Fair Enough

I know I added comments (& text you an "alert"), but in the interest of posterity (after all what would future generations do without a succinct reading of our discourse ever ready to guide them through times of tumult?), I chose to dump those and add them more cohesively here.

My title, "fair enough", is my only response to your last ... a sincere response, no glib parting shot intended.

On your post,"Wait a Second", you defined my meaning of "the Founders were interested in process, not results" damn near perfectly. We have no beef. No misunderstanding.

My describing FDR as technically operating with the "process" was me trying to cede a small point (in my mind) to get to the larger. In other words I thought you were defending FDR (i.e. "he didn't fundamentally change anything") as honoring the Founders intent because he technically operated "within" the "process" (duly elected, etc). I thought it was a rudimentary interpretation of my process point, but I didn't want to get hung up on that because I believed you took the overall point quite well (and clearly you did). If I misinterpreted your "he didn't fundamentally change anything", then I apologize.

Now, I'll go even further (in terms of Obama being right - whoa, did I actually just write that?). If this process of government, including the charter of "negative liberties", operates in the way the blueprint was set up, then the entire point of the process was that government could not do anything "to you" (or "for" as Obama defines it and demands that it must). You "would do" for yourself, or you would assume your Rights yourself, because those Rights were inherint, not granted.

In any event, when it comes to my "fine point" as you put it (ok, now I'm being gratuitously self congratulatory - if for nothing else than perseverance), we are on the same page.