[eDebate] ans stroube
Sat Oct 25 18:55:03 CDT 2008
we weren't discussing f.i.s.a., but i'll concede that obama's position is worth
criticizing, and that no candidate should be given a free pass.
understand though that after 8 years of gross misrule, mere competence
(read: grammatically-correct sentences ordered in a semi-rational fashion)
strikes many people as refreshing. if you're dying of thirst, you're probably
not going to waste time testing arsenic levels should someone hand you a
glass of water.
back to the matter at hand, your defense of strict constitutionalism is a bit
shoddy. obviously you didn't even try to link this requirement in article 2 to
obama's support of f.i.s.a. (are people born in kenya territorially disposed
to turn a blind eye to invasions of privacy?), but more to the point, there's
the question of 'the letter of the law' versus 'the spirit of the law'...
as a foucauldian, i take little solace in knowing that a people are following
the letter of the law. this isn't only because they may be following a lot of
bad laws, but because what's much more significant is the kind of culture
they're fostering. the pharisees rebuked by jesus followed the law, but still
snuck money-lenders into the temple.
if obama had a successful 2-term presidency and we found out afterward
that he was only 34 when elected, you're right to point out that the letter
of the constitution would've been violated. we'd be within our rights to ask
though, 'what's the impact?'. the requirement to be 35-years-old tests the
maturity and experience of the candidate just as the requirement to be a
natural-born citizen tests whether they're american and have their nation's
best interests at heart.
you argue that if any provision of the constitution is declared a technicality
then that could potentially apply to any other provision (and cite the first
amendment as an example). this 'slippery slope'-argument is unconvincing:
this almost certainly can't be the one constitutional violation that breaks
the country's back and inaugurates an era of lawlessness and repression.
we're simply not going to start censoring free speech because the prez is
"the forgery of the hawiian birth certificate is criminal." - and it could've
very well been his legal guardians who forged it. if your parents told you
you were born here, you'd most likely believe them, no? (plus, it doesn't
warrant calling obama 'cagliostro', who was an excellent forger.)
take this as a compliment, but i don't believe that you believe what you're
writing right now, jack. it's too stupid. this allegedly disinterested concern
for following the letter of the constitution (as if whether a baby was born
on kenyan soil before being immediately flown to hawaii matters one iota
to what kind of president that baby will end up becoming) seems to me a
ploy for another purpose. only i can't work out the purpose exactly, unless
it's just a basic need to shit in other peoples' cheerios.
i do agree, however, that obama is lowering our guard on several crucial
matters; so, why not focus your criticism there?
because your 'internal link scenario' is absolute suck. if i doctor a transcript
to get a job, it doesn't mean i'm not going to do my job; if obama forged a
birth record to get to be president, it doesn't mean he's not going to protect
Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman