Sorry Ian,
I wasn't saying you were suggesting "cultural whim". In the
U.S. a long standing debate for decades has pin-pointed the
word re-interpretation/interpretation and original constitution.
Some in the U.S. think the constitution is outdated and we
can re-interpret it the constitution to fit so called more modern
times. The other position or one of the other positions is the
constitution can be changed, but through the given constitutional
process. I was trying to add clarification to what you said
for that's a button issue in the U.S. That's why I said "...if
you didn't know." So you know that how you worded your
post might be understood in the U.S. in a certain way that
you didn't intend.
woods
P.S. I'm not after you Ian. I know at one point I had asked if you don't
like disagreement, but that was long ago and didn't get a response. I
figured it must be a sensitive topic for you, which is fine. And I've tried
to pull away from asking you once I figured out that it might
be an innocently touchy issue that all humans have in one form or another.
________________________________
From: Ian Glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 11:50:44 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] blackwater
Er Woods, who suggested using cultural whim as a basis for
reinterpeting rights in the constitution ?
As you noticed (later) ... I was suggesting using intellect of the
same kind used to create them in the first place.
Of course I know the difference between cultural whim and intellect
.... why have I got your goat that ... you keep readng such crass
suggestions into my posts recently ;-) ?
I thought you were the well adjusted kind.
Ian
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Woods Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian:
> Of course I don't. That was my point .... when the constitution was
> drawn up it was a reasonable precaution ... a right worth defending.
> Like everything (as in everything) rights evolve and need
> re-interpretation ...
>
>
> woods:
> When rights evolve you don't re-interpretate the U.S. constitution, if
> you didn't know. The constitution provides a process in which the U.S.
> constitution can be changed/amended. We are not to re-interpret and
> twist the Constitution in accord to our current cultural whims. A process
> of critical thinking and debate is to occur in all 50 states and then the
> constitution can be changed.
> Do you see the difference?
>
>
> Ian:
> If we had a tyrannical government to deal with ... we'd need to think
> about how to deal with it ... the right to deal with it (using
> necessary force) is the constitutional point. Worth using our brains
> too.
>
>
>
> woods:
> a point I don't think anybody in this forum would deny.
>
>
> thanks.
>
> woods
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
