The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Obama Watch

Pulling the Plug on the “Living” Constitution

By on 3.25.10 @ 6:09AM

The implications of Obamacare.

Barack Obama has long seen the U.S. Constitution as an obstacle to what he considers progress. In a 2001 interview that surfaced during the presidential campaign, he made this very clear: the Supreme Court under Justice Earl Warren had failed to break “free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution,” Obama mused on a radio show.

The Warren Court was insufficiently radical, he said, conceding too much ground to the traditional interpreters of the Constitution as a “charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

The Founding Fathers, he implied, produced a defective document, much too passive in its understanding of government’s possibilities. The founders had set up a form of government to protect liberty; he clearly wished they had formed a government to enact equality.

The hubristic character of Obamacare derives in large part from this view. Obama measures progress not by adherence to the Constitution but by its abolition. He wants not a “charter of negative liberties,” but a Leviathan, which he calls a “living” Constitution, that swallows them up in the pursuit of egalitarianism.

Tuesday’s smug speeches euphemistically revolved around this theme. What “makes us the United States of America,” Obama essentially said, is the “scale” of government’s ambitions. One would have thought the Constitution “makes us the United States of America.” No, it is that politicians are willing to flout the real Constitution for the sake of “hope and change” that makes America great.

America has supposedly entered into a new and glorious phase where no one quibbles over such antiquated matters as constitutional limitation. In that 2001 interview, Obama said he was “not optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts.” But now he is. He has given activist courts a major redistributive change via Obamacare to enshrine as part of the left’s “living” Constitution.

This “living” Constitution means the real one is dead in practice, but it is not so dead in the minds of ordinary Americans that liberals would ever attempt to hold a constitutional convention to package their enlightened new understandings into a fresh one. They still have to proceed by deception, casting every new affront to the Constitution as a suddenly accurate “constitutional” reading of it.

The value of all the legal suits popping up against Obamacare is that they force renewed attention to the tyrannical relationship between the federal government and the states that this “living” Constitution protects. The suits will fail in the short term, but at least trigger discussion about the central question of our politics: Will Americans go back to living under the actual Constitution or continue to succumb to the fake one residing in the minds and wills of liberals in power that is destroying the country?

Obamacare may finally inspire the people to pull the plug on the “living” Constitution.

Judicial activists and tyrannical politicians have set in motion through the lawlessness of this “living” Constitution a form of chaos that will eventually consume them. After all, their authority depends upon that real Constitution, and if it lacks authority so do they. If politicians can ignore the supreme law of the land, why exactly do the people have to obey theirs? If the Constitution isn’t binding, what makes their laws binding?

The proponents of the “living” Constitution can get away with this form of tyranny for a while, and for the reason Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, that “all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

But Obamacare and the single-payer plan that lurks behind it will make the grievances in the Declaration of Independence look minor by comparison. What Obama has dismissively described as outmoded “constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution” will look very sensible and relevant in the years ahead.

 

About the Author

George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (201) |

Pingback| 3.25.10 @ 6:33AM

Pulling the Plug on the "Living" Constitution links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…described as outmoded "constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" will look very sensible and relevant in the years ahead. The American Spectator : Pulling the Plug on the "Living" Constitution Reply With Quote   + Reply to Thread Quick Navigation Politics Top Site Areas Settings Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home…

Michele San Pietro| 3.25.10 @ 6:44AM

Obamacare is simply a monstrosity, against democracy and against the people.

Ret. Marine| 3.25.10 @ 6:53AM

Correction, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, We are a Representative Republic, words do matter and as long as folks like you keep describing our form of Governance as a democracy, others still wonder why obobots can't understand the difference between a "living" document and the restraints of the CONSTITUTION placed upon usurpers like obama.

drudge ette obama| 3.25.10 @ 6:57AM

You are right in that Obamacare is a monstrosity, against freedom of choice and against the people, even though some of the people wouldn't have a clue if liberty and freedom were taken from them.

But do get the form of government right, Michele. We all need to be informed so that we can inform others.

PJ| 3.25.10 @ 9:27AM

Gents, not to nitpick too much, but it's really a federal republic. At least it started out that way.

Shorelv | 3.25.10 @ 4:22PM

PJ - Please explain federal republic? The Constitution doesn't mention the word federal. However, it does in article 4, section 4 state the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

James| 3.29.10 @ 12:01AM

federal merely implies a state-national sharing of power. The states created the national government, thus a federal system. It is a representative democracy, so federal republic is actually quite correct.

drudge ette obama| 3.25.10 @ 6:53AM

Quietly, law schools all over the country have been indoctrinating law students for decades on the living Constitution concept - so that it is hard to find lawyers today who don't place the Constitution above case law. Case law (judge made) can overrule Constitutional provisions.

Obama was probably one of those types of lecturers - you would not get much history from him unless he had adapted it to racial equality issues . And he was probably hired above a true legal authority because of his race and diversity offerings. You will find few willing to criticize Obama's classes, probably for fear of payback.

Members of the Federalist Society in law schools can attest to being ridiculed and marginalized. Federalists are more strict constructionists.

Combine this with the "Whiteness" seminars are making the rounds throughout the country where white people are being made to feel guilty for the privilege others perceive them to have without lifting a finger.

But, there is usually one conservative faculty member in these law schools to counteract the liberal faculty member teaching the same topic.

drudge ette obama| 3.25.10 @ 6:59AM

I have an idea - let the Federalist Society rank law schools on a progerssive socialist - conservative scale, if they haven't already done so.

There is nothing better than a little light to prevent mold.

Darin| 3.25.10 @ 7:01AM

The Constitution is a legal document. It is neither "living" nor "dead." Just like your mortgage is a legal document, neither living nor dead. Try telling your bank that your mortgage is a "living" document and you want to change the terms of the mortgage to your benefit with no penalty. They may be polite and not laugh in your face, but rest assured they will laugh at you (or perhaps pity you) behind your back. I don't know whether to laugh at Obama or pity him. But I do pity the American people as we are going to suffer the penalty of his folly for years (or generations).

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.25.10 @ 8:22AM

Hi Darin.

I would gently steer your thinking a little different direction. I could both "pity" him and laugh, except he broke his oath of office in a coldly premeditated fashion.....twice!

Once as a Senator, and again upon inauguration as President.
So yes, we have an angry young man, from a lifetime of lies and deceit from leftist radicals, even including his mother. She was suckered in as was he at a very young age.
He does hate us.

SpiralArchitect | 3.25.10 @ 3:46PM

Well, I sure rest easy at night now knowing that his wife is (finally) proud to be an American.

-sa

samuel adams| 3.25.10 @ 8:15PM

it is time for the tar and the feathers. we must march millions strong on DC, physically remove these kings and queens, and take back our country.

Jesus H Christ| 3.26.10 @ 1:43AM

You like fantasy, I can tell.

James| 3.29.10 @ 12:04AM

Maybe not just yet. But I DO think it is past time for the states to band together and demand a constitutional amendment convention as prescribed in Article V and reassert state sovereignty and a clause that specifically prohibits congress from ever exempting themselves from any legislation they ever pass.

CopyKatnj| 3.26.10 @ 1:13AM

I guess you forgot about mortgage loans being re-negotiated or the didn't read the news today that President Obama "ordered" lenders to cut mortgage payments for the jobless. I'm confused and perhaps someone can answer this question, under what constitutional authority does a president "order" banks to change the terms of a mortgage?

US Constitution RIP.

Ron| 3.27.10 @ 12:39AM

I read this article and was absolutely floored. Someone has to tell this man he is not king of America, no matter what he may think. He is just over 1/4 way through his term. What in God's name will this country look like in 12?

Spaulding| 3.25.10 @ 7:04AM

Those who still value the Constitution will never forget that Obama began with ignoring Article II Section 1 Clause 5. Born of an alien father, Obama is Constitutionally ineligible. He knew race would trump the Constitution given our morally relative, and multicutural judicial system. He was correct, and we may never see it restored. Having ignored Article II it becomes easier for ruthless lawyers to take on other provision, even while they destroy the legal foundation upon which their careers depend. Without the Constitution, as Andy Stern said, we have "the persuasion of power." But those who read Jefferson, Marshall, Story, Franklin, Madison, Jay, all of whom told us that a natural born citizen was born in the country of citizen parents, and why our president must be one, will explain if we can, that our founders were right.

Hahaha| 3.25.10 @ 9:26AM

I cannot believe we still have "birthers". It is a sad fact, that nobody on this board has yet criticized Spaulding for this comment. While you may dislike and disagree with Barack Obama, he is a US citizen. Maybe you are a closet racist Spaulding? It has been widely proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama is a U.S citizen.

trollbeater| 3.25.10 @ 9:49AM

"Natural Born US citizen" is not the same as "US citizen". And proven? Hardly

hahaha| 3.25.10 @ 10:15AM

It has been proven. This issue has been debated, gone to the courts, explored and researched by the Media... Obama is legally entitled to be President of the United States. He was born in Hawaii, a US state. If we keep advancing such fraudulent claims, it only makes it easier for the "opposition" to ridicule us. Let us concentrate on actual policy and facts, not fantasies that have no concrete basis.

LeChat| 3.25.10 @ 11:00AM

Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" has not been proven. All that needs to be done is for him to produce his real birth certificate. So far, he has elected not to do so. In fact, he has spent more than one million dollars in legal fees to keep his real birth certificate hidden. Draw your own conclusions.

posbrosis| 3.25.10 @ 2:37PM

there are no records for even his education .it's like he doesen't exist.who is he really?

I love evolution| 3.26.10 @ 1:46AM

In fact, he has spent more than one million dollars in legal fees to keep his real birth certificate hidden.

Source please.

darcy| 3.26.10 @ 4:47AM

Executive Order 13489, January 21,2009.
Check it out.

Warrior | 3.25.10 @ 11:34AM

His place of birth becomes irrelevant when you consider he would have had to give up his citizenship in order to obtain an Indonesian passport as they do not allow dual citizenships. He travelled using an Indonesian passport in his earlier days.

ray| 3.25.10 @ 12:37PM

If a French citizen, living in Hawaii, gave birth to a child, the child would be a French citizen, not a US citizen. Where you are born does not determine citizenship.

wolf| 3.25.10 @ 1:01PM

hmm...please tell mexico about this...

Tom in Michigan| 3.25.10 @ 2:34PM

Sorry, Ray. You are incorrect on this. The child would have dual citizenship as do my two grandchildren who are citizens of both France and the United States. Regardless of parental citizenship, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states; ""All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The whole issue of Obama's status rests on more complicated matters that I won't delve into here but, even though I'm not a supporter of this President or his frightening and disturbing policies; I believe the whole debate about his birth is pointless. That ship has sailed and, we have much more serious issues with which to contend - particularly since I don't believe the debate will ever progress much beyond the arguments that go on in these forums. Regards, Tom

UpChuck.Liberals| 3.25.10 @ 11:34PM

I do believe that this amendment was constructed to give former slaves citizenship. We have no more slaves ..... well not now but soon ... so this amendment should bite the dust. Along with the illegals, both out and in the WH. Show me the paper and I'll STFU.

Tom in Michigan| 3.25.10 @ 2:38PM

PS. I think the whole "birther"debate is disinformation, red herring actually planted by the Left to both discredit Obama's critics and lead us down the path to a pointless and unproductive argument thereby distracting us from the REAL problems this Administration is dealing us.

Ted| 3.25.10 @ 2:43PM

Ray,

Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen of the U.S. That includes your example child. That their parent is a French citizen also would make them either a French citizen or one who is eligible to apply for French citizenship, depending on France's laws. However, the child would still be a U.S. citizen by virtue of the fact that he was born on U.S. soil.

Ret. Marine| 3.26.10 @ 6:03AM

Hardly proven!, for some eye opening reality go to www.thepostmail.com and do some reading on this subject, if this Piece of sheet is a US Citizen I'll eat my own worn out G.I. shorts.
If you can get the ambition to educate yourself on the sheet usurper, muslim in charge, I'll challange you on the subject of just who has "standing" to put this monkey in jail where he belongs. Oh, Did I mention when it is finally proven in a real court of law, everything that has his signature on it will be challanged and void! yeah great a Constitutional crises is just what this Nation needs right now, right!!!!!

2Anglico| 3.25.10 @ 10:06AM

Maybe we'll put the likes of you on trial for treason after we boot the one out. And we'll sentence you to repay all the tax dollars you stole from us.

Amanda| 3.25.10 @ 10:11AM

The question isn't whether or not he is a citizen. No one has ever doubted that much. You obviously missed this lesson in elementary school, but the Constitution clearly states that not only does a presidential candidate have to be a citizen, but they have to have been born here. A Natural Born Citizen. And, NO, that absolutely has NOT been proven.

Nick| 3.25.10 @ 10:36AM

Amanda, et al,

You guys have got to pick a new battle to wage.

Answer these two questions, please.

If President Dither is not a "natural born citizen", then how is John McCain? McLame was born in Panama.

How did O'Bama's birth announcement get into the Honolulu newspaper if he was born in Kenya?

Jeremiah| 3.25.10 @ 12:39PM

Very simple, Nick. McCain was born to two American citizens who were abroad on military duty. If a child is born to two U.S. citizens who are temporarily out of the country, whether it be for military duty or a simple vacation, the courts have ruled that the child is a natural-born citizen.

Now, as to the 'birther' argument on Obama...I do not consider it to be a productive vein to follow. Ousting him by this means would only leave us with Joe Biden. It is a project that would take years and, if successful, would leave us no closer to a Constitutional government than we are now. However, if it is not true, Obama has always had it in HIS power to deflate it immediately by simply releasing a copy of the ORIGINAL of his birth certificate. That he will not do so has led me to believe the birthers are probably right, though distracted by something that will not help our cause in re-establishing liberty in this land.

As for me, I have cancelled my health insurance. I would not recomment that to everyone. But my children are grown and I am alone. When the IRS fines me I will not pay. If I get sick and fee for service has been outlawed or the IRS sends me to prison so be it. I would rather die or be imprisoned in the spirit of American liberty than buckle under to the new authoritarian regime.

As for those who think America is now the USSA, that would work except that the states have lest authority in this new regime than the old soviets did in that one. (A soviet was a local or regional council - hence the meaning of the union of soviets).

What your boys have done, Nick, by doing violence to the Constitution, to the rules of Congress and to the freedom of the American people, is to have lit the fuse of civil war. If the residue of representative democracy is still substantial enough that Obama cannot manufacture a crisis in order to suspend elections or, through fraudulent means, legalize and register a whole host of new illegal immigrants, then it will not be a violent civil war. If he does go wither of these routes, though, armed insurrection will surely follow after a period of shocked disbelief as Americans come to understand that two centuries of liberty have been toppled in just a couple years.

Nick| 3.25.10 @ 12:54PM

Jeremiah,

Who, exactly, are my "boys?"

Also, I am aware of why McLame is a citizen. Although, there is no requirement that BOTH parents be U.S. citizens.

President Dither's mother was a citizen, therefore he is a citizen, no matter where he was born.

I notice you didn't answer the "birth announcement" question, by the way.

Jeremiah| 3.25.10 @ 2:39PM

I was the managing editor of a newspaper for a time during the 80s. A birth announcement doesn't mean much. We got requests for them all the time from people out of the area because of some connection to our area of printing.

Regarding Obama's mother, that's not quite as simple as you think. The story is somewhat shrouded in mystery. Was she living as a permanent resident with her native husband (I mean native Kenyan)? If so Obama's status is not necessarily as a native born. Was Winston Churchill a native born American? His mother was an American. (Heaven knows, we could use a Churchill right now - and I would gladly overlook the native-born question to seat a lion such as he).

But my real point was not to argue the birther question with you. As I said, even if true, I think it a dry hole that distracts our attention from the key issue - the restoration of the Constitution and the freedom it brings. However, the left is shrill in its demands for the most intimate documents pertaining to every conservative - their college transcripts, medical records, and military records. Shoot, in the case of George Bush they were glad to fake documents against him. And when they make these shrill demands, none on the left disputes the righteousness of demanding such papers. Rather they all chime in demanding to know what the conservative has to hide.

But here some conservatives question Obama's status, a question that could be answered decisively with something as innocuous as an original copy of his birth certificate. The left screams foul, none of our business. What do we see in response? Some on the right denounce the birthers as loons and rabble. Those who do so are the useful idiots of the left's propaganda machine.

I have a significant policy disagreement with the birthers. But they have every much right to genuine documentation as the left has when it uniformly demands it from conservatives. And I will not treat those who are birthers as gauche people who are beneath me. They are my allies with whom I have a tactical disagreement.

