Political Hay
Constitutional Confusion
Revering the living document by turning it into a dead letter.
The Onion, a popular news satire website, recently ran the following headline: “Area man passionate defender of what he imagines Constitution to be.” The story itself is a liberal send-up of a conservative Christian follower of the Tea Party movement, who among other things erroneously believes the Framers wove a clear prohibition on birth control into our nation’s founding documents.
But the article could just have easily been written as a straight news story about the late Sen. Robert Byrd. Most of Byrd’s obituaries noted that the senator was fond of carrying around a copy of the Constitution in his pocket. Yet the nine-term Democrat devoted much of his long career to making sure Congress unconstitutionally spent money on local projects that benefited his West Virginia constituents.
When Byrd decided people weren’t paying enough attention to the hallowed document, he decided it was time to declare National Constitution Day. The only trouble was that his mechanism for doing so was a federal education funding bill that was itself blatantly unconstitutional, at least if you believe in a Constitution that delegates a few defined powers to the central government.
Byrd has gone to the big Klan rally in the sky, but his idiosyncratic definition of constitutionalism lives on. In fact, it was on full display this week during Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings. Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, asked Kagan whether Congress had the power to require the American people to consume the recommended servings of fruits and vegetables each day.
Kagan tried to play it off with an appeal to judicial restraint, replying that what Coburn was suggesting “sounds like a dumb law” but a law’s senselessness is not by itself sufficient reason for the Supreme Court to overturn it. That’s true as far as it goes, but does the federal government have the power to regulate American diets in this fashion? Kagan did not answer the question, but her stammering spoke volumes.
Earlier Kagan argued that there was no contradiction between interpreting the Constitution based on its original public meaning and treating it as an evolving, living document. After all, the Constitution clearly requires that senators be at least 30 years old. But whether it allows for the federal regulation of bedtime is presumably buried in some penumbra.
This view of the rule of law essentially reduces the Constitution to Robert’s Rules of Order: it sets the specific procedures by which the federal government runs but does not expressly limit its powers. The doctrine of enumerated powers has effectively been repealed by an expansive reading of the interstate commerce clause.
It was not always this way. Consider: most Americans believed it was necessary to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery and impose (and also repeal) Prohibition. Both slavery and the sale of alcoholic beverages had a much bigger impact on interstate commerce than much of what the federal government regulates under the commerce clause today.
We do not revere the Constitution by avoiding 29-year-old senators while transforming a federal constitutional republic into a unitary state. A Constitution that means whatever the government says it means is not a living document. It is a dead letter. And the situational constitutionalism practiced by both parties, often with public approval, has helped kill it. But as the bills come due for a government that has grown beyond its constitutional size, millions of Americans are starting to mourn its passing and hope for its resurrection.
It will be an uphill fight to reclaim the original understanding of the Constitution, however. The Onion made one attempt at ideological balance in its spoof with their imaginary quote from the confused constitutionalist’s liberal daughter:
“Dad’s great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head,” said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. “He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn’t even know that it guarantees universal health care.”
Dad’s radio-generated ideas are of course a caricature of the conservative position. Samantha’s are not a far cry from what is believed by liberal members of the Supreme Court. Who says the Onion is not a real news outlet?
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (127) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/02/constitutional-confusion
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 7.2.10 @ 8:41AM
The look on this man's face says it all, confusion on all levels. Have I got that right? When the time comes for all of us to pick a side, be it you are either with me, or against me, or love it or leave it, I'll chose to love it, live it and protect it. I'll bet even your life on it.
Alan Brooks| 7.2.10 @ 10:43PM
What those of you who are Repuglicans are leaving out (it's not what you say-- it is what you omit) is that between the '08 election and his leaving office Bush ACQUIESCE and SUPPORTED Obamas economic policies.
And just today that shoeshine boy, that cotton-picker of an RNC head blames Obama for Afghanistan!
I am voting Dem this November; and if you don't like it, stick it where the Sun don't shine.
Doesitreallymatter| 7.3.10 @ 2:29AM
First of all, not all of us supported GWB. I didn't like his expansion of government, and I certainly didn't approve of most of his economic policies.
Secondly, most of us are frustrated with Michael Steele. Most of us consider him a simpleton at best and a RINO at worst. But we don't use blatantly racist language do so. You did.
Thirdly, I think you're in denial if you believe that the democrats are any better than the republicans. The democratic party is in bed with just as many robber barons as the republicans. Look at BP. Look at General Motors.
The democrats have held the senate for a long time now. We are in the current crisis because GWB didn't have the guts to stand up to them.
You go ahead and vote democrat. And I hope it makes you feel good about yourself, because you seem very unhappy right now.
Have a nice day!
bornorange| 7.3.10 @ 6:59AM
How can I say this delicately? You are voting democrat? I don't think so.
"Bush derangement syndrome" subsides 2 years after he is out of office. Until then you will think you are Bill Clinton.
Bruce | 7.3.10 @ 10:37AM
"Shoeshine boy?" "Cotton picker"?
Why don't you go right ahead and call him a "nappy headed ho" while you're at it, Brooks? Don't you lefties claim the moral imperative when it comes to racism? What does that say about your Marxist nitwit currently - but not for long - residing in the Peoples House. Because by your words we can't continue to call it the WHITE House, can we.
Personally, I doubt anyone here with brains cares worth a damn how you vote.
Norman Conquest| 7.3.10 @ 11:47AM
And just today that shoeshine boy, that cotton-picker of an RNC head
Brilliant quote Alan Brooks, you racist swine!
I am voting Dem this November; and if you don't like it, stick it where the Sun don't shine.
Brilliant quote Alan Brooks, you illiterate idiot!
chester arthur| 7.4.10 @ 10:16AM
As we all know,the sun don't shine where the liberal regressives have had their way.
Tim*| 7.4.10 @ 2:05PM
Well dagummit goldamit , ya'll be playin' The Race Card agin , Boy.
Lordy ,Lordy what dis world comin' to .
Christopher Holland| 7.4.10 @ 9:38PM
As with most of your fulminations, any connection, real or imagined to the subject at hand is purely accidental.
JmsA| 7.5.10 @ 10:43AM
Alan Brooks,
I couldn't care less who you vote for. And by the way, we fully know that you don't like Bush, so stop boring us. After all, he's done and gone. So get over it. This guy in the White House now is going to make Bush look like a genius, and that's saying a lot.
JmsA| 7.5.10 @ 10:49AM
Alan Brooks,
Actually it's the other way around: Obama asked Bush to speed up the release of the TARP funds. Either way, they were both wrong.
JimE| 7.5.10 @ 10:55PM
I'm sure you let barney and obama stick it in you all the time retard boy.
Paevo| 7.2.10 @ 8:57AM
The Onion's send up of the conservative/libertarian insistance on constitutionality ("Area man passionate defender of what he imagines Constitution to be.") is only funny if you are a passionate believer in the primacy of moral relativism... By substituting moral relativism for other, more absolute modes of thought (i.e. genuine knowledge), you pride yourself on your superiority of intellect while ultimately remaining ignorant...
Carol| 7.2.10 @ 9:08AM
Mr. Antle: Love the big Klan rally in the sky comment. Ain't that the truth.
Millions of Samanthas out there. Sitting in classrooms being taught by Marxists and learning that black is white and up is down and 2 + 2 = 5.
I weep for my nation.
I weep for the Samanthas out there that one day will turn around and wonder why there isn't enough food to eat and cars that used to allow you to go anywhere you wanted.
Mike D.| 7.2.10 @ 3:49PM
Totally agree, this generation of Utopic/Marxist drone being turned out by this pathetic joke of an education system will indeed reap what they sow and also learn the lessons of history the hard way.
This present situation of Federal leftist tyranny will go from a verbal to legislative to ultimately violence as it progresses along its course. Everybody with a brain sees where this will end up sooner or later. This Communist usurper that the historically brain dead elected is looking at a one term presidency, a lifetime term!
Carol| 7.2.10 @ 4:20PM
I believe you are right.
Obama and his Commie czars have come too far to let go of their power after a measly 4 years.
TaterSalad| 7.3.10 @ 11:49AM
Subject: Illigal immigration and our President
Why is the President so against to "sealing" off the southern border and finish building the fence? Could it be because he himself is an illegal alien to this country?
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2010.....-make.html
and in his own words:
http://www.exposeobama.com/201.....dium=email
Charles Martel| 7.5.10 @ 4:52PM
Carol, the government is from Chicago, where if you have two Democrats and two Republicans, the Democrats will always win 3-2.
+++
ncatty| 7.2.10 @ 9:29AM
Coburn's question was brilliant in its simplicity. Unfortunately, I think the answer to the question is "Yes, the constitution allows the government to make the people eat the recommended foods." The constitution no longer provides any defense against the power of the Federal government.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.2.10 @ 10:58AM
ncatty,
I beg to differ.
Have you already sold your gun for soup?
A hundred million of us have not.
ncatty| 7.2.10 @ 11:55AM
I said the constitution no longer provides a defense...didn't mention self-defense or defense of others. Thanks for the insult.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.2.10 @ 1:15PM
No insult intended... just a reminder that that ole' wore out constitution damn sure does still provide protection!
Because in lieu of that ole' document... the guns in your closet...or wherever... would not be there.
You truly would be limited to the proverbial "pitchfork" like peasants of old.
canuckistani| 7.5.10 @ 4:34PM
What are you talking about?
What country has banned all guns other than communist countries?
If long guns are legal pretty much everywhere and handguns are not, what's the problem? We shoot and kill more WHITE people in Texas by a two to one margin versus New York and other blue states. They hunt pretty much everything there it seems, except people. Texas seems to have a thirst for blood of any animal.
Germany, which purposely reinstated the right to gun ownership after WW2, has a death-rate nearly 80% lower than the US. They carry as hunters, shepherds and sportsmen - just not killers, it seems.
We have added amendments to the constitution when we determined the founders did not know everything. They did not imagine emancipated slaves, 50 states, elected senators or term limits of the president. They probably never envisioned preemptive war overseas, either. Do we repeal everything back to the 1789 convention? Madison (the defacto father of the constitution) saw no need for the Bill of Rights, and imagined knowledgeable sincere men would do the right thing. The Electoral College was put in to stop the masses from electing a "substandard" candidate. That's what the founders wanted, is that what you want?
UpChuck.Liberals| 7.5.10 @ 11:21PM
"What country has banned all guns other than communist countries?" You really must learn to read. How about Great Britain? Last I heard they've banned hand guns, long guns and shot guns. Sure doesn't leave much does it? Oh yeah they're Communist, well Socialists, but close enough.
Petronius| 7.2.10 @ 10:16AM
Next from the Onion will be a string of op-ed pieces suggesting one or more Conservative "fossils" on the Supreme Court plan on retiring soon lest they be "retired" by agents of the thugocracy in the west wing. There's almost nothing left of Our Constitution we swore to uphold, defend, and protect from all enemies foreign And Domestic. The only question not answered is how long the despots are willing to wait.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.2.10 @ 11:04AM
Petronius,
Perhaps the wrong question. My only question is "what will the catalyst be to cause a significant group of Americans "refuse to comply".
Al Adab| 7.2.10 @ 12:50PM
Ken,
Yes, we are all too close to the day when that decision will need to be made by each of us. Should the war of words fail and the ballot box fail as well, the alternatives are not pretty.
Non-compliance may be the only step left. The folks in AZ are close to facing that now. If the Fed sues their state (assuming it isn't just hot air talk) they may have to decise so what, and do what they intend anyway. Will they have the support of Texas?
What the catylist may be is yet to be revealed, but certainly it is close and the issue is waiting. "Choose you this day...but as for me and my house..."
Len| 7.2.10 @ 5:39PM
In all likelihood the real uprising will come from the entitlement junkies as more cities, more states and the federal government are no longer able to provide for them, due to the destroyed economy.
In NY city thousands of students marched in protest at no longer being provided free bus fare. That is a minor issue, imagine the scale when millions no longer have housing or food provided. As a result we will rioting on a larger and longer scale than ever before, to such a degree that the use of the military will be justified under insurrection or something like that. Then martial law will occur and that's pretty much it folks, no more US. I do think though that we will then break up into various regional confederations, with some having more freedom, and others experiencing a much heavier hand of the government.
Al Adab| 7.2.10 @ 6:30PM
Len,
That is a likely scenario and a good analysis of the current state of the Union. I fear we all will have decisions to make before too long.
Bruce | 7.3.10 @ 10:48AM
Quite true. The only thing left out was what we could expect the military to do if/when martial law is declared. I doubt very much that our patriots in service to the nation would even think about taking arms against the civilian population. Certainly none of those I know would. That goes for the millions of veterans whose credo is "the oath I took has NO expiration date."
What I am concerned about, having been part of the culture for too long, is the big city and some smaller police departments and their SWAT teams. To see these guys on TV shows a Rambo mentality all to ready to blow the hell out of anyone they are told to bring in. I don't trust the bastards at all, seeing as how the majority of todays cops have been fully brainwashed in the "us vs them" mentality. It pains me to say that after spending my entire adult life in law enforcement, but I'm afraid it's true.
Al Adab| 7.4.10 @ 3:35PM
Bruce:
In all likelihood the military will split if and when ordered to turn their weapons upon lawful governments of the states. This is why we face momentous times. Decisions are not to be taken lightly or in passion, but deliberately and with honest reflection. No one will be found wanting or cowardly who shrinks from such acts. Honest men will understand honest differences.
All this is why we hope the ballot box does not fail us and that our Republic can c0ntinue a Nation of Laws and not require of the citizens obedience and allegience to men.
Chet| 7.4.10 @ 2:55AM
LEN has nailed it... "entitlement junkies" will be those who rise up & DEMAND that they continue to get their FREE RIDE. When they don't get it ( See Bankrupt Illinois which CAN'T / WON'T pay it's bills - the HOME STATE of Bozobama ) they will hit the streets, attack persons of wealth ( that's US FOLKS - THE MIDDLE CLASS ), TAKING ANYTHING THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON... It will be a street riot, except that instead of breaking into stores & turning over police cars, they will be BREAKING INTO HOUSES IN MASSE while YOU are at work...
THINK I'm crazy ??
THINK about it a little...WHAT WILL they do ? Sit quietly in their hovels without enough money ( or welfare charge cards ) to BUY CIGARETTES ???
THANK GOD the 2nd Amendment has NOT been "cancelled" by the democrat / socialists / marxists / fascists / Obama-fools...
And NOW THE WORST PART:
Our beloved LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT will have to decide WHICH SIDE OF THE LAW they will come down on:
1) the side of those who are law-abiding, who will NOT submit & surrender their arms
2) the entitlement SCUM who will DEMAND that savings / checking accounts be "distributed fairly" so that there will not be "undue suffering".
I can just HEAR SCUM like Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, Pelosi-NutBAG, Feinstein, Boxer & the OTHER communists...
OBAMA TOLD YOU WHAT HE INTENDED TO DO WITH YOUR EARNINGS.... HE TOLD JOE THE PLUMBER HE WANTED TO "SPREAD IT AROUND"... What did you do ???? You did exactly what CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC & NPR wanted you to do.... YOU MADE FUN OF JOE THE PLUMBER INSTEAD OF LETTING THE WORDS OF AN INEXPERIENCED PUNK SOAK IN...
Congrats democrats, THAT MORON IS ALL YOURS....
Purpleguy| 7.2.10 @ 10:34AM
Hey, AS, what happened to "Obama Watch"?
Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 11:39AM
" The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 "
JmsA| 7.2.10 @ 1:12PM
Purpleturd,
I guess we're not all that enthralled by the One, though I, at least, appreciate your efforts to reaffirm your sycophantic proclivities. Besides, as Tim*'s post below shows, though the One's ratings fluctuate, they ultimately trend downwards. So, who cares! As always, 11/02/2010
JmsA| 7.2.10 @ 1:41PM
Purpleturd,
Your hero is waxing hagiographic right as write this about Byrd, with only a very abstract and indirect allusion to that pesky white sheet-wearing thingy. 11/02/2010
Len| 7.2.10 @ 11:02AM
Kagan probably didn't want to answer Coburn's question as it would impact the suit against the FDA being brought by those consuming and selling raw milk. To quote..." “There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.”
“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.”
So, yes, apparently Kagan and others do believe that people need permission in their consumption choice. This is how absurd it is when people want to use the government to control people's lives and make their decisions for them, rather than protecting those people in person and property, and leaving them free to determine for themselves what is best.
I would also ask then, if at one time we had to amend the US constitution (insanely so) to prohibit alcohol consumption, do you then agree that the federal drug laws are unconstitutional? Under the US constitution such powers are to be solely exercised by the states as the 10th amendment clarifies. I just want to make sure that this desire for restoring the US constitution is impartial.
Louis Jenkins| 7.2.10 @ 11:19AM
"Have you already sold your gun for soup? "
Ken:
I'll hang on to mine for a long time, even if it means that I tighten the belt a bit.
Bruce | 7.3.10 @ 10:53AM
Just ONE, Louis? You're behind the curve, buddy:)
ojo grande| 7.2.10 @ 12:23PM
The' old time' politicians and media who lied, used and abused their positions of power are dying out...Kennedy, Bird, the NY Times , LA Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc... And the Internet, Fox News and Conservative radio are for the first time in US history, now getting the real facts out there for everyone to see.
The curtain has now been pulled back to expose these frauds, parasites and traitors ....
America is in for some hard times under this socialist regime... but there is a light at the end of this corrupt, socialist tunnel that we have descended into...sometimes its darkest before the 'light'.
But, only if you, your family and friends vote for and financially support young committed Conservatives to help save this country we all love so much.
Happy 4th to all of my Conservative Friends!
David| 7.2.10 @ 1:37PM
Tim, only 24% may "strongly approve" of Obama's performance, which is actually a stunningly high number of idiots who are likely voters, which are the type of people Rasmussen screens when polling.
Further, only 44% "strongly disapprove" of Obama's performance, a stunningly low number in my mind after what all 300 million of us have witnessed the past 18 months.
Last, Rasmussen has Bam Bam's overall approval rating about 48 - 49%. As I have said many times before, all the boy needs is to do a couple of things that the vast majority of voters support just before the 2012 election, and I think he will be back in office. All he needs is to move 1 or 2% from where he is now, and with the absolute liars the left has become, with the MSM on the dems' side, with the illegal antics of ACORN, the SEIU, and other groups, improving 1 or 2% will not be hard to accomplish at all. Don't forget, the vast majority of people still get their news from ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS, especially older folks, who are very likely to vote.
Len| 7.2.10 @ 2:16PM
I would also ask Mr. Antle, why when there is an ardent defender of the US constitution in the house who is often willing to be the one "no" vote among both parties and continually justifies his stance based on the US constitution there is so little support for the man in these pages?
Even those most glowingly spoken of here and considered to be fine conservatives continue to show disregard or ignorance of what is allowed and not allowed through the instrument of the US constitution. An example is Jim DeMint, and though he comes closer than many, and I would far rather there were more of him in the congress, voted for unemployment benefits. Is this a power to be found in the US constitution?
Please don't take this as a snipe at Sen. Demint, but a legitimate question concerning this site and whether the staff here truly wants the US constitution restored.
Tim*| 7.2.10 @ 2:46PM
A Valid Question !
We ,Tea Party Rebels Support South Carolina's Jim DeMint ,but your question is valid .
Bruce | 7.3.10 @ 11:10AM
Perhaps, Tim*, it has something to do with the words Clintoon used when [trying to] explain Byrd's dalliance with the Klan. "He was running for office", which any Dem Socialist/Marxist knows means lie all you want - we're Democrats.
I would hate to think that about men like DeMint or Coburn, but there has to be some explanation for this tendency to affirm the Constitution on one hand, and deny the Constitution on another.
Red Phillips | 7.2.10 @ 3:17PM
Senator Byrd was certainly no Constitutionalist, but he was rock solid on immigration.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives.....bert-byrd/
And as my friend Bede points out he voted against the disastrous 1965 Immigration Act and filibustered the unconstitutional Civil Rights Act.
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=5603
DaveS| 7.2.10 @ 6:07PM
The Constitution, the whole Constitution and nothing but the Constitution. The idea of 'penumbras' and 'living' Constitutions is subversive. Proponents of such devices are no friends of 'the people.' The Constitution is a document that constrains government to specific ends and oppressive to the people. The Founders distrusted government; why should one think their masterpiece instrument favored the government over the governed? Answer: the Kagans, etc.
DaveS| 7.2.10 @ 6:08PM
excuse me, NOT oppressive of the people.
LadyPatriot| 7.2.10 @ 6:51PM
minus a split of the country into 2 separate entities, does anyone of you really believe that a return to the strict precepts of the document can be achieved? I would love to believe this is possible but looking at the evilness out these, I have little hope. Would love to hear some hopeful responses abou this. thanks
RCV| 7.3.10 @ 12:07AM
The Constitution itself spells out the procedures for changing it, including what you believe to be "the strict precepts of the document." If you can convince the rest of us of the wisdom of such changes, the road is open to you. that's the beauty of our Republic.
As for dividing the Union, dear LadyPatriot, that issue was decided with the blood of our countrymen. When you pledge allegiance, you do so to "one nation, indivisible." That issue is settled.
Red Phillips | 7.3.10 @ 10:39AM
RCV, an issue that relates to the very nature of the founding is not settled by a pledge that came along much later. The pledge was actually written by a Yankee (a minister who had been defrocked for teaching socialism instead of the Gospel) who felt the country had still not "healed" suitably enough from the War. In other words, he was concerned that Southerners were still unreconstructed rebels. The pledge is Yankee propaganda, especially that indivisible nonsense.
RCV| 7.3.10 @ 12:34PM
Red - I didn't say the Pledge "settled" the issue - the Civil War (or, if you prefer, the War of Northern Aggression) did. And any attempt to dissolve the Union will be met with the same response. Except in the minds of people living in their romantic conception of what was, in fact, a bestial society, "Yankee" is a baseball player.
Red Phillips | 7.3.10 @ 1:14PM
"the Civil War (or, if you prefer, the War of Northern Aggression) did. And any attempt to dissolve the Union will be met with the same response."
Interesting. So you are suggesting that might makes right then?
RCV| 7.3.10 @ 9:02PM
I am suggesting that anyone who attempts to mess with the Union will be met with the full force of the United States Army. And the wrath of the American people.
Red Phillips | 7.3.10 @ 11:13PM
“I am suggesting that anyone who attempts to mess with the Union will be met with the full force of the United States Army. And the wrath of the American people.”
Czechoslovakia broke into the Czech Republic and Slovakia without any shedding of blood. Are you suggesting the Americans are less civilized than Czechs and Slovak?
RCV| 7.4.10 @ 1:51AM
I'm not making any judgments whatever about the Czechs and the Slovaks. Both were apparently quite content with the split. I'm making an observation about how I believe the American people see their Union and the Constitution, and how they would react to any attempt at secession. I have no doubt that the reaction would be swift and decisive.
Red Phillips | 7.4.10 @ 2:23PM
If Vermont, which has a secessionist group, wished to leave the Union I would bid them good riddance. It's too bad the North is not similarly enlightened.
Red Phillips | 7.4.10 @ 2:26PM
So are you suggesting that most of the leading Northern abolitionists were not apostates?
Red Phillips | 7.4.10 @ 2:28PM
The above is supposed to be in reply to RCV's "Christian?" post.
RCV| 7.4.10 @ 3:03PM
Red, this is in response to your 2:26 post. I don't know how to break this to you gently, but for most of us, the Civil War is over. I don't think of the country in terms of "north" and "south", "Yankees" and "Rebels". I don't sit around and worry much about the Christian orthodoxy or apostacy of the abolitionists. My fellow countrymen are Americans, who happen to live in New York and Alabama, in Florida and Vermont. Get a life and be thankful for the blessings God has betowed upon us.
RCV| 7.4.10 @ 2:39PM
Some of us love this country.
RCV| 7.4.10 @ 2:40PM
The 2:39 response is to Red's Vermont comment. (This thread is getting hard to follow!)
Tim*| 7.4.10 @ 11:32AM
That sounds like the bold over opionated talk of The British ,before The Rebel Colonials messed with England.
RCV| 7.4.10 @ 2:42PM
I don't think so, Tim. But try and test it if you like.
Tim*| 7.4.10 @ 8:49PM
I'm testin' your bold bloviatin' already .
Len| 7.3.10 @ 4:26PM
"bestial society", what a joke. Yes it is true that slavery was an abominable practice, but to say that the war which was fought not to free the slaves, but to preserve the union makes the north a less bestial society is a joke. Lincoln sent battleships into South Carolina's sovereign waters to provoke a war. There is no such thing as war without death. Lincoln used war not to defend the northern states from invasion, but to compel others to go along with his desires. Lincoln blockaded southern ports to starve the civilian portion of the south, he encouraged his generals to not just fight the confederate army, but to raze towns, to plunder innocents, to rape the women who refused to comply with the northern army, to kill the slaves they came across, and all this is somehow morally superior to the slavery of the south?
RCV| 7.3.10 @ 10:31PM
I think bestial is a pretty apt description for a society that held more than three million human beings in bondage, bought and sold them like property, denied them the basic rights their Creator endowed them with, separated husbands from wives and parents from children, and committed the most horrendous horrors on their fellow human beings. I shed not a tear for its passing and could care less about the moral state of the north at the time it vanquished that evil.
Red Phillips | 7.3.10 @ 11:09PM
"and could care less about the moral state of the north at the time it vanquished that evil."
That's a lie! For historical illiterates like you the WBTS is a morality tale with the virtuous North smiting the evil slave-holding South. Of course ALL the slaves got here on northern slave ships and the people in the North didn't want any of the freed blacks coming into their states, but the South was evil incarnate and the north was pristine virtue. Whatever.
Also, it's funny how Christian orthodoxy reigned supreme in the South while most of the Yankee abolitionists were social gospel apostates.
RCV| 7.4.10 @ 1:53AM
Christian? Jesus wept.
Tim*| 7.4.10 @ 11:52AM
Then you're " Labeling & Defining " Washington ,Jefferson and many of The Founding Fathers , as "Beasts " ,there LawBoy.
RCV| 7.4.10 @ 2:57PM
Jefferson, at least, was aware of the country's (and his) moral failings in regards to slavery, which he condemned as an "abominable crime," a "moral depravity," a "hideous blot," and a "fatal stain". As he famously said:
"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it . The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. If a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is to be born to live and labor for another or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Washington, too, knew his own moral failings and that of his native state. Early on, he wrote that "I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."
Neither Jefferson nor Washington were prefect, but at least aware of their moral failings.
Tim*| 7.4.10 @ 8:57PM
More of your Blatherin' LawBoy Apologetics.
Bottom line , Jefferson had slaves and he was not a " Beast "
Bottom line ,Wasahington had slaves and he was not a " Beast " .
A number of Founding Fathers had slaves and were not " Beasts " .
RCV| 7.5.10 @ 6:17PM
I've never described any of our Founding Fathers as beasts. I said that southern system in 1860 was "bestial", and it was.
As an aside, we don't need to pretend that the men who forged our nation and led our revolution were perfect. They weren't. But they were courageous and insightful, and designed a brilliant system of government.
Tim*| 7.5.10 @ 9:57PM
More tap dancin' apologetics from LawBoy.
They held slaves , just as Washington,Jefferson and many of Our Founding Fathers did.
If You , Lawboy are labeling and defining The Slaveholding Antebellum States as "Beastial " , then you are labeling and defining Washington and Jefferson's Virginia and the other slaveholding Founding Father States as "Beastial ".
Aaaand , if LawBoy persists in tap dancin' & labeling a " Beastial " System , they must have "Beasts " running them . Thus you , LB have therefore labeled Our Founding Fathers as "Beasts " .
We ain't some rube gullible jury , that you think you can shuck & jive , Boy.
RCV| 7.6.10 @ 12:16AM
Tim, you are the embodiment of rube.
Len| 7.3.10 @ 12:36PM
RCV, perhaps you can find that clause in the US constitution that says that the union is indivisible, and relay it to us?
The declaration clearly states that it is the right of the people to separate from a government that do not see as working for their good. The second US constitution was created by violating the 6th and 13th articles of the 1st (A of C) which forbid any alterations or alliances with other states that did not have the approval of an unanimous congress. This second secession draws no attention due to the peacefulness of it, but clearly when the A of C expressly said the union was perpetual and the US constitution does not, then there is certainly less support for an indivisible union.
I must also add that those rights mentioned in the 9th amendment certainly refer to the rights of the people to determine for themselves that form of government they desire and to not be ruled by others where they have not given their consent. The US constitution was ratified by the states, which were each unique polities formed by the people within a defined area who had created a government for themselves and so those same people, and certainly a later generation which had never consented to a government in the first place are free to separate (secede) themselves and establish what they consider as better for them.
RCV| 7.3.10 @ 11:01PM
The Constitution that governs the respective rights of the federal government and the states clearly provides in Art I Sec 10, that, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation," nor may any state without the consent of the federal Congress, "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power," nor exercise any of the rights commonly associated with sovereign powers, such as coinage, raising armies, etc.
It further provides in Article VI that, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Hence, any act of a state legislature purporting to give that state powers powers prohibited to it by Art I Sec 10 would be void under Art VI.
There is a prescribed procedure for amending our Constitution, which the people of any state may propose, and if enacted, will change our Constitution. But until that is done, any state act of secession would be contrary to the prohibitions on the states in Article I Section 10 and void under the Supremacy Clause.
Charles Martel| 7.5.10 @ 5:27PM
The States are the sovereign creators of the Federal Republic. When that creation no longer serves them, they will dissolve their affiliation with it. And the prohibitions of Article I Section 10 and the Supremacy Clause will not restrain a sovereign entity no longer in the Union. None of their citizens are bound in any way by the result of a war fought before the ancestors of many of them even set foot on this continent: to suggest otherwise would be like complaining in 1918 that the Hapsburgs could not be overthrown because everyone agreed back in 1748 that they should retain the throne.
The reaction to that dissolution might be swift, but it will hardly be decisive. It would require sons to fire on their fathers, and brothers to slaughter their kin in the streets. The partisans of the DC tyranny may have the will to kill us, but they will lack the decisive means to do so: the unswerving loyalty of the Armed Forces. Ask these latter whether they are willing to kill their countrymen on behalf of Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank.
No, as one commentator has already remarked, our parting will be no more violent than was that of Slovakia from the company of the Czechs. The "blue" will be ecstatic to enjoy the free rein that being rid of the "red" will afford them, and they will not lift so much as a finger to prevent us from leaving.
The good news is that this scenario will be forestalled by the Democrats' removal from power in Congress this November. The bad news would, of course, be that, should they retain power and the Obama agenda remain unchecked, the good and decent people of the "red" states would retain no further incentive to remain in federation with them.
+++
RCV| 7.5.10 @ 7:26PM
Those states gave up large portions of their sovereignty to a new Nation, as set forth in the Constitution. That document, as I set out, divides up the respective rights and powers among the new constituent bodies in this nation. Under your theory of generational freedom, all Constitutions are meaningless; indeed, all laws are meaningless because each time a new human is born, he or she is not bound by any governmental restraints they haven't signed on to. That form of societal organization is called anarchy, and it has its adherents including Noam Chomsky. But its not the system we have in the United States.
Our good men and women in our armed forces and police forces would not be defending Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank, nor any other person. They would be defending our Nation, and the Constitution, which they have sworn to do, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You are clearly one of those domestic enemies. Take up arms against our country, Charles, and you'll see how the people of the United States have different views than the Czechs and Slovaks. I guarantee it.
Charles Martel| 7.6.10 @ 1:31AM
Not even close, but nice try.
The Constitution is rife with meaning, and we are all bound to it -- that is, until it is abrogated by a tyrannical government. Under your logic -- and apparently also that of SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan -- we are irrevocably bound to the government created by the Constitution because some of that Constitution, such as the age restriction for US Senators, is still being adhered to by the Federal government. And so long as some of it is respected, then whatever government arises that pays at least minimal lip service to the Constitution merits the perpetual loyalty of the people.
Balderdash. If you want to learn why talk of secession isn't just theoretical, try rereading the Declaration of Independence. (For special emphasis, please note the clauses that begin "He has erected..." and "He has combined...".)
And you must be deliberately misconstruing what I have written: I have no intention of taking up arms against the tyranny of Obama, Pelosi, et alia. I won't have to. The separation, when it occurs, will be the action of sovereign legislatures withdrawing their consent to be misgoverned and reclaiming those powers that they previously surrendered.
When the Federation divides, the differences will be settled over a table, not on a battlefield. The tyrants may have the stomach for murder, but the troops however temporarily at their disposal will not.
If the citizens of my state must forever submit to the un-Constitutional machinations of the Socialists, blessed by the imprimatur of a collusive Judiciary, then can any of us call ourselves free? I think not.
+++
Deborah D | 7.6.10 @ 7:38AM
Bless you, Mr. Martel. And Amen to your most excellent observations.
RCV| 7.6.10 @ 11:14AM
Charles: I don't know what world you're living in, but it isn't the real one. There is no legislature in this great nation that would even consider secession in this day and age. We have a ballot box in this country, and if you can't convince your fellow-citizens of the merits of your cause, you lose. You can't pick up any part of the United States and leave. And if you think the reaction of the people of the United States to any attempt to do so would be different this time around, you're delusional.
Charles Martel| 7.6.10 @ 1:48PM
No, not today; not even tomorrow; but I applaud your judicious use of the present tense.
Secession is not currently a plan. It's a warning: mend your ways, stop what you are doing to the country, or be left to wallow in your mire alone.
Of course the reaction will be different. There is already plenty of sentiment out here in the real world for abandoning California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, etc. to the corners into which they have painted themselves. They are all looking to the Federal government for bailouts; that is, they are looking to have their socialized welfare states and their public employees' unions subsidized with taxes paid by the citizens of other states. We cannot expel them from the Union, but if present behavior persists, we may find ourselves in a situation wherein one of us is going to have to go.
You speak of "the reaction of the people of the United States" as though it would be monolithic. You're delusional if you believe that blue-state indolents will rise up to conquer those peoples who no longer wish to pay the indolents' bills. (If they had that much energy, they would be neither indolent nor "blue".) In this worst-case scenario, states that favor producers will depart the Union, and states that are going bankrupt providing social services to the typical Obama voter will be unable to stop them. What are they going to do? Sue us? Invade? They would no longer have the authority for the former, and they lack the fortitude for the latter.
No, at that point, commissioners authorized by our legislatures will meet with representatives of your rump federation, and the peaceful separation will be accomplished with no bloodshed and with the least amount of fuss.
Or are you so determined to tyrannize the people of the productive states that you are willing to kill a substantial number of us to make us conform to your will? If so, on what moral basis should I be required to continue to consider you my countryman?
+++
RCV| 7.6.10 @ 4:44PM
Charles: I've laid out before my Constitutional analysis of the lack of power in state legislatures to secede, and in my belief in the strong commitment of the American people for the Union. As long as our democratic process works, with the checks and balances our Framers put in place intact, people who are dissatisfied with policies enacted under our democratic republic have the option of trying to convince their fellow citizens of the wisdom of changing those policies, or convince our judicial branch that the fundamental rights guaranteed them have been violated. But they do NOT have the option, when both options fail of either taking up arms against the government, or of trying to take part of our Nation and leave. That's our system.
Charles Martel| 7.6.10 @ 7:01PM
Yes, R, I heard you. But I'll tell you what: if push actually comes to shove, and the thugs of SEIU and ACORN achieve their goal of permanent Democrat Congressional and Electoral majorities, and we actually vote here in Texas -- to name just one such state -- to peacefully depart, you go on and get up and tell us to stop, and see how far that gets you.
You see, if the people of Texas, the Once and Future Republic, get fed up enough, no amount of your saying "no you can't" will prevent us from acting in our own interest. We retain the right to do so because, circularly, we just simply do. It is self-evident. Such is the stuff of revolutions.
I hope it never comes to that. The world as a whole is ill served when the most important country on Earth is weakened by the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi holding the reins, and such as they must not be permitted even to get close to positions of power ever again.
So, let's do something we can all agree on. Let's all concentrate on the task immediately at hand: prying the gavel from Nancy's bony grip and stripping the Dear Leader of any ability to act independently for the duration of his single term.
Amen.
+++
RCV| 7.6.10 @ 8:34PM
I hope it doesn't come to that, either, Charles, believe me...
RCV| 7.6.10 @ 8:35PM
...and the silly boogeymen of SEIU and ACORN are wearing pretty thin.
Charles Martel| 7.6.10 @ 10:37PM
Oh? Why? Are they all dead?
+++
Nick| 7.6.10 @ 3:24PM
RCV,
Your premise of the "ballot-box" only works if the people have confidence that their votes are actually counted.
Thanks to your liberal comrades, with their crazy conspiracy theories about Diebold voting machines and stolen elections in 2000, both sides are now questioning whether, or not, our elections are free and fair.
Many of us conservatives are convinced that SEIU and ACORN, along with liberal judges, are succeeding in stealing elections across the country. Like Stuart Smalley's in Minnesota and Christine Gregoire's in Washington.
We believe liberals suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) think that the ends justify the means, like stuffing ballot boxes. And not counting military ballots, like algore tried to do in 2000.
When a critical mass of people decide that their votes don't count anymore, they will begin to "vote" in other ways. It will not be pretty.
God, our Father, help and protect the United States of America.
RCV| 7.6.10 @ 4:37PM
I'm always concerned with ballot box and election integrity and have often served as a voting-rights volunteer attorney in places where there have been ballot box tampering and voter intimidation issues, such as East Texas. I'm not aware of any evidence that any judge has ever been collusive in sanctioning voter fraud. All the judges I know take their oaths pretty seriously and are not the kind of people who would even consider doing such a thing.
