[Lazamataz]

I already said, I wouldn't sign it, but I'm not an absolutist either. You can't just draw a line in the sand, on each and every issue. Pragmatism and compromise will get you most of what you want, but not everything you want.

So if one side wants the abolition of the Bill of Rights, and the other side doesn't, it becomes "pragmatic" politics to concede the overturning of one amendment every few years, in the interest of "compromise"?

I see.

[Reagan Man]

So if one side wants the abolition of the Bill of Rights, and the other side doesn't, it becomes "pragmatic" politics to concede the overturning of one amendment every few years, in the interest of "compromise"?
I see.

You see what you want to see. Your analogy is ridiculous.

I see, you're politically naive too.

Jeers.

[RJayneJ]

Laz, the one thing that keeps coming up is the notion that Dubya can determine what is constitutional and what isn't. He can't. He can say he has concerns about it, but the body that determines constitutionality is the SC. If he said he wouldn't sign because it's unconstitutional, he would be jumped on like a hen on a June bug. He would be ridiculed for thinking he is King George. The 3 braches jealously guard their turf.

I don't think that I have ever voted for a politician that I agreed with 100%. I don't even agree with my husband of 43 years 100%. I vote for the person that comes closest to my views.