It's actually the Democrats who want us to put our trust in men, not laws. For example, let's Get Bush Out (Dont trust that man, trust ours instead). And let's not forget the liberal desire to legislate through the courts (let's put our trust in these great liberal minds and ignore that old antiquated constitution thing.)
It's all fine and well to claim that someone's idea's are un-American but if results matter, it looks to me like the liberals are the one's who are un-American, what with voting to deny our troops what they need (Kerry), etc etc.
How about activist judges, who are overturning the will of the people and legislating by judicial fiat?
I have to listen to Tommy Franks now. Will retun later to see how the uh...debate has come along.
Never expect to hold a rational debate with an individual who opens the discussion with baseless attacks and lies.
chose to say conservatism was "verging on becoming an un-American creed" for the widespread way conservatives are ignoring the lessons of James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men.
It's actually the Democrats who want us to put our trust in men, not laws. For example, let's Get Bush Out (Dont trust that man, trust ours instead). And let's not forget the liberal desire to legislate through the courts (let's put our trust in these great liberal minds and ignore that old antiquated constitution thing.)
It's all fine and well to claim that someone's idea's are un-American but if results matter, it looks to me like the liberals are the one's who are un-American, what with voting to deny our troops what they need (Kerry), etc etc.
56 posted on 08/03/2004 12:28:08 PM PDT by BSunday (America is great, but not perfect)
------
Mr. Sunday's is the first ignorant post. The process whereby people argue to trust our man and not yours is called an "election." Part of the constitution, you know. The best example of the violation of Fed 51 coming out of the White House is the memos concerning Guantanamo that argue that the president has the power to abrogate treaties (he doesn't; or at least according to the, um, constitution).
RP