From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:55:17 -0000
A great quote from ABC's The Note blog on the Constitutional Amendment:
"Whatever one thinks about the merits of such an amendment, we are amazed (OK: not really) at the degree to which the [mainstream press] casts the President's decision in purely political terms -- rather than a response to the tens of millions of real Americans who are fundamentally freaked out by what is going on in (Nancy Pelosi's) San Francisco and (John Kerry's) Massachusetts."
I definitely could say the same thing about brin-l.
Are you _really_ taking the stance that amending the Constitution is no big deal? Are you saying that having a sitting President endorse a constitutional amendment based on a moral, not politically-necessary judgement (equivalent to Prohibition, perhaps, as opposed to offering women and African-Americans the right to vote) is _nothing_ to be concerned with?
IIRC, _Carter_ was the last sitting President to endorse a constitutional amendment over two decades ago. Clinton swore up and down he'd veto any amendments that came his way. (I don't exactly recall if the Flag Burning amendment ever made it to his desk.)
The Constitution was not meant to be a static document, but a living, adapting one. But the founders made it very difficult to change for a reason. A President who endorses an amendment is most certainly not something to be taken lightly. If the press wasn't covering it, and the controversy being generated by it, I'd be completely and utterly shocked.
Jon
Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com
_________________________________________________________________
Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday. http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
