Greetings from your Religion Moderator

April 23, 2006 | Religion Moderator

[curiosity]

I think our British friends would object to their government being described as mob rule.

[Alamo-Girl]

So very true on all points! Thank you for your insights!

[Alamo-Girl]

Actually, given how the courts have twisted the meaning of the Constitution so much, I'm beginning to think that having an unwritten constitution is a better strategy.

I think that will all change with the Roberts court, especially if Dubya gets to appoint just one more. I'm praying one of the liberals or moderators will retire.

[PatrickHenry]

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

My link given in post 266 shows the text of the often-overlooked preamble to the Bill of Rights, which reads (in part):

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Anybody know what post 373 was? (I hope it wasn't mine!)

[PatrickHenry]

I'm praying one of the liberals or moderators will retire.

Let's not go there!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! I need another cup of coffee... obviously.

[PatrickHenry]

Anybody know what post 373 was? (I hope it wasn't mine!)

I meant 273.

[Religion Moderator]

It wasn't yours.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks. (I'm always running scared.)

[betty boop]

...the text of the often-overlooked preamble to the Bill of Rights

I certainly didn't overlook this PH. I quoted it at post 252 above in defense of my position.

I don't know who wrote 273, or why it's gone. Jeepers, I hate it when things like that happen!

As you say Patrick, anybody know?

[hosepipe]

[ I think that will all change with the Roberts court, especially if Dubya gets to appoint just one more. I'm praying one of the liberals or moderators will retire. ]

Bush is a globalist.. Alito and Roberts are no doubt globalists too.. else why did he select them.. Bush is starting to stink.. and he doesn't seem to care.. Being For so-called domestic "conservative" issues(debatable) and at the same time For eliminating Americas sovereignty is a good gambit.. It seems to be working heroically..

Anything to distract from closing the Mexican border is a win for a globalist.. The Balkanization of America is well advanced.. And republicans generally are like Judas goats.. Whatever the democrats attack(George Bush) the republicans will close ranks and support.. BRILLIANT really..

Republicans For BIG givernment and unlimited import of foreign democrats is quite brilliant.. ALL illegal and legal immigrants WILL be democrats you know.. OK.. there will be a few RINOs.. The voting demographics of America is changing rapidly and few care.. Again quite brilliant.. I don't like it a bit, but then you must admit, it is pretty smart..

[Religion Moderator]

273 was removed for language only. The poster could rephrase and repost without the disallowed word and it would be fine.

[Alamo-Girl]

But how do you really feel, hosepipe? (just kidding)

[betty boop]

Thank you for letting me know, RM!

[restornu]

I don't know who wrote 273, or why it's gone. Jeepers, I hate it when things like that happen

That is so funny I feel the same way what did I miss? LOL

Yesterday I double post and asked one to be deleted...

Hours later I wonder what I missed! LOL

[hosepipe]

LoL...

[Thatcherite]

Actually, given how the courts have twisted the meaning of the Constitution so much, I'm beginning to think that having an unwritten constitution is a better strategy. It seems to work pretty well for the Brits. What sayest thou, friends from accross the pond?

I decided to respond before reading anyone else's opinion.

In general, down through the centuries the lack of a written Constitution seems to have served us well, because most executives have respected tradition. However Tony Blair is working fast to dismantle a system that has worked well for longer than pretty much anyone else's system, and there are no formal rules to stop him from doing that. Important new law goes through without parliamentary debate. The executive reigns undreamed, the House of Lords has been emasculated without being replaced with anything (in the name of fairness). We're getting close to an elected dictatorship (elected by less than a quarter of those eligible to vote). New administrative regions are created that no-one identifies with or cares about. Expensive new elected assemblies were set up for Wales and Scotland, yet Welsh and Scottish Westminster MPs still get to vote in Westminster on matters that don't affect their constituencies because those matters are controlled by the new assemblies. The government wouldn't dare contemplate self-rule for England though, of course, because an English assembly probably wouldn't be suitably socialist. Rant done.

[Thatcherite]

undreamed = untrammeled (I blame the spell-checker, I clicked the wrong correction)

[hosepipe]

[ The government wouldn't dare contemplate self-rule for England though, of course, because an English assembly probably wouldn't be suitably socialist. ]

True.. but England(Wales, Scotland even Ireland) will be a mere State(s) in the World Republic.. eventually... so will the U.S.... in the new world order..

[PatrickHenry]

300