On this glorious Fourth of July in these once United States, it’s well to remember that every living thing dies. And the Constitution, progressives say, is a “living document.” Since it is treated as such, it will die—and our nation with it.
Any “truth” which is subject to whim, to provision, to shifting opinion, to “evolving” history, is not a truth, or is so only by accident. Any government not based on Truth cannot last. A “living” Constitution, however, is a necessity if one wants to escape Truth, to get what one wants, and be on “the right side of history“.
If the meaning of the words of the Constitution—or any other foundational document or book, come to that—is allowed vary by whim, then because whim eventually leads to madness, and madness is deadly, again the Constitution will die.
Democracies suffer from the delusion that truth and falsity, that right and wrong, that justice and injustice, can be decided by vote. A check on this invariably fatal practice in these once United States was a document which limited powers of the people, and therefore of Government, from wandering over the abyss.
But that check is removed when the Constitution is seen as providing justification for desired or fashionable opinions. Our current operation is backward. An opinion is decided first and words in the Constitution are found which can be bent around this opinion and “justify” it. That operation is what makes the Constitution “alive”.
What should happen is that opinions are tested against the immovable Constitution. Those that accord with it are upheld, those which are at variance dismissed. Once this process is abandoned, anything goes.
Add to this that our guardians, the justices of the Supreme Court, are chosen by identity politics and not intelligence, ability, or even wisdom. And they cannot be fired for incompetence or idiocy. Thus a justice can say
At the heart of liberty the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life
and not be run out of town covered in tar and feathers. That quotation, incidentally, is one cherished by every inmate of Bedlam, and for obvious reasons.
So Happy Fourth, all. Enjoy it while you can. And remember: death isn’t always a bad thing.
From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no man lives for ever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.
“Screwtape Proposes a Toast”, C. S. Lewis
Screwtape complains about the poor quality of souls they’ve feasted on at the Tempters’ Training College in hell at the graduation banquet for junior devils.
“They all tasted to me like undersexed morons who had blundered or trickled into the wrong beds in automatic response to sexy advertisements, or to make themselves feel modern and emancipated, or to reassure themselves about their virility or their ‘normalcy’, or even because they had nothing else to do.”
“Here were vermin so muddled in mind, so passively responsive to environment, that it was very hard to raise them to that level of clarity and deliberateness at which mortal sin becomes possible.”
The subtle Orwellian trick: adding the word ‘original’ to ‘intent’ – how is that different than just ‘intent’?
Of course the justice can be ran out of town and tarred and feathered. The logistics are more complicated now, but it most certainly can be done. It won’t be and the justices know that. That is the limiting factor–the will to act on the part of the populace.
As far as the Constitution being able to die, I believe that is the ultimate goal of the progressives.
Let us not forget, nor belittle, the prior declaration used to justify the creation and signage of the Constitution of the United States. Let us also not forget the conditions and moral responsibilities said declaration puts upon each citizen.
This is the threat to which our government officials should awake to, in a cold sweat, each night. This is the threat the second amendment was, in major part, intended to allow us, the citizenry, to hold above the heads of our elected governors in order to ensure the responsible and just governance of this nation.
Can you point out to exactly which part of the constitution did the judges not respect the document?
Sometimes laws have unintended consequences. Like the federal RFRA law which was written for a human being person and yet somehow was interpreted by SCOTUS as meaning companies, shattering the long term definition of companies into oblivion. How does a company go to church?
Syl: My suggestion at this point is for the Catholic church and others to shut down all daycare, hospitals, homeless shelters, etc, since these are not “religious” like a person is and can be forced to violate their owners beliefs because said person was foolish enough to run a business. I am certain the compassionate left will quickly fill in the gaps. Meanwhile, those who are not judgmental can run businesses while those who lost their businesses for “intolerance” can collect welfare and play the victim. Seems like a really great way to solve this.
it seems like a bad thought to put forth on July 4th, but there was an article in Vox, “Three reasons the Declaration of Independence was a mistake”.
If we had remained British slavery would have ended much sooner and there would have been no Civil War;
The native Americans would have been treated much better (as in Canada?)
We would have had a parliamentary system of government, which is much better than the attempted division of powers into executive, legislative and judicial.
I can understand the 1st and 3rd arguments, but not the second.
LOL! I love seeing you conservatives lament! And Briggs, I’ve never seen anyone as hung up on semantics as you. The great thing about the Constitution is that it’s as sparse as can be, and that’s where the “living document” part comes in. But you conservatives do not understand any of that. So, wave your flags, and say “Duh,” and drool, and watch fireworks. Everything’s okay. The Constitution is fine.
JMJ: Lamenting is better than the extreme aggression I’ve seen on the part of the left. I’d reproduce the comments here, but the hatred and profanity is not fit for a family oriented blog. The Constitution is sparse only in the sense that the states were given the most power and the progressives choose to ignore that particular part. It’s not the “sparseness”, it’s the out and out ignoring of the first, second and tenth amendments, all passed by two-thirds of the voters at the time, that are the problem. If you progressives want to prove you care so much about the Constitution, then start passing amendments and stop trying to shortcut the process. Of course, you can’t really do that because you’d have to honestly admit it’s all about power and nothing about people’s rights. It’s just so much easier to ignore the whole thing, thus rendering it effectively dead. (See, we do understand language.)
Am I to understand that progressives don’t drool? With all the marijuana, alcohol, and recent Supreme Court decisions, I cannot believe that is even possible.
I figured it out – JMJ is one of Prof Briggs’ alter-egos. He’s the voice from the creature sitting on his left shoulder – always provocative, but always careful to use at least one logical fallacy. He’s a bit too perfect for his role, which was the tell.
Now I just need to figure out if the rest of you are real. (I hope so – I’ve grown kinda fond of some of you, and it would be a disappointment if you are actually non-corporeals. Not to mention what it implies about my sanity.)
There is a much simpler solution. Religious people could understand what the around 100 verses of the bible says about not judging others. This way they can continue their work.
You will like this:
He will probably win his cases
Syl: The Bible does not say not to judge others actions. If we are not allowed to judge actions, there’s no point to religion. Maybe you should reread that part. As I recall, Paul did a bit of judging in his letters and behaviours were called sins in every book and the sin was preached against. (I could play dueling links on Biblical interpretation, but it’s pointless. I could relate how Baptists, Jehovah Witnesses, the Unification Church, etc interpret not judging, but again, pointless. No dueling links tonight.)
I would guess there’s an equal chance of “religious people” not judging as there is of progressives keeping their noses out of everyone’s business. Progressives just have to butt in everywhere. Maybe you should admonish progressives to butt out.
I have no more approval for the hasidic jew for suing a provence than I do for homosexuals suing business owners. Suing is often a form of bullying–might, or the most expensive lawyer, makes right. My contempt for personal injury lawyers is limitless. (At one point, they may have served a purpose. Now they are greedy, anti-science individuals who feed on misery to get rich and care nothing about the truth.)
Milton: If you figure out if I am real, please let me know. 🙂
“The Bible does not say not to judge others actions. If we are not allowed to judge actions, there’s no point to religion.”
This is so very sad to read. This is so far from what religion is about. And for sure it is not about judging others.
Religion is about finding yourself. Finding God in you, and expressing him. Religions and the bible have been high jacked a long time ago so a small group of people could rule over other.
The disciple never understood the message of Jesus which is why they never achieved eternal life like Jesus did.
Jesus is not different than us or than God. He is God like we are God. We are all able to do what Jesus did and we are able to do more. But we have to learn how to express God through us. Everything is about knowing thee self so you can find God inside you not outside.
People have different belief about God and the further away they get from Jesus true message the further away they are from God.
Jesus never shied away from meddling with the sinners. He never refused to do business with them people who were not following is rule. He had no fear of anyone. He had no fear of death because he knew he couldn’t die. He is still among us today doing is work helping people seeing the light.
The bible is about learning about you, not about controlling what others people do of their own life. God doesn’t need your help to vent out the sinners and criminals he sees it all, he knows it all.
You may think I’m judging other, if you knew anything about me you would know that I don’t. Violent criminals have to be sent to prison because they harm other people. But there past action have no meaning in the eye of God if they turn their life around.
