Why Demand Apologies?

I was reading the Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall this morning, and apparently some Republican State Representatives sent out letters stating the "‘secular evolution science’ is the Big-Bang 15-billion-year alternate ‘creation scenario’ of the Pharisee Religion." Of course Marshall goes on to mention how the ADL found out about the letters and the State Representatives apologized or something.

My question is this: Why demand apologies? What is the efficacy of that?
Rather than demand an apology, just use idiotic statements like this against those people in an election. Seriously, that statement about the Pharisee religion doesn't even make sense, and surely someone who believed that shouldn't appeal to all the voters of their district. So rather than get an apology, wouldn't it be better to just to beat them over the head with it next election? To some extent apology demands legitimate the person who made the offensive comments. Apology demands are like saying "Well, recognizing your worth as a person, I know you didn't meant to say what you said, so apologize for it and we can all get along."

Well, frankly, I don't recognize the worth of a person who says something as offensive, ignorant, and theologically wrong as calling science the "Pharisee Religion". I don't want an apology because I don't recognize that idea that people who say things like that have a valid place in political discourse. They should be forced to wallow in their stupidity and steadily pushed from the mainstream of American politics.

This all relates to to the Tim Hardaway business somehow, but I am not sure how yet.

Another Possible Amendment

"The President's power as commander in chief is limited to only the strategy, tactics, and methods of the military when in the field as part of a legitimate use of force under this constitution."

Also, it seems most of these amendments are things designed to reign in the power of the president.

Oh yeah, this should be up here as well

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportionate to the contempt he feels for those around him" -- Tocqueville

Our Broken Constitution

Here is the list, some better written than others, of the changes, to the Constitution, that would improve our government:

-The President shall not use the military force of the United States, except when so authorized by Congress, or in order to repel an armed attack. Any unauthorized use of the military force shall be a high crime subject to impeachment upon motion of 1/4 of the House of Representatives.

-Give Congress the ability to remove cabinet level officers with simple votes of no confidence

-An amendment similar to the provision in the German Basic Law requiring party democracy

-A Congressional power to end war

-Repeal of the Direct Election of Senators, and specification that Senators MUST represent their state governments through appointment by state executives.

-Ending Pocket Vetoes

-Ending Recess Appointments

-Veto Overrides occur through a cumulative 60 percent vote of a joint session of Congress

-Update Congressional Domestic powers to reflect the era in which we live, meaning adjusting the language of Congressional powers such that Congress has the broad power to regulate the economy.

-abandon the electoral college

Other not very well thought out amendments we have discussed:

-Amending the Powers of the president such that the president is not the sole voice of the nation in foreign affairs

-Overturning Buckley v. Valeo

-Limiting the power of the Senate

-Proportional representation in Congress

-requiring Cabinet positions be held by the chairpersons of the respective Senate committees.

Other Changes that would not technically require a constitutional amendment:

-Increasing the size of the House of Representatives


What else have we come up with? Also, we should spend some time fleshing these out more.