tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.comments2023-09-26T10:49:58.730-05:00Wheat & WeedsRC2http://www.blogger.com/profile/00624638074174720217noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-73032461702130225722007-01-12T21:02:00.000-05:002007-01-12T21:02:00.000-05:00I asked an Iraqi in Najaf what he thought about th...I asked an Iraqi in Najaf what he thought about this. This is what he said:<br /><br />Jassim: I still believe in american<br />Karen: yes, many people are asking to force a full American exit from Iraq<br />Karen: what do you think would happen if the Americans were to leave now?<br />Jassim: even if I do not agre or understand USA government policy some times I respect soldiers<br />Karen: Bush is currently planning to send 21,500 troops<br />Jassim: because I know what they suffer too, I jusy hope them would take care of iraqis<br />Jassim: yes I know that<br />Jassim: if usa withdraown from Iraq every one will kill every one else<br />Jassim: it is like a civil war now but it will be official<br />Jassim: no one know what would happen exactly but every bad thing is possible<br />Jassim: may be arabic countries will attack us<br />Karen: is the Iraqi military part of the solution or part of the problem?<br />Jassim: Iran also<br />Jassim: both !!!<br />Jassim: no one can depend on them<br />Jassim: they are a wasting formoney<br />Jassim: for money<br />Jassim: like most of money spent in iraq<br />Jassim: just wasting<br />Jassim: most of it went to private pockets !!<br />Jassim: or to support militia<br />Jassim: political parties<br /><br />More at: http://alenaae.blogspot.com/2007/01/6-what-if-americans-leave-iraq-where.html<br /><br />In a previous conversation, he had this to say:<br /><br />Jassim: but may be I say may be if USA government follow a new strategy it would make a differance<br />Karen: what kind of strategy?<br />Jassim: wel some thing like chasing terorists<br />Jassim: eleminating them<br />Karen: I thought that the Americans were already hunting terrorists<br />Jassim: support independent people in government not parties<br />Jassim: no<br />Jassim: they are bearly doing that<br />Jassim: it surprise you right ??<br />Karen: yes, it does<br />Jassim: I know<br />Karen: the whole reason for being in Iraq is supposed to be “The War on Terror”<br />Jassim: they are defending themselves but not attacking them effectively<br />Jassim: well in some how it changed<br />Karen: In the news, we are told that it is impossible for the Americans to tell the difference between terrorists and civilians. They are afraid to go after terrorists, because they might kill more innocent people.<br />Jassim: Bush strategy was to allow all terrorists to gather in Iraq instead of attacking USA then eliminate them but slowly<br />Jassim: no<br />Jassim: every one know where terrorists located<br />Jassim: even children<br />Karen: I definitely will need to tell others that<br />Jassim: so you see he used Iraq as a field for his war instead fighting on USA ground<br />Jassim: we pay for this strategy<br />Karen: have Iraqis told the American soldiers where to find the terrorists?<br />Jassim: yes<br />Jassim: I was involved in one of the hottest cases during my work<br />Jassim: it was what happened in …<br />Karen: would the civilian population support the Americans if they went after the terrorists?<br />Jassim: for months terrorists were entering fom borders in Seyria and gathering in this city<br />Jassim: killing Shia, bombing, prepare bombing cars<br />Jassim: american forces reported for months about this activities but they did nothing<br /><br />more at: <br />http://alenaae.blogspot.com/2007/01/2-further-conversation-with-iraqi.htmlKarenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13235578631620270496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130940880845632422005-11-02T09:14:00.000-05:002005-11-02T09:14:00.000-05:00For that, you have to click the Zenit link and rea...For that, you have to click the Zenit link and read the whole interview with McDermott. Part II is supposed to be published later this week.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130897855439861132005-11-01T21:17:00.000-05:002005-11-01T21:17:00.000-05:00So what's so Catholic about our founding documents...So what's so Catholic about our founding documents? How about some specifics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130860412144117282005-11-01T10:53:00.000-05:002005-11-01T10:53:00.000-05:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130623298661737692005-10-29T17:01:00.000-05:002005-10-29T17:01:00.000-05:00Just so you know --Anonymous isn't crazy --I origi...Just so you know --Anonymous isn't crazy --I originally wrote "Moma" for some reason.RC2https://www.blogger.com/profile/00624638074174720217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130609107037420552005-10-29T13:05:00.000-05:002005-10-29T13:05:00.000-05:00Just a word of caution. If you do take a train ri...Just a word of caution. If you do take a train ride to New York to see this, head for Fifth Avenue and 83, not Fifth and 53. The exhibition actually is at the Met, not Moma. The only Fra Angelico likely to show up at Moma would be something reinterpreted by Serrano or Ofili, not by the master himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130599276756095442005-10-29T10:21:00.000-05:002005-10-29T10:21:00.000-05:00My server wasn't cooperating when I tried to post ...My server wasn't cooperating when I tried to post it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130553789952906932005-10-28T21:43:00.000-05:002005-10-28T21:43:00.000-05:00I agree totally. Everything is politicaly correct...I agree totally. Everything is politicaly correct these days and all the "righteous" are trying to deprive us of our "cakes and ale."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130553512618043412005-10-28T21:38:00.000-05:002005-10-28T21:38:00.000-05:00HEY, Why aren't YOU showing the cartoon? I like t...HEY, Why aren't YOU showing the cartoon? I like that feature of your website.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130437154830411182005-10-27T13:19:00.000-05:002005-10-27T13:19:00.000-05:00Do I really need to say that of course the Rule of...Do I really need to say that of course the Rule of Law must prevail? (Heavily bristling).<BR/><BR/>On the narrow question, I have no idea whether or not Ashcroft was right --that turns on what regs the DoJ is allowed to issue under current drug law.<BR/><BR/>The broader point is whether there is ANY national power to prohibit Oregon's immoral law. Your use of "federalism" implies you don't think so, and I stand by my claim that this is a departure from Lincoln's view.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if you're correct that Congress does have this power, then the Attorney General isn't violating federalism, he's violating the separation of powers doctrine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130429029892992042005-10-27T11:03:00.000-05:002005-10-27T11:03:00.000-05:00Abandoning Lincoln? Hardly. Lincoln had such a h...Abandoning Lincoln? Hardly. Lincoln had such a high respect for the rule of law that he was willing to uphold it even in the face of slavery--all the while working toward changing the law to eliminate the latter.<BR/>Even if we extrapolate from the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment to a position that there is federal authority to prohibit Oregon's policy decision here, surely that authority is vested in Congress and not unilaterally in the Attorney General. The Rule of Law is important here, and we really must not be blinded by our own policy choices to get to the end we want by any route whatsoever.<BR/>-- John EastmanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130181397693961902005-10-24T14:16:00.000-05:002005-10-24T14:16:00.000-05:00I never found the "twos" to be so terrible. By th...I never found the "twos" to be so terrible. By that time, they are beginning to understand more things, an by 2 1/2, they actually became almost civilized. I always found that around 18 months, they were mobile (and FAST), and had almost no sense at all. So sit back and enjoy your little two-year-old. And may God keep all of you safe and healthy!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1130116455025622182005-10-23T20:14:00.000-05:002005-10-23T20:14:00.000-05:00The Dies Irae is one of the chants I have my high ...The Dies Irae is one of the chants I have my high school students listen to in the Music Appreciation class I teach. The concept of holding God in awe and fear is totally lacking in contemporary Christian music. The Dies Irae shows how it is really going to be when we see Jesus face to face.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1129933188771252442005-10-21T17:19:00.000-05:002005-10-21T17:19:00.000-05:00One normally avoids an argument that is divisive, ...One normally avoids an argument that is divisive, unless he/she has concrete evidence to support the position that is taken. Most of the animus I see directed toward HM is based on assumption or the fact that she doesn't belong to 'our school'. I can guarantee that if the top midshipman at the Naval Academy walked into a fitness review filled with hostile confederates he would look like Blackbeard to the outside world. Same here. <BR/><BR/>BTW, I wasn't in the O-? grades so I don't know the internals of the Academy.Mike H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07098719665902045519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1129735991015853712005-10-19T10:33:00.000-05:002005-10-19T10:33:00.000-05:00I am absolutely driven into Miers' camp now by the...I am absolutely driven into Miers' camp now by these people. Buchanan and Limbaugh, honest pro-lifers, are one thing --they just want a sure thing. But all these pundits who can't think outside the law-school box pretending they have a judicial philosophy and are so much wiser than Bush. I CAN'T STAND IT!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1129568240096437432005-10-17T11:57:00.000-05:002005-10-17T11:57:00.000-05:00VATICAN CITY, OCT. 16, 2005 (ZENIT.org).- Here is ...VATICAN CITY, OCT. 16, 2005 (ZENIT.org).- Here is a translation of the interview Benedict XVI gave to the public television station in Poland. It was broadcast today, Pope John Paul II Day. <BR/><BR/>Last July the Polish Parliament established the day honoring the late Pontiff to be observed every Oct. 16, the day Cardinal Karol Wojtyla of Krakow was elected Pope. He was elected 27 years ago today. <BR/><BR/>* * * <BR/><BR/>Q: Thank you, Holy Father, for granting us this brief interview on the occasion of the Pope\'s Day, which is being celebrated in Poland. <BR/><BR/>On October 16, 1978, Cardinal Karol Wojtyla became Pope, and from that day Pope John Paul II, for more than 26 years, as the Successor of St. Peter, as you are now, led the Church together with the bishops and cardinals. Among the cardinals, your Holiness was also present, enjoying the appreciation and esteem of your predecessor: a person about whom Pope John Paul wrote in his book \"Arise, and Let\'s Be on Our Way\": \"I thank God for the presence and help of Cardinal Ratzinger. He is a proven friend,\" John Paul II wrote. <BR/><BR/>Holy Father, how did this friendship begin and when did your Holiness meet Cardinal Karol Wojtyla? <BR/><BR/>Benedict XVI: I him personally during the two pre-conclaves and conclaves of 1978. Naturally I had heard about Cardinal Wojtyla, especially in the context of correspondence between the Polish and German bishops in 1965. The German cardinals told me about the great merits and contribution of the cardinal of Krakow and how he was the soul of this historic correspondence. I had also heard from university friends about his stature as a philosopher and thinker. But as I said, the first personal encounter took place during the conclave of 1978. I liked him from the beginning and, thanks to God, without any merit on my part, the then cardinal immediately made friends with me. <BR/><BR/>I am grateful for this trust that he showed me. Above all, when I watched him pray, I saw and understood, that he was a man of God. This was my first impression: a man who lives with God and in God. I was also impressed by the unprejudiced cordiality with which he made my acquaintance. On various occasions he addressed these pre-conclave meetings of the cardinals, and it was here I had the opportunity to experience his stature as a thinker. Without using big words, he created a heartfelt relationship and immediately after his election as Pope he called me to Rome several times for talks and in the end he appointed me prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. <BR/><BR/>Q: So this appointment and convocation to Rome didn\'t come as a surprise? <BR/><BR/>Benedict XVI: It was hard for me, because when I was made bishop of Munich, with a solemn consecration in Munich cathedral, I felt I had an obligation towards this diocese, almost like a marriage. So I felt bound to this diocese. There were several difficult unresolved problems and I didn\'t want to leave the diocese that way. I discussed all of this with the Holy Father, with great frankness and he was very paternal towards me. He gave me time to reflect and said he also wanted to reflect. Finally he convinced me that this was the will of God. Thus I could accept this calling and this great responsibility, which wasn\'t easy and which was beyond my capacity. But trusting in the paternal benevolence of the Pope and in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I could say yes. <BR/><BR/>Q: This experience lasted for more than 20 years… <BR/><BR/>Benedict XVI: Yes, I arrived in February 1982, and it lasted until the death of the Pope in 2005. <BR/><BR/>Q: In your opinion, Holy Father, what are the most significant moments of the Pontificate of John Paul II? <BR/><BR/>Benedict XVI: We can see it (the Pontificate) from two perspectives: one \"ad extra\" -- toward the world -- and the other \"ad intra\" -- toward the Church. With regard to the world, it seems to me that through his speeches, his person, his presence, his capacity to convince, the Holy Father created a new sensitivity for moral values, for the importance of religion in the world. This has created a new opening, a new sensitivity towards religion and the need for a religious dimension in man. Above all, the importance of the Bishop of Rome has increased immensely. <BR/><BR/>Despite the differences and despite their non-recognition of the Successor of Peter, all Christians have recognized that he is the spokesman of Christianity. No one else in the world, on an international level can speak in the name of Christianity like this and give voice and strength to the Christian reality in the world today. He was the spokesman of the great values of humanity for non Christians and other religions too. He managed to create a climate of dialogue among the great religions and a sense of common responsibility that we all have for the world. He also stressed that violence and religion are incompatible and that we must search for the path to peace together, taking common responsibility for humanity. <BR/><BR/>Regarding the situation of the Church, I would say that, first of all, he knew how to infuse enthusiasm for Christ in young people. This is something new, if we think of the youth of late \'60s and \'70s. That youth has become enthusiastic for Christ and for the Church and for difficult values. It was his personality and charisma that helped mobilize the youth of the world for the cause of God and for the love of Christ. In the Church, he created a new love for the Eucharist. <BR/><BR/>We are still in the Year of the Eucharist, called by him with so much love. He created a new awareness of the greatness of divine mercy; and he deepened devotion to Our Lady. In this way he guided us toward an internalizing of the faith and, at the same time, toward a greater efficiency. Of course we have to mention his essential contribution to the great changes in the world in 1989, contributing to the collapse of socialism. <BR/><BR/>Q: During the course of your personal encounters and your talks with John Paul II, what made the most impression on Your Holiness? Could you tell us about your last meetings, perhaps of this year, with John Paul II? <BR/><BR/>Benedict XVI: Yes. I had two encounters with him at the end: one was at the Gemelli hospital, around Feb. 5 or 6; and the second was the day before his death, in his room. During the first encounter, the Pope was visibly suffering, but was perfectly lucid and very aware. I had gone to see him about work because I needed him to make certain decisions. Though visibly suffering the Holy Father followed what I was saying with great attention. He communicated his decisions in a few words, and gave me his blessing. He greeted me in German and confirmed his trust and friendship. <BR/><BR/>I was very moved to see how he suffered in union with the suffering Lord, and how he bore his suffering with the Lord and for the Lord. I also saw his inner serenity and how totally aware he was. The second encounter was the day before his death: He was visibly in great pain, and was surrounded by doctors and friends. He was still very lucid and he gave me his blessing. He could not talk much. The patience he showed at this time of suffering was a great lesson for me -- to see how he believed he was in the hands of God and how he abandoned himself to the will of God. Despite his visible pain, he was serene, because he was in the hands of divine love. <BR/><BR/>Q: Holy Father, often in your speeches you evoke the figure of John Paul II and of John Paul II you say he was a great Pope, a venerated late predecessor. We always remember the words you pronounced at the Mass last April 20, words dedicated precisely to John Paul II. It was you, Holy Father, who said -- and here I quote -- \"it seems as though he is tightly holding my hand, I see his laughing eyes and I hear his words, which at that moment he is directing to me in particular: \'do not be afraid!\'\" Holy Father, finally a very personal question: Do you continue to feel the presence of John Paul II, and if you do, in what way? <BR/><BR/>Benedict XVI: Certainly. I\'ll begin by answering the first part of your question. Initially, in speaking of the Pope\'s legacy, I forgot to mention the many documents that he left us -- 14 encyclicals, many pastoral letters, and others. All this is a rich patrimony that has not yet been assimilated by the Church. <BR/><BR/>My personal mission is not to issue many new documents, but to ensure that his documents are assimilated, because they are a rich treasure, they are the authentic interpretation of Vatican II. We know that the Pope was a man of the Council, that he internalized the spirit and the word of the Council. Through these writings he helps us understand what the Council wanted and what it didn\'t. This helps us to be the Church of our times and of the future. <BR/><BR/>Now for the second part of your question. The Pope is always close to me through his writings: I hear him and I see him speaking, so I can keep up a continuous dialogue with him. He is always speaking to me through his writings. I even know the origin of some of the texts. I can remember the discussions