US use of "soldiers of fortune"

[Koga No Goshi]

Then you have a poor understanding of the document, because it allows for change based upon the times, hince the amendment process. Since its a changeable document a constitutionist doesn't desire that the document doesn't change, only that the change is done in accordance with the document. Anyone that claims otherwise doesn't understand the document themselves.

Your will be hard pressed to find it in the document itself, as a Federal policy to allow slaverly, it allowed for the states themselves to decide. It futher was ammended to not allow for slaverly so I find this postion about unethical stances rather interesting since your applying your ethics of today to the ethics of people in the 1780's. To completely different time periods and standards



Not an irritant at all, but it seems to be one for you. If you havent learned by now, statements such as this are rather

Several of the writers knew at the time that slavery was immoral but penned the Constitution anyway to appease the status quo of southern states. If all 50 states ratify a law saying Muslims can be shot on sight or gay people can be rounded up and put in camps I'd oppose it. And I'd oppose such a law even if there was not enough support to overturn it legally.

Hitler made everything he did "legal", after all. The law is not the be all end all of right and wrong.

[Redleg]

Several of the writers knew at the time that slavery was immoral but penned the Constitution anyway to appease the status quo of southern states. If all 50 states ratify a law saying Muslims can be shot on sight or gay people can be rounded up and put in camps I'd oppose it. And I'd oppose such a law even if there was not enough support to overturn it legally.

Appling your ethics on the issue is fine, however your own arguement is self-defeating here. The constitution itself is a working document which allows for the time to change the document. Yes there were slave holders that encouraged the document to initially leave out the part that slaverly was wrong. We fought a major war over that issue and corrected the document to reflect the fact that it was wrong. Attempting to claim an ethical stance about killing muslims or shoting gay people, both which violate not only the main body of the document but also several amendments is again a false arguement. Do you have such little understanding of the document itself that you believe that its a bad document for setting up the standards of the government?

Hitler made everything he did "legal", after all. The law is not the be all end all of right and wrong.

The law is how societies allow themselves to be governed. So again where did I say the law is the be all end all of anything.

Your again reaching for a position that I did not take

the forms of democratic governments are about comprising to come up with the best possible solution that everyone can accept.

[Koga No Goshi]

the forms of democratic governments are about comprising to come up with the best possible solution that everyone can accept.

Agreed. But it's not a perfect system and should never be trusted to be perfect, to work perfectly, or to be the source of our sense of right and wrong.

[Redleg]

Agreed. But it's not a perfect system and should never be trusted to be perfect, to work perfectly, or to be the source of our sense of right and wrong.

Hince the document has the ability to be adjusted by the amendment process.

Right and wrong is an ethical issue and a moral issue based upon the laws that the government passes. The constitution provides the framework for which the government is to function. Since I dont claim that the document is perfect only that its the foundation of our basic ability to govern our nation and which our laws are formulated from.

In fact the constitution protects your right to protest on the actions of the government that you fill is a violation of doing something right.

Which allows the constitutional process work