1 - 10 Next
I might possibly agree that certain aspects of the Constitution are obsolete and worthy of revision. (For example, the impeachment process has never worked very well, because "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not well enough defined, and because the Congress which the Founders hoped could function like an impartial court is instead a partisan institution in which each party is prone to treat its own officeholders differently than those of the other party. We could use a better mechanism for trying and penalizing real wrongdoing by officeholders.) But in general I'd rather keep the Constitution as is than subject it to any general revision process such as a new Constitutional convention. And I sure don't want officeholders deciding that they are entitled to ignore or defy the Constitution because, in THEIR personal opinion, it is "obsolete".
Regarding the supposed obsolescence of the Third Amendment: Can I take it that you would raise no objection if a squad of U.S. Army soldiers showed up and informed you that, since their barracks and mess hall was overcrowded, they were going to sleep in your spare room and on your couch and eat from your kitchen, whether you liked it or not? If the Third Amendment is obsolete, it's because nobody is trying to violate it any more-- but the principle would still be valid if the government DID try to quarter troops in private homes. The Second Amendment, on the other hand, is considered "obsolete" by some, not because nobody wants to violate it, but because so many people DO want to violate it.
Regrettably, one part of the above article is kind of obsolete. That would be the line, "According to her logic, the first Amendment is outdated because our founding fathers never foresaw the power of the internet, broadcast or cable television, radio communication, or mass-distribution of printed materials." It used to be true that you could draw an ironic comparison between liberals' disdain for the Second Amendment, and their fidelity, despite social and technological change, for the First Amendment. Nowadays, however, an increasing number of liberals and left-wingers seem to feel that the First Amendment is ALSO obsolete; that freedom of expression for people and ideas they don't like should be swept aside.
In fairness, while I certainly don't agree with Prof. Penrose or wish her any success, I do have more respect for people who openly advocate repealing the Second Amendment than for those who say "yes, I support the Second Amendment too" while trying to "interpret:" it into meaninglessness or simply quietly ignore it.
As an individual voter you can make that choice if you insist, not to support a non-believer for public office, though I view it as a bigoted choice. However, I hope you are aware that the Constitution forbids making belief in God an absolute requirement to hold office "no religious test").
So Christian teens shoul inform gay teens in school of the Christian view ( the view of many.Christians, anyway) that homosexuality is sinful and destructive. OK, I won't necessarily disagree that they have a right to do that. But does it go both ways? Will Christians pitch a fit if a gay teen tells their Christian child that homosexuality is a good thing and they ought to try it sometime? Or, for that matter, if a Muslim or atheist kid "witnesses" to their own beliefs by arguing the superiority of Islam or atheism over Christianity on school grounds?
I hope you're joking, Rondoman, but if you're serious, my answer is NO. Obama has been a pretty bad President, butt a military coup would be a "cure" vastly worse than the disease.
I'm playing "devil's advocate" here since I am a "climate change" skeptic myself, in not quite a complete "denier". But I'm not sure it's completely irrational to fear climate change more than ISIS. IF the "warmists" should turn out to be right after all about the worldwide catastrophic effects of "climate change", I think that would be more damaging to humanity than anything a group of humans like ISIS, however evil, could do. And speaking of ISIS and worldwide effects, while ISIS may be able to cause a lot of trouble in the Middle East, I suspect the idea of its becoming an actual "global calibrate" capable of conquering the U.S. and other advanced non-Muslim countries is as exaggerated and "alarmist" as the wilder climate change predictions.
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

WRH Bill Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 3:10 PM
Contrary to some comments here, Steve Chapman's viewpoint is more libertarian than straight "liberal" or "lefist". Many historians of the conservative movement note the existence of a kind of "three-legged stool" of conservative schools of thought-- traditionalist, libertarian, and national-security-oriented. Chapman's libertarian views someties put him at odds with the traditionalist conservative view and also with the national-security view. But his views still fall within a broad definition of "conservative" or "right wing" and are appropriate on Townhall. (As a libertarian, I am sometimes offended by the views of extreme traditionalists or bellicose national-security "neocons", but I don't call for them to be banished from TH.)
In response to:

Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition

WRH Bill Wrote: Aug 31, 2014 3:01 PM
As a same-sex marriage supporter (see a previous post of mine) I think the movement for SSM might do better not to couch its arguments in terms of an absolute "right" for anyone to marry anyone else they please. As i indicated, I think the rational arguments against allowing people of the same sex to marry each other are weak. The arguments against allowing blood relatives to marry each other, or against government recognizing polygamous marriages, are (at least in my opinion) stronger. But when same-sex marriage advocates claim a "right to marriage," they invite slippery slope arguments about incest or polygamy.
1 - 10 Next