And a better alternative would be? Perhaps the Articles of Confederation? What they weren't able to foresee was the 3 branches of government, mainly populated by non-patriots, colluding against the populace and being permitted to make it up as they went along. And, they presumed that there would be an active, skeptical pool of journalists acting as our eyes and ears and shining the the non-partisan spotlight brightly on their every action. If I am not mistaken, these eyes and ears are the only profession actually given specific protection by the Constitution.
Also, why do we look to the failed systems of the past to point to the way it should be? And I don't see any suggestion of a better way proposed. 50 independent states without an elected central system is called Europe. Ours has been the most successful system yet, and all it needs is a few patriots with balls to set it right again! It is not irreparable; it is in need of some serious house-cleaning and return to the Founders' guiding intentions.
posted on 05/22/2010 4:17:57 AM PDT
by Thom Pain
(Defending the Constitution is CENTRIST; not RIGHT WING! Don't be labeled!)
To: Thom Pain
If I am not mistaken, these eyes and ears are the only profession actually given specific protection by the Constitution.
I see freedom of the press as protecting a right to publish and not some profession or industry.
posted on 05/22/2010 5:13:44 AM PDT
To: Thom Pain
I agree with your post, except for one part. I don’t think we would be 50 independent countries. I think we would be 13 colonies reconquered by Britain.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson