'Aghast' then & now
‘Aghast' then & now
A judge said Constitution author James Madison “would be aghast” over government's national-security overreach. Well, maybe slave-owning Madison “would be aghast” that blacks are no longer slaves; are counted as full persons, not three-fifths of persons, as stated in the Constitution; and can vote.
Maybe Madison “would be aghast” that the current lawfully elected president of the United States is black. Maybe Madison “would be aghast” that women can vote and can be elected president.
Maybe Madison “would be aghast” that instead of citizens owning muzzle-loading guns so they can be in a militia to repel foreign invasions (e.g., British Redcoats), citizens can now own dozens of rapid-firing semiautomatic guns capable of, and actually used in, the killing of dozens of their fellow U.S citizens, including small children, in the blink of an eye, and don't have to join a militia to do it.
Twenty-first-century America is nothing like 1789 America. So, this supposedly intelligent judge's remark on what Bill-of-Rights-writing slave owner Madison “would be aghast” at was ridiculous and totally irrelevant to the realities of living in the 21st-century, terrorism-threatened United States of America.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.