we had about some of them. So I can continue my conversations with the Holy Father. <BR/><BR/>This nearness to him isn\'t limited to words and texts, because behind the texts I hear the Pope himself. A man who goes to the Lord doesn\'t disappear: I believe that someone who goes to the Lord comes even closer to us and I feel he is close to me and that I am close to the Lord. <BR/><BR/>I am near the Pope and now he helps me to be near the Lord and I try to enter this atmosphere of prayer, of love for our Lord, for Our Lady and I entrust myself to his prayers. So there is a permanent dialogue and we\'re close to each other in a new way, in a very deep way. <BR/><BR/>Q: Holy Father, now we are waiting for you in Poland. Many are asking when is the Pope coming to Poland? <BR/><BR/>Benedict XVI: Yes, if God wills it, and if my schedule allows for it, I have every intention of coming to Poland. I have spoken to Archbishop Dziwisz about the date and I am told June would be the best time. Naturally everything still has to be organized with the various institutions. It\'s early yet, but perhaps next June, God-willing, I could come to Poland. <BR/><BR/>Holy Father, in the name of all of our television viewers, thank you for this interview. <BR/><BR/>Thank you. <BR/><BR/>[Translation by Vatican Radio] <BR/>ZE05101622RC2https://www.blogger.com/profile/00624638074174720217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1129551767338782372005-10-17T07:22:00.000-05:002005-10-17T07:22:00.000-05:00Funniest thing I've seen yet on the Miers nominati...Funniest thing I've seen yet on the Miers nomination - thanks for the laugh.Cassandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00083557761155403492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1129549828432021912005-10-17T06:50:00.000-05:002005-10-17T06:50:00.000-05:00Have you checked out www.letgirlsbegirls.org yet? ...Have you checked out www.letgirlsbegirls.org yet? <BR/><BR/>Here's a pro-active way to make a statement about the American Girl/Girls, Inc. link-up.<BR/><BR/>....And a case NOT to boycott....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1129519680484753292005-10-16T22:28:00.000-05:002005-10-16T22:28:00.000-05:00Right you are! Just last week I showed "I'm Just ...Right you are! Just last week I showed "I'm Just a Bill" and "The Three Ring Circus" to my introductory level American National Government class, and they loved it. <BR/><BR/>I, for one, may never be able to recite the preamble without bursting into that pithy little song.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1129169497786963302005-10-12T21:11:00.000-05:002005-10-12T21:11:00.000-05:00You're very kind, A. Can a nearly middle-aged mom ...You're very kind, A. Can a nearly middle-aged mom of four properly be said to have "homies?"RC2https://www.blogger.com/profile/00624638074174720217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1129165230887183762005-10-12T20:00:00.000-05:002005-10-12T20:00:00.000-05:00Actually, some of us discussed how insightful your...Actually, some of us discussed how insightful your comment was later on that evening. We do have a tendancy to avoid casual dating, then every date with a "contender" takes on more significance than it really should. We fail to read signs, attribute more importance to small things, get hurt and recover very slowly because we lack a context in which to place our experiences.<BR/><BR/>I think "date more" is a good answer -and a challenging one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1129157334494086852005-10-12T17:48:00.000-05:002005-10-12T17:48:00.000-05:00positively terrible!positively terrible!aldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13967690725796749289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1128962957403872942005-10-10T11:49:00.000-05:002005-10-10T11:49:00.000-05:00One would have thought that Lincoln’s understandin...One would have thought that Lincoln’s understanding of the relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution would be the accepted understanding. Perhaps it was so for a short while after the Civil War and the early 20th century. But soon there were dissenting voices from the academy and those dissenting voices have now so prevailed that someone who puts forward such a view is regarded with a mix of contempt and pity, as one would regard an adult who believed in some absurd and childish story.