Democracies frequently vote themselves into ruin. Greece and Venezuela spring to mind. However, this seems to be the opposite situation. An undemocratic institution, a collection of lawyers, imposed on a democracy a new set of rights for a certain class of individuals. A matter that should have been settled democratically on a state by state basis. Nonetheless, gay people were going to have sex with each other whether married or not. And if this is indeed a ‘sin’ I’m sure God will sort this out in due course. No ‘harm’ seems to have been done in this view to society, except to the gay people themselves. So I’m struggling to see why it’s an especially significant moral or social issue…?
Syl: Now it seems you are judging my religion. Wow, you just don’t stop, do you? Judge, judge, judge. Oh and you’re smarter than the Bible because you understand what SHOULD have been written but sadly you weren’t there to make the necessary corrections.
Sure, you say you’re not judging others, but you just judged me to be religiously illiterate and that only you can properly translate religion for everyone. I’d call that as judgmental as they come.
Will: It’s NOT a moral issue. It’s also not about gays marrying. It’s about political power and ways to discriminate against classes the government deems wrong or a threat–in this case, some Christians and conservatives. You can’t outlaw Christianity yet, so you create laws that chip away at it. Same for conservatism. That would seem to be a social consequence. This was always about fracturing society and creating government dependence in any way possible. Now the feds saved the gays, so the gays will forever vote for Democrats, even when the Democrats desert them, as happens when the winds of politics blow in a new direction. Democrats were the original racists, Clinton signed DOMA and yet now, suddenly, Democrats are the only non-racists and are pro gay marriage—whatever yields the results they want. The mistake people make is gays, abortion, etc are not at all about morality (no one in abortion ever even cared there might be a living something involved–that was irrelevant as is the gay part of gay marriage). It’s not about protecting or helping a minority. It’s about fracturing society so ONLY the government is the giver of all things good. And it has been extremely effective. At this rate, in 10 years or less, Americans will be hopeless people living in a violent society believing that if the government says everything is okay, it is. It worked remarkably well in North Korea–the people there wailed when their vicious dictator died. They were devastated. By the time the millenials are in charge, there will be little freedom and the Government will be God. However, so far as I can ascertain, that is what they want—misery and someone lying to them, so I guess if that’s what they want, they can have it.
Religion used to have a respected place in the public sphere and the loving intimacy of procreation was conducted in private. We’ve now got lust delivering lectures in the village square about which walls religion is permitted to hide behind. Couples who are categorically biological dead-ends without third party help really believe they’ve gained some sort of equivalence. And there’s idiots who reckon that’s an improvement.
That a justice can say “At the heart of liberty [is] the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” means we don’t have to obey any cockamamie decision they make. Thanks, SCOTUS. Glad to be rid of your nannyism. Go on vacation and don’t bother coming back in October. There’s nothing more for you to do. We’ll take it from here.
What in your view then is the status of a civil union versus a marriage ceremony? Would a civil union — a piece of paper issued by the state — be OK, or is that also an issue for religion?
(This is not an attempt at a gotcha question. I am seeking information.)
Will: A civil union–basically a legal contract creating dependents for tax purposes, child care and inheritance, etc–would be fine. Actually, I’m all for the government calling all unions civil and leaving out the marriage term altogether. The contract would be between two or more adults and would grant the same rights as marriage currently does with no moral implication, just a straight legal contract. Marriage would then apply to church ceremonies couples engage in. Polygamists use this all the time–one “government marriage” and multiple church marriages. I really don’t care what people do as long as (a) they don’t demand that I recognize their actions as “right” and (b) they don’t end up on welfare, etc and drain society’s coffers. Of course, I would prefer people married, stayed married, raised their kids together, etc as I believe that results in a more stable society. My objection here has always been the demand that I call homosexuals/lesbian unions “marriage” and declare they are the same as heterosexual marriages.
You are mistaking disagreement or difference of opinion with judgement. If I were judging you I would tell you that you are a sinner and that you that you will or should burn in hell for judging other.
I’m introverted and anti-conformist. I’m unable to follow blindly any kind of grouping of people. I never agree completely with anyone. For example, you a gree with Briggs on all subjects or almost all subjects, in fact most of the participant here do. Meanwhile, I have many disagreement with progressive like on global warming and nutrition.
This is what Jesus as to say about the judging other side:
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven”
There is no hatred anywhere in this statement no room for interpretation. What Jesus said came from God what the disciple said of there was them misunderstanding Jesus teaching.
