No, what you don't seem to understand is people have a different view on the constitution then you do and others that are on the far right.
Ok, sure, but that's why our founding documents are written down, not just some general declaration that we're free. Remember how federalists & anti federalists argued over this prior to the ratification of the constitution. There was, at first, no Bill of Rights. But prior to ratifying, several states wouldn't ratify without some documentation of rights. It was argued that freedom was provided for in the whole of the constitution, so it was unnecessary, and that further, if such a list is created, it would tend to suggest to some that the list comprises the totality of our rights and we'd end up losing rights instead of gaining them.
But the faction controlling the states that wouldn't ratify wouldn't budge, and the Bill of Rights was penned, rights not given to us, but rights inherent in ourselves, and actually already recognized by the limitations placed on government in the rest of the constitution (it specified the powers of the 3 branches, so everything else was outside of them). The 9th & 10th amendments were included to put to rest the concern that a listing of rights would suggest that those were the totality of them.
So, all that is to say, the documentation of our rights is for the purpose of doing away with ambiguity over them. So there's little room for differing views on the constitution and rights. That's why we document things. When the city passes a law prohibiting parking on 3rd Street, they don't just say, "We have to do something about the congestion problem downtown" and then just start ticketing and towing. They craft the ordinance, write the details, debate it, pass it, document it, publish it, sign it, stamp it, file it, etc. all to eliminate different views of it.
Same with the constitution and our rights. We can look to history to see how it was crafted, debated, shaped, and then memorialized forever to prevent alternate views that would diminish our rights. This is Western thinking on the matter.
This was a point of contention between the early Europeans arriving in North America and the Indians. The Indians who were nomadic would come back to their summer location and find the white man there and consider them trespassing on their land. The white man said, in effect, "Your land? Where's it written that it's your land? Where's your court house? We'd like to see the deed." The Indians position was this is how it's always been, how we live up here in the summer and go there in the winter, then we come back. Always been that way, so that makes it true. Our land. But Western Civilization demands documentation to eliminate ambiguity. "What are the borders of this land you claim? From where to where? When and from whom did you obtain it?"
The republicans are the ones who are the ones who stepped on the constitution during the Bush years after 9/11 and the right seems to forget that.
True, but don't make the mistake of confusing "the Right" with "members of the Republican Party." There's a deep and wide division in the Republican Party, and Bush was a member of the party, but he and his neo-conservatives weren't on "the Right." That's why we term them neocons, to differentiate them from traditional paleo-conservatives, who are on the Right.
In fact, the difference between the neocons and paleo-conservatives is representative of this very matter. Traditional conservatism believes in a few core principles that define it:
1) the rule of law;
2) limited government with only the powers enumerated in the constitution;
3) natural rights; and
4) fiscal responsibility.
The first 3 deal with eliminating the ambiguity in determining powers and rights. They're not shades of gray, and they're static, not shaped by the beliefs of those in power or popular opinion. So conservatism is about a standard of rights, not malleable rights dependent on individual or group views of what they or the constitution is.
So a differing view? Fine, but Western Civilization doesn't allow for that as far as government, and individual rights won't survive individual views being allowed to shape them. One standard, openly arrived at, documented forever for all to see.
I did not vote for Obama, but I'm racking my brain to find something that Obama did that has stepped on the Constitution.
I wish I had read the whole post more closely before typing all that. I hadn't realized until now that you're trying to be funny.
