Senator Al Franken?

It's hard to parody Mick Jagger but I think Mick does it better.

Your train of thought seems to have missed the switch. Franken was a clown before he was elected. He may have become a nut or a fascist or something else but none of those positions make him a clown.By the way, there's a reason why we elect representatives and allow them to express different opinions. And it's even permissible to take a position against parts of the Constitution. It isn't carved in stone.

It's going to be a mess the next time they amend it.

Oxymoron. (And IMO, "treason" is an obsolete term that belongs to the feudal system.) "Supporting the Constitution" doesn't preclude criticizing it.And you definitely should be aware that anybody you elect may change his/her stance on any issue. That's why you also have the power to un-elect them.

Why not? Can't you maintain your home and repair it at the same time? Since when is maintenance different from maintenance? So changes that you agree with are good and changes that you disgree with are treason? The Constitution gives you the brakes - and the accelerator that got you into trouble in the first place. You'd better make up your mind whether the Constitution should be "supported" as is or needs to be changed. You tell me.

Personally, I don't find John Stewart the least bit funny.

Sure you can. You can gut the spare bedroom to put in an ensuite bathroom. My views are probably closer to yours than to Hitler's and possibly than Franken's too. I'm not defending either Hitler's views or Franken's. I'm just pointing out how ludicrously over-the-top your criticism is.It's a democracy. He's allowed to have views different from yours. People are allowed to vote for him. People are allowed to be wrong, for that matter.Being flatfooted doesn't do you or anybody else any good.

I find all American politics incredibly boring. It's no wonder nobody votes.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous? You know very well that you can renovate your home by "destroying" one room at a time. And Franken isn't even advocating destroying the whole Constitution, only a couple of bedrooms. You're implying criminal intent, yet he faces no criminal charges. It seems that your position is the unconventional one. You haven't been very clear about that.You've mentioned Snowden a couple of times, so maybe he has something to do with your point? In my opinion, he shouldn't be prosecuted (I believe I mentioned that I consider "treason" to be an obsolete idea) but other people have other opinions and they should be allowed to express them. Yes, it's an empty formality. It might be an interesting aside to discuss whether or not Hitler could have been tried for his crimes. (There's a novel called The Trial of Adolf Hitler by Phillipe van Rjndt that discusses some of the difficulties.) But more appropriate to this topic is whether or not Al Franken can be tried for his "crimes".

The subtext of my reply is that I don't follow either of them enough to compare them.

You're drowning in your own opinion. You have no way of knowing what Franken's motivations are. Of course Hitler was trying to create a better world. Even if his vision of a better world was different from yours, it was very popular in Germany. I, for one, "support" marijuana use even though it's illegal because I don't believe it should be illegal. My support, in and of itself is not illegal. Using marijuana is illegal; supporting its use is not.Of course, Franken is not actually establishing a police state even if he does support the idea of one. As far as I know, an individual - even a Senator- can not personally violate the Constitution. Only legislation passed by a pertinent body can violate the Constitution. Advocating the passage of legislation that would violate the Constitution is not in and of itself illegal. All oaths are inherently empty whether wilfully or not. I would trust a person less, not more, if he did what he did only because of an oath. I'd rather see him act on his convictions, whether I agree with them or not. Not technical difficulties, practical difficulties - like what laws did he actually break? Americans can't try Hitler for breaking German laws or for breaking American laws outside America. "War crimes" and "crimes against humanity" tend to be tried according to laws made up after the fact. It's the equivalent of giving a speeding ticket to Ben-Hur.You don't like Franken's views so you want him prosecuted even if you have to make up the propaganda occasion to do it.If he was violating any laws, the officials who actually administer the law would do something about it. If he's abusing the system, the system can deal with him.Edited by ringo, : Spellig.

Indeed you are. We were talking about tearing down the whole house as opposed to renovating one room at a time and you claimed to know that Franken wants to destroy the whole Constitution. Now you're going off on a different tangent. We're not talking about what scares me. We're talking about whether or not Senator Franken should be prosecuted. No matter how scary his views may be, are his views illegal? Can any view be illegal? Should any view be illegal? Unless Franken controls the NSA, he isn't the one breaking the law. And as I mentioned, only acts of legislation can violate the Constitution, not acts of individuals or acts of institutions. I have never said that there are no absolutes.Edited by ringo, : Inserted missingspace.

If people voted with 80-year hindsight, the world would be a very different place.

I understand that that is the colloquial use of the term "unconstitutional" in the U.S. but I think the distinction is important. Violating the Constitutional rights of citizens is not "violating the Constitution" per se. A law which permitted the violation of those rights would violate the Constitution. Individual police officers who violate citizens' rights are violating a law (which may be unwritten), not the Constitution itself.

And you're continuing to be disingenuous. The question we were discussing was whether Franken was trying to destroy the entire Constitution or just taking issue with one part of it. My point was that he can, without compromising his overall "support" of the Constitution.And I'll repeat that "supporting" a violation is not the same as participating in a violation. Note my example of marijuana. For another example, I support retroactively the killing of Saddam Hussein, though I wouldn't support it proactively and I can't be held responsible for it. Yes, it's a quirk of American terminology. "Unconstitutionality" has become the only sin.But I had hoped that semantics wouldn't take over the issue. Seems to me your position is getting a lot softer. Maybe you'll eventually make it under the top.Edited by ringo, : Speling.