Posted
by David Ryan
September 9, 2004 at 11:13 p.m.
A little quiz
You're on your honor not to look it up.1. How many times, and in what specific context, does the word "profit" appear in the U.S. Constitution, and/or its amendments? 2. How many times, and in what specific context, does the word "God" appear?3. How many times, and in what specific context, does the word "business" appear?4. How many times, and in what specific context, does the name "Jesus" appear?5. How many times, and in what specific context, does the word "people" appear? Call it the "original intent" quiz....
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
lazz (anonymous) says…
the premise is flawed, dave. you act as if the constitution is still relevant. get with it, bro. that is is so, like, 1790s ...
Todd (anonymous) says…
#3... the word commerce is used in the constitution. Did you mean to ask about companies/corporations or the actions they perform?
The Constitution is a living document and not a religous text handed down from a deity. American citizens can choose what it means over time. (and alter it)
Sometimes I feel the Constitution is weakened by the HUGE number of laws on the books. (fed/state/local) It still amazes me we have so many little rules. It's like the good things get mixed in with some many other unimportant things they get lost.
lazz (anonymous) says…
by the way, does "original intent" quiz mean you're invited on the next hunting trip with scalia and cheney? congrats, dude. we knew you'd come around ...
Shelby (anonymous) says…
I don't know what to say, this is pathetic:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl...
itsoffthehook (anonymous) says…
How many times does Liberal appear?
Seperation of Curch and State?
Homosexuality?
I may have missed the point but this is kind of fun
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Shelby -- that photo is indeed pathetic -- and disturbing. A perfect metaphor for the Bush republicans.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
well, David, I don't think it represents anybody other than dumbasses, but you think what you want. I could see Carville doing something worse to defend the honor of the dem party.
dex (anonymous) says…
i believe the right to pursue happiness includes the right to earn a profit, does it not? and that profit is achieved at the mutual consent of the buyer and seller, both of whom are exercising their rights to pursue happiness, as are the workers who are voluntarily selling their time and labor to their employer. what's the point of this quiz?
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Interesting that no one's a) given any numbers, and b) dealt with question 2 or 4.
itsoffthehook (anonymous) says…
Or mmy questions either. This sucks
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Shelby: regardless of what you "could see" James Carville doing, the simple truth of the matter is that he's never done anything like physically assault a fellow American citizen to intimidate them and force them not to practice their right to free speech in the presence of a public servant that American citizen is by definition and by Constitutional principle sovereign over.
Such intimidation of citizens is what Soviet KGB agents did, and what the Brown Shirts did.
As I say: Republican values on display.
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
And Dex: The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appears in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
David, you'll scrape up absolutely anything you can get to bolster your self-righteous claims, won't you? You know as well as I that it's grossly fallacious to attribute presumed "values" to a political party based on some singular incident involving the actions of some thoughtless wanker who somebody happened to catch on camera. Are you that jaded? Your statement implies that no questionable activities has ever a liberal committed, that the democratic party is some bastion of wisdom and temperance in the face of barbarity. Your self-serving notion of a black and white world is a joke, man. Your unwavering loyalty to any political party (in this case the democratic one) should be a big red flag. You seem like a smart guy, but this adherence to anything or anyone left-leaning is a major and barefaced intellectual fault.
Have you learned nothing from the discourse your blog has facilitated?
itsoffthehook (anonymous) says…
Hey "Republican" is found in the constitution.
dex (anonymous) says…
dr: maybe so, but if "original intent" is what you're after, i think the declaration of independence is a good place to start. i think you should encourage people to "look it up" rather than shoot from the hip on these forums. although gosh, we wouldn't want any sort of educated discussion on here now, would we?
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Shelby, I disagree that "no questionable activities has ever a liberal committed, that the democratic party is some bastion of wisdom and temperance in the face of barbarity." Simply because I slam republicans for hypocrisy and such, there's no evidence that I wouldn't do the same were Democrats to be displaying themselves so viley.
Last I looked, though, there was an incumbent Republican in the White House, a majority of Republicans in the U.S. Congress, and a majority of 'original intent' leaning justices, appointed by Republicans, on the Supreme Court.
Also, Republican candidates are the ones canvassing the country appealing to voters on the level of 'values.'
The man in the photo is a Republican. Does that suggest all Republicans are as evidently nasty and assholish as he? Of course not.
Show me some facts, Shelby, and I'll gladly appreciate them. Until then, I'll point out as much as possible what voters will be actually, as opposed to perceptually, getting, should they choose to vote Republican. If you've got some evidence that the Democrats are actually concerned with enacting policy at odds with the image they run on, as I believe much evidence suggests the Republicans are, by all means let's see it. I absolutely invite such counter examples and arguments.
Trouble is, I haven't seen any yet. My eyes are always open to facts, however dispiriting they are.
Dex: I absolutely agree -- as Abe Lincoln did -- that Jefferson's Declaration is the first real annunciation of what has come to be our American Republic.
I've working up another less polemical blog on the subject, which I hope you'll read.
Snoop (anonymous) says…
Being judgmental has survival value to our species. For you D its making damm sure you are not lumped with the racists, evil, white, hair pulling republicans.