I'm aware that there is public cynicism on both the left and right about voting integrity, largely stemming from the disastrously misconducted elections in 2000. All we can all do is pledge to be vigilant in insuring the system maintains its integrity.
Nick| 7.6.10 @ 6:55PM
RCV,
To what misconduct are you referring?
Charles Martel| 7.6.10 @ 7:05PM
Nick, R is surely referring to the Crazed Sex Poodle's attempt to usurp the Electors in Florida, rightly stopped by wise Justices. I mean, what else was there?
+++
RCV| 7.6.10 @ 8:32PM
Charles, were you referring to the five Republican justices who were such federalists that they enjoined the State of Florida from conducting recounts of ballots, and on the grounds of an Equal Protection clause interpretation that they had rejected in other cases? Just wondering...
Charles Martel| 7.8.10 @ 1:23PM
When the Equal Protection clause does not apply, it should be rejected. When it is a matter of one vote being the equal of any other in the same state, there could not be a clearer case for its application.
If Gore had had right on his side and triumphed, you would be just as dismissive as I of petulant whining such as yours.
+++
RCV| 7.6.10 @ 8:30PM
I said "mis-conducted" rather than "misconduct", and I was referring both to the badly designed butterfly ballot in Florida, and the problems with "hanging chads" that made it so difficult to determine voter intent.
Nick| 7.7.10 @ 12:28AM
RCV,
Before the 2000 election, I had been voting with butterfly and punch card ballots since 1986, and never had a problem. I never heard one complaint about them, either, until the 2000 election.
The instructions clearly stated that the voter should make sure there were no pieces of cardboard hanging from their ballot.
It was the lawyers for algore who were trying to get ballots that were disallowed, by law, to count. You weren't a one of algore's lawyers, were you RCV? Just kidding. Ha-ha!
And, if you don't agree with decision in Bush v. Gore on equal protection grounds, you are at odds with Breyer and Souter, two of the four liberal justices on the court.
It doesn't matter anyway. If it hadn't been on equal protection grounds, the Florida state legislature would have declared Governor Bush the winner. If that had been contested, it would have been decided in the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the GOP.
So, you see, algore was never going to be president.
RCV| 7.7.10 @ 11:46AM
If disputed, it should have been decided by the House, as the Constitution provides. And if they declared GWB the winner, that would be the result. Souter and Breyer's joining in the Equal Protection analysis was quite consistent with their past equal protection analyses. It was the hypocrisy of others I was focused on.
RCV| 7.2.10 @ 7:37PM
DaveS: The Ninth Amendment reads as follows:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
What were the "other rights" referred to by the Founders? Do you have a specific list somewhere? If you do, please share it with the Supreme Court because there's uncertainty about what those "other rights" are. Legal scholars disagree on the list. "Penumbra" as the dictionary tells us means "an area in which something exists to a lesser or uncertain degree," and that's a pretty darn good description of the rights referred to in the Ninth Amendment.
Len| 7.2.10 @ 8:34PM
Rights are not difficult at all. Sure many like to play games about them, but the foundation of rights is the individual, and from that individual all the rights flow. The individual owns himself and thus has the right to determine how he will live, so long as that right does not violate another's.
As the individual owns himself it is his right to determine how best to protect himself, how best to provide for himself, how he wants to interact with others. As he owns himself he has the right to keep the fruit of his labor, what he wants to with the fruit of that labor, where he wants to live, etc.
What can never be a right is something that must forcibly intrude on another's rights, as then that other's rights are being violated. This of course means that all socio-economic programs are precluded by the the 9th amendments limits on the federal government.
RCV| 7.3.10 @ 12:02AM
And so that is your definition of the rights referred to in the 9th Amendment. In Griswold and Roe, other legal scholars saw the individual rights referred to as rights of privacy and autonomy, meaning that the State had no right to intrude into areas such as sexual privacy, contraception and consultations between a woman and her doctor over terminating her pregnancy. As to socio-economic programs, the Constitution was amended to allow taxation of individuals, which necessarily involves taking of an individual's property for governmental purposes. We can, and will, obviously argue over what are legitimate governmental purposes, what powers government has to provide for the "general welfare". But under our Constitution, an individual does NOT have the right to keep ALL of the fruit of his labor; that is what taxation entails, and if you wish to change the Constitution to abolish government's power to tax, the roadmap is laid out for you in that same document.
DaveS| 7.3.10 @ 10:40AM
The right to self-defense was recognized by everybody long before the Revoluition. Privacy has no historical antecedent and is not mentioned as an enumerated right or a right understood as 'retained by the people' - it was a total fabrication spanning several Court cases in the mid-sixties to Roe.
Len| 7.3.10 @ 11:51AM
You are quite confused, while the right to privacy does naturally stem from an individual owning oneself, that also means that a woman cannot commit murder just because a human is temporarily residing within here. That child has the right to self-determination, and as I said no right can be forcibly intruded upon.
There is no specific "general welfare" power granted, rather there are powers granted that are to operate for the general welfare of the UNITED STATES, not the PEOPLE of the states. I can only conclude from your misreading of the plain language that you have a low comprehension level.
DaveS| 7.3.10 @ 10:34AM
The Founders didn't write enumerated rights on a whim. And those that were written were entirely consistent with the then-understood fabric of rights already enjoyed by Englishmen. The enumerated rights often took base English subject rights a step further. Heller and McDonald have long discussions about this. So, if you'll read McDonald (Alito, writing for the Court) and the Scalia and Thomas opinions you'll get it. Not until then, I fear.
C S Lewis| 7.2.10 @ 9:32PM
"Once to Every Man and Nation" a hymn
Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood
for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some great decision,
Offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and that light.
Then to side with truth is noble,
when we share her wretched crust
Ere her cause bring fame and profit,
And tis prosprous to be just;
Then it is the brave man who chooses
While the coward stands aside,
till the multitude make virtue
Of the faith they had denied.
Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet the truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And upon the throne be wrong,
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow,
Keeping watch above His own.
Words by James R. Lowell
I think this could be one of those times!
What will you decide?
canuckistani| 7.5.10 @ 4:48PM
Lowell was a yankee poet in favor of abolishing slavery and capital punishment, improving work conditions and promoting temperance.
Yes, I do agree with him. Do you?