Jeremiah| 3.25.10 @ 2:49PM

Oh, and forgive me Nick for the 'your boys' comment. I originally thought you were a liberal troll. I see from reading your other comments that that is not the case. But I really would like to see you cease denouncing the birthers and start denouncing the left for refusing to provide the same documentation they always demand from conservatives. Why not try the Polish way of resistance and have a little Solidarity?

Nick| 3.25.10 @ 4:09PM

Jerremiah,

I think we are in agreement.

I agree with Michelle Malkin, people have a right to see the birth-certificate. I don't know what good it will do, but they have the right to ask.

I just think it is unproductive and a waste of time. There are other places to put our energies. Like closing primaries to only party memebers.

You will be hard presssed to find evidence of me NOT denouncing the left every chance I get, here at TAS.

SOLIDARITY!!

UpChuck.Liberals| 3.25.10 @ 11:42PM

Might I disagree on a point. IF our Beloved Leader is indeed NOT a Natural Born Citizen THEN everything he's signed into 'LAW' is null and void as he had NO legal standing to be President.

Ret. Marine| 3.26.10 @ 6:07AM

his mother was not old enough to convey U.S, citizenship upon him becaus eshe was only 17 yrs. of age at the time, so she was herself not pld enough to have been a citizen, prove me wrong.

John Navratil| 3.26.10 @ 10:16AM

Nick,

No one claims he is not a citizen. However there is a requirement for the single office of President that this particular citizen be natural born. It was put in place so that the extraordinary powers of that particular position not be given to someone whose allegiances are elsewhere.

Nick| 3.27.10 @ 10:46AM

Mr. Navratil,

I'm aware of why the "natural born" clause is in the constitution.

But, from everything that I've read and heard on the subject, someone who has an American citizen as one of his biological parents, is a natural born citizen, according to U.S. law.

If it was based on geography, McLame would also have been ineligible to run for the presidency. Nobody is making that argument, are they?

Ken| 3.25.10 @ 1:53PM

Good for you. I hope there are many more true Americans who are in a position to refuse the purchase health insurance.

Pam| 3.25.10 @ 2:02PM

Let's try this first!

I hope someone on here will help me prove that Article V is still good. While I think Obama intended to use it himself by creating crises and having CONGRESS call one, he currently lacks the proper backing to accomplish this. BUT our STATES don't! And we have 37 or 38 filing suits. We only need 34 to start... If they will get together, perhaps we can right some terrible wrongs! Power to the people! Our founding fathers were looking out after us in many ways. Please contact your State Legislature and convince them.

Please copy and blog everywhere after you talk to your reps.

Everly Waverly| 3.25.10 @ 2:29PM

Ousting him, Obonehead, would not be a productive path, my tuckus!!! How productive would ole Josh'n Joe be? Would he and whoever he appoints as VP bring the democrats around, attempting to resurrect the resulting failure? Biden would be entertaining until 2012, then the republicans could begin the work of straightening things out...Any time a corrupt, Marxist, leftist, lying, race baiting, out-of-control radical gets what's coming to him, it's a good day. OUST HIM!!!

Jeremiah| 3.25.10 @ 2:44PM

Everly, I will concede you have a point. Were it not for my fear that such an effort would draw attention dramatically away from the focus on the restoration of liberty, I would enjoy the spectacle you describe.

Everly Waverly| 3.25.10 @ 3:13PM

Trust me, as long as Obonehead is there, all our liberties are in jeopardy, the dude is dangerous.

CopyKatnj| 3.26.10 @ 1:25AM

Jeremiah, I agree with your entire comment and have the same suspicions as you that a November election may be delayed or not occur at all under some false guise. Presently, I'm seeing more attacks on TEA Party and a number of Democrat congressmen reporting violent threats against them. I will also add that AG Holder did not prosecute the panthers in Philadelphia intimidating voters in 2008, essentially giving a green light to more such actions should an election be held.

danfromatlanta| 3.25.10 @ 1:50PM

Hey Nick, I guess you never heard that the newspapers in Ha. reported he was born at 2 different hospitals! So, if he was, which was it? And why isn't that SOB being conmpelled to prove which one it was by releasing his actual birth certificate to the public. You guys will look awful stupid when the day comes it is proven he was born in Kenya.

Nick| 3.25.10 @ 5:51PM

Hey Dan,

I guess you didn't read my comments thoroughly enough.

I made it perfectly clear, even if it is true that he was born in Kenya, his mother was an American citizen. Therefore, President Dither is.

Riddle me this, Batman. Who placed these phony "birth announcements" in the newspapers?
And, why would they do it?

Give me a motive to explain why someone would fabricate a birth announcement for the baby of a beatnik in 1961 Hawaii.

CopyKatnj| 3.26.10 @ 1:31AM

So his mother could protect Obama jr. with US citizenship from his father who could take him away from her and bring Obama over seas to live in Indonesia or where ever Sr happened to be living. She may have used his real birth date, but the place of birth is questionable as noted by other posters. IMHO

brutus6| 3.26.10 @ 2:25PM

"I made it perfectly clear, even if it is true that he was born in Kenya, his mother was an American citizen. Therefore, President Dither is."

Nick, you made it perfectly clear that you are dead wrong.

Ret. Marine posting above has the right answer: the applicable Statute says a person is a nutural born citizen if at least one parent, being 18 years of age, is an American citizen. Oh,Bummer's mom was 17 at the time.

Nick| 3.27.10 @ 11:03AM

Brutus6,

You and Ret. Marine give no statute, just an assertion. Are you claiming that citizenship doesn't begin until you are 18 years old?

Cite me the statute in U.S. Code, please.

Citizen Jerry| 3.25.10 @ 10:50AM

I know the lamestream media enjoys hanging the "birther" tag on the right like we're some kind of lunatic fringe. But who first questioned the eligibility of "The One"? It was Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign.

RON| 3.25.10 @ 11:00AM

Dear HaHaHa, You are absolutely wrong in your speculation of his birth rite. Being of a national from another nation made him a British citizen thereby having dual citizenship. "Not allowed by the Constitution." Someday you liberals will look at each other and say, Where did we go wrong when the brown shirts come to your house to check on how much rice to accumulated.

danfromatlanta| 3.25.10 @ 1:45PM

Oh really? Are you privvy to having viewed the real birth certificate of our child president, you know, the one which lists the hospital in which he was born, the attending physician, the one with his paw print on it? Yes, that one, the one that outr child president has sealed and will not authorize release for inspection? I challenge you to prove his natural born citizenship without it! But then, I know you Med-head types think it hurts our cause more than helping it to question not only his assertion of natural born citizenship, but to question his motives in his efforts to destroy the country. You think he's just wrong-headed rather than hateful of America, even though all his friends are America hating communists. I guess you think appearing to be magnanimous in your criticism of this SOB makes you feel good, but this is a war, and one we can't afford to lose just because we worry about what the enemy thinks of us!

George F| 3.25.10 @ 2:29PM

How can you be so sure when Obama has refused to release a copy of his original birth certificate and when he has spend millions to close all his records so they can't be inspected?

You're simply not thinking through the facts. All you're doing is repeating the socialist-communist left wing spin.

Kind of pathetic.

NJK| 3.26.10 @ 5:25PM

Hahaha, I don't believe serial liars, anymore than I believe serial killers. You stating Barack Obama is a US citizen, might make it so in your own mind, but it doesn't mean it's true. He is Kenyan born, and after adoption by his Indonesian stepfather, he became an Indonesian citizen. Did he take the oath of citizenship when he returned? No. Go sell your "birther," alinsky tactics somewhere else.

JP| 3.25.10 @ 8:01AM

Of course a "living constitution" cuts both ways. If one can squeeze out a constitutional right to "privacy" or sodomy, another can rediscover the right to discriminate against women and minorities. Once you start deconstructing language and reconstructing it to suit your own agenda anything goes.

Activists like the President never seem to understand the old addage, "What goes around, comes around." The constitutional hereseies like what the President preaches have been around for many decades; they are now routinely taught in most law schools. Never have these people ever considered what it would be like if a conservative activist uses the same method to achieve his ends. Said activist or activists can throw the same language back into the liberals faces. And who will the liberals turn to when thier rights, liberties, and properties are at risk? We are in the same position as Germany was during the Weimar years (1920-1933). The Left so routinely despised and disparged the young republic that when the Nazis did take over, the Liberals had nothing to protect them. The Middle did listen to the Left, and abandoned the republic in mass.

This is one of the real dangers facing the US. The Left routinely trashes our constitutional protections so often, that the Middle may eventually agree with them. But instead of going the way of Obama they just might decide to go the opposite direction.

MM | 3.25.10 @ 11:09AM

JP is correct. By abandoning the constitutional protections, particulalry those of self restraint placed on government, we invite anarchy. I do not hope this happens, but would it not be some poetic justice for the conservatives to get ahold of the 'death panels' and use them to erticate their foes!

Melvin| 3.25.10 @ 8:05AM

This is why Obama wants to appoint Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
As an article in Drudge Report noted yesterday. This man is being prepped for a nomination to a vacancy in the US Supreme Court.
Coupling his decisions with Judge Sonia Sotomayor who vowed to be an activist judge and to make decisions from the heart instead from the rule of law could have earth shattering biblical shock-waves in our Country for years to come.
By Obama appointing Constitutional Law judges to the Federal Bench will be like feeding the Constitution as least as we know it through a wood chipper like Saddam did with live Iraqi's.
Because the Constitution is not just a piece of parchment it is us.

Jim O'Brien| 3.25.10 @ 8:06AM

Obama and Congressional Democrats (Socialists) believe that everyone has a "right" to medical care. They are wrong. People do not have a right to medicine any more than they have a right to free food, free housing, free clothing, free retirement, free cars, or free vacations. Genuine rights cannot exist which depend on taking away from some citizens and giving to others, or which depend on government edicts. Socialized medicine includes laws that ration and deny treatment, laws that take my property (money) in order to pay for others' medical treatment, and laws that ban freedom of choice in decisions that affect my very existence. Socialized medicine violates my Constitutional right to life, liberty, and property.

JamesJ| 3.25.10 @ 8:27AM

The Constitution is what 5 of 9 black robed judges say it is

WalkingHorse| 3.25.10 @ 8:57AM

No, no, no. The ultimate judges of the contract are the signatories: namely, the States. They determine if the terms of the contract are being upheld. The Federal government is a creature created as a byproduct of the institution of that contract; therefore, the Supreme Court, being part of that creature, is not the ultimate arbiter, John Marshall notwithstanding.

"Article. VII.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. "

A worthy comment to recall at this time:

“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” — Thomas Jefferson

Berl| 3.25.10 @ 10:01AM

Our population has changed and expanded so much since the 18th Century that there can be no going back to originalist interpretations. They simply don't apply anymore.

Roy| 3.25.10 @ 10:11AM

Well, then, neither do the parts about Congress having the authority to pass laws.

Heatpacker| 3.25.10 @ 12:00PM

The makeup and size of this country are irrelevant to this argument. What matters are the universal and timeless truths embodied in the document. To say that these truths no longer apply is nonsensical.

WalkingHorse| 3.25.10 @ 5:22PM

I think you misunderstand the subject matter of the Constitution. Think of it as "applied human nature." It is difficult to argue that human nature is significantly different in such a short time span.
If it were significantly different, it is supremely strange that we still look to works such as those of Shakespeare and the ancient Greeks for relevant insight.

If you are suggesting that limited government and individual liberty are quaint 18th century antique notions, now inapplicable, this discussion is going to last a very long time.

Tim| 3.25.10 @ 11:19AM

The States lost those rights in 1865, long after Jefferson passed from the scene.

davelnaf| 3.25.10 @ 8:30AM

Just why liberals are so driven to grow the size of government and so blind to its ruinous consequences is a question that will ultimately be answered in the context of a pathological issue.

Pingback| 3.25.10 @ 8:30AM

TN House Sub-committee delays vote on Health Freedom Act links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Care Reconciliation Bill Going Back to the U.S. House (Due to Nationalized Student Loans) The Top 5 Disasters in the Dems Reconciliation Bill Downsizing America’s Economy Pulling the Plug on the “living” Constitution Illegal Alien Amnesty: Never Mind Right and Wrong Glenn Beck:  Radicals have reversed the roles Dodd Financial Regulation Bill: Super Regulators Not the Answer Dems Takeover…

Louis Jenkins| 3.25.10 @ 8:34AM

Mr. Neumayr:
"If politicians can ignore the supreme law of the land, why exactly do the people have to obey theirs? If the Constitution isn't binding, what makes their laws binding? "

Because the majority of Americans are sheep and will follow anything that smacks of benevolence. These sheep are tired of fending for themselves, and tired of worrying about tomorrow. They only want security and to gain that security they are more than willing to give up their God given rights.

These sheep need to grow up. To be an adult is to live insecure, to concern oneself with where the next meal is coming from, and to provide for a family. It is to be self made, to acquire your possessions through hard work, and to think freely, all without the fetters of government programs or politicially correct methodology. To stand on your own two feet is to be an adult, and an American.

The sheep don't want to do that any more. They cry for the breast milk of Mother GovCo. And if the milk comes from the hard labor of others, they couldn't care less as long as they are full. I'd rather be hungry than subsist on GovCo handouts or the labor of my fellow Americans.

Matt Morehouse| 3.25.10 @ 9:46AM

Mr. Neumayr:
"If politicians can ignore the supreme law of the land, why exactly do the people have to obey theirs? If the Constitution isn't binding, what makes their laws binding? "

BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE GUNS.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.25.10 @ 10:42AM

MATT:

BUT NOT NEAR AS MANY TRIGGER FINGERS.

Blackwatch| 3.25.10 @ 3:32PM

and Ken, they also don't know which of "their" trigger fingers won't squeeze off a round into a citizen when ordered too.

my guess is the vast majority will not shoot other citizens unless they were forced to return fire. their grasp may not be as strong as our will to be free.

JP| 3.25.10 @ 3:42PM

But, as history has taught us, the guns may not always remain in the hands of the ruling class (and what we have currently can almost be regarded as such. Notice I didn't say governing class). Both in France (circa 1789), and Russia (1917), the soliders and thier officers joined the rebels.

When those who are governed see thier own lawmakers, public servents, law advocates, and intellectuals flout the law consistently over a long period of time, they themselves will no longer respect the law.

As I posted above, the Left hasn't a clue what tempest they are creating. One can only act illegally in the eyes of the people so long. If the Constitution is in fact a "living document", in the long run this republic is dead.

Terri| 3.25.10 @ 2:54PM

AMEN!

Terri| 3.25.10 @ 2:55PM

To clarify...Amen to what Mr. Jenkins said.

Dale | 3.25.10 @ 8:39AM

Two thoughts:
1) The Supreme Court building has the inscription "Equal Justice Under Law". That is meaningless if the court is not itself under the law
2) A government of lawyers is not the same as a government of Laws

Pam| 3.25.10 @ 12:44PM

Great comment!

Pingback| 3.25.10 @ 8:53AM

Pulling the Plug on the “Living” Constitution « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…one. They still have to proceed by deception, casting every new affront to the Constitution as a suddenly accurate “constitutional” reading of it. via The American Spectator : Pulling the Plug on the “Living” Constitution. News/Opinion Blogroll The Federalist Papers U.S. Bill of Rights U.S. Constitution U.S. Declaration of Independence U.S. Representative, Lee Terry U.S. Senator,…

Brubaker| 3.25.10 @ 9:04AM

"The suits will fail in the short term...."

We had all best hope that is not true for, if the suits fail, the Obama's of this world will only be emboldened to take further liberties with our Constitution.

Mondo | 3.25.10 @ 9:22AM

Our form of government depends on the people self-regulating and obeying the rules.

ObamaCare has broken that self-regulating contract for me. I wonder how many others feel like it was broken?

Tim| 3.25.10 @ 9:26AM

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

Alexis de Tocqueville

Mattled| 3.25.10 @ 9:35AM

Everyone here (if you haven't already) needs to start an LLC. If you have an Apple, get the software for blogging and a $99 membership. Go to Yahoo or Godaddy and get a website. Start a consulting company. Anything. You guys/ladies give advice here-----you should pay yourselves--. Ken, Grzmlyk---thanks for all your consulting.

Blog on how to cook spaghetti or change your oil. Or politics. Be a consultant.
How about giving tips on Going Green? How can any good Communist, er Environmentalist disagree with that one? If Al Gwhore can do it, so can you.

It's easy----you can do it yourself. You people are smart---I don't think I need to elaborate on what this would do.

grzmlyk| 3.25.10 @ 10:12AM

Mattled, thanks for your thoughts - they are excellent. I actually bought a domain at Godaddy about a year ago and then, well, got too busy. But this year, I become an LLC!

I used to be a high-tech PR consultant, and I marveled at how the game was played.

Anyway, many are fond of uttering the phrase "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." But unfortunately, I believe it has turned out to be just that.

Rather than maintaining a dynamic tension between opposing schools of thought on how to proceed with governance, it has allowed the left to use the document's own minimalism against it, thus allowing an Alice-in-Wonderland logic to take hold by which the constitution is, de facto, declared unconstitutional. which has given rise to the coup that is underway.

So they've invented umbras and penumbras and, into the vacuum that was supposed to be filled by liberty and states rights, they have poured the bricks and mortar of sclerotic coersion and suffocating regulation and built a bloated political class and accompanying bureaucracy that has become the Leviathan.

They are abetted by a credulous mainstream media that is convinced that the carrot of Social Justice and True Equality dangled in front of them by their own moral vanity is within reach if only we spur the horse of socialism ever more vigorously.

For the life of me I cannot understand why liberals think fairness is defined as forcing other people to conform to their definition of it by putting your money where their mouth is; on its face it is logically untenable - as well as immoral.

So we have the Liberals' Goodness equation: Person A is GOOD because he forces Person B to give money to Person C, who then kicks money, power or self-satisfaction back to person A.

Our leftward drift produces ever more copious crops of knaves and ever more pseudo-intellectual fools whose vanity provides the nutrients by which the knaves grow tall and block out the sunshine of liberty.

cuban pete| 3.25.10 @ 2:20PM

"They are abetted by a credulous mainstream media that is convinced that the carrot of Social Justice and True Equality dangled in front of them by their own moral vanity is within reach if only we spur the horse of socialism ever more vigorously."
Not only is that true it is just flat out great writing.
Thanks
c p

mfg| 3.25.10 @ 8:13PM

It just flows out of him. It's like he has a melody for a brain.

JP| 3.25.10 @ 3:46PM

It's funny how all of the Left's legal theory comes down to is a means for the Left to do what it damn well pleases. I know that is not a very "intellectual" theory of constitutional law, but I think it covers things quite well.

UpChuck.Liberals| 3.25.10 @ 11:53PM

One small word of warning. An LLC in the great Socialist State of Kalifornia will cost you ..... $800/year. Your mileage may vary in different states.

Melvin| 3.25.10 @ 9:54AM

Damn I love this place. Not to blow smoke up anyone's backside here, but I have never been to a web site and participated in a national/international discussion with so much knowledgeable human beings.
There is hope for the Republic after all.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.25.10 @ 4:28PM

Hi Melvin.
I don't mind smoke up my backside if it is warm, (grin).
We WILL win this war. Bloodshed? it is up to the communists.
Personally, I would rather die free than kneel to tyrants.
..."Kiss my hiney, communists".

cowgirl| 3.25.10 @ 7:46PM

you fergot to say "pardon the shorthand." :^)

George S| 3.25.10 @ 10:14AM

A logical conundrum: if the Congress and the President violate the Constitution to enact a law that violates the Constitution in order to provide for the people a "right to health care", what would be so horribly objectionable to them if they refused to stand for reelection to uphold that right?

I see the birther issue cited here. What better way to test the mechanism of upholding the Constitution's Eligibility Clause than refusing to submit proof of citizenship? If no one or no thing can force the president's hand, then the Constitution is all bark and no bite. To see what that means, google the Soviet constitution of 1936.

We may have bigger problems than we think. It is not about a living constitution, it is turning the document into a patronizing screed that offers legitimate cover to tyranny. Why are all tyrannical states titled "People's Democrat Republic of (...)"? Because their constitutions say so. That's about all that's republic or democratic about them.

What a living constitution means is that it is adaptable to the wishes of government to enact any law - and use whatever force necessary to uphold - in order for the people to enjoy the rights contained therein. That is, by definition, tyranny - the abolition of individual freedom for the greater good. A defined by government. The only way to stop that is for a constitution to recognize individual freedom is a gift from God and not the State and that the concept of Private Property is sacrosanct. Without those two concepts being jealously guarded, all bets are off. Including elections.

Bruce| 3.25.10 @ 10:36AM

My view is that the intent of the Consitution was to express the "limits" of the federal government. Provisions within the Constitution for amendments allow for these limits to be extended. Nothing short of formal amendments should be allowed to violate these limits. In this way, you could state that the Consitution is a living document, but only through formal amendments.
Freedom and liberty are the primary goals set forth within the Constitution, and we must constantly be on guard against cavalier interpretations that go against these goals.

Dean Clancy | 3.25.10 @ 10:39AM

My own view is that the entire conservative, so-called "small government" project in our day is futile, unless federalism is restored and the federal government re-limited. Two obstacles prevent this. First, the 17th Amendment, which changed how US Senators are elected, effectively ended federalism, back in 1913; and this, in turn, caused the limits on federal power to give way during the 20th century. You can't re-limit or shrink the federal government without repealing the 17th Amendment, in my view. Second, at about the same time the 17th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court began building its fictitious "incorporation" doctrine, which imposes selective parts of the first 8 Amendments (and specifically, the Court's misreadings of those Amendments) on the states; this doctrine must be overturned. The only way to do that, ultimately, is to appoint Justices committed to the proper view of "incorporation." In other words, we need a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. With these two reforms, the conservative project can succeed; without them, I don't see how it can.

Pam| 3.25.10 @ 1:54PM

I hope someone on here will help me prove that Article V is still good. While I think Obama intended to use it himself by creating crises and having CONGRESS call one, he currently lacks the proper backing to accomplish this. BUT our STATES don't! And we have 37 or 38 filing suits. We only need 34 to start... If they will get together, perhaps we can right some terrible wrongs! Power to the people! Our founding fathers were looking out after us in many ways. Please contact your State Legislature and convince them.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.25.10 @ 10:48AM

Dean,
Good wonks, but we are beyond that right now, OK?
George S,
Splendid post!

Walking Horse,
Good points, but the first three words in our constitution are: "WE The People".

WalkingHorse| 3.25.10 @ 1:54PM

Ken (OT) -

Those are indeed the first words of the _preamble_, which emphasizes that The People are consenting to be governed by the Constitution. The preamble is not itself actionable, but expresses a moral sentiment.

Article VII identifies that actual signatories to the contract. I am unaware of any honorable interpretation of English common law that would nullify the rights of the signatories to a contract to determine if the terms and conditions of the contract are in fact being implemented. Have you got one?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.25.10 @ 2:41PM

Walking Horse,
Please forgive me for failing to write..."Welcome to Our conversations here".

(I am 1/4 Sioux (SP?) just FYI. (smile)

Every time some "non-smoking fanatic" asks me why I smoke my pipe...I ask them if they are "anti-Amerind" or "Religious bigots".

Huh?

Then I go into my "lifting incense to the Great Spirit" rant.....heh.

...and drive them into abject apologies...heh.

OKOK, fun aside...I must differ with you. "We The People" preceedes the the States' signing on.

The words were NOT ...in your words..."a moral sentiment."
Not one of those signatories...NOT ONE...signed their positions in the several States.

For instance...when I sign my name to a contract on behalf of our national company...I MUST underlie with my title in our company, and ON company stationry...or on behalf of the company, (with company name).

Co0nversely, when I sign my name...as an individual....it is only my own personal word of honor.
The "Declaration" ...and The constitution, were signed by..............individuals.

WalkingHorse| 3.25.10 @ 3:46PM

Thanks for the kind words. Glad to be participating here.

I think I see the disconnect here. The original signatures of individuals affixed to the Constitution were an endorsement by the people gathered to craft that document. The *ratification* of the Constitution instituted the contract, which happened later.

