Comments on Kyle Cupp: Not Panicking

"Ft. Hood was a murder/suicide (although the ...

2009-11-12T15:49:08.170-06:00

"Ft. Hood was a murder/suicide (although the perp--unexpectedly--survived), committed by a lone, angry man, for reasons of his own..."

Just PC speak for what is in all actuality the Islamic Terror.

Ft. Hood was a murder/suicide (although the per...

2009-11-11T23:16:04.678-06:00
Ft. Hood was a murder/suicide (although the perp--unexpectedly--survived), committed by a lone, angry man, for reasons of his own

All the while screaming "Allahu Akbar!"

To paraphrase Obi-Wan, "These aren't the Jihadists your looking for."

If you don't consider Fr. Hood a 'terr...

2009-11-11T09:18:21.058-06:00
If you don't consider Fr. Hood a 'terrorist' incident, then you have a rather flawed concept of terrorism.

Is every politically/religiously-prompted murder, then, a "terrorist" act? To me, a terrorist act is defined as an act meant to "terrify" an entire population, so as to deplete the will of that population to oppose the threat posed by the group committing the terror. I don't think that Ft. Hood was that, at all. Ft. Hood was a murder/suicide (although the perp--unexpectedly--survived), committed by a lone, angry man, for reasons of his own. Those reasons may have been inspired by his religious beliefs, or by his politics, or by his ethnicity; but I don't believe that they were inspired by a conscious desire to terrify the entire people of the United States. This act was a violent protest; it was not a "terrorist" act.

Aptly and concisely put, Alien Shore. We can and ...

2009-11-10T17:12:55.678-06:00
Aptly and concisely put, Alien Shore. We can and should have a plurality of interpretations of the Constitution, but that doesn't mean all interpretations are good. Would that we had more thought, work, and discourse and much less sloganeering.

Kyle, Well, maybe I am using the Constitution a...

2009-11-10T16:20:54.174-06:00
Kyle,
Well, maybe I am using the Constitution as a "living document." But, if that is so, it is to promote conservative values,and no conservative should have a problem with that.

Voces, I believe that we must take care of the ...

2009-11-10T16:07:06.948-06:00
Voces,
I believe that we must take care of the Islamic terrorist problem both in the United States and overseas(Afhanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq).

"Was the incident at Ft. Hood a "terrori...

2009-11-10T15:51:00.085-06:00
"Was the incident at Ft. Hood a "terrorist" incident?"

If you don't consider Fr. Hood a 'terrorist' incident, then you have a rather flawed concept of terrorism.

Indeed, even The Wall Street Journal aptly described it along the same lines:

"The Fort Hood massacre makes clear, again, that Islamic terror is unavoidably a domestic U.S. problem as well. There is a strain in American thinking that deludes itself in believing that somehow this force will occupy itself mainly with blowing up marketplaces in faraway Pakistan or Afghanistan. On Thursday, their problem was our problem."

I meant to say again instead of against in my last...

2009-11-10T15:33:59.961-06:00
I meant to say again instead of against in my last sentence.

Rodak, Yes. The Ft. Hood incident was a terrori...

2009-11-10T15:31:19.887-06:00
Rodak,
Yes. The Ft. Hood incident was a terrorist incident. This occurred because of political correctness in this country. Heck, the MSM is playing this off as it was due to PTSD. Its NOT. He had NEVER served overseas. If we had taken care of both Iraq and Afghanistan sooner than after 9/11, we might not have to deal with the magnitude of Islamic terrorists that have penetrated into America today. But, then that was the Clinton era.... He could have had Bin Laden on a silver platter but Clinton refused Sudan's offer. But, then against this government may not be interested in taking care of the Muslim Jihadist problem because....

And how is it that anyone can know in any pure sen...

2009-11-10T15:05:20.725-06:00
And how is it that anyone can know in any pure sense the "true intentions" of the Founders? We take tools like histories, other documents and writings, the legal traditions and so on and we interpret the text. Time, and even the text itself, places a distance between author and reader, separating us in an immediate (i.e. non-mediated) sense from the intentions of the Founders. This does not imply that we can make the text say whatever we wish, change it at will, or can have no insights into the Founders intentions, hence the tools of interpretation to which I refer. In other words, there is a difference between interpretation and what Eco might call unlimited semiotic drift.

But the issue is that when debating the constitutionality of any given issue, we are not divining intentions so much as we are seeking to determine if a concrete particular issue is compatible with the ideals expressed by the Founders' words to which we all have some sense of, even if we disagree on what they apply to.

Yes, the preamble refers to defense. The same preamble speaks of establishing justice as it does promoting the general welfare among other things. These are transcendent principles, not specific actions. The debates in this country are about whether specific actions really do conform to these ideals. All actions that say they are defense aren't constitutional because they use the word defense. A particular action in the name of defense might fail with regard to esablishing justice. The current health care reform isn't necessarily promoting the general welfare just because it would purport to do so. Those things must be determined by making the best judgment we can by, not merely quoting the constition, but in light of the history of constitutional law and interpretation. In other words, it takes work, thought and discourse, not the sloganizing that "political discourse" in this country has sadly been reduced to.

This includes DEFENSE AGAINST TERRORISM before...

2009-11-10T14:59:04.009-06:00
This includes DEFENSE AGAINST TERRORISM before it breaches our shores again.

Was the incident at Ft. Hood a "terrorist" incident?

"Ah, so you subscribe to an interpretive appr...

