The DRP debate club, Round WHAT??

[packsaddle]

Pack212Scouter, for six years the so-called 'conservative' political view held every branch of the US Government. Yet these things that so many seem to revile remained almost unaltered. The 'interpretations' that you and others disagree with have not been overturned. They really weren't even seriously challenged. Why? If these things are so wrong, why haven't those who feel that way stepped up to work for change?

This simply is the way America is today. Anyone who doesn't agree with this status is free to work for change. This is the way it works in America and one of the reasons we're the greatest nation on earth. When so-called 'conservatives' had six years of perfect opportunity to make these changes, why didn't they?

 

During the days of Vietnam protest, I often heard and read the words, "America, Love it or leave it." I wonder how many of the persons who applied those words then, would be willing to apply them now?

[vol_scouter]

Packsaddle,

 

Some policies were changed and others were not. No matter how much the next president (whoever that will be) tries to change things, most will likely remain the same. I agree - that makes the system great.

 

I would like to see the Congress step up to the plate and address some of the social issues that plague the body politic. For example, the abortion debate should be in the Congress rather than the courts. That way the laws can better reflect the sentiment of the public (which numerous poles indicate do not coincide with either of the extremes). The Congress is composed of a lot of cowards who allow the courts to deal with an controversial issue that can be pushed the way of the courts. The problem with the courts is that changes are difficult and often slow to see any change. Also, the courts are less likely to reflect the sentiment of the public. I doubt that the Congress will ever fulfill its' role when it can allow the courts to take the political hits.

 

That said, it is still the best system ever devised. It allows change but has enough inertia that rapid sweeping changes are difficult to accomplish but some change is rather easy. BTW from my point of view, often when the Congress has sweeping rapid change it means true emergencies (war for example) so it is probably better to have incremental change.

[Beavah]

And this is so easily avoided. Governments merely need to stop breaking the law.

 

Nah, come on pack. Dat's way too simplistic for you.

 

When schools and governments and other folks get sued in these kinds of things, as oft as not it's a tactic. A way of askin' "how serious are you?" Sometimes a way of expressin' a personal disagreement. Sometimes a way of tryin' to avoid da harder work of convincin' voters and elected representatives to their way of thinkin'.

 

Remember, the public entity doesn't usually think it's breakin' any law, but it does think it's properly representing the community. Public entities deliberately passin' a law so as to challenge a standing precedent are pretty rare. And when that happens, IMO it's a good indicator that the court has overstepped its bounds and short-circuited rather than supported democracy.

 

B

 

[Pack212Scouter]

Wow Packsaddle, I'm sorry that you seem so bitter and angry on the subject. And frankly I have no idea how you went on to attack conservatives. Since it is such a bitter point though, I shall leave it alone. Have good weekend and enjoy your family. That is what truely counts.(This message has been edited by pack212scouter)

[Gonzo1]

Beavah,

I think the courts over step their bounds frequently. California supreme court just over turned a voter approved measure ruling that lethal injection is "cruel and unusual punishment" of a convicted child rapist/murderer.