Quote:
Originally posted by slang
So what you are saying is that the slow acceptance would be counteracted by an amendment that would not have widespread support without Newscom making the spectacle of defying the system in Ca? Why would he issue the licenses then? To defeat his own cause?
|
His particular cause is that of being a popular politician echoing the sentiments of his constituencies. He is ensuring his own popularity. Just like Moore did in Alabama with the ten commandments. Neither one of them will lose any election in the near future. Both are aware of the legal underpinnings but will use the situation to advance their own cause. Both actions are spun by their supporters as important civil disobedience.
It would take a really sophisticated movement to understand the nuances of which way to play this one. The parties can define their actions a little bit, but movements can't.
Quote:
|
It would also only be a real abuse of the Constitution if the amedment was illegally passed ( like maybe......the 16th ). But then again, I can see your point with this particular example because even though it's been shown to be faulty, so much of our gov't was built upon it, it doesnt really matter whether it is legal or not. It's here to stay.
|
I think it's an abuse of the Constitution because amendments should not be used to remove rights, only to affirm them. Aside from the 16th, I think the only other amendment that attempted to remove rights was prohibition.
The deepest possible danger is that the US no longer be seen internationally as the protector of rights, no longer seen as a positive place for free minded individuals to choose to live, and therefore lose its ability to attract the best and brightest of other cultures.