<BR/> In the 1920’s and 30’s the argument was put forward that the Constitution was a betrayal of the democratic idealism of the Declaration. It was pointed out that two different sets of men were responsible for each document – men like Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine for the Declaration, bona fide democratic radicals; and conservative Virginia plantation owners like George Washington and James Madison, men of wealth and position, for the Constitution, men who were merchants, lawyers, planters. What proved that the Constitution was a conservative counter-revolution, it was said, was the fear of majority tyranny expressed in The Federalist Papers. (Martin Diamond took up the defense of the Constitution through his interpretation of The Federalist Papers, arguing that the what was established by the Constitution was truly a popular government, but one which was, in the language of Publius, a republican government and not a pure democracy. And so Diamond concluded what we have is a Democratic Republic.)<BR/> A second argument points to the references in the Declaration to God, as Creator, Divine Providence, and Supreme Judge of the World. Such language makes the Declaration appear to be the document of a religious people, and of a Christian or Biblical people at that. The Constitution, in contrast, appears to be a completely secular document, the only founding document that does not refer to God except for the mention at the very end that it was “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...” Moreover, the death blow to any connection between religion and politics is delivered by the “no religious test” clause of Article VI. The effect of that clause was to make disestablishment the norm for the States in the 1820’s. The Constitution appears to be much more of an Enlightenment document than does the Declaration. Indeed, some have gone so far as to argue that it is based on the modern understanding of politics as simply the clash of self-interests or factions.<BR/> The Declaration, further, speaks of equality and natural rights. The Constitution says nothing of either equality or natural rights. At the most, it is said, what one finds in the Constitution are the common law rights well-understood from the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, such rights as habeas corpus, trial by jury, and prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws. Furthermore, the Framers were almost to a man against Bills of Rights. The classic argument against Bills of Rights is to be found in The Federalist Papers, number 84. The suggestion is that there is a turn away from such democrats as George Mason of Virginia. Instead of speaking of rights, particularly individual rights, the Constitution emphasizes deliberation. The Framers understood how dangerous it was to speak of rights apart from the deliberative processes that made those rights possible and they therefore abandoned the language of the Declaration.<BR/> Finally, then, it is said that to turn to the Declaration as the foundation of American political order is to give a distorted picture of our political tradition. In particular, it encourages a demagogic egalitarianism, which looks upon every possible inequality as a sign of oppression. All too readily the demand for equality and rights becomes revolutionary, and every perceived injustice becomes an excuse to become lawless. Lincoln described this spirit perfectly in his Lyceum Speech of 1838: “...Having ever regarded the Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation....” Lincoln said that in the context of the response to the abolitionist movement.<BR/> How then answer these powerful arguments? How justify Lincoln’s understanding? The simplest response is to point out that the Preamble of the Constitution begins with “We, the People of the United States.” A government based upon the people is by definition a democratic republic. There cannot be rule of the people without the consent of the governed and that means that it must be based on the principle of equality. There is an immediate and direct connection between the Preamble of the Constitution and the Declaration. Furthermore, there seems to be a tendency to forget that in Article IV there is a clause that declares that the United States is to guarantee to every State a republican form of government. And equality is present throughout the Constitution in various ways, in its implicit reliance on the rule of law presupposed in the common law rights we have mentioned. There is no disagreement between the Declaration and the Constitution about the principles of government. <BR/> What led me to think further this question was Maimonides’s interpretation of Proverbs 25:11. I quote from the Guide of the Perplexed:<BR/> ...The Sage has said: A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in settings [maskiyyoth] of silver. Hear now an elucidation of the thought he has set forth. The term maskiyyoth denotes filigree traceries; I mean traceries in which there are apertures with very small eyelets, like the handiwork of silversmiths. They are so-called because a glance penetrates through them... The Sage accordingly said that a saying uttered with a view to two meanings is like an apple of gold overlaid with silver filigree-work having very small holes. Now see how marvellously this dictum describes a well-constructed parable.... When looked at from a distance or with imperfect attention, it is deemed to be an apple of silver; but when a keen-sighted observer looks at it with full attention, its interior becomes clear to him and he knows that it is of gold....