Forget about the Journal World having front page articles about Liberal anarchists like they were some freaken heroes when they are just a bunch of degenerates.
Those people I guess are freedom fighters, huh D.
I know D you need to distinguish between your gracious, loving caring regard for our country and others like poor ole Shelby and Snoop who would dare destroy our country by voting for the evil Shrub. I guess it helps you preserve (or deny I guess) your DNA's characteristics, can't go associating with just anybody, right? You must have been programmed to attack your enemies, point out the boils, warts and other blemishes of evil republicans while totally ignoring your own or left leaning types. Overcoming our genetic proclivities is quite a challenge D.
Were your parents rich, white racists, overly religious, judgmental leave it to Beaver republicans?
Are your blogs you way of rebelling or do you not like what you see?
As any geneticist will tell you however, interbreeding weakens the species.
Lets just eliminate the republicans of the human race. Its their genetic disposition to kill foreigners, repress minorities (especially Lonely Piss Pea), starve the downtrodden, deny health care to people and just lie, lie lie!
Judging people is society's way of keeping us apart D.
Its obviously your mission to convince "someone" that you have "the truth".
Shrub, Chaney, the hair puller, is the symbol of a degrading society.
Not people like the terrorists in Russia, Not the animals you use children to carry out terrorist plots. Just republicans.
Even the minor act of dressing like a hip-hop star or a hippy is a programmed symbolic act of rebellion against parental and societal authority. Yours has got to be again trying to convince us that republicans are evil through your blog Q and A's.
Ok, your bill for this analysis, uh:. a case of beer, I'm a cheep psychiatrist.
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Snoop -- I'm glad you mention a case of beer, 'cause I'm working up a "Let's drink to America" get-together at Lawrence's finest Bourgeois Pig some time soon for bloggers and commenters here on lawrence.com. Can you make such a get-together, in general? (More details soon.)
As for my political heritage, no: my mother was the original yellow dog Democrat in our family: an oldschool FDR Democrat type with a McGovern sign in our front yard in 1972 Du Page county, IL (you can't get more Republican than that, really). God rest her soul, she infected her children with a deep desire for fair play, in personal as well as political matters.
Luckily, in some ways, she did not have to live to see these last 4 years. She wouldn't have liked them at all.
Snoop (anonymous) says…
Sounds like a cool idea, although I have to venture south towards Ivan to help out relatives.
I shall monitor for a potential get together.
Shelby (anonymous) says…
David...wish I could make it...recently moved away. Sounds awesome, and the face-to-face interaction (on the beer, no less)would likely quell some of the pseudo-animosity (of which I am no doubt a purveyor of) around these parts. Here's to hoping that happens!
Perhaps a toast should be proposed: 'to education through heated argument.'
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
Shelby and Snoop: that's the spirit.
Our genius forefathers, as Abe might call them, were far smarter than any of us. They knew that competitive deliberative discourse, heated or cool, is the necessary condition to knowledge and progress, and they built that into the very structure of our government: the Constitution of 1789 didn't end the discussion of how to form a more perfect Union, but institutionalized it.
It's our duty, as payment for luckily being born as citizens under their amazing Constitution, to keep that discussion going.
dex (anonymous) says…
our forefathers also had the foresight to make the institution incredible difficult to change, and they had a good reason for that as they knew that government left to its own tends to erode the rights of its citizens. i cringe whenever i hear people like al gore talk about how the constition is a "living document" that needs to be "interpreted with the times." if the intent of the constitution was supposed to change willy-nilly with the times, i'm willing to bet that our forefathers would have made the constition much easier to modify.
that said, unfortunately i will be unable to make it to the get-together unless the venue can be moved about 3500 miles closer to my hide-out where i'm currently making plans for world domination.
dex (anonymous) says…
ugh and replace the words above like institution, constition, with constitution. 'preview' is as worthless as the 'are you sure? yes/no' dialog box.
UKept (anonymous) says…
'' i cringe whenever i hear people like al gore talk about how the constition is a "living document" that needs to be "interpreted with the times." if the intent of the constitution was supposed to change willy-nilly with the times, i'm willing to bet that our forefathers would have made the constition much easier to modify.''
So true, which is why I get so irritated when G.W. runs around hyping his constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Leave your political panderings out of my bill of rights, George.
dex (anonymous) says…
at least GW is trying to modify the constitution in the way it was meant to be modified, by appealing to the legislative branch of the federal and state goverments. al gore's method is much more insidious: modify the "meaning" of the constitution without adding ammendments, thereby defeating the checks and balances our founding fathers designed to make the constitution difficult to modify. GW will likely fail to add the gay marriage ban amendment, which i'm sure he knows, but it's a move that will keep his conservative base happy (this is politics, after all).
UKept (anonymous) says…
There's nothing wrong with attempting to find a modern meaning in an old document. Unless you believe that we should take all words as written at face value, in which case we could get into a whole Bible/sacrificing goats/Leviticus argument.
It's just typical of G.W.'s smirking audacity that rather than simply propsing a federal law, he's out to change the constitution. It is neither necessary, nor any more forceful. It's just the loud cowboy, with his guns ablazin'.
As for keeping his conservative base happy, it seems they're already happy to lie down and take whatever war he decides to feed them.