The Rule of Reason
There's something essential that is absent in government nowadays.
We've all grown so accustomed to politic outcomes being predetermined, with the real debate being conducted behind closed doors, with arguments being presented in a climate devoid of public scrutiny or any accountability to them.
The politics of fear are devastating our country. It's not something that Bush invented, and it's not something that only goes on in Washington D.C.
I've been pressured really hard in the past 24 hours. They've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at us. We've gone from dishonest policy explanations to empty political threats. Judicial interpretations based on hearsay to secret financial assurances. Rewriting history to "the end of the world". "We don't play politics with the constitution" to "let the people decide".
There is no longer any rational debate. We're being told that amending the constitution is a simple and trivial task. When the process must be respected, their policy is invincible. When we find holes in the policy, the important thing is that we pass something. If we don't pass something, there will be disastrous political consequences. If we don't share those political consequences with them, they threaten us with retribution.
The ultimate problem, however, isn't even with the merits of these arguments. Whether they be rooted in policy or politics, there are bound to be a few that have some truth in them. The problem is that the decision making process is backwards. These arguments weren't presented and discussed, resulting in a logical conclusion. The answer is decided upon, and we are then given a progression of weak excuses and reasons as to why the answer is right, after the fact.
First the verdict, then the trial.
I'm voting no. If we aren't going to follow the rule of reason - the foundation of our constitutional process - then there is no moral basis for us to lay our hands upon the Constitution.
We've all grown so accustomed to politic outcomes being predetermined, with the real debate being conducted behind closed doors, with arguments being presented in a climate devoid of public scrutiny or any accountability to them.
The politics of fear are devastating our country. It's not something that Bush invented, and it's not something that only goes on in Washington D.C.
I've been pressured really hard in the past 24 hours. They've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at us. We've gone from dishonest policy explanations to empty political threats. Judicial interpretations based on hearsay to secret financial assurances. Rewriting history to "the end of the world". "We don't play politics with the constitution" to "let the people decide".
There is no longer any rational debate. We're being told that amending the constitution is a simple and trivial task. When the process must be respected, their policy is invincible. When we find holes in the policy, the important thing is that we pass something. If we don't pass something, there will be disastrous political consequences. If we don't share those political consequences with them, they threaten us with retribution.
The ultimate problem, however, isn't even with the merits of these arguments. Whether they be rooted in policy or politics, there are bound to be a few that have some truth in them. The problem is that the decision making process is backwards. These arguments weren't presented and discussed, resulting in a logical conclusion. The answer is decided upon, and we are then given a progression of weak excuses and reasons as to why the answer is right, after the fact.
First the verdict, then the trial.
I'm voting no. If we aren't going to follow the rule of reason - the foundation of our constitutional process - then there is no moral basis for us to lay our hands upon the Constitution.
Its been interesting to hear your public comments on the back room bullying you have been receiving over this bill.
Once you do vote your values, and thank you for doing so by the way, could you post a few of your own word about what you think is wrong with the bill. Perhaps some ideas on areas it fails to meet its intended goals, and some thoughts you might have on how it could have been better.
Thank you, and yes certainly. I'll have a post addressing this shortly