Originally
posted by
NOW3P:
What Klown said + the original intent/design of the founding documents of the US were very intentionally designed to be liquid as far as legal implication. Hence the vague and broadly defining language.
Of course the founding father's couldn't anticipate the directions society would go 200 years after their initial works. If you look at the historical documentation though, I think you'll see that one of their primary concerns was building a set of guidelines that could be adjusted to the needs of society as it changed and evolved - which makes both the thought process and the documents themselves incredibly important.
In the US, courts spend thousands of man hours per year determining what the INTENT of the law is to determine how it should be enforced. NO system is perfect, or even close for that matter, but the good ones recognize that they will change over time and must allow themselves to do so based on some core principles/common beliefs.
I am perfectly aware that discussion about what your courts do is stuck in an endless "constructionism" vs "judicial activism" rethorical fight.
If you can't see the major differences in political parties, you're either incredibly uneducated on the issues and the various approaches to solving them (don't think this is your case), just not looking hard enough, or getting some incredibly crappy/slanted news (my odds on pick).
eh, nah. I try to avoid all the rhetorical
fluff and focus on what the government actually is doing. For example:
sucking up to big banks.
indefinite detention.
black sites with likely torture.
presidential ordered assassinations on citizens.
Guantanamo.
declaring everything state secrets.
implementing a health insurance program that republicans from 10-20 years ago would embrace/propose.
tax breaks as an economical tool.
Stuff like that are all shades of gray when we compare the two mentioned governments and I actually am missing Bush because at least he was authentic. =D