Sylvain: Then if I say homosexuality is a sin, that is not judging a person. It’s just a difference of opinion or a disagreement with a person’s lifestyle choices. Okay.
I don’t follow Briggs. I may agree with much of what he says, but unless he can make a compelling argument for his point, I don’t change my belief to match his. You are mistaking agreeing with someone with following someone. You remind me here of my philosophy professor who would not tell us his viewpoint on religion, etc, because he did not want to unduly influence us. I told him he was not that important. I don’t follow, trust me.
I will change my opinion on the judgment interpretation when you find chapter and verse where Jesus told a hooker that sure, hooking is bad, but don’t worry about it, God will overlook it. Or where Jesus told a thief he understood the guy’s need to steal and not to worry that this made him a bad person. Or where Jesus told a murderer that sure, killing is bad, but God will overlook it because it makes a murderer happy when he kills. Every single passage on sin and forgiveness included repentance on the part of the person, acknowledgement that their lifestyle was anti-God and an admonition to “Go and sin no more”. Yet somehow that particular admonition gets overlooked (on purpose, I suspect).
Yes, to say that homosexuality is a sin is not a judgement.
Taking the time to write hateful words on a piece of carton, and go stands on the sides of a gay pride parade is judgmental. To refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, while the same baker agreed to bake a cake for a dog wedding or a polygamist wedding, or for the 3 marriages of 1 man and one 1 woman is judgmental.
Okay you agree with Briggs a lot.
Did Jesus tell Mary-Magdalene that she would burn in hell. He only told her that if she stopping the acts of prostitution would bring her closer to God. It was not Jesus denying her God. If she continued God would deny her his kingdom.
Remember that Jesus also asked that the person without sin cast the first stone. Are you so sin free that you can cast stone to other sinners. Denying services to someone because of sin, while serving other without any regards of their sins is equal to casting the first stone.
Thanks for the clarification. Would you say most people you associate with would hold similar views or is this a personal view you have not widely discussed outside of web forums?
Will: I would say it’s a personal view though I have discussed it outside the forums. Some people seem to oppose gay marriage because it redefines marriage and opens up virtually every type of marriage and sexual preference out there. I’m not sure about other people. I have heard objections similar to mine, but I think people get stuck on the idea that this about morality and may not actually realize what arguments are being made.
Okay, Sylvain, as long as I can say homosexuality is a sin and that’s not judging, I’m good. You do realize this allows me to also say the homosexual is a sinner? I cannot, of course, pronounce he is going to Hell because only God makes that decision.
Whoa, wait a moment. What are “hateful words”? Can I hold a sign saying “Homosexuality is a sin”? Can I hold a sign that says homosexuals are sinners? Can I point out they continue to sin without remorse and are no longer on the good side of God? Where’s the line?
Agreed that unless a bakery only bakes cakes for heterosexual, two-party couples, they should not refuse gays. I personally find it offensive that people have “dog weddings” so if the baker is okay with including species not included in the Biblical definition of marriage but not for lesbians, then yes, they are discriminating based on their own beliefs (I also think businesses should be allowed to discriminate.) I did not approve of Fred Phelps going to military funerals and holding up signs that said soldiers died due to the US endorsement of homosexuality. That was extremely rude and uncaring. There are limits. On the other hand, I’ve seen gay pride parades and I can’t think of any sign straights hold up that is any more insulting that what the gays hold up. It does not seem to be the case that manners are any part of this event. I’m not saying two wrongs make a right, I’m saying the whole parade is a free-for-all and one side should not be beating up the other side for equal participation.
No, Jesus did not tell Mary Magdalene she would burn in Hell, although there is considerable evidence that unrepentant individuals do not go to heaven. I guess you’re saying that pointing out reality is rude, so we should try and work around it. As noted people who do not believe in God are excluded from Heaven. So how is that different than saying these people either just die (as the Jehovah Witnesses believe) or go to Hell or purgatory? You could go with the Unification Church and say they have eternity to change their minds, I guess. This seems to be not wanting to plainly state something but rather to dance around it, like saying someone passed away when in reality they died.
I’m not casting stones (nice verse usually used by people behaving badly to justify their continued bad behaviour, I would note). I’m standing up for what is right and pointing out things Jesus and God said were sins. That speech protected by the First Amendment and the reason the US exists in the first place.
