It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by WeAreAWAKE
More good posts!
Let throw a developing thought out and see if it sticks to the walls: compromise is the concept that keeps coming up.
We seem to lost that ability. There may be a more fundamental explanation to that loss.
Perhaps we've lost the "means" to compromise. The "tool", so to speak.
Undercutting the Constitution was good will, for the most part. Trust, at least to a higher degree. We had a moral code. It was, for all intents and purposes, the Judeo-Christian moral code. (I'm NOT talking the religion here, just the moral code).
Groups, families, almost all subscribed to it. Gave lip-service to it. Some even lived it!
That "code" is gone for a large portion of this nation, either due to it's source, Christianity and the marginalization or it, rightly or wrongly. We, for the most part, were European in origin. We were raised with that code, be it when still in Europe or by the following generations while on this side of the pond.
Those that haven't been educated into that code have found others to base their lives on.
I'm putting no right or wrong here, just posing a thought.
The next level of broad agreement was the Constitution. Despite the violations of it all the way back, it remains that the majority took comfort and believed in the value of that document.(A governmental moral code?).
We now see pretty well both "side" consider their view of things (senior?) to that document as well.
So what's left to agree on? Where is the means for that compromise? Does this make any sense at all or should I take my afternoon nap?....
edit on 12-2-2014 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)
"In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention:
1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events: and
2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
"Provisions of the Constitution of the United States are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form, but are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is not to be gathered simply from the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth."
For starters, it's not hard to spot your little injection of bias in this thread where you are apparently making a direct correlation between Obama's use of executive orders and constitutional violations. As such, I think you should expect some bias responses as well.
Or do you have knowledge of some SCOTUS rulings regarding Obama EOs inferring that he has violated the constitution? If so, I'd like to see them!
With respect to how I feel about Obama using executive orders to accomplish what little he can, well I'm a Obama supporter and I too have mixed feelings. Personally, I think it's a crying shame that it has even come to this, but it is what it is.
Furthermore, I'm not sure I'd do any different if I were faced with the most obstructionist Congress in american history. One that openly declared "compromise" to be a dirty word and stated their number one goal to be insuring that Obama was a one term POTUS. So much for priority number one being the business of the country.
There may well be some repercussions down the road but I don't see how it could be much worse than what we have right now. We currently have a Congress who thinks it's their business to make sure that no business is done and seeing how I'm a believer in the philosophy that one should "lead, follow or get the hell out of the way," IMO it's time they got the hell out of the way.
On the other hand, some good things have come about as the result of a POTUS decision to issue executive orders. Things like the Emancipation Proclamation and desegregation of the armed forces were both the result of EOs.
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
An opposing Opinion:
There is plenty of room in the human for both a strong personal identity and strong personal responsibility. The two contribute to each other, actually, rather than diminish each other. As well, the idea that strong individuals can only be created in the supposed traditional environment of One Mother One Father One Household is rubbish. There have always been broken households and single parent households. The concept of family is strong enough on its own and does not require the acceptance or special pleadings of religious fundamentalists. There are many kinds of families and many ways to structure them.
The idea that religion itself is an overwhelmingly positive factor in society is also fallacious. There are many proofs for this assertion which are off-topic here. There are many that are free of any belief in God, gods, spirits or whatever one's favorite fetish to shake is ... and are highly ethical beings. Ethics and morals arise from human society, not as dispensed from on high.
Executive Power that usurps the Constitution will be dealt with in the Judiciary. Our age is unparalleled in its love of political sensationalism.
Limbaugh's assertion that Obama "rejected the Constitution" is false, as is clear from a clip from a September 6, 2001, interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ that Limbaugh aired later in the show. In fact, while saying that the Constitution "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day," Obama asserted that the Constitution is "a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now."
In a preceding portion of the WBEZ program -- titled "Slavery and the Constitution" -- Obama explained that the "fundamental flaw" was that "[t]he Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers," and that the framers did not "see it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth." Without airing that part of the WBEZ program, in which Obama explained his position that the Constitution reflected the "fundamental flaw of this country," Limbaugh criticized Obama for saying that the Constitution reflected a "fundamental flaw," while falsely accusing Obama of saying the flaw cannot "be fixed."
2. It is very had for two sides to compromise when they are trying to pass legislation on issues where their fundamental beliefs are diametrically opposed. I bet you would find it difficult to find someone willing to compromise their core beliefs in order to "get something done".