bear:
on what possible basis could you claim that any of the features you characterize as unconstitutional are in fact unconstitutional? your private readings of the constitution?
do you really think that anything not explicitly accounted for in a late 18th century document is necessarily unconstitutional? on what basis?
why should i or anyone else take seriously the implict claim that your reading of the constitution is more compelling, more functional, or even more logical than that elaborated across the past 200 odd years through the mechanism of precedent?
i am familiar with strict construction type arguments, and find them to be a joke even when they are spelled out--but maybe you are working from a different place, so would you mind explaining the basis for your positions above?
as for the abortion argument above: the availability of safe and highly maintained clinics for the performance of abortions does not in any way simplify the questions that individuals face when they decide whether or not to have one. i think it almost unbelievably offensive that the right assumes the contrary.
the matter is quite simple:
dont approve of abortion?
dont have one.
yours is not the only position on earth----you do not get to stipulate why anyone else might or might not choose to have an abortion.
it is simply not up to the zanies on the right to decide for the rest of us on this question. period.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|