Yosemeti Sam| 7.3.10 @ 3:01AM
Government, government, government, ... - ad nauseam!
That bastard metonym!
Who are they - the government?
Who are - 'THEY'?
Say it plain!
An amalgam of OUR salaried and on-the-clock EMPLOYEES!
And at the top of that expansive heap - our HR and Senate EMPLOYEES!
SERVANTS ALL! Whether by village, township, city, state, soap box - or DC!
Ideally, obedient/subservient to OUR will and not to Constitutionally-estranged fickleness/
venalities nor to ideological Manchurianism - sopping the Leftoid political soups de jour.
Who's in charge? We - or 'THEY' ?
November 2, 2010 - out DAMNED spots! And the Devil take the hindmost.
And a proverb: shun the LBSM PEN1 - Leftoid Backstream Media, Public Enemy No. 1 !
PEN1!
Margie| 7.4.10 @ 11:04AM
I thought I was experiencing dyslexia when reading this, at first.
How do they do it?
TaterSalad| 7.3.10 @ 11:50AM
Subject: Illigal immigration and our President
Why is the President so against to "sealing" off the southern border and finish building the fence? Could it be because he himself is an illegal alien to this country?
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2010.....-make.html
and in his own words:
http://www.exposeobama.com/201.....dium=email
JimmyMac| 7.4.10 @ 8:36AM
The radio talk-show host larry Elder, discussing the concept of the Constitution as a "living document" wondered if he might consider his mortgage a "living document" too and reduce his payments or pay nothing at all. Maybe we could consider the IRS code a "living document" or the contracts with the public service employees' unions as "living documents"? The mind reels at the possibilities.
Sarbo| 7.5.10 @ 12:36AM
I am from India and we too have a written Constitution, much of it based on the American one. And, I have always wondered why ours had to have so many amendments and America so few. I always assumed India was a more varied society. I hadn't read the American one so closely as I do now.
And it was there staring me in the face all along. The Founding Fathers wrote of "certain unalienable rights". They went on to say, in the same breath, that "among these" were "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Among these, not the only these or the foremost among these.
So, what are the other unalienable rights? They didn't say, leaving it up to Obama and Kagan to fill in the blanks as they chose.
canuckistani| 7.5.10 @ 4:55PM
As an Indian, you also know the importance of reason and judgment in affairs of peoples, that cannot be written in stone as some here suggest. Many times in recent Indian history have minorities been abused and discarded as castes or even score-settling comes into the equation.
The 9th amendment attempts to clarify that not all rights can or should be enumerated in the written constitution. Some rights, in the minds of 18th century men, were a given and need not be spelled out. Unfortunately, not all Americans have the genetics or privileges of 18th century land owners and do indeed need certain rights enumerated to force their rights to the fore.
In the absence of legislative courage, we force these decisions on the courts, and precedent alone is not enough. Reason must be tolerated.
Tim*| 7.5.10 @ 6:35AM
" endowed by their Creator...."
Not a Black Malcontent and a Gender Confused Broad.
RCV| 7.5.10 @ 8:12PM
Here's a newsflash, Tim. Blacks and women were endowed by the same Creator. Stop being such an offensive racist and misogynist.
Tim*| 7.5.10 @ 10:04PM
Hey Pseudo-intellect LawBoy , Don't attempt to slander me by Playing The Race Card And Feminists Victim Card.
Apparently, I tested ya & pushed your " Sucker Button " earlier on & your havin' a bit of a hissy fit now , LawBoy.
Tough !
Tim*| 7.5.10 @ 10:25PM
P.S. Here's a Newsflash for You , LawBoy . I was responding to a , now scrubbed early morning post by some Indian dude .
You're a grandiloquent late starter .
Margie| 7.5.10 @ 7:37PM
I had an interesting thought and will share it here.
Just as the Bible is not a matter of "one's own interpretation." (2 Pet. 1:20).
So the Constitution is not a matter of one's own interpretation. For just as men of old, moved by the Holy Spirit , "spoke from God," our Founders seemed to also have been moved by God. And just as we try and interpret it and so many of us seem to do so according to how we believe, it still means exactly what it says.. the problem is when men try and turn it into a "living document" that they think can be changed, according to how THEY see things~ the activist judges and so forth.
I am not saying that this is what anyone here was trying to do, it is just a thought that I had. I find it extremely interesting to read the thoughts of you all, and it amazes me and it's like being in the class room I never was in.
Another thought that I had in reading some of your thoughts, is that, yes though our rights are as individuals, those rights come from God, not man. It seems to me that that is where the Libertarian and the conservative differs. Because we are actually not "our own." If one is to be Biblical, and that is where the ultimate Truth is, and where the Founders did acknowledge that our freedom comes from, (God)~ and they realized that our duty is first to Him, and then man. They realized that without a moral people we could not a remain a republican form of government, and that we would destroy our own selves.
isn't it clear that that is what we are so desperately trying to hold on to? But we cannot do it without Him, and without acknowledging that it is Him that we owe everything, indeed we owe our full gratitude for even being able to have this free country. Because without His Hand causing it, thru man, we wouldn't even be here to begin with.
We need to return to Him!
Gumbo| 7.8.10 @ 1:55AM
Margie,
Do you honestly believe what you are saying ? Do you even know the original source languages of the New Testament and Old Testament ? And do you know enough about those languages to reconstruct the literal word of God ? Because if not, you are not qualified to chose between the hundreds of wholly different translations and interpretations of the Bible... Compare a Greek Orthodox Bible to King James. Look the Septuagint vs. a Chistian Old Testament. Huge semantic differences abound. You aren't smart or skilled enough to unravel the real meaning of these texts, let alone preach the real truth to others...
Sarbo| 7.6.10 @ 5:07AM
Tim ...
Maybe I shlould not have said "Obama and Kagan" who now fill in the Blanks. It would be far more historically correct to say "the Progressives". Since the founding fathers opened the door to "certain" unalienable, which they did not fully enumerate, the problem has remained. You should not just read the Declaration as a listing of George III's usurpations and depradations. Point is, how do you proceed once that independence has been achieved.
I do not personally think that minority and gender rights exist outside "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Point is, spell it out in not so many words. I won't even go into immigration and same-sex marriage, until we have shown a capacity to marry the 18th century to the 21st.
It's a tough job in India to get an amendment written into the Constitution ... it requires two-thirds majority in the lower house. Since when have ruling parties earned that kind of vote.