The Constitution was approved by the authors Sep 17, 1787. Each State separately held votes for ratification:

Delaware - Dec 7, 1787
Pennsylvania - Dec 11, 1787
New Jersey, Dec 18, 1787
Georgia, Jan 2, 1788
Connecticut, Jan 9, 1788
Massachusetts, Feb 6, 1788
Maryland, Apr 26, 1788
South Carolina, May 23, 1788
New Hampshire, Jun 21, 1788 (9th state, sufficient for ratification)
Virginia, Jun 25, 1788
New York, July 26, 1788
North Carolina, Nov 21, 1789
Rhode Island, May 29, 1790

[see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....stitution]

In the case of the Declaration of Independence, there were indeed individuals involved, who put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line - insurrectionists who were honorable in declaring their action and justification to the World.

very respectfully,

WH

Petronius| 3.25.10 @ 10:59AM

B. O.
attn plebes. My congress will pass a law defining the word 'is' my way.

Pingback| 3.25.10 @ 12:02PM

The News Factor, an informative online Conservative News Magazine » IN CASE YOU MISSE links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of government’s possibilities. The founders had set up a form of government to protect liberty; he clearly wished they had formed a government to enact equality. Pulling the Plug on the “Living” Constitution. SIMILAR NEWS FACTOR POSTS: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is a dangerous liberal ideologue, but only one among MANY SO WHAT IS IT ABOUT FREEDOM THAT YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND?…

TheresaAK| 3.25.10 @ 12:12PM

The vice president joked to former Maryland Sen. Paul Sarbanes, who attended the event: "I would have never made the faux pas I made the other day if you were still around." He also added, as rising laughter drowned him out: "Thank God my mom's not …"

Biden also acknowledged, more soberly, that Democrats are "going to have losses" this year.
-------------------------------
Remember, Biden's mother while still alive, questioned him about whether or not there were "death panels" and he told her (paraphrase) not to worry her pretty little head.
Now he's said he's glad she's not around?
Who says this about their mother?

Pingback| 3.25.10 @ 12:21PM

Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Pulling the Plug on the "Living" Con links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…#sgp #repealit #ucot #hcr #gop #ocra #iamthemob Topsy Retweet Button Add Topsy Retweet Button to your Blog or Web Site. WordPress  Web Sites 13 tweets tweet The American Spectator : Pulling the Plug on the "Living" Constitution spectator.org/archives/2010/03/25/pulling-the-plug-on-the-living – view page – cached Barack Obama has long seen the U.S. Constitution as an obstacle to…

Yap....| 3.25.10 @ 12:34PM

America has become a lunatic asylum. When the Republicans passed the tax cut for the wealthy that helped precipitate the nation's deep slide into insolvency, where were the tea party protesters? When George W. Bush and his henchmen lied us into a war that sent thousands of sons and daughters to leave their blood and limbs and sanity in the sands of Babylon, where were the tea party protesters?

When the scandal of Abu Ghraib broke and the American people learned that our President, Vice President, and Attorney General abrogated the Geneva Conventions and allowed America to torture its captives, where were the Tea Party protesters?

During the six years the Congress was controlled by the Republicans they did everything they could to enhance the lot of the rich while at the same time severely damaging the middle class. Their "fair trade" policies cost America two million jobs. Where were the tea party protesters?

Maybe our madness is a symptom of our need to escape reality. Even so, the reality is there and persists and becomes even more maddening

Brian B| 3.25.10 @ 1:20PM

Appropriate screen name, yap.
The Bush tax cuts (which went to all income groups) in no appreciable way contributed to the housing crash which was the proximate cause of the financial crisis and it is the idiotic statist response to it which continues to this day and the already accumulated $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities of our exisitng entitlements which is pushing us to insolvency.
The rest of your screed is equally factually inaccurate.

Melvin| 3.25.10 @ 1:38PM

When the tax cuts took effect my boss expanded and hired more employees and created another company which in turn hire more specialized employees.
I received a substantial raise, and a little bigger bonus around Christmas.
So before any accusations of being filthy rich, I'd be so lucky, I currently drive a 1992 Buick.
And Yap you call this madness? My madness would be getting a better car if the Bush tax cuts were extended.

2Anglico| 3.25.10 @ 3:36PM

Don't look now Yap, Haliburton's drones are watching you. And its time to change your diaper.

Blackwatch| 3.25.10 @ 3:47PM

RACISM, RACISM,RACISM,RACISM RACISM,RACISM,RACISM,RACISM
RACISM,RACISM,RACISM,RACISM

Yap, you forgot to accuse all of us of racism so I though that I would help you. It's the white thing to do!

UpChuck.Liberals| 3.26.10 @ 12:00AM

And here I thought it was the Progressive thing to do. Silly me.

JP| 3.25.10 @ 3:51PM

Yap,
Pleeze keep your strawmen debates to yourself. We've been over W on this site for so long that most of us have moved on. Bush wasn't a conservative, but his tax breaks didn't cause the his defecit (I hope Bob and his charts stay put). His spending did.

And your attempt to change the subject to Bush is really lame. Obama, Pelosi and Reid run things (Pelosi and Reid have run Congress for over 3 years). I guess, when you cannot win a rational debate, bring up Bush. You might as well bring up Nixon and CREEP for all the good it will do you.

LC| 3.25.10 @ 4:32PM

First: the tax RATES were lowered for ALL income levels. Explain again how that is a tax cut for the rich? Also, tax revenues year to year went UP, just not as fast as the increase in spending.

Second: read the Geneva Conventions. Committing a military act without the uniform of a country EXCLUDES terrorists from the Geneva Conventions. Also, Iran and Iraq did not sign the GC. I have an idea: treat our captives like their own country--behead them. Cuts down on the expenses.

Third: EVERY Democratic Senator thought Iraq had WMDs. All thought Saddam was preparing a Nuclear program. Unless you think GWB is so smooth that he could falsify all intelligence data, your arguement has no basis in fact.

Fourth: NAFTA came into being in 1994. Negotiated by GHWB, it was signed by Bill Clinton.

Shorelv| 3.25.10 @ 4:36PM

Yap,
The housing bubble began when a democrat named Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act. This law required banks to increase mortgages in high risk areas. Also, another democrat, Bill Clinton expanded it to show mortgage rejections by race and pressured Freddy and Fannie to purchase these high risk mortgages. Don’t blame the conservatives for your lot in life. They've done plenty of un-Constitutional things, but not this one.

Shorelv| 3.25.10 @ 4:47PM

If you didn't receive the tax cuts provided in the Bush administration, you didn't pay taxes. All, who paid taxes and had children, received the tax cuts (see below). So don't pull the rich excuse and stop picking the DNC talking points. Better yet, read books and visit the LoC sometime, so you can actually understand the bills and laws passed by your beloved democratic party.

A reduction of individual income tax rates from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent; An increase in the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000; A phased-in reduction in estate taxes, and a one-year repeal in 2010; A big expansion of tax-favored retirement savings plans.

liberty| 3.25.10 @ 1:51PM

God help us if they push amensty and let felons vote were screwed big time and if they get National IDs thanks to Lindsay Gramnesty. National IDs the beginning of mark of the anti-christ!!!! Heaven help us now!!!! I hope we have a honest fair landslide election this fall and throw all these crooks out before we start looking like Venezula!!

ACynic| 3.25.10 @ 1:54PM

A living constitution means that the constitution can mean anything at all; whatever is the legal/political fad of the day. It means that the original constitution no longer is in effect.

It is no accident that the proponents of a living constitution are all extreme left wing progressive ideologues; aka communists/fascists.

These communists/fascists/socialists want to rid society of family, religion, and of course, the Constitution; all of which stand in the way of a govt. by the millionaire ruling progressive elites, for the millionaire ruling progressive elites, and of the millionaire ruling progressive elites.

The amendment process was implemented by the original framers of the constitution if changes were needed in the Constitution. Progressive liberal elitist millionaire communists/fascists/socialists want zero input of the people. So they reject this process.

Scott| 3.25.10 @ 4:12PM

Can you please leave the family/religion piece out of the discussion? Just because someone doesn't have religious beliefs doesn't make them a liberal/socialist.

2Anglico| 3.25.10 @ 4:18PM

No, but it is a good indicator.

Shorelv| 3.25.10 @ 4:55PM

What evidence do you have of that?

2Anglico| 3.26.10 @ 9:28AM

Oh, let's see... Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Barney Fag... shall I go on?

Frank Natoli| 3.25.10 @ 2:38PM

Neumayr's suggestion that politicians of the "living constitution" persuasion may be consumed by it fails to recognize the fundamental shift: we have democratically shifted from a rule of law to a rule of simple naked power. Get used to it.

Damian| 3.25.10 @ 2:44PM

How ironic that a black president would lead us all into slavery to the state.

Blackwatch | 3.25.10 @ 3:57PM

There were hundreds and thousands of Africans involved in the slave trade. It's natural for one tribe to destroy their neighbors. If they could make a shilling of it so much the better for them.

Steve823| 3.25.10 @ 2:45PM

Were it not for the Constitution being what it is, Obama would NOT be where he is today. Obama should be thankful for that instead of trying to circumvent and change it. Remember, 'be careful what you wish for'. You got "change" that you now have to live with.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.25.10 @ 2:47PM

Frank N.
I cannot understand your sentence fragment. Sorry.

