Re: pessimist

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Brendan McKennedy: "Re: pessimist"
• Previous message: Brendan McKennedy: "Re: self referencing post *to* the list *about* the list..."
• Maybe in reply to: Scottie Bowman: "pessimist"
• Next in thread: Brendan McKennedy: "Re: pessimist"

>So, saying the Amendment was designed to "deny homosexuals civil 
rights" is a
>bit too vague for me to argue.  I think the best way to argue this 
point--if
>we were to continue--would be to post the Amendment as it is worded and 
allow
>the sides fighting for it and against it to describe their perceptions 
of the
>intent of this Amendment. 


I think the real question when considering an amendment is not what the 
immediately interested parties intended when they penned the amendment, 
but rather the ramifications of another interest group using the 
legislation to achieve an end not intended by the authors.

At the turn of the century, the big bosses used the Constitution to beat 
down the labor.  They decided that "individual rights" referred to the 
rights of the businesses, and that the grievances of labor undermined 
those rights. 

Just a thought.
Brendan

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

• Next message: Brendan McKennedy: "Re: pessimist"
• Previous message: Brendan McKennedy: "Re: self referencing post *to* the list *about* the list..."
• Maybe in reply to: Scottie Bowman: "pessimist"
• Next in thread: Brendan McKennedy: "Re: pessimist"