CONSTITUTIONAL Do-over

Ft. Worth Texas Star-Telegram ^ | Sun, Jun. 01, 2003 | Ken Wheatcroft-Pardue

[Maelstrom]

Actually, there's something *positive* to be said about low voter turnout.

1) The percentage of informed voters to uninformed voters is far higher.

2) My vote is given much greater weight.

3) People who don't care should *not* vote under any circumstances.

4) People who vote from an emotional base and not a logical one should *not* vote under any circumstances.

No, no...a low voter turnout is a good thing as long as informed voters like us do turn out.

[Centurion2000]

Who is this idiot that wrote this piece of crap ?

[RightOnline]

So, who is this drooling twit.........and why should we give a flying damn what he 'thinks'???

[inquest]

And the next one won't have a Bill of Rights.

Oh, it'll have a Bill of Rights, alright, but it'll be like the UN and EU versions: replete with the right to a job, a right to healthcare - oh, and also a little disclaimer stating that rights may be not be used contrary to the purposes and principles of the governmental entity in question, and another one saying that rights may be suspended when these purposes and principles need to be fulfilled.

[inquest]

I expect junk like this from New York or California, but this is Fort Worth, TEXAS!

The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram is owned by Knight-Ridder, the same outfit that owns the Detroit Free Press.

[webstersII]

"You need to be reminded that there is far more to analysis than simply accepting statistics at face value."

"Those above nations have low infant mortality
rates most likely because sickly fetuses simply do not survive gestation or the birthing process."

Agreed. You make some very interesting points in your response, and granted, it does take away much of the credibility of infant mortality statistics. But you have not replaced the data whose credibility you reduced with any facts and data of your own. Your ideas are good, and you may be correct in your assumptions but we don't know that yet, because you haven't presented any facts.

So, Teacher, I will remind you that reasoned arguments are no substitute for facts. Your arguments are good, and if you choose to believe them in the absence of data, that's fine, but you can't expect others to accept them blindly without data.

Here's some relevant data on longevity that you might find interesting w.r.t. U.S. healthcare. This is more significant IMHO than the infant mortality rates, because even though we are only 4.1 years behind Japan, that represents a significant number of deaths. Also, if you take out Japan's suicide rate (one of the highest in the world) then the gap between us and Japan is even larger.

"The United States ranks 17th in average life expectancy on a list of 33 developed nations, while Japan holds the lead, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported yesterday.
The average U.S. life expectancy of 75 years trails Japan's life expectancy by 4.1 years, but beats the lowest of the group, Hungary, by more than five years. The average Hungarian lives 69.7 years, the CDC said.

"The United States also ranked near the middle of the 32 nations in death rates from all causes; 828.4 deaths are reported in the United States for each 100,000 people each year. Japan was best at 628.8, and Romania was worst at 1,242.

"The leading cause of death in the United States, heart disease, hits harder here than in other countries. The U.S. mortality rate from heart disease was 382 per 100,000 per year for men and 214 for women, compared with 339 and 206 in the other 32 developed countries.

"Throughout the 33 countries, heart disease accounted for 30 percent of all deaths, with cancer causing 21 percent and stroke causing 14 percent."

[morkfork]

Websters11,

Post all the healthcare data you want. Free will has a lot to do with longevity. And in this country, free will shortens lifespans. Also, does it really matter how long you live if it isn't free. This argument is way off topic to the point you two I think are debating. Our healthcare system is not and should not be a reason to change the constitution, unless your name is Hillary.

[SWake]

From another FR thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922562/posts

"Rebel said only the Danish government's Ministry for Ecclesiastical Affairs has the authority to defrock Grosboel, because Lutheran pastors in the Scandinavian country are employed by the state. "

So, the one of the countries that this yahoo uses as an example for a "modern democracy" has a state-run church? I wonder how he would react if I suggested the same for America?

[SWake]

The Ft. Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram printed my letter on this! Mine is the third in line

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/opinion/local2/6010373.htm

Posted on Wed, Jun. 04, 2003

Constitutional questions
Star-Telegram

After reading "Constitutional Do-over" in Sunday's Weekly Review and noting at the end of the commentary that the author is a Fort Worth teacher, I fear for the students he teaches.

Even without the anti-Republican, anti-administration vitriol that dripped from each paragraph, his labeling of our form of government as a "democracy" illustrated his ignorance. Our government is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and anyone who teaches our youth should know the difference.

He claimed that we have "no reason to govern ourselves with an 18th-century document" and cited other countries that have "new constitutions" more to his liking.

I submit that none of the countries he named have the level of freedom we have here. Case in point: the excerpt from the constitution of Denmark, which read in part, "The police shall be entitled to be present at public meetings. Open-air meetings may be prohibited."

That "18th-century document" he would so quickly discard protects us from such oppressive behavior by the government and has allowed our country to grow into a superpower in a very short time, considering our tender age of just over 200.

Our form of government isn't perfect, but judging from the desire of millions all over the world to come here, it's better than anything else.

If Wheatcroft-Pardue doesn't agree, I invite him to travel to any other country he might admire -- and stay there!

Randal Bowen, Watauga

•

Many excellent editorials and commentaries have been written to awaken the people of this country to the alarming loss of civil liberties and of democracy itself. One of the most perceptive analyses of this tragedy was by Wheatcroft-Pardue.

Wheatcroft-Pardue deserves many thanks for bringing attention to an oft-overlooked need and also the Star-Telegram for printing it so prominently.

Now let's discuss how and who will begin the process of rewriting what could be as revolutionary in its effect as the original.

Dick Trice, Fort Worth

•

If Wheatcroft-Pardue is concerned that the Constitution "is not even particularly democratic," perhaps he should take a high school senior-level U.S. government course. In it, he would learn that the United States is a republic, not a democracy.

The Founding Fathers realized that there were many good reasons to establish a republic, the first and foremost being that a democracy does not protect the rights of the minority from the whims of the majority. Stated another way, democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper.

Strangely enough, much of Wheatcroft-Pardue's column concerned issues that aren't addressed by the Constitution. Where does the Constitution say that important issues must be debated for a certain length of time? Where does it state that the State of the Union Address should be met with catcalls?

Where does it address rates of crime, incarceration, poverty or infant mortality? What about voter apathy? The number of political parties?

None of this has anything to do with the Constitution.

Even when he got around to issues that are addressed by the Constitution, he showed an appalling lack of understanding. The Electoral College and the selection of two senators for each state also were intended to avert the tyranny of the majority.

A society that selects its representatives in a purely democratic way would be ruled by the populace of a relatively few metropolitan centers. That may work out well for folks who live in Fort Worth, but Fort Worth isn't representative of all Americans.

Wheatcroft-Pardue did get one thing right. The Constitution is not a sacred document that can't be changed.

If he wants to make the United States a democracy, he's more than welcome to try. That outdated document that he seems to despise so much provides an avenue for change. He should take it up with his legislators.

Stephen L. Wakefield, Bedford