Please reference my response to Will above concerning why I oppose gay marriage.
Sheri – you said “Did Jesus tell Mary-Magdalene that she would burn in hell. He only told her that if she stopping the acts of prostitution would bring her closer to God. ”
Actually, it’s probable that MM was not a prostitute, but that this mistaken idea was a conflation with another story in the Gospels that began with speculation by Pope Gregory I in the 6th century. For sure, MM was a woman “from whom seven demons came out” (Luke 8:2, NIV).
Gary: I didn’t address the prostitution label–never even thought about it. Guess I was just answering the spirit of the question. Thank you for pointing this out.
“You do realize this allows me to also say the homosexual is a sinner?”
You realize that this is rendering judgment.
Search for anti gay signs on Google and you will see an incredible amount of inappropriate and hateful messages.
I don’t remember having be against something/someone enough to go out of my way to rub their face in it. Usually I just ignore or go somewhere else. If I don’t like someone I just avoid them. For example, you won’t see me at a pro gun rally, or for that matter even at a gay pride parade.
Gays gain support because they were victims. If they became aggressor they will lose the support for their causes. But why those who opposed them just not go there?
That you religion says that something is a sin just means that for you as an individual to not do it. If someone else does it, it, in no way will affect you and gods perception of you. But Jesus also said to love your neighbours and to not judge others.
Okay, Sylvain, you just jumped off the logic train here. If homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuals are sinners. It’s not judgmental to say homosexuality is a sin, but it is to say homosexuals are sinners? It follows logically that if one commits a sin, they are sinners. You can’t get around that. Again, you’re pretending if we don’t say something, then somehow it’s not real or a problem. If someone commits murder, by your logic, I cannot call them a murderer. That is judgmental. So would calling them a felon be judgmental, too, and that should be removed from employment questionaires and voting registrations. To avoid judgment, you must call everything acceptable and I know for positive you will not and do not do that. You call things wrong and that makes the doer of the deed a person who is wrong. That is judgment by your standard.
Really, God specifically sent people out to spread the word about what was and was not wrong. The entire Bible exists for that very reason. Every book contains rules and regulations (except Revelation, which tells us the end result of all the wrong doing). Christains were specifically told to spread the good news and let people know what God expected of them and how they could be saved from eternity in a place most would not want to go. You are simply ignoring 99% of the Bible to get the result you want. (Can I ignore 99% of your writing and just pick out what I want?)
You don’t go out of your way to annoy people or pass judgement? Oh but that I had the time and space to innumerate the multiple insults, accuations and other judgments you have contributed just on this blog.
Gays most certainly ARE the aggressors here. They are the ones who demanded their behaviour be acknowledged as right when it is not. They refused to simply be left alone–that was not the goal in this. Revenge and political power was. This is in NO way about love, caring or anything similar. Gays want revenge. They would not have gotten to where they are if not for AIDS. It was considered bad (note the evil judgment there by the left and supporters of the gays) to blame a sick person for their illness, even if they invited that illness into their body. No matter though–pedophiles and all forms of sexual behaviour will now be accepted and no one will have to worry about any of that nasty judgment. It will be anything goes with no regrets. Exactly the utopia we all have waited for, right?
Congratulations, Mr. Briggs.
You finally realise the obvious: the Constitution is a piece of paper. If I have enough power, I can just rip it up, and everyone will follow me. The power to interpret a document, be it any document, means the power to rewrite it. It’s how you get people preaching “mutual submission” and prosperity gospel out of the Bible, many hilarious interpretations of the Constitution, and courts declaring that State exchanges don’t really mean state exchanges.
Conservakins have a fetish for the Constitution, but it was doomed from the start. The anti-federalists POINTED this out – that people would simply interpret it the way they liked – and were met with a resounding “oh, but NO ONE would interpret it to suit them!”
Well, guess what happened?
Americans thought to control their government by hobbling it, and quelle surprise! are shocked when said government works outside its scope.
