that's not a very good metaphor. It would apply if you were forced to purchase one of the cars and make payments for years.

The only thing is that most of them were appointed by Bush 1 and 2. The Supreme Court has gone so far over that it appears they are now legislating from the bench in favor of unchecked executive and corporate powers.

By not voting for Gore/Kerry/Obama because he is the "lesser of two evils", one enables the greater of two evils to assume power.

I don't see the strawman you claim, because you are again blaming the voter (the enabler of evil) in the line above.

Let me try another way. A customer wants a new car, and he is allowed to buy anything he can afford, anything at all--so long as it's either a Hummer or a Ford Expedition.

When he buys neither, for his own perfectly good reasons, the two dealers shrug and say--"hey, we gave you a choice."

McCain's speech was masterful as an exercise in "diversionary patriotism" -- say nice things about "the Constitution", get the nice things reported, and maybe nobody will notice you're not the least bit interested in actually respecting the Constitution except to the minimum extent of attacking those with whom you disagree.

Did anyone see the "statement" released on behalf of George W. Bush on "Law Day"? Same thing: "Gee, sure love that Constitution. The 'Rule of Law', pretty great idea, huh? Never mind asking what I've done with that concept during this administration."

Thank you, GG, for pointing out difference between a speech "revering the Constitution" and actions actually respecting it. One is for show, the other would, if implemented, allow our country to prosper and be a beacon of hope for the world. I would prefer the latter -- and I agree with the sentiments of those who want Bush & Co. to answer for their wilful assault on the Constitution. Impeachment first, then tried for war crimes and treason. A patriot can dream....

Who will posit "the list" of specific questions of Constitutional dimension to be asked of the Democratic and the Republican candidates in their first presidential debate?

Perhaps not, but it is bearing a strong resemblance to bumf these days.

The document only "works" if all sides agree to follow it and work within its parameters.

That would be a house of cards. The Constitution actually provides mechanisms for when "all side" do not play along. "Checks and balances" are some of these. Enforcement of laws is another, and also impeachment and recall.

I know you know this, IOW. But I think it's an important point. The Constitution is not a house of cards.

The Supreme Court decison on photo ID was a hideous miscarriage of justice. The legistlature of Indiana chose to impose a poll tax . . . long since outlawed . . . with the sole purpose to be to unnecessarily harass poor voters . . . by requiring photo ID's. The example of nuns being denied the right to vote in the Indiana primary shows exactly where that right wing law was coming from.

The job of the Court is to reign in pinheaded legislators when in their ignoranc they overstep and violate constitutinoal rights.

Crawl back in your hole, jerk.

There are too many "experts" and ivory tower law professors who fail to view events through the scope of time as opposed to the scope of "now".

You wish to talk about those who fail to view events through the scope of time? How about the events in the past which demonstrate that a powerful executive will lead to inevitable abuse of that power? From the Kings of England to Richard Nixon, the scope of time will show you that power concentrated in one man will be abused.

The scope of time also tells us that torture is cruel, inhuman, and degrading, as well as useless for gaining actionable intelligence.

I like experts, and contrary to your statement they usually cite historic precedents. I usually listen to experts in a field, as opposed to people who think poorly of those experts. Especially when it comes to something like my doctor, my dentist, my accountant, my lawyer, or my President. I wouldn't want someone who wasn't an educated dental professional doing my root canal.

Obama is an example of something called a "junior senator."

Ponder that awhile, and you may get an answer to your questions.

Oh, sorry, he only tried to stack the Supreme Court, among other things!!!!

Very true, but when you consider what those "other things" entailed and what he was attempting to accomplish? Few other Presidents can claim to have advanced (however imperfectly) the collective good and wellbeing of the country as a whole.

the good thing that all liberals overlook about our constitution is the ebb and flow of power. Seems to me that the document works pretty well.

I don't believe anyone here is "overlooking" this point. However our Constitutional framework is itself being summarily dismissed by both the current Administration is its possible successor. The document only "works" if all sides agree to follow it and work within its parameters.

Our Founding Fathers certainly knew what they were doing. There are too many "experts" and ivory tower law professors who fail to view events through the scope of time as opposed to the scope of "now".

We will likely never see the likes of the Constitutional Convention again, but that doesn't mean we can take comfort in their successes while ignoring the very real problems our country faces now. The scope of "now" as you put it is a call to action, not a matter of scholarly reflection.

Perspective is a wonderful eyeglass.

You wear eyeglasses to compensate for myopia or hyperopia. And that same compensation should inform you that the issues before us cannot be solved by simply looking back upon history.

I am of the belief that we are in this predicament simply because we refuse to do anything about it.

Do you have a recommended course of action?

Aside from voting for evil, that is..

I've talked to family, friends and anyone else who will listen to the point that no one will listen any more if they ever did to start with.

Most people simply don't give a damn is the conclusion I have reached. They will literally have to be out in the street with nothing to eat before they will believe it can happen to them.