2009-11-10T14:24:41.668-06:00
"Ah, so you subscribe to an interpretive approach to the Constitution which goes beyond the intention of its authors and takes into account present situations and circumstances."

As do you. You have admitted to wanting to change the constitution for political purposes to advance health care. And, since Democrats have admitted that they are for a single-payer system and are using this health care bill as a gateway to that same health care system, in which you are in favor of, you are going beyond the true intentions of our Founders. For you the Constitution is a "living document" that is acceptable to change for political gain. Our Founders did not intend this country to be a nanny state, as you wish.

Kyle, What conservative credentials? I am a libe...

2009-11-10T14:15:36.305-06:00
Kyle,
What conservative credentials? I am a liberal.

My interpretation does not add words to the consti...

2009-11-10T13:17:32.847-06:00
My interpretation does not add words to the constitution. It interprets the constitution to include DEFENSE as it mentions for the common defense. This includes DEFENSE AGAINST TERRORISM before it breaches our shores again.

The appearance of criminality would depend on wher...

2009-11-10T12:54:47.721-06:00
The appearance of criminality would depend on where one stands.

voces, Native American populations would likely a...

2009-11-10T12:39:09.592-06:00
voces,

Native American populations would likely agree with you.

"Where in the Constitution is the U.S. govern...

2009-11-10T12:26:51.916-06:00
"Where in the Constitution is the U.S. government given the authority to bring democracy to other nations?"

Where in the Constitution is the U.S. government given the authority to do likewise beyond the borders of the original 13 colonies?

Thus, it would appear to be the case that Manifest Destiny, which doctrine promoted expansion of the United States to go beyond its original territories, would appear to be just as criminal.

I didn't reduce you to a liberal, Teresa. I p...

2009-11-10T12:12:11.702-06:00
I didn't reduce you to a liberal, Teresa. I pointed out that your manner of interpreting the Constitution treats the founding document as a "living document," a manner of interpretation that conservatives generally associate with liberalism. Brandishing your conservative credentials doesn't change the fact that in this particular instance your position is what you would call a liberal one.

There are a variety of interpretations of the Constitution competing in our public sphere. Some, such as the "originalist" and the "strict constructionist" approaches, are generally associated with conservatism. Others, such as the "living document" approach, your approach, are generally associated with liberalism.

I DID NOT add any words to its original form a...

2009-11-10T12:09:01.885-06:00
I DID NOT add any words to its original form as liberals have done in order to pervert the constitution to legalize abortion.

Teresa--
Yes, I think that you did. You enlarged the concept of "national defense" to include establishing foreign democracies by force, on the supposition (I suspect) that "democracies don't attack democracies" and that, therefore, democratizing Iraq would be in the interest of U.S. "national defense." Assuming that I'm characterizing your position basically fairly, I must say that this mode of thinking about "national defense" is every bit a big a stretch, as are the grounds upon which abortion was legalized. Defense basically means "step on my lawn and I'll black your eye for you." Iraq was in no way capable of stepping on our national lawn.

Kyle, So, as I understand it, you are saying A...

2009-11-10T10:52:27.490-06:00
Kyle,
So, as I understand it, you are saying ANY interpretation of the constitution is liberalism? So, I guess, reading the constitution to actually interpret the meaning of it is out of the question?

I took the constitutions own words to promote the defense agenda. Its original words of The Preamble. I DID NOT add any words to its original form as liberals have done in order to pervert the constitution to legalize abortion.

BTW- I changed my response. That's why a comment is deleted.

Rodak, No. No. Kyle's correct. He equated m...

2009-11-10T10:42:38.959-06:00
Rodak,
No. No. Kyle's correct. He equated my interpretation of the constitution to me being a liberal. So,I'm copping to being a liberal. I will be spreading my right-wing liberalsim all over the blogosphere.

Teresa-- I think that the point Kyle was making is...

2009-11-10T10:36:35.617-06:00
Teresa--
I think that the point Kyle was making is that if soi-disant conservative "strict constructionists" interpret the Constitution so as to support their contemporary ideological position on, for instance, national health insurance, then they not being strict constructionists in practice, since they are using the Constitution in the same way that liberals have used it to legalize abortion. He is pointing out an inconsistency in your thinking, not recharacterizing your ideological stance.

Kyle, I guess I'm a liberal. I'll be sp...

2009-11-10T09:48:22.459-06:00
Kyle,
I guess I'm a liberal. I'll be spreading all my liberal positions all over.

Thanks, Kyle for outing me. I guess I am a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military, anti-tax, anti-big government, right-wing LIBERAL.

Teresa, You can call yourself a common sense cons...

2009-11-10T07:54:57.197-06:00
Teresa,

You can call yourself a common sense conservative till doomsday, but the fact is your interpretive approach to the Constitution mirrors that of those you call liberals. You say the power to institute democracy is contained in the power of defense, much as “liberal” justices say that the right to abortion is contained in the right to privacy. You go above and beyond the plain meaning of the text. You can do that; it’s one common way of interpreting the Constitution, but it places you outside and opposed to traditionally conservative readings.

Furthermore, you seem to say that amending the Constitution beyond “the exact document that the founders wrote” is the way of liberals. So you give credit, then, to liberals for the Bill of Rights and the abolition of slavery and the right of those other than white men to vote?

That should say "where you live" not &qu...

2009-11-10T06:36:36.898-06:00
That should say "where you live" not "where you will".