The Constitution is not a magic talisman, it is not a charm, and frankly isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
I’ll close with a recent quote from Mark Citadel:
“No, sodomite marriage isn’t in the Constitution, and of course the Founding Fathers would have considered its proponents clinically insane, as would the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment used to justify this recent decision. But that doesn’t matter! The document is ‘living and breathing’ precisely because it is a Liberal document. Conservatives can try to sanctify it as an unalterable religious text all they like, but the fact remains that it is the beginning of all problems concerning Liberalism in America today. It is, regardless of how much Conservatives revere it, as much a Liberal document as a Jean-Paul Marat article.”
Observer: Progressikins have a talent for overlooking the obvious. The deed to your house is a piece of paper, your driver’s license is just plastic that can be shredded, the title to your car is just a piece of paper. Tommorrow, your beloved government could simply shred all of these and take your possessions. They can throw you in labor camps because your employment was based on a piece of paper. Of course, this may be precisely what the progressives want, along with rewriting most of history and trying to claim that a document was liberal before that idea was a spark in anyone’s head. In the end, I do take some comfort in knowing that those who so vehemently defended liberalism will be the hardest hit victims of it, when their drooling allegiance is no longer required and they are stripped of the privilege they were certain they would be afforded.
“The deed to your house is a piece of paper, your driver’s license is just plastic that can be shredded, the title to your car is just a piece of paper. Tommorrow, your beloved government could simply shred all of these and take your possessions. They can throw you in labor camps because your employment was based on a piece of paper.”
Exactly. Which is why as the saying goes: if you can’t stand in front of it with a gun and defend it, it isn’t yours.
What the current playbook seems to be, though, is that you’ll be nominally allowed to keep those “rights”, but hey, do you really own your house if it can be confiscated at any time if you don’t pay your property tax? Do you really own your business if you’re told who you can or can’t employ, what you or can’t do with the products or services, who or whom you can or can’t serve?
“Of course, this may be precisely what the progressives want, along with rewriting most of history and trying to claim that a document was liberal before that idea was a spark in anyone’s head.”
The Revolutionary War took the country away from a genuinely conservative form of government – monarchy – and, having infused the young nation with the daft and ultimately disastrous ideals of the French Enlightenment, left it with a hideously badly-written constitution and a form of government guaranteed to eventually end up in ochlocracy, socialism, irreligion, and decadence. So yes, whether you like it or not, the US Constitution is very much leftist; it’s just that the Overton window’s shifted.
Do I believe that there is a significant value to written constitutions? Does the codification of constitutional law, even if it isn’t practically or effectively binding, seem to benefit or harm a civilization?
I don’t think there is very much value in it. No. It is a peculiarity of moderns to make a fetish of the written word. What conservatives have done with the constitution is what fundamentalists have done with the Bible: make a universal principle out of something not well designed for it.
We have a saying, and I think it’s true: “The constitution that may be written is not the True Constitution.” The true constitution is always the way things are (duh!) constituted. The idea of constitution is there should be a law over the law. But there is no law over the law. The positive human law belongs always and everywhere to the sovereign. It’s his prudence, and his prudence alone, that dicates what is best for a people in a given situation. He answers to God(s), not men. If he answers to men, then those men are sovereign.
So then what the true constitution *is* may change at any moment. So why bother writing it down? But if it is written down, then it is an illusion. And only an illusion that useful for someone. Who? Whom?
“In the end, I do take some comfort in knowing that those who so vehemently defended liberalism will be the hardest hit victims of it, when their drooling allegiance is no longer required and they are stripped of the privilege they were certain they would be afforded.”
Everyone imagines they’ll be the commissar and not the body lying in the ditch. The only thing I can think of when I hear “You can’t do this to me! I have rights!” is that of a cow mooing “you can’t do this to me! I am sacred!”
Observer: I am not really sure what your point is. Is my house actually mine if they can take it for non-payment of taxes? Conditionally, yes. Is my business my own–heck no. The government stole all businesses years back. Does a written constitution help? Apparently not at this point. You can’t make people care, though it seems very easy to make them not care, so in the long run, the whole experiment of the Constitution was doomed to failure. You do only own that which you are willing to fight for and the utter lack of a fight is a bad sign. Your last statement definitely covers this well–no one ever thinks they’re the one who’s going to be left out in the cold, the target of the government they supported, etc. Sometimes humans are a lot like that cow.
(I don’t understand your comments about the French, English and the
Constitution so I will have to research further and see if I can figure it out. I really have not heard anyone call the Constitution a liberal document before.)