How does it not? Again - since you skipped it last time - what if Clark was in charge of the training?
Get real.
Maybe you should. When, ever, has granting power to the federal government regarding educating our children been a good idea.
Get real in deed.
Why do you argue that 'my position' is at odds with how our nation was founded?
Because it is direct conflict with the Constitution as it currently stands.
Sorry' no sale. - Your effort to claim that I'm 'tinkering' is a disagreeable method..
Then we will agree to be disagreeable - fine by me. You want boot camps to qualify for citizenship or the right to vote - then do the things necessary to get that into the Constitution and I will then agree with you.
Absent that, your idea is not in line with the Constitution, at least my opinion of it. Maybe in the world of a "living" Constitution where it is open to interpretation of the day, but unless you formally amend it, your boot camps as a qualifier are not Constitutional.
Good Luck.
Straw man that my 'approach' allows such political control.
Again, since you skipped it last time - what if Clark was in charge of the training?
Again.. -- Do you really think that constitutional training/education within our military establishment is influenced by " -- whoever happens to be in control of the government."
Get real.
Maybe you should. When, ever, has granting power to the federal government regarding educating our children been a good idea. Get real in deed.
Passing a amendment to qualify voters is not "granting power" to the feds. You really can't debate without using the 'straw man' technique, can you..
I'm trying. But I am also trying to reconcile your thoughts that only those who serve should have the right to vote. Does that only apply to military service? Does it apply to civil servants - they are in effect serving, just not in the armed services.
It applies to those who volunteer at 18 -- to attend a 'boot camp' on our constitutional principles, agreeing to support and defend those principles.
Maybe I just fundamental can't reconcile your position on the issue with my understanding of how our nation was founded.
Why do you argue that 'my position' is at odds with how our nation was founded? -- Do you have any concept of how silly you make yourself look by using such tar-baby tactics?
Because it is direct conflict with the Constitution as it currently stands.
Silly comment, seeing that I'm proposing changing our constitution, - about voting..
I believe that our nation would be better off under a very strict interpretation and implementation of the Constitution.
So do I.
Tinkering around with it, voting rights, etc., just comes off to me as one more attempt to fix or improve on a fundamental document that doesn't need fixing - just enforced. Agree to disagree?
Sorry' no sale. - Your effort to claim that I'm 'tinkering' is a disagreeable method..
Then we will agree to be disagreeable - fine by me. You want boot camps to qualify for citizenship or the right to vote - then do the things necessary to get that into the Constitution and I will then agree with you.
My proposal is part of "the things necessary to get that into the Constitution".. Read much?
Absent that, your idea is not in line with the Constitution, at least my opinion of it. Maybe in the world of a "living" Constitution where it is open to interpretation of the day, but unless you formally amend it, your boot camps as a qualifier are not Constitutional. Good Luck.
You seem stuck with the 'straw man' that I'm opposed to amending the constitution.. -- Get over it..