Quote:
Originally posted by Nic Name
Taking the position that if there were anything wrong with America, we the people would change it, is an obviously naive viewpoint...
|
...because? "Obviously naive" is thus far an unsupported assertion. Do you have a supporting argument?
Remeber, the original proposition wasn't "there's nothing wrong with the US", but "the US criminal code should be the same in every state". I happen to think there's many things wrong with the US...having unconstitutional gun laws in too many states is an example. A nationalized criminal code might solve that problem. It might not. But I'm not willing to support "let's have the same criminal law everywhere in the US" as the solution.
It seems to me the people of the US have the means to change the Constitution, have done so in the past, and can do so in the future. I just don't see any big push to make criminal law the same in every state. To me this says that most citizens don't think that would be beneficial.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nic Name
and it surprises me that Maggie takes such a discussion-ending position and then whines that she doesn't get a response out of me.
|
What I'm "whining" about is your repeated failure to respond to the hypothetical that reframes "What's wrong with the US constitution" into "What kind of government would *you* want to live under in a nation of this size or larger?". This way, instead of you telling other people how they should run their governemnent, we're talking about a situation *you* would have a personal stake in. (This changes things...if you're a voter, you know that.)
That's "discussion-ending" only if you didn't like the discussion going in that new direction. You could either say "Yes, I'd gladly let my local soverignty be subsumed in a much larger electorate, in the interest of a uniform code of justice." or say "I see what you mean, maybe smaller legal domains are better sometimes", or come up with some substantive alternate response.
But if all you have to say is "The US Constituion is obsolete and needs fixing because doesn't work the way we do, which is obviously correct to anyone who believes in justice", then the discussion *is* over....and the only actual "whining" is your repeating "You won't debate with me because I'm not a US citizen".
The whole issue of your citizenship only arose when you questioned my standing to speak for US citizens who like our Constitution. I'm *here* in the US, and I think there's quite a lot of us. Anecdotal evidence, perhaps, but do you offering anything that contradicts that view beyond assertions?
You can simply *call* that position "obviously naive", but if there's some mass of discontented and disenfranchised citizens itching to change the current balance of power between the states and the Feds (in the 'more centralized' direction, anyway), I've missed them somehow. Can you point them out to us? I'd think they'd be at least as visible as, say, the Parti Quebecois, but then as you say, I'm obviously naive.
How about it, Syc? Does he maybe mean the Democrats? :-)