- Thread starter
- #41
Now there is a passive agressive parting jab, if ever there were one."the Founder's dream of a nation of and for free people."In the following we see the damage that Franklin Roosevelt did to the Founder's dream of a nation of and for free people.
10. "... the authors have to some extent accepted one of the basic premises of judicial activism: the idea that the Constitution is primarilyaboutrights. It isn’t.
The Constitution is a structural document—its purpose is to create a central government and simultaneously to limit that government’s scope. The document’s framers cared deeply about rights, but they believed that the best way to protect Americans’ rights was to limit the power of the federal government. The right to local self-government—ultimately enshrined in the Tenth Amendment—was the right that would safeguard all others. Though the Paulsens rightly identify federalism as one of the Constitution’s core themes in the book’s early chapters, they shy away from states’ rights throughout the historical narrative.
... the authors are on much firmer ground when discussing separation of powers—the other essential structural feature of the Constitution. The Court’s decision inHamdanv.Rumsfeld(2006), striking down the use of military tribunals to try captured al Qaeda war criminals was an “extraordinary” curtailment of executive power and one that President George W. Bush would probably have been justified ignoring entirely. The authors make the important point—one that continues to elude the mainstream media—that President Barack Obama has gone far beyond Bush in his assertion of unilateral executive power by claiming the right “to deploy offensive military force against other nations whenever he alone judged the use of force to be in the national interest, without any authorization by Congress”
... the Paulsens’ piercing attack on judicial activism is well worth the price of admission." Against Judicial Activism by Adam Freedman City Journal June 16 2015
And the two essential points about the Constitution...
1. The Constitution is a structural document—its purpose is to create a central government and simultaneously to limit that government’s scope. The document’s framers cared deeply about rights, but they believed that the best way to protect Americans’ rights was to limit the power of the federal government.
2. ...separation of powers—the other essential structural feature of the Constitution.
Both of which are anathema to Progressive/Liberal doctrine.
Really?
There are so many things that have changed America since the founders.
I admire your passion, I really do, and if I thought your position included real threats to the Constitution and America, I would gladly share a fox hole with you.
But I keep readng what you post, and it all sounds like somebody is outraged, and I can't figure out why.
Let me illustrate...
You could say "Obama brushes his teeth twice a day"
Or you could say "Obama wastes gallons upon gallons of water in his shamefull and wastefull practice of brushing his teeth twice as much as ordinary Americans do"
Just because people you agree with are outraged, doesn't mean they have good reason, and maybe they do!...but it's the "boy cried wolf" thing...if you're mad about everything he does, how can we tell when he deserves it?
We aren't the same, it seems.
I lack the sort of serf mentality that would allow me to follow orders, regulations, rules, mandates, whatever promulgated by beneficence all-knowing bureaucrats in Zhongnanhai...er, Washington.
I actually have the sort of self-esteem that the Founders saw in their fellow countrymen.
I'm sure you enjoy the warm embrace of the herd, the collective.
Be well.
I'm curious....are you against consitutional amendments?
I favor the Constitution.
Why would I oppose it's provisions?
It is only Liberals/Progressives who eschew the amendment process....that's why they invented the bogus 'living Constitution.'