Naked Power? The feds don't have a clue as to "naked power"............yet.

Frank Natoli| 3.25.10 @ 3:00PM

Sentence fragment? Are you accusing me of a grammar failure? Looks [grammatically] OK to me.

Are you a fan of the "Reilly, Ace of Spies" series? When I wrote my original post, I was thinking of a scene in one of the final episodes, where Stalin is arguing with Dzerzhinsky. Dzerzhinsky is arguing for a nuanced approach to Reilly and the Trust. Stalin cuts him short and says "we have the power, and that is one thing you cannot fake".

When I heard Obama say for the first time "I'm the President and I don't have to argue that anymore" or words to that effect, I thought of that scene between Stalin and Dzerzhinsky. The American people have given the power, which you cannot fake, to Obama and his associates.

That is what I was referring to.

David| 3.25.10 @ 3:36PM

Wow, how these posts went from the Constitution to Bam Bam's place of birth, I'll never understand.

That said, let me throw in my two cents. I like most people tend to dismiss the allegation that he was not born on American soil.

However, this is what we know has occurred since this argument started during the campaign.

There were questions about the place of birth of both McCain and Obama. McCain released his original birth certificate and satisfied everyone's curiosity - Obama did not.

Birth and Death records are public records, and are controlled by the heads of the Bureaus of Vital Statistics in the various states. The head of the Bureau in Hawaii initially said she had seen Obama's original certificate and it was under lock and key. Months later she claimed that the original certificate had been destroyed in a fire. Hmmm.

Combine that with the fact that he won't release his records from Columbia; and, that no one who attended Columbia at the time Obama's was supposed to be there remembers him, was in a class with him, etc.

I think trashing the birthers is going a bit far. They have ample reasons to be suspicious and ask questions.

MAINER64| 3.25.10 @ 3:40PM

You know that your country is in trouble when the president's aunt is an illegal alien living in taxpayer funded public housing.........God help us.

David| 3.25.10 @ 3:45PM

Hey yap, tax cuts for the rich................pleeeeease. I am single and don't earn anywhere near 100,000 a year, and I was pleased to net (take home) an extra $100 per month because of Bush's tax cuts. Extend them please. Because of the economy, I have not had a raise in two years. To allow the tax cuts to expire would be an income cut for me. So, yap ,you are a typical leftist who can't think for himself.

Scott| 3.25.10 @ 3:50PM

What drivel.....what excatly is so unconstitutional about the bill? The individual mandate? I agree its unprecedentd, and it will make for some interesting court decisions, and its possible it could get struck down. But all the Fed will do is raise everyone's tax rate, and then offer a refudnable tax credit for buying health isurance.

Then its not a mandate, but a tax benefit. Just like the home mortgage deduction. But it has the same economic impact.

As for the rest of it, its absurd to say there is a constitutional argument against it. Is Medicare unconstitutional? Social Security? Medicaid? VA? All of these programs take money from one group and redistribute it to others. If they just went single-payer/Medicare for all via an increased payroll tax, would that have appeased your constitutional arguments? Was Bush "trashing the constitution" by passing Medicare Part D? And where were all of you then?

Obamacare is a crappy bill. But this obsession with constitutionality is either misinformord, hypocritical or both.

JP| 3.25.10 @ 3:59PM

Scott,
The main constitutional issue is whether Congress can make citizenship contingent upon purchasing a product of service from a private company. At least for the next 3 years, the insurance companies are private entities (after that, they will most probably be public utilities).

The individual mandate, if one takes the Constitution litterally (as well as seriously) is obviously unconstitutional. And no, most of us do not hold out much hope with the courts. They've stopped enforcing Federalsim and protecting state rights many, many moons ago.

Scott| 3.25.10 @ 4:10PM

JP, would tend to agree that the mandate is unconstitutional via a literal interpretation. Who knows what the courts end up doing, though I'm sure it will be eventually be decided by the SCOTUS.

I guess my point is, so what if it does. Its not going to really impact the implementation of Obamacare as they'll come up with another way get the desired result of incentivizing people to purchase.

John Navratil| 3.26.10 @ 11:05AM

Be careful what you wish for. If this dog is deemed unconstitutional due to the individual mandate, the drive for single-payer will begin. Regardless, that is the next step as the private insurance companies are starved out of business.

Scott| 3.25.10 @ 3:58PM

Hey David, pay attention. Obama's budget calls for all tax cuts to be extended except for individuals over $200k and couples over $250k. So your tax cut isn't going anywhere.

JP| 3.25.10 @ 4:14PM

One other side note. The Social Security Administration admitted earlier today that for the first time ever it has paid out more than it has taken in. The SSA blamed the lingering recession and the attendent drop in withholdings as the reason. This obsession with HCR for the last 14 months is beginning to see itself felt in more ways than one. With over 10,000 Boomer retiring every week (it will treble in coming years), not only is SS not collecting those withholding, but it must begin paying out large checks. The longer that non-goverment employment remains at such high levels, the more Obama must spend (that's all he knows how to do). If unemployment begins to grow again, all bets are off. HRC will be the last of his worries (and ours). Obama wasted 14 months, which we cannot get back.

Scott| 3.25.10 @ 5:50PM

No arguments with you there.

Blackwatch| 3.25.10 @ 4:07PM

admit it that all you want is single payer health care. The Obamacare scam is clearly designed to create the collapse of the EVIL health insurance companies. Use of Federal Power to engineer the collapse of a legitimate industry is an illegal taking of the value of that business by the Federal Government. Also the mandates on the states is clearly unconstitutional and the SCOTUS has already ruled on that in the 1990's that HC is a state issue not a federal issue.

Lastly, since I need to go to work now--it's morally wrong to bankrupt a business to gain control of it customers. If you can't see that you are too far gone to help. Also you forgot to accuse us of being racists.

JP| 3.25.10 @ 4:07PM

Of course Scott, I'm sure you're aware that there are litterally millions of families whose small businesses count as thier main source of income. Most businesses have net revenues that easily exceed $250,000. It is these families who will see thier tax bill sky rocket. If one is employed by one of these businesses, they will probably lose thier job either this year or next.

Funny that you bring up taxes. In California, 150,000 families make up 55% of the tax revenue (FY2010 it is $26 billion). Outside of government, it is these people who provide the most jobs. What if they decide to leave California? Cali's budget deficit gets to the point where it cannot be solved other than drastic slashing of thier spending. Either that, or Obama will force the other 49 states to subsidize California's deficit (similar to the situation of Greece and the EU).

We will see very shortly how unsustainable HCR actually is.

Scott| 3.25.10 @ 5:54PM

Well, JP, as a (muliple) business owner who's household income is over $250k, I'm very well aware of those facts. Am I going to be happy that my marginal rate will go up 4.6%? Nope. Or Capital gains up 5%? No, certainly not.

Scott| 3.25.10 @ 6:05PM

My marginal rate actually would go up 3%, not 4.6%, as I don't make over $372k, so that was mistake.

Meant to add on to that thought, regarding jobs though. I don't see any analysis that its a job killer though. My tax rates are going to stay the same for the first $250k I earn (married). Lets say I earn $350k, my taxes are going up $3k/year. If I'm forced to lay off an employee because of $3k extra federal tax bill, I shouldn't have the employee in the first place. Meaning, if they aren't earning me, through their work, a heck of a lot more than $3k net, we are chasing the wrong market, or I've got a really crummy employee.

JP| 3.25.10 @ 9:17PM

Scott,
You are full of Sh1t. You niether own a business or pay in those ranges. I can tell from your comments alone that you never have owned one. Please stop the crap. Any true small business owner works 80-100 hours a week, and sees his net revenues consumed by federal, local state taxes to the tune of almost 60%. What the Bush tax cuts gave, the state tax increases take away.

Small biz owners are liable to over 5% increase in taxes to begin,with no corresponding relief. My father-in-law during his best years paid in taxes more than most people earn (over $120,000). And he still had expenses that were not tax detuctible. He worked over 100 hours/ week just supply people like you with free tax payer funded entitlements. According to Obama, he was rich (in his best years he earned $280,000.

2Anglico| 3.25.10 @ 4:25PM

Guys like Scott don't pay Federal Income Taxes. That is why he believes bambi's lies. Scott probably gets EITC, right Scott?

Scott| 3.25.10 @ 5:49PM

Sorry. I wish. I probably paid more in income/capital gains taxes than you made last year.

