the right off.
37 posted on
12/16/2004 10:47:48 AM PST by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting johnathangaltfilms.com and jihadwatch.org)
To: Destro
I strongly disagree - and it is not tampering with the original meaning of the Constitution - in the modern world we must not make the error of believing that we can defend ourselves solely by awaiting the enemy with muskets in Concord and Lexington; and though some would, most of the Founding Fathers would not make a case for that position.
The only way that our government can responsibly provide for the common defense is to keep enemies away from our shores.
38 posted on
12/16/2004 11:17:39 AM PST by
AFPhys
((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson