okFaith and politics are 2 different things.what if a law was passed that you must be a christian or you lose your rights?We have three branches of government. 2 of them are elected and one is appointed by the executive branch...however...with the confirmation of the senate. Those elections are how people can stand up for their rights. But when people are voted in they still must adhere to the constitution as it is a guidance for legislative decisions made by those elected.Good points but it only works when people stand up for rights. I think that is why many call it a living document.Lets see.Let the Constitution do what? Mind explaining further?It is actually more simple than you realize.I've largely given up on this idea, considering the stranglehold the two "major" parties have on our election system. Plus, if such a party can't appear NOW, as ridiculous and polarized as things are, one NEVER will.democrats are moving too far left
republicans have gone too far right
i find myself appreciating rinos and dinos more these days
we need a third party for the majority of us who are moderates
What I'm hoping now is that one of the parties will wake up and realize that a majority of the country wants moderation and cooperation, and be the first to take advantage of that. The problem is that the wings have most of the energy, and therefore the influence.
I don't know what fixes this.
The Constitution is not a living document. It is a guideline.
It has resulted in the development of a union
It has allowed the freeing of people in bondage
It has allowed for fair elections
It has allowed for a SCOTUS that makes monumental decisions
It has allowed for the right to vote for women
It has allowed for the right to vote for all Americans
It has allowed for equal rights for all Americans
It has allowed for 3 equal branches of government offering checks and balances.
Sure, we were imperfect as a country back in the 1700's....we were new, we had habits of our heritages.....but it is our constitution that FORCED us to right our wrongs.
So what fixes it? Let the constitution do its job.
It really isnt that difficult. Only to the politicians who are trying to get votes.
And THAT is the problem.
Please do not build John Kasich into what he is not. He is far from moderate.That I couldn't tell you, since we've never really had one. I think a glimpse of it came a few years ago when there was talk of a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket.I don't think you have to be a 'moderate' to want to compromise. As a liberal, I'd rather get something rather than nothing.I think there are a couple of characteristics, depending on the individual moderate. So:I agree, progress is only made through compromise and collaboration. But, that's not really a stance it's just asking the current parties to talk to each other. I was more curious as to what are the political beliefs of a moderate. Usually when they are asked it's quite clear that they would more than fit into one party or the other.Abortion is the closest to being a binary argument. The rest all exist along a continuum and are not binary.Not to start an argument. What is considered moderate these days? Like for these topics:
foreign policy at large
What is the moderate position on each?
And I think we've fallen into a trap, thinking that one side has to "win" on any given issue, and one side has to "lose".
How about both sides collaborating, innovating, and creating something NEW, like our Constitution? That way we all have skin in the game.
America used to be able to innovate, back when we were great.
My two cents, anyway.
- Some moderates have strong feelings on any given issue, but their opinions as a whole don't fit with one of the tribes. So, a moderate may be passionately pro choice and passionately pro lowering income taxes. Neither tribe, then, is a fit for them.
- Some moderates really do want to find some kind of middle ground on most issues. They believe that there are decent or fair arguments on both ends, and want to at least begin the conversation by finding shared views and going from there.
- Some moderates think that both tribes are narcissistic gasbags and would rather just approach each issue on its own merits, taking some ideas from column A, some from column B, and the rest from new ideas.
But since this thread is about a moderate party, what is that exactly? How are a group of people who claim to be in the middle however their various opinions on a range of topics will individually slide from liberal to conservative leaning is supposed to make up a cohesive political party?
But to your point, I think a party that was clearly committed to collaboration and new ideas would draw many people who didn't necessarily agree with its candidates on every issue. So the appeal would be more about general approach than specific positions.
the constitution allowed for women to vote. It was only because of the constitution that were given the right to vote. I agree with the decision and I respect it.
The consitution allowed for the decision of Roe V Wade. I disagree with the decision, but I respect it.
You see, our constitution was written in a way where it allowed for debate and it allowed for majority decision and implementation of laws and rights.
Seems to be working well.
Albeit, there are those that say it is a living document and we must adjust to it.
To me? That is wrong. It is a document and we must apply it....not Obey it....that would be wrong....apply it. And that is what we do.
And it is working.
Sure, protests are good....and they allow the legislators to hesitate and reconsider....but it is the constitution that keeps them in check and not simply do what they want to do for votes, but instead so what the constitution has deemed best for the overall good.
I know...the left would love to toss the constitution. But without it? We would not have women voting, African Americans voting. abortion legalized. The ACLU pushing rights of Americans.
The constitution ensures we do the right thing and not do something that can be damaging.
A good example is the ACA. Justice Roberts was well aware that the constitution does not allow for forcing anyone to purchase something from the day they are born to the day they die. So he called it a tax.
For right or wrong and regardless of how you feel...it was the constitution that guided that decision. And without the creativity of Justice Roberts, the act was unconstitutional.
Just thin about this....what if a law was passed that said you MUST buy only American made cars....and you MUST buy it at no age older than 18? It is the constitution that prevents such ridiculous laws being imposed on the American People.
so people can have their faith and not use politics to enforce their religion on everyone.