-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
At the risk of feeding the trolls, I thought some of the liberal contributions to the comments threads in our earlier discussion of the courts and the Constitution were rather instructive (if also a bit puerile). Whenever the actual text of the Constitution was brought into the discussion, the liberal response was that the Constitution-quoting conservative was either living in the past or interpreting the highly technical document too literally. Whenever the intent of the Founding Fathers was discussed, we were reminded that some Founders supported slavery.
Yet the same liberal commenter(s) still insisted that the Constitution was very important, as long as the Supreme Court gets to decide what it means. To believe that the Constitution can have a meaning independent of judicial whim is, apparently, to argue that Rush Limbaugh gets to decide what is constitutional. Or something.
Now, I know there are far more sophisticated liberal arguments on this subject than these. But I don’t think that these basic prejudices are confined to a few blog commenters. The old understanding of the Constitution held that ratification — for both the amendments and the document as a whole — was the process by which the states and the American people delegated powers to their federal government. What the informed ratifying public thought it was ratifying therefore matters. The “living Constitution” interpretation is that the ratifying public’s view doesn’t matter as much as what judges think phrases like “cruel and unusual punishment” should mean. These views of the Constitution are worlds apart.
View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/01/constitutional-incoherence
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
J.C.Eaton| 3.1.11 @ 5:52PM
I think you are describing "originalism", which has to do with the meaning of words[as understood by the common man] at the time of the ratification. Seems to me that that was good historical and political judgement then as well as it is today. This structure was built for the people, NO ONE ELSE!
C Bowen| 3.1.11 @ 6:31PM
"What the informed ratifying public thought it was ratifying therefore matters"
This is crucial, Mr. Antle, and to expand the imagination, one has to look at the various political machinations that were used to get the states to ratify it--few of which pass the smell test, and lets not get started at this moment on the dubious nature regarding the legality in which the Articles were scrapped.
NVA Patriot| 3.1.11 @ 6:50PM
"...worlds apart..."
That phrase is precisely why we first replace the legislatures with conservatives, next replace the executives and then start replacing the judges, defund the ACLU, and apply monopoly laws to unions and charitable foundations that inhibit charity contribution competition...
JPM| 3.1.11 @ 7:07PM
You are wrong to concede that there are better leftist arguments than the ones that appeared in the comments on your earlier post. Those were pretty much the cream of the crop. From Larry Tribe to the foulest troll (who may in fact be Larry Tribe) the left has nothing coherent to say about the Constitution.
You aren't looking at two different theories of constitutional interpretation. Conservatives have a theory (several theories) of interpretation. The left has theories explaining why the Constitution doesn't matter and progressives should be able to do whatever they want to do. You are absolutely right that there is no constitutional common ground for left and right. Discussing constitutional law with a progressive is like talking about theology with an atheist; it's a waste of time.
BD57| 3.1.11 @ 8:25PM
JPM wrote:
"The left has theories explaining why the Constitution doesn't matter and progressives should be able to do whatever they want to do."
They have the same attitude about elections ...
DaPicayune| 3.2.11 @ 7:44AM
... and about showing up at "the people's House" to vote when they get shellacked at the elections and ignore the will of the voters and the new Bills they require! The Left is not only unconstitutional, they're are not democratic, as well. Are they un-American, too?
It's time to rebrand the Democrat Party. How about - The National Socialist Malcontent Party? Or, The Irrational Socialists, with the donkey replaced by a magical unicorn? After all, most of the time, their logic is based on magic, is it not?
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 9:13PM
Gentlemen. Be honest. You guys posted some stupid stuff. I called you on it.
Why don't you focus on meaningful debates here.
My passion, due my deaf daughter, is the ObamaCare debate.
Just this week he allowed the states to be exempted in 2014, 3 years earlier than originally.
They only have to insure the same number of people and it can;t add to the deficit.
Now, what is wrong with that?
Have you called your state representatives and asked what they are doing about it?
Lo and behold, Vermont and the Bernie Sanders crowd are asking for the exemption.
NOW is your chance states rights guys.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 10:14PM
After having been completely schooled in the other thread, I notice jharp is slyly attempting to change the subject. Nice try jharp. I don't really blame you though. If I had taken the kind of intellectual beatdown you did in the other thread, I would want to change the subject too.
Glad to see you are turning down the rhetoric some.
tonypal| 3.1.11 @ 10:59PM
Well that didn't take long (see below). Apparently jharp has not taken my advice to spend more time earning money to pay for his deaf daughter's healthcare and less time being a lousy father.
God jharp's a shitty sperm donor.
jharp| 3.2.11 @ 12:13AM
"God jharp's a shitty sperm donor."
Really? And might I ask how you would know?
It's always comes back to a man ejaculating with you folks for some reason.
Why is it that you pretend to know about and are so interested in my sperm?
Hmmmm. Makes a person wonder.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 10:26PM
"After having been completely schooled in the other thread"
Yeah, right.
It was so bad for me that W. James Antle, III had to write another post to apologize for you dumbasses.
God you people are stupid.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 11:32PM
"It was so bad for me that W. James Antle, III had to write another post to apologize for you dumbasses."
If you really believe that jharp, you're delusional. This whole post is about you being taken behind the woodshed and delivered an intellectual thrashing.
Speaking of intellectual thrashings, I'm still waiting for you to point out to me that part of Article III that says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality as you so confidently asserted it did.
jharp| 3.2.11 @ 12:16AM
You win.
Glenn Beck is the final arbiter.
Right?
God you people are stupid.
Red Phillips | 3.2.11 @ 7:29AM
jharp, why is it so hard for you to live with uncertainty? There is no final arbiter of constitutionality specified in the Constitution, and this is as it should be. We want tensions and disagreements and jealousies between the branches (and between the Feds and the states).
NoLib| 3.3.11 @ 1:00AM
Small-minded Fascists have a problem with freedom: They're limited intellectually and spiritually.
Patriot| 3.2.11 @ 1:26AM
Delusional. Works for me, Red.
tonypal| 3.1.11 @ 10:56PM
What the hell is the point of having a Constitution if its meaning is not timeless? Since Rush has been brought up, one of his more prescient observations over the years has been that the Constitution is an impediment to liberalism. It is something to be gotten around. The left will either twist and contort the plain meaning of words or just make it up. But they will not be stopped.
A certain troll recently told us in a similar discussion at TAS that the commerce clause empowers the government to mandate individual citizens purchase health insurance. What sort of bilge must our schools and mass media be spewing for anyone to believe that in a free society, government can coerce citizens to purchase a good or service they might not necessarily care to purchase? This fundamental misreading of the commerce clause has produced all sorts of legislation over the years that is explicitly prohibited throughout the Constitution.
More importantly, who would want to live in such a society. The whole point, no matter what you believe, is to live in a state of maximum freedom and liberty. That doesn't mean you have freedom from worry, such as how will you pay for your medical bills. Of course that's a huge concern; believe it or not, even conservatives get sick and need healthcare.
What it means is that barring common sense laws that we all must obey, we should be free to do as we please. It means that government on all levels should apply the laws of the land evenly and not pick winners and losers. It is not the job of government to level the playing field, but to make sure that every American has the opportunity to make the most of their God-given talents. We prefer to be led by ordinary people who do extraordinary things, not by arrogant Ivy League types with little love for or understanding of what makes this country great.
Larry| 3.1.11 @ 11:00PM
"Yet the same liberal commenter(s) still insisted that the Constitution was very important, as long as the Supreme Court gets to decide what it means."
Except, of course, when it is Barack Obama who is doing the interpreting: on gay marriage, on his insurance mandate, and on deep water drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Where he basically has ignored the judges for now.
The liberal views of the Constitution you talk about, James, are Stalinesque and depend upon whose ox is being gored. As such, I am not inclined to give them much credence. In fact, I vigorously oppose them.
jharp| 3.1.11 @ 11:49PM
Just as I thought.
Two dittoheads with a Rush Limbaughish response.
You people are stupid and have no interest in the truth.
None.
And the last arbiter of the constitutionality of a law is?
Is our Harvard lawyer JPM still around to respond?
God you people are stupid.
Patriot| 3.2.11 @ 1:23AM
...And so it goes. I just wish you'd go, clown.
Mike Rogers| 3.2.11 @ 9:08AM
The troll was well fed, and we hope he'll go off to belch under his rickety bridge :-/
All American American| 3.2.11 @ 11:01AM
Mr Antle, you forgot the ever-so intellectual argument: "you people are so stupid." I think they learn that in PolySci 101 at Harvard.
Why the need for a "final arbiter?" Actually, YOU, the individual, are really the final arbiter. Take Obamacare since it seems to really be important to some.
My State is challenging it on 10A grounds. If my State AG and Governor grow a bigger set they would just move to nullify it. Let's assume that happens. If you live in my State and really like Obamacare and truly believe it to be "constitutional," you are free to move to another State where Obamacare (or some other type of State-sponsored healthcare) is law of the land. THAT is how a Constitutional Republic with free and sovereign States works. (Conversely, conservatives who live in say CA and are tired of their tax dollars going to support sex-change operations and welfare for illegals are free to move somewhere else too).
The problem with the SCOTUS as "final arbiter" is tyranny. It is also anathema to our Constitutional Republic.
Jasper| 3.2.11 @ 1:01PM
Your first sentence made me laugh.