sv watson

hi, felicity! i agree with many of your changes/amendments ... i have only one problem, though .. re "establish a rpinciple of 'separation of state and morality'". i would suggest that whatever is in the const. should be based on moral principles. i think i understand your point, but don't you think such a document should be grounded in morality? if i am correct, you can't separate the two. tom, i like the idea regarding the proper construction the cons't should be given, since that is such a large part of the problem with const. law today ....

consciousness is an attribute or characteristic (of some) life, but it is not life. a is a ...... sv watson

i would say to the questions are some aspects of reality unknowable, with all due respect, is nonsensical. how can one even discuss that which is unknowable. and if it is unknowable, how would we ever know that it is unknowable and if we know the unknowable, then we were wrong, it wasn't unknowable. sv watson

i've only been on this site a few days now. i think it will be different here than on the other site i was on, but this is the question i would like to present: if you could change the constitution, would you? and why or why not? in my estimation many mistakes were made in the final product we call the u.s. constitution. the first and ugliest was that it proclaimed slavery to be legal (moral? hmm.?) and that a slave was worth 3/4 of a man so as to count toward the total population of the state to determine the number of legislators in the house of rep. this speaks for itself! an abomination. and it makes you wonder how the decl. of independence came first??? (compromise of principles) next, i think the commerce clause and general welfare clause need to be excised from the const., as in my estimation, it is from these const. clauses have been the gov't instrument of evil and subjegation. taxes, regulations, prohibiting personal choices, etc., etc., etc.