Replies

I could have guessed that a post that referenced both Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush in the same article would bring the Lincoln/Bush bashers out in force. Most of them are too busy still fighting the Civil War to provide any positive help in the political battles of 2002.

Most of them are too busy still fighting the Civil War to provide any positive help in the political battles of 2002.

That is so true!

"I could have guessed that a post that referenced both Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush in the same article would bring the Lincoln/Bush bashers out in force. Most of them are too busy still fighting the Civil War to provide any positive help in the political battles of 2002."

And the point being made was that the Republican party of today is not the republican party of 1850-1864. For the life of me I fail to see where I bashed President Bush, and I hadly think that posting the truth about an issue is considered to be "bashing". What I posted was that the economic position of the "Lincolnian" republicans was not the economics of the modern party, nor were the actions of Lincoln were found unconstitutional, not just once but twice (see ex parte Milligan, and ex parte Merryman).

We have a Bill of Rights that enumerates the protections afforded to all Americans, yet unfortunately a President thought himself above the law and Constitution. If you happen to be of the mindset that jailing dissidents for years without trial, and that suppression of freedom of speech and the press is not objectionable but also legal, then by all means we should cave in to the dims, and not waste our efforts on this forum (and elsewhere) defending the Constitution.

"[T]hat those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation."
Chief Justice John Marshall, 1 Cranch 137, (1803).

No "living" Constitution for me.