I agree to an extent. As I mentioned, if as a nation we decided to alter the constitution through the amendment process I won't like it, but I will abide it. We cannot allow legislation hat alters the constitution outside the amendment process because then there are NO hard and fast rules. We've already seen this time and time again with legislation that impacts speech, search and seizure, self incrimination, even private property ownership.
If the opposition can get the numbers for an amendment that's fine, but let's be honest, that will never happen in our society and culture. With that as our basis we must look to solutions that are legal and constitutional. On Jan 10, 2013 3:01 PM, "Jerry Milo Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > any new legislation, or any new executive orders, should be measured > against past actual horrors, to see if in fact the legislation would have > made any appreciable difference. > > if the answer is no, then that should (in my mind) kill the legislation > right there. > > we know how to war-game, and predict, and measure rule changes against > outcomes. > > why we dont apply this knowledge to proposed changes is insane to me. > > if the answer is yes, then and only then should we look at what is LOST in > exchange for that new protection or change. And we should talk about it > (rationally and politely), and then come to a consensus as a county, and > then move forward. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359961 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
