Choose: Progressives or the Constitution

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All we're really hearing here are conservative minority views about the Constitution that were minority, dissenting views of the Court over the years.

In other words, those views were given due process, and lost.

Correct, post- Lochner Era jurisprudence is predicated on the logical and sensible understanding that a modern, industrialized Nation of the 20th Century needs appropriate regulatory policies to ensure worker safety, that workers are paid a fair wage, and that workers are subject to fair hiring and employment practices.

The courts accurately understood that the era of 18th Century cottage industries and itinerate laborers and farm workers was long over, replaced with assembly lines, vast factories employing thousands, and a new, burgeoning service industry. The notion of ‘freedom of contract’ had clearly become an anachronism by the second quarter of the 20th Century. See: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).

 

[NYcarbineer]

No it was meant to explain how the loony Liberal utopian dream keeps getting railroaded by the Constitution and conservative public opinion. It's why liberals remain so angry even after their Messiah Obama won a second term... Which of course was really Bush's fourth term.

Oh, I could have sworn that Obama's healthcare mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court.

It was... As a Tax.

Social Security is funded by a tax. Why all the nonsense about it being unconstitutional?

 

[edthecynic]

Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” explained that mobs can only grasp the “very simple and very exaggerated.” Their chosen images must be absolute and uncompromising…

The Regressives always project what they hate about themselves onto Progressives!

Drill, baby, drill!
I hope he fails.
9-9-9 for jobs-jobs-jobs.

June 9, 2011
RUSH: Ann, do you mean...? In "mob," do you mean physical, literal mob-like behavior, or do you mean intellectual mob-like? What kind of mob behavior do you mean here?

COULTER: That's a great question, because it's both, actually. The first quarter of the book is on how liberals are a psychological mob. It has to do with their slogans, how they formulate arguments. They get a lot of slogans, whereas conservatives just don't speak in slogans and we don't understand slogans, and for good reason: It's always sort of glib and superficially appealing, but if you stop and actually think about it for five seconds, slogans never make sense.

As gas prices soar, Republicans and oil company executives have revived a rallying cry that echoed around the country the last time gas prices spiked: "Drill, baby, drill!"
Ann Coulter - Apr 23, 2011

 

[PaulS1950]

The constitution is my choice over any political party. I guess that makes me a Libertarian. It's the "new second party".

 

[Agit8r]

Abortion is covered no where in the Constitution. Nor is the ‘right of privacy.” Judges make these up. They find ‘penumbras.’ They imagine.
...Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which ‘Marbury v. Madison’ uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.

Marshall wrote that the ‘principles’ of the Constitution ‘are deemed fundamental and permanent’ and, except for formal amendment, “unchangeable.” ...The opinions of the Supreme Court should echo the theory of strict construction

a textbook case of having just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

The inventors of Strict Construction (Jefferson and Madison) were bitch-slapped by Marshall in Marbury, and as in the later decision of Roe v Wade, his originalism extended to the English Common Law and it's context:

"I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress."
-- John Marshall; quoting Blackstone in decision of Marbury v. Madison

The Myth of Strict Construction - Broowaha

 

[NoNukes]

The Constitution is one of the most PROGRESSIVE documents ever created.

Progress eventually tramples over every barrier Conservatism throws in its path.

And you're as dunce.

You seem to be very ignorant of our history

That happens when you cut and paste.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Progressives have a rather unique view of their heroes.

“The mob characteristic most gustily exhibited by liberals is the tendency to worship and idolize their political leaders. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” explained that mobs can only grasp the “very simple and very exaggerated.” Their chosen images must be absolute and uncompromising… As Le Bon says, the “primitive” black-and-white emotions of a crowd slip easily into “infatuation for an individual.” Liberals worship so many political deities that they must refer to them by initials, just to save time- FDR, JFK, RFK, MLK, LBJ, and O.J. Ever hear a conservative get weepy about “RWR” or refer to something as hokey as “Camelot”? Passionate adoration are the primitive emotions of a mob, sentiments generally associated with women, children, and savages, according to Le Bon.”
Coulter, “Demonic.”

2.The Founders were men, not gods. “The framers of the Constitution combined the best political ideas from the past with what “The Federalist” called an improved science of politics: federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Doing so, they created a form of government which had, in the words of James Madison, ‘no model on the face of the earth.’
Larry P. Arnn, Hillsdale College.

3. Still, in the view of conservatives, the Founders were men- brilliant, -but still men. Not gods, not perfect beings, but men; we do not worship them. We are not like the Liberal mob! Therefore, we are capable of considering that the document that they produced to memorialize our nation, the Constitution, has flaws.





4. Here’s for-instance. Whether the original Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person because the Founders felt slaves less than human, or because allowing as a full person would prove the South 40% more toward representation in government, and therefore prevent ever doing away with slavery…it was recognized as needing a change. And section 2 of the 14th amendment did just that.
Passed by Republicans, btw.

5. Then there was the time that the Progressives decided that big government was better than federalism, and it would benefit their intentions to wrest power away from the states. They went to work on Article one, section 