MaxedOutMama
Thursday, June 09, 2005
When The Screaming Stops
Where to begin....
Sigmund Carl and Alfred linked to The Anchoress, who discusses Amnesty International's instruction to other governments to arrest US officials and try them for war crimes. Tell me again about the ICC? Thud, thud, thud. That's the sound of my head hitting the desk.
And Boomr has written an excellent and really long letter that was published on Dingo's blog. It's about a third party. He addresses the reality that we really aren't getting much of a political option any more:
As for Darfur, without help from Europe there is little the US can effectively do. So I have come to the conclusion that Bolton should be approved and we should all demand that he raise hell about Darfur. And on top of that, I think we should have a little talk with the government of Sudan and inform them that we will be delivering large truckloads of arms to the people who are being attacked unless the Sudanese gets awfully serious awfully quick about protecting them. I've had it.
Finally, I think we will need to reform the constitution by amending it in certain ways. I am absolutely and unequivocally against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. What I would like to see is constitutional amendments restoring some of the original constitution which has now been interpreted away. I want limits to the federal government. I want the whole Bill of Rights back.
And, like Boomr, I want a third party to shake people up. We are perilously close to a one-party state. Do you think the Republicans will cry about that one? Heck no. They will just keep flinging a few more pieces onto the civil-rights bonfire of the Patriot Act. When people complain, their representatives will tell them they didn't have time to read what they were voting on. This is a farce. We all know it. It's time to change the nature of the game, now, while the people are still in it.
I liked this BloggerNews article on libertarianism very much. I don't agree with some of it, but it is a good thoughtful look at matters as they now stand. I would urge everyone to go read it.
Amending The Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
The support will be easily found. There is a lot of distress about immigration, this stupid medical marijuana decision (does anyone really believe that the Congress should have the right to legislate what you grow in your backyard or planter and eat in your house if it is legal in your state?), the constant abridgement of our civil rights, etc. The question is what amendments shall be proposed? We don't want to go too far - we just need to set limits to the reinterpretation of the Constitution and the overreaching power of the federal government.
Sigmund Carl and Alfred linked to The Anchoress, who discusses Amnesty International's instruction to other governments to arrest US officials and try them for war crimes. Tell me again about the ICC? Thud, thud, thud. That's the sound of my head hitting the desk.
And Boomr has written an excellent and really long letter that was published on Dingo's blog. It's about a third party. He addresses the reality that we really aren't getting much of a political option any more:
Where is the voice of moderation? Of pluralism? Of DEMOCRACY? The constitutional republic in which we live can no longer be deemed a democracy – if it ever truly could – because a democracy necessarily includes the consideration of all political thought, not just the thought presented by the two big bullies on the block. What the United States has become, as evidenced by the last two Presidential elections, is an oligarchy, in which all political decisions are made by a small number of people in both major parties and then packaged to the public as if the public had a true choice in the matter.I agree. And the constitution itself has become rather mutable, if you have noticed, especially when it comes down to little details like free political speech (sure, the courts will defend your right to burn a flag, but they believe bloggers should be regulated), and the rest of the Bill of Rights. I don't think people should be busting into people's homes and arresting them for having sex, but I also don't think the feds should be busting into people's homes because they are growing and using a plant for which they have a doctor's prescription. Come on. And I don't think local governments should be able to condemn your property so they can lease it to a Walmart. I can just imagine Patrick Henry on that one.
As for Darfur, without help from Europe there is little the US can effectively do. So I have come to the conclusion that Bolton should be approved and we should all demand that he raise hell about Darfur. And on top of that, I think we should have a little talk with the government of Sudan and inform them that we will be delivering large truckloads of arms to the people who are being attacked unless the Sudanese gets awfully serious awfully quick about protecting them. I've had it.
Finally, I think we will need to reform the constitution by amending it in certain ways. I am absolutely and unequivocally against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. What I would like to see is constitutional amendments restoring some of the original constitution which has now been interpreted away. I want limits to the federal government. I want the whole Bill of Rights back.
And, like Boomr, I want a third party to shake people up. We are perilously close to a one-party state. Do you think the Republicans will cry about that one? Heck no. They will just keep flinging a few more pieces onto the civil-rights bonfire of the Patriot Act. When people complain, their representatives will tell them they didn't have time to read what they were voting on. This is a farce. We all know it. It's time to change the nature of the game, now, while the people are still in it.
I liked this BloggerNews article on libertarianism very much. I don't agree with some of it, but it is a good thoughtful look at matters as they now stand. I would urge everyone to go read it.
Amending The Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
The support will be easily found. There is a lot of distress about immigration, this stupid medical marijuana decision (does anyone really believe that the Congress should have the right to legislate what you grow in your backyard or planter and eat in your house if it is legal in your state?), the constant abridgement of our civil rights, etc. The question is what amendments shall be proposed? We don't want to go too far - we just need to set limits to the reinterpretation of the Constitution and the overreaching power of the federal government.
Comments:
<< Home
'Tell me again about the ICC?'
Considering that a Spanish judge issued a summons to the tank crew that fired on the Palestinian Hotel in Baghdad, I would say some of those governments have taken AI seriously.
Considering that a Spanish judge issued a summons to the tank crew that fired on the Palestinian Hotel in Baghdad, I would say some of those governments have taken AI seriously.
Well, Dingo says there is no problem as long as the US is willing to be "just". My feeling is that the definition of "just" is very mutable these days.
Once again, I have to point out what Spain is doing has absolutely no connection to the ICC. Any nation can indict, try and convict anyone else in the world. That is part of their sovereign right. It doesn't mean that would have any legal consequence anywhere else, but they can do it. And, the US can indict, try and convict anyone in the world in abstentia also (as has been done). None of this has one iota of bearing on the ICC. Syria could try, convict and sentence to death president Bush tomorrow if they wnted.
No, it doesn't directly. But it does show the political situation in Europe, which is highly charged.
Maybe the whole world is having a silly season. I have just been reading about the Sudanese government's latest in Darfur, and I have a sour taste in my mouth.
Post a Comment
Maybe the whole world is having a silly season. I have just been reading about the Sudanese government's latest in Darfur, and I have a sour taste in my mouth.
<< Home
