Dude, I apologize, but I'm not intellectually prepared to even READ the entire list of Forbidden Speech In Your Comment Threads, much less try to apply it to any comments I might want to make. So I guess, other than this one time, I'll forego commenting. Because, apparently, I'm Just Too Goddam Stupid To Be Worthy Of Your Greatness.
Pity. I was enjoying de blog.
Rock on.
So here is your first question:
Is the historical milieu of the framers relevant to a country that was far more complex than anything they could have conceived?
As I see it, phallusies hopefully avoided,(you did throw alot of cock out there)I see an answer form,
.....YES! but of course and quite literally. (maybe...)
Should we invoke laws, we must break them; BECAUSE, the very same predicament of perceived necessity that might establish such governing rules,
is in turn, the same fable of mind and persistent origin, or if you will circumstance, which allots choice to a potentially governed entity, and makes haste to boast of itself by nature of being circumstance; as it has become the unanswered original influence of mortal demise.
It is to pursue(the allotted choice)
life,
liberty
and happiness.
Beyond our miserable hopes of conformity lies the truth of how these pursuits are defined- within a united state of mind. (imagine)
The side question is this:
COULD THEY HAVE CONCEIVED OF THIS COUNTRY THAT "WAS" COMPLEX?
I see EITHER a grammatical error in the paste tense use of 'was', in reference to the milieu which preceeded the occurence; OR, myself, I see an allusion to my own arguement
regarding the timeless nature of error via pursuance.
And in hopes of having enlightened you, as you statured in your invitation to possibly procure,
I believe my point is best exampled by the question you have asked, in that it has, as I see it, broken your own rule.
Your question is I believe both a COMPLEX CAUSE and JOINT EFFECT CAUSAL FALLACY.
The now complex country and irrelevance in regard to the historical milieu are in fact
complex clause deficient and joint effects of the underlying cause
of error via pursuance.
The word I will choose for this encompassing cause is, EVOLUTION.
Does the Constitutional framework, now in days of perilous complex discord, reveal a need to scrutinize
same framework? If so, it is a sturdy frame worthy by it's own reproach.
And therefore, dear sir,
what conception was amiss where amendments are afforded? Where universality and commonality are bound with a stance on equality?
Does complexity or some magnitude of claimed perception made by the contemporary today dim the light of men's hope into the past? Where was the nature of a hard choice held away from these men that we now are to jump up and stand on something as IRRELEVANT as the times of today? Would I put a pedestal minded society of today in a position of having greater insight on themselves?
Wouldn't be prudent!
Count on an oldfriend
Commenting by HaloScan