<BR/><BR/> I now turn to my own parable. One cannot see the apple of gold except through the apertures of the frame. As one cannot find the inner meaning of the Word of God except through the frame of the Law, the Bible, so too we cannot see the inner meaning of the principle of freedom except through the frame of the Constitution.<BR/> Let me try to explicate further what I am suggesting. I am saying that it is only by the closest of attention to the Constitution that we come to see and understand the apple of gold, the principles of government given in the Declaration. The Declaration’s principles are too abstract, too general, too easily filled with any content one wishes. As Lincoln says, that result, the actualization of those principles, is to be found in the Constitution. One cannot divorce the Constitution from the Declaration, but one should also not divorce the Declaration from the Constitution. The Constitution and the Union are the realization of the philosophic principle of the Declaration in the circumstances in which the people of the British colonies in America found themselves. Other realizations of that principle are of course possible, and for each the same point may be made. Their understanding of the principle must be worked through the various frames that they have constructed.<BR/> Thus, instead of understanding the Constitution in terms of the Declaration, I suggest that what we need is an understanding of the Declaration through the Constitution. I reverse the usual order.<BR/> We have to keep in mind that the American experiment, as it has been called, was the earliest and most successful realization of that principle. So Federalist 1 says, and so Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address also says. Federalist 1 declares that “the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, [comprehends] the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force....” Lincoln, in the Gettysburg Address, speaks of the Civil War as a test on whether “any nation so conceived and so dedicated,” i.e., to the proposition that all men are created equal, “can long endure.”<BR/> Which is more important, the principle or the practical realization of that principle? Should the practical realization fail, does that not throw doubt on the principle itself? Without the Constitution, the principle has no life, as we may speak of rights in the abstract, but the actual enjoyment of them, their actual presence in our lives, depends upon good government and that is what the Constitution has given us.<BR/> Without a strong government and a determined people, Lincoln would not have been able to withstand the challenge of slavery, the greatest challenge the American people have faced (and the Civil War generation is my greatest generation), because it was an internal threat, which is the only way, Lincoln thought, that we could be destroyed. And we certainly could not have stood up to the challenges of Nazism and Communism.<BR/> In one sense, we can never step outside a constitution, for when we do we then have no means of deliberating on the common advantage or on our natural rights. Certainly, we can think of the rights, the standards, by which we judge the efficacy of our constitution. The right of revolution signifies that the constitutions are to be judged as to whether they have succeeded or not in effecting our safety and happiness. If a constitution fails to do so we need to replace it, and that is the point – there must be a replacement. Some constitution must again be established. Or, as it is put by modern thinkers, we always have to remove ourselves from the state of nature if we are to secure our rights. We always have to have a mode whereby we deliberate on what we ought to do about our rights. A mere enumeration of rights, a claim to rights, is of no practical effect without a constitution and a government.<BR/> Lincoln concludes the 1861 Fragment with this exhortation: “So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised, or broken./ That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger.”<BR/> That led me to wonder if, as a people, we are sufficiently dedicated to the Constitution to meet the contemporary challenges --- the September challenges as I call them. There is the September 11, 2001, challenge from those who believe that the law given to them is divinely given, and that it is the greatest of sins not to believe in and follow that law. The basis of the law is God, not the consent of the governed or the free individual.<BR/> The second September challenge, the drowning of New Orleans, raises the question of our complete dependence on technology. Do we make ourselves ever more vulnerable in our dependence? Some have estimated that should there be an interruption of power or of supplies of say twenty days, hundreds of thousands of us would die.<BR/> Moreover, the Katrina disaster revealed the immense and deliberate ignorance of our Constitution demonstrated by our journalists and indeed by large numbers of the clerks of our society, the ones in charge of our intellectual and cultural life. I refer to the commentaries about what is called the “federal responsibility” in the aftermath of the hurricane, which reminded me of what Montesquieu says of why the authority of the people was destroyed in republican Rome:<BR/> Was it necessary to make war on Sertorius? The commission was given to Pompey. On Mithridates? Everyone said Pompey, Did grain have to be brought to Rome? The people thought themselves lost if Pompey was not appointed....<BR/>The ultimate result was the weakness of the people displayed at the beginning of the Empire:<BR/> Since the Roman people no longer took part in the government,... they were conscious of nothing but their impotence. They grieved like children and women, who are distressed by their feeling of weakness. They were ill. They set their fears and hopes on the person of Germanicus, and when this was snatched from them they fell into despair.<BR/><BR/> The American people will have to decide whether it wants a highly centralized government and administration, or whether it wishes to keep something of the federal structure, where States and localities have their independent jurisdiction. That is the most important subset of the Katrina challenge. It appears that our elite, our establishment, wish to foster centralization. They wish to make the people as dependent as possible. <BR/> The last September challenge we face is that which proposes to divorce the country from its religious roots. I speak of the revival of the suit against the phrase, “under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional. The importance of the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court on the Pledge of Allegiance is that it is the logical conclusion to a series of Supreme Court decisions on the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment. It further demonstrates, if that is needed, that our judges cannot be trusted to read the plain text of the Constitution. What is most important is that it may reflect fundamental changes in the character of the people, the consequence of a century and a half or so of education in German philosophy. Germany may have lost the war, but it conquered the intellect of its conquerors.<BR/> Should the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, which I do not expect, our schoolchildren would no longer be able to recite the Gettysburg Address, from whence the phrase arises, “that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,” or sing any of the patriotic hymns we sing tonight, including the “Star-Spangled Banner.” <BR/> So much then for the challenges we now face. Lincoln, in thinking about the challenges of his day, said the following in the Lyceum Speech of 1838, a passage I always like to quote:<BR/> The question recurs “how shall we fortify against [such challenges]?” The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and the Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; -- let every man remembers that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap – let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; -- let it be written in Primmers, spelling books and in Almanacs;-- let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice....<BR/><BR/> Why have reverence for the Constitution? Because it is our way of realizing for ourselves and for mankind the highest truths about human nature. The apple of gold in the setting of silver is the right order of the human soul; it is the understanding we have derived from the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. The apple of gold is the divine order itself, and it is this that finally justifies the Constitution and the Laws.RC2https://www.blogger.com/profile/00624638074174720217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1128809578633697962005-10-08T17:12:00.000-05:002005-10-08T17:12:00.000-05:00Is that not how you spell it? It looks right.Is that not how you spell it? It looks right.RC2https://www.blogger.com/profile/00624638074174720217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12646089.post-1128808578396398102005-10-08T16:56:00.000-05:002005-10-08T16:56:00.000-05:00oops, I meant you were NOT totally boredoops, I meant you were NOT totally boredAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com