UpChuck.Liberals| 3.26.10 @ 12:16AM

Scott, give us your SSN, date of birth and Mothers Maiden Name so we can check that out ok?

2Anglico| 3.26.10 @ 10:28AM

test

2Anglico| 3.26.10 @ 10:31AM

I paid $187,497 in Federal Income Taxes from 2003-2007, got a refund in 2008 and will not file 2009 till October. Anyone who wishes to get EITC while bragging about how much Capital Gains they make is suspect to me.

2Anglico| 3.26.10 @ 10:35AM

So, thanks to the Bush inspired tax RATE reductions, I kept $45,000 more of MY hard earned money over 5 years. For a family of 5, $9,000 extra in our pocket feels good. So, Scott, if you want to give more of YOUR money to people who DO NOT work, go ahead, I'll keep MINE!

matt jones| 3.25.10 @ 4:41PM

the so called living constitution, now used as a prejorative, is based on the understanding that the start of America was not founded in the limitation of government, but by the central focus on the people. if the people elect a politician, why should their not be goal and attempts to use the gobvenment for its actual purpose, serving the American people. this is afterall a represenative government. polititicians try to convince the people of their best intentions and why they would be suited for the role, and if elected they will fill that role. however, lately through the tea party, the suits against so called 'obamacare' and other depreciations of politicians, are not so much that they are not douing their jobs, but that they are doing tooo much. this is the plight apparently. not corruption, not laziness and lethargy but radical ideas that threaten some sort of foundation that is in fact safe not because it is guarded and kept alive by discourse in the end, but because they are simply there to place reminders of the role of government and the authority. not the limit. people seem, to forfget that arrogance is never done so much against the people as it is done to indear them to the curent administration. it is done for one reason only: the feeling of superiority, give the people what they want so that we may get what we want. those who criticize the health care reform act and the living constitution better known as the progressive constitution, do not realize that a tough sell is the action of an administration that has a goal, not a need for flattery and vanity. so much of the time the media will report on a bill that has so much support not because it is good, but because it is non controversial, and they are passed and for a time everybody is happy. but thiis short term and empty. if the greatest concern about President Barack Obama is that his ideas are to radical and he seems bent on a particular idea, then that might be a sign to take a look at the criticism. the founding fathers and all those involved with the birth of America, realized the way to create so great a country was to leave the plasnmning to future generations. the constitution focused on an idea a starting point an out line of what must be done. however their time has passed, and while those initial truth still stand some more must be added for the saake of the passage of time. the creation of America's constitution was no harder than in deciding what not to put in, rather than than what to put in, because the constitution was meant to unite those who were willing to take a chance on the new country and provide them with a definite list of do nots. the President was right in what he said about there not being anything to do listited in the constitution, that is the job of Americans today.

ACynic| 3.25.10 @ 4:53PM

Actually our form of govt. is a Constitutional Republic.
Also, there are presently 17 amendments to the US Constitution; that is, the Consititution has already been amended (changed ) 17 times.
The founding fathers - looking wiser and wiser every year - prescribed an amendment process to change the constitution by an appropriate vote of the individual STATES.
The notion of a living constitution was developed to thwart the prescribed amendment process, because, as one would expect, the ruling multi-millionaire ruling progressive left liberal communists, DO NOT WANT THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE ON THEIR FORM OF GOVT.

samuel adams| 3.25.10 @ 8:20PM

the time for talk is over. The judicial system became corrupt in the 1980's. Now look at us.
Is there any reason to follow our government anymore? All they do is line their pockets with our money. It is time for action.

DB2| 3.25.10 @ 9:29PM

As for the financials- expect a national VAT tax. Also many States who are already near bankrupt are now going to be further burdened when their Medicaid numbers swell due to Obamacare. States will have to raise taxes and lay off more workers. Being In Calif. I already pay enough damn State tax and am currently on a 10% wage reduction due to furlough for lack of State funding. I cannot image in the future how much taxes we are going to be hit with-and super inflation is coming, prices will rise as businesses turn the rising taxes put upon them to the consumer. The future looks pretty damn bleak.

Pingback| 3.25.10 @ 10:45PM

Hour of the Time » HOTT Newslinks March 25, 2010 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…++++++++++ Pulling the Plug on the “Living” Constitution http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/25/pulling-the-plug-on-the-living ++++++++++ Raw Milk Becomes Contentious http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/us/25iht-letter.html?partner=rss&emc=rss ++++++++++ Dogs suffer cancer after ID chipping…

Pingback| 3.26.10 @ 2:08AM

Pulling the Plug on the “Living” Constitution : USACTION NEWS links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Unions What to DO! Pulling the Plug on the “Living” Constitution Obama has long seen the U.S. Constitution as an obstacle to what he considers progress. George Neumayr writes at The American Spectator: Barack Obama has long seen the U.S. Constitution as an obstacle to what he considers progress. In a 2001 interview that surfaced during the presidential campaign, he made this very clear: the…

Brian| 3.26.10 @ 6:48AM

The left uses the courts to pass legislation it feels is too controversial for politicians to vote on. Its worked for 60 years and conservative resistance to this tactic has been impotent. I see nothing changing in the forseeable future.

David| 3.26.10 @ 5:06PM

Scott, Obama promises not to raise taxes on me, single, if I earn under $200,000. Unfortunately, his promises have not meant much to this point. Further, the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of 2010, IF THE CONGRESS does not extend them. I don't have much confidence in the dem Congress doing the right thing with regard to our taxes so, I hope you can appreciate my concern. Unless of course, the repubs take over both branches in Nov.

Pingback| 3.26.10 @ 7:54PM

weekly articles « Interned In Northfield links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…….and Obama is trying to free himself by using a "Living Constitution" interpretation. http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/25/pulling-the-plug-on-the-living Did Obama "make history" and what exactly does that mean? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/26/the_making_-_and_unmaking_-_of_history_104917.htm…

Vivian| 3.27.10 @ 11:18AM

Blu ray Ripper for Mac is the latest software that allows Mac users to rip Blu ray DVD on ther Mac OS X, It’s simple to use and a lot of fun once you learn how to rip Blu ray for Mac. And powerful functions allows you to rip and convert your Blu-Ray DVD movies and general DVDs, even the protected DVDs and a part of Blu-Ray, into other popular audio and video formats like AVI, ASF, MPEG, MP4, WMV, MKV, MOV, FLV, SWF, 3GP, AAC, AC3, MP3, OGG, WAV, WMA, M4A, etc

Pingback| 3.27.10 @ 1:06PM

Pulling the Plug on the “Living” Constitution #fb links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…in its understanding of government’s possibilities. The founders had set up a form of government to protect liberty; he clearly wished they had formed a government to enact equality. View on American Spectator Barack Obama and “The Second Bill of Rights” If Obama thinks the Supreme Court didn’t go far enough to “break free” from the constitution, can you now see what kind of…

Pingback| 5.11.10 @ 12:46PM

» Elena Kagan: Stealth Candidate From America’s Most Left Wing President - Blogger N links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Obama considers the Constitution to be a ‘flawed document’, and stated as much on many occasions.  Barak Obama even went as far as to say that the Supreme Court should “break free” from the Constitution. Forget Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan for a moment - do Barak Obama’s views worry you yet?  Break away from the Constitution?  To what end? The answer to that isn’t…

Pingback| 5.11.10 @ 10:35PM

Elena Kagan: Stealth Candidate From America’s Most Left Wing President | penlau softw links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Obama considers the Constitution to be a ‘flawed document’, and stated as much on many occasions.  Barak Obama even went as far as to say that the Supreme Court should “break free” from the Constitution. Forget Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan for a moment – do Barak Obama’s views worry you yet?  Break away from the Constitution?  To what end? The answer to that…

Constitution Statesman | 7.29.10 @ 10:00PM

The concept of the constitution being a living breathing document is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets. In Obama's book he makes the same claim actually saying, how could the constitution not be living document? This total disregard for the rule of law is deplorable, and certainly Obama is not the only guilty party.

IT jobs | 11.23.11 @ 2:34AM

this is very good webpage for sharing

More Articles by George Neumayr

More Articles From The Obama Watch

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

May 23, 2013 | Betsy McCaughey

Anyone Still Believe Me?

May 21, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

That Is What We Do

May 14, 2013 | Jay D. Homnick

Obama’s Rising Inequality

May 8, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

Turning on Obama

May 7, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/25/pulling-the-plug-on-the-living

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|48 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|29 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|32 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|46 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|17 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|6 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 10:29AM

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.23.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.