Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[PassedOut]

First, 'global warming' became 'climate change' when there were freak cold events and people used those freak cold events to ridicule 'global warming.' So it's not about mealy-mouthed, it was a case of the Al Gores of the world covering their butts.

That's dead wrong.

 

Although the term "climate change" has a long history, it entered the political conversation when Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised his clients (page 142 of this memo) as follows:

 

It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation ” instead of preservation.

 

1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming;” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

I'm surprised that anyone thought otherwise. Only 16 pages of the memo are shown here, but all 16 are interesting reading.

[billw55]

I think the even bigger elephant in the room as far as the increasing population is that the future of mankind lies in moving out into the universe. It is very limited thinking to just confine yourself to the resources on planet Earth. I would suggest rather than so much focus on less babies, think more about moving out into the universe. Move more of the old world out onto new worlds and new resources.

I consider this science fiction only, it will never be a reality. IMO the energy burdens and engineering challenges are too great to overcome. I admit I could be wrong, but none of us alive now will ever know for sure.

 

As a consequence, I perforce believe that human population is inherently limited. If we don't stop voluntarily, eventually we will be stopped by forces of nature. The letter seems more likely, but here at least there is hope.

 

None which means that keeping the third world in third world conditions is a solution to warming.

 

 

 

 

 

[mike777]

I consider this science fiction only, it will never be a reality. IMO the energy burdens and engineering challenges are too great to overcome. I admit I could be wrong, but none of us alive now will ever know for sure.

 

As a consequence, I perforce believe that human population is inherently limited. If we don't stop voluntarily, eventually we will be stopped by forces of nature. The letter seems more likely, but here at least there is hope.

 

None which means that keeping the third world in third world conditions is a solution to warming.

 

OK we disagree on the basic premise of humans being inherently limited to planet earth when it comes to living space or resources. I certainly hope within the lifetimes of some alive today we move off planet with living space and resource use.

for example I use energy from space to grow food in my backyard today. One small step for mankind.

 

As has been pointed out extinction has happened at least 5 times on planet earth. I doubt the solution is build walls, build walls between sperm and egg, build walls around resources of energy or that greatest resource human capital.

 

Many years ago China had the choice to build walls and turn inward or build ships and look outward. They burned their ships!

 

I encourage us to build ships rather than more walls.

[barmar]

As has been pointed out extinction has happened at least 5 times on planet earth.

I think a couple of them were due to planetwide disasters, i.e. asteroid impacts.

 

Other than the ones due to sudden disasters, how long did those extinctions take? I suspect the majority of the human-caused extinction has taken place in the past 500 years, and past extinctions probably took 5-10 times longer.

 

When man-made technologies get involved, practically everything happens faster by orders of magnitude (see my posts in the thread about GMO), and natural processes can't keep up. So unless we implement counter-measures as well, the world is drastically altered as a result.

[mike777]

I think a couple of them were due to planetwide disasters, i.e. asteroid impacts.

 

Other than the ones due to sudden disasters, how long did those extinctions take? I suspect the majority of the human-caused extinction has taken place in the past 500 years, and past extinctions probably took 5-10 times longer.

 

When man-made technologies get involved, practically everything happens faster by orders of magnitude (see my posts in the thread about GMO), and natural processes can't keep up. So unless we implement counter-measures as well, the world is drastically altered as a result.

 

All the more reason to build more ships as a priority rather than walls between sperm and egg or human capital and resources

 

Again I just don't think the top priority should be building moats to protect the world from being drastically altered. I am not suggesting it is a zero priority, just far from the top one which some posters argue for.

 

"... brief excerpt from Bindi's essay: "I believe that most problems in the world today, such as climate change, stem from one immense problem which seems to be the 'elephant in the room' that no-one wants to talk about. This problem is our ever expanding human population. We are experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction right now. ..."

---

 

I wanted to add that who knows by making this a higher priority there may be spin off effects that may lead to a lower carbon footprint. Perhaps this basic science leads to solving some of the solar energy or storage battery issues. I don't believe the spin off effects will have a value of zero when it comes to the carbon footprint problem. As for birth control, I expect space boys and girls will still need it. I don't expect birth control to be a zero issue when it comes to space travel.

[Al_U_Card]

Birth control = affluence = energy availability.

Give people something pleasant to pursue other than sex and they will.

Nuclear power is the key. Fossil fuels are the bridge towards that eventuality.

[blackshoe]

There are various possibilities for a more sensible approach, but the one that seems to combine simplicity with sense is to give citizenship to the child of a mother if the mother is legally entitled to be here, and not give citizenship to the child if the mother is not legally entitled to be here.

Maybe so, but we've seen enough ignoring of the Constitution IMO. If we're going to change this aspect of things in this country, it will require a Constitutional Amendment.

[kenberg]

Maybe so, but we've seen enough ignoring of the Constitution IMO. If we're going to change this aspect of things in this country, it will require a Constitutional Amendment.

 

Yes, of course it would require a change, and that was pretty much my point. Due to the ill-advised 14th amendment, the child is a citizen, the mom can be sent back.only the hardest of hearts would do this, so we routinely ignore what the amendment provides. Now one could say that the amendment does not specifically say that we have to send the mother back, and current policy is not to do so.

 

This is a pretty bad way of doing things. As far as I know, the 18th amendment prohibiting the sale whiskey etc did not stipulate that we had to enforce it, but the presumption was that it would be enforced. When this proved untenable, the amendment was rescinded. Having a constitutional amendment that we decide not to enforce seems like a bad idea.

 

 

I expect that most people see it as self-evident that we should not keep the child here and send the mother back. If people think that getting into the country and having a child here qualifies a woman for citizenship, they can present an argument as to why this is so. But whatever we decide, either both mother and child should eligible to stay or neither should be eligible to stay. I am willing to listen to arguments why both should be eligible to stay, or to arguments why neither should be. Keeping one and sending the other back is inhumane, and circumventing the law to keep them together has many bad features, for example it is subject to change at the whim of a new president or a new congress. Such an approach creates disrespect for the law.

 

Those kids who achieved citizenship under current law would keep it. That's what we do when we make a mistake. But we can change the law for the future.

 

We have procedures for refugees. We have procedures for obtaining citizenship. I support accommodating refugees and I support immigration and naturalization. What I object to is this sort of ass/2 approach of saying the child was born here so he is a citizen and he needs a mother so we will just let her stay. Set up a reasonable procedure for obtaining legal residence, another procedure for citizenship, and then follow it.

[PassedOut]

Yes, of course it would require a change, and that was pretty much my point. Due to the ill-advised 14th amendment, the child is a citizen, the mom can be sent back.only the hardest of hearts would do this, so we routinely ignore what the amendment provides. Now one could say that the amendment does not specifically say that we have to send the mother back, and current policy is not to do so.

 

This is a pretty bad way of doing things. As far as I know, the 18th amendment prohibiting the sale whiskey etc did not stipulate that we had to enforce it, but the presumption was that it would be enforced. When this proved untenable, the amendment was rescinded. Having a constitutional amendment that we decide not to enforce seems like a bad idea.

 

I expect that most people see it as self-evident that we should not keep the child here and send the mother back. If people think that getting into the country and having a child here qualifies a woman for citizenship, they can present an argument as to why this is so. But whatever we decide, either both mother and child should eligible to stay or neither should be eligible to stay. I am willing to listen to arguments why both should be eligible to stay, or to arguments why neither should be. Keeping one and sending the other back is inhumane, and circumventing the law to keep them together has many bad features, for example it is subject to change at the whim of a new president or a new congress. Such an approach creates disrespect for the law.

 

Those kids who achieved citizenship under current law would keep it. That's what we do when we make a mistake. But we can change the law for the future.

 

We have procedures for refugees. We have procedures for obtaining citizenship. I support accommodating refugees and I support immigration and naturalization. What I object to is this sort of ass/2 approach of saying the child was born here so he is a citizen and he needs a mother so we will just let her stay. Set up a reasonable procedure for obtaining legal residence, another procedure for citizenship, and then follow it.

You haven't mentioned fathers. What should be done if the father is a citizen and the mother is not?

 

I hadn't thought before about making the mother of a child born here a citizen automatically too, but that idea certainly has the virtue of simplicity. What would be the downside?

:)

[Winstonm]

Maybe so, but we've seen enough ignoring of the Constitution IMO. If we're going to change this aspect of things in this country, it will require a Constitutional Amendment.

 

I wonder whether or not you allow for the possibility that the Constitution is subject to interpretation, and that interpretations that are different from yours are just as legitimate, thus, when you say, "ignoring the Constitution" what you may actually mean is "ignoring my personal point of view concerning the constitution"?,

 

The Constitution represents the law of our land, but it is not divinely inspired, sacrosanct. It is a human document written in compromise by humans. And its meanings are certainly not precisely etched on stone tablets.

 

I think wisdom is the understanding that there is no shame in being wrong, as we are all wrong from time to time and it is a shared human experience, that the only shame is in unwillingness to change in the face of contradictory facts.

 

Btw, I happen to agree with you that Constitutional amendment is the method that should be used as it is the only way to force an out-of-control Supreme Court to act rationally.

[Winstonm]

You haven't mentioned fathers. What should be done if the father is a citizen and the mother is not?

 

I hadn't thought before about making the mother of a child born here a citizen automatically too, but that idea certainly has the virtue of simplicity. What would be the downside?

:)

 

I guess according to Donald Trump's anchor baby theory, giving these woman automatic citizenship would be an example of Anchors Away, My Boys, Anchors Away! :P

[kenberg]

You haven't mentioned fathers. What should be done if the father is a citizen and the mother is not?

 

I hadn't thought before about making the mother of a child born here a citizen automatically too, but that idea certainly has the virtue of simplicity. What would be the downside?

:)

 

Fathers rather than mothers because we know who the mother is. I have been told that this is the logic behind the Jewish idea that you are Jewish if your mother was Jewish. At any rate, giving or not giving citizenship to the child based on the legal status of the mother would be fairly simple, basing it on the status of the alleged father would invite complexity and perhaps some gaming of the system.

 

The downside, if there is one, would be that this might not be the best way to choose who is a citizen and who is not. American citizenship is a quite valuable asset. If we agree that not everyone can be a US citizen simply because they wish to be, then we have to decide on what basis a person can become a citizen. One way might be to go through the immigration process, learn the language and American laws, take a test on those laws, and swear allegiance. Another way, at least for women, would be to cross the border when eight months pregnant, elude border enforcement for a month, give birth and claim citizenship. I prefer holding out for the first method.

[kenberg]

I wonder whether or not you allow for the possibility that the Constitution is subject to interpretation, and that interpretations that are different from yours are just as legitimate, thus, when you say, "ignoring the Constitution" what you may actually mean is "ignoring my personal point of view concerning the constitution"?,

 

The Constitution represents the law of our land, but it is not divinely inspired, sacrosanct. It is a human document written in compromise by humans. And its meanings are certainly not precisely etched on stone tablets.

 

I think wisdom is the understanding that there is no shame in being wrong, as we are all wrong from time to time and it is a shared human experience, that the only shame is in unwillingness to change in the face of contradictory facts.

 

Btw, I happen to agree with you that Constitutional amendment is the method that should be used as it is the only way to force an out-of-control Supreme Court to act rationally.

 

Sure, interpretation happens. And, imo, really it has to happen. If we couldn't do some interpreting we would need many more amendments. With the 14th, the interpretation seems to center around "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I don't know how this has been interpreted but I would think it would not exclude very many people. Maybe the child of an Ambassador, if the special legal privileges of Ambassadors means that they, and their children, are not subject to US jurisdiction. But with immigrants, legal immigrants or illegal immigrants, the child would seem to me to be subject to our jurisdiction. So I don't see much interpretative wiggle room there.

 

 

 

It would be interesting to know if the drafters of this amendment really meant that anyone who could scurry across the border for an afternoon delivery could secure American citizenship for the child. Maybe they did. To me, it seems very wrong-headed. But it is what they said, so perhaps it was what they intended.

[StevenG]

If you do not give a child US citizenship, it does not follow that they become the citizen of another country. To where do you deport the child?

[PassedOut]

Fathers rather than mothers because we know who the mother is. I have been told that this is the logic behind the Jewish idea that you are Jewish if your mother was Jewish. At any rate, giving or not giving citizenship to the child based on the legal status of the mother would be fairly simple, basing it on the status of the alleged father would invite complexity and perhaps some gaming of the system.

 

The downside, if there is one, would be that this might not be the best way to choose who is a citizen and who is not. American citizenship is a quite valuable asset. If we agree that not everyone can be a US citizen simply because they wish to be, then we have to decide on what basis a person can become a citizen. One way might be to go through the immigration process, learn the language and American laws, take a test on those laws, and swear allegiance. Another way, at least for women, would be to cross the border when eight months pregnant, elude border enforcement for a month, give birth and claim citizenship. I prefer holding out for the first method.

Still, your idea of granting citizenship to both mother and child would immediately solve the problem of breaking up mothers and children via deportation. And I suppose that the number of women who would get pregnant so they could sneak across the border to gain citizenship would be so miniscule as to be inconsequential. Why not come over the border first and get pregnant here?

B-)

[jonottawa]

Here's a great response after Megyn Kelly's inappropriate line of questions (for which she was suspended) to the Donald at the first debate.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io6B3AfG2HA

[kenberg]

If you do not give a child US citizenship, it does not follow that they become the citizen of another country. To where do you deport the child?

 

That's easy. The whole idea is to keep mother and child together. There might be cases when this is impossible. Sure. So we don't do the impossible. But the intention is either mother and child stay in the US, or mother and child are sent together to wherever you would send the mother if she were alone. Really the interaction is between authorities and the adult. The child is kept with the mother to whatever extent this is reasonable. It will happen that the mother disappears. Or it will happen that the mother is not someone anyone would leave a child in the care of. But these are exceptional cases.

 

So I am saying:

First, you decide whether the mother stays or goes.

Then, unless there is a very strong reason to do otherwise, the child goes with her.

[mikeh]

See, even Mikeh, one of the most brilliant people I know, has been brainwashed by decades of CBC Koolaid. That's why it's fruitless for me to try to debate the issue.

 

Since I like Mike so much, I'll give it a go:

 

First, 'global warming' became 'climate change' when there were freak cold events and people used those freak cold events to ridicule 'global warming.' So it's not about mealy-mouthed, it was a case of the Al Gores of the world covering their butts.

 

Second, if you believe pollution & mass extinction are huge problems (& I do, I would also wager I have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than 99% of the people on this forum, including you.) then it is only logical to investigate the cause of these problems. In a word, what's the cause?

 

Overpopulation. You'd never know that if you get all your information from the MSM, but if you stop & think about it for 5 minutes, it's self-evident. Sustainable development with zero population growth should be the goal of any sane individual who cares about the future of our planet & the people who will populate it.

 

The first world has been very responsible with respect to solving the problem, maintaining very low (in some cases sub-replacement) birth rates.

 

The rest of the world hasn't.

 

Your solution is to let all the countries of the first world be flooded with 3rd world immigrants until they become 3rd world countries with 1st world carbon appetites & with NO appetite for curbing global warming.

 

I would call that solution bizarre.

 

tl;dr If you don't understand the connection between immigration & climate change, I suggest you turn off the CBC for a few days & have an independent think.

 

Here's a neat article about what happened to the Crocodile Hunter's daughter when she sent an essay to Hillary about overpopulation. A brief excerpt from Bindi's essay: "I believe that most problems in the world today, such as climate change, stem from one immense problem which seems to be the 'elephant in the room' that no-one wants to talk about. This problem is our ever expanding human population. We are experiencing Earth's sixth mass extinction right now. ..."

 

Here's a cool nature video. See if you can identify its relevancy to this discussion.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO1WccH2_YM

 

Or this ad:

 

https://vimeo.com/11212514

You don't seem to be very logical here.

 

Of course overpopulation is a big problem. Altho it is fair to say that many of the most rapidly reproducing humans have the lowest carbon footprint, it is also obvious that if, say, China had a population of 500 million, it wouldn't be producing as much greenhouse emissions, assuming that nothing else was changed. The same would be true if the US has a population of 150 million, and so on.

 

Freak cold events are a natural by-product of global warming, and anyone with any basic understanding of physics would know that. Add heat to a dynamic, chaotic system and the internal fluctuations in the system will increase. The overall trend will be warming, but there will be localized cooling as well. Only a dedicated denier or an idiot (the terms are not entirely equivalent) would think otherwise.

 

As for my solution being unlimited immigration: no, not at all. But the Trump plan lacks, shall we say, nuance. it is a typical populist approach: a simplistic solution to a complex problem. When most of one's population gets their understanding of the world from Youtube or Fox or indeed any media, then one gets a scientifically illiterate society, doomed to make stupid choices.

[kenberg]

Still, your idea of granting citizenship to both mother and child would immediately solve the problem of breaking up mothers and children via deportation. And I suppose that the number of women who would get pregnant so they could sneak across the border to gain citizenship would be so miniscule as to be inconsequential. Why not come over the border first and get pregnant here?

B-)

 

Sure. They might.

 

Most people are just trying to live their lives. We probably agree on that. But rules, especially strange rules, can have an affect.

 

When I was in grad school many years ago I knew a woman who had an offer of marriage as a business relationship from someone who wanted to stay in the country. I have heard of other such offers but in this case I mention I am sure that it was so. She was considering it, and we discussed it. She declined the offer.

 

This also was the time of new rules to deal with the "brain drain". grad students would come to the US, typically from India or Pakistan, with the promise to go back. But then they would try to avoid it. The US set up rules that required them to leave the US, but couldn't or didn't see to it that they returned to their former country. I knew several that went to Canada, which for starters does did not please the government of the country that they came from. Also, after a year or so, they could apply to come back to the US. These things are tough to get right.

 

I doubt that many women decide to get pregnant with the sole purpose of giving birth in the US and thereby getting to stay in the US as the mother of a young citizen. That would be extreme. Happens, I suppose, but probably not in large numbers. But women do get pregnant, and then they naturally start to consider what a good plan would be. The current set up certainly would be motivation to get across the border before giving birth.

 

There is a sense in which this is all very much a wasted discussion. Donald Trump is not going to be elected, and whoever does run, on either major ticket, is not going to campaign on changing the 14th amendment. Not if he wants to win, anyway. But I do wish the writers of that amendment had thought through the consequences a bit more than I think they did.

 

An aside: There was an interesting article in the Washington Post a while back. Some high level academic wrote a journal article saying that stories of discrimination against Irish workers some 100+ years ago was not really very widespread and that advertisements for jobs stating that "No Irish need apply" basically didn't happen. Some youngster, 12 or maybe 13 or 14, read this and decided to check it out. It's the internet age and she was good at it, and I guess with some guidance from her father she found evidence to the contrary. She will now have an article published in the same journal, where she contradicts the professor.

 

Not particularly relevant to anything, but it was nice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

[Winstonm]

When most of one's population gets their understanding of the world from Youtube or Fox or indeed any media, then one gets a scientifically illiterate society, doomed to make stupid choices.

 

Let me butt in here because I experienced a real sinking feeling the other day while watching the network news. It occurred to me that a huge amount of air time is being given to the right-wing histrionics while little is being said about Clinton, Biden, and Sanders. I fear that whosoever controls the media controls the minds of America, and since Reagan there has been a steady erosion of competition, especially among the various media organizations, and we are left with a handful of powerful people in control of the majority of the news.

 

The Republican right wing now has more in keeping with a religious organization than a political party, unwilling to compromise their beliefs, and led by a few extremely wealthy individuals.

 

The last two Presidential elections showed that common sense still rules America, but since the midterm elections gave Congress to the Republicans I have serious doubts about the future - doomed, indeed, to make a stupid decision.

[kenberg]

I don't even know who the anchors on the news programs are anymore. I long ago gave up on 60 minutes. And really, I am not so fond of PBS either. I only know what I read in the newspapers. And of course here on the water cooler.

[jonottawa]

You don't seem to be very logical here.

 

Of course overpopulation is a big problem. Altho it is fair to say that many of the most rapidly reproducing humans have the lowest carbon footprint, it is also obvious that if, say, China had a population of 500 million, it wouldn't be producing as much greenhouse emissions, assuming that nothing else was changed. The same would be true if the US has a population of 150 million, and so on.

 

Freak cold events are a natural by-product of global warming, and anyone with any basic understanding of physics would know that. Add heat to a dynamic, chaotic system and the internal fluctuations in the system will increase. The overall trend will be warming, but there will be localized cooling as well. Only a dedicated denier or an idiot (the terms are not entirely equivalent) would think otherwise.

 

As for my solution being unlimited immigration: no, not at all. But the Trump plan lacks, shall we say, nuance. it is a typical populist approach: a simplistic solution to a complex problem. When most of one's population gets their understanding of the world from Youtube or Fox or indeed any media, then one gets a scientifically illiterate society, doomed to make stupid choices.

I'm sensing a great deal of cognitive dissonance. Could I actually be getting through?

 

"You don't seem to be very logical here."

 

I'll take that as politespeak for "You're an idiot." So I'll disregard it.

 

"Of course overpopulation is a big problem. ..."

 

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM. But like the climate, at least you're getting warmer. Bill Gates is spending most of his billions accelerating that overpopulation. He's succeeded in doubling the population of Africa in the last ~25 years, in spite of the AIDS epidemic there. Are we better off because of it? Is that what we're here to do, cram as many homo sapiens as we possibly can on this little green ball before it all goes poof? When was the last CBC documentary on global overpopulation?

 

"Freak cold events ..." I don't dispute any of that. To me, pollution & mass extinctions are a huge problem. I don't think 'climate science' is a very exact science but we're definitely polluting too much & non 1st world countries are breeding too much in a world where over 1 billion people who are ALREADY HERE get by on less than $1/day.

 

"As for my solution being unlimited immigration: no, not at all. But the Trump plan lacks, shall we say, nuance. ..."

 

In other words you agree with 90% of the plan. But you'd rather see someone with an amnesty plan that you agree 10% with become President. You want the United States nuclear arsenal to be in the hands of a 3rd world country? And I'M the 'not very logical' one.

 

A nation without borders is not a nation. A nation without laws is not a nation. A nation that doesn't serve the interests of its citizens is not a nation. That's the essence of the Trump plan. Incidentally, it's virtually identical to the plan they have in Israel. It's nothing more than a (long, LONG overdue) return to sanity.

 

I swear, if the Baby Boomer generation were a president, they'd be George W. Bush. "We got gay marriage! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

[barmar]

Fathers rather than mothers because we know who the mother is. I have been told that this is the logic behind the Jewish idea that you are Jewish if your mother was Jewish. At any rate, giving or not giving citizenship to the child based on the legal status of the mother would be fairly simple, basing it on the status of the alleged father would invite complexity and perhaps some gaming of the system.

The ancient Hebrews didn't know about DNA. Nowadays, it would be easy to require a paternity test if we wanted to use the father to determine citizenship status.

 

However, it always bugs me how much importance is given to biological paternity. If a man raises the child for years, and has formed a normal paternal bond with the child, would it really be appropriate to break them up just because his wife cuckolded him?

[kenberg]

The ancient Hebrews didn't know about DNA. Nowadays, it would be easy to require a paternity test if we wanted to use the father to determine citizenship status.

 

However, it always bugs me how much importance is given to biological paternity. If a man raises the child for years, and has formed a normal paternal bond with the child, would it really be appropriate to break them up just because his wife cuckolded him?

 

As an adopted child, I am very much in agreement with the idea that your parents are the ones who raised you.

 

Paternity tests have their place in family law, but they should not trump everything.

 

The way I would apply that to citizenship: If we were to agree that when a child is born on US soil the child and the mother are to be given citizenship ( I do not advocate tis,, but suppose that it is done) then I would fine with extending this to a man who could reasonably be called the child's father. For example, if he is living with the child's mother and they have a long term family relationship. But there is much room for mischief. I can well imagine some guy showing up out of the blue but with DNA tests showing him to be the child's father.If all he did was to contribute his DNA, I would tell him to crawl back into the woodwork. But the law does not see things that way.

[blackshoe]

I wonder whether or not you allow for the possibility that the Constitution is subject to interpretation, and that interpretations that are different from yours are just as legitimate, thus, when you say, "ignoring the Constitution" what you may actually mean is "ignoring my personal point of view concerning the constitution"?,

 

The Constitution represents the law of our land, but it is not divinely inspired, sacrosanct. It is a human document written in compromise by humans. And its meanings are certainly not precisely etched on stone tablets.

 

I think wisdom is the understanding that there is no shame in being wrong, as we are all wrong from time to time and it is a shared human experience, that the only shame is in unwillingness to change in the face of contradictory facts.

 

Btw, I happen to agree with you that Constitutional amendment is the method that should be used as it is the only way to force an out-of-control Supreme Court to act rationally.

All of my views are personal views. As are yours. So what? Your post is a non-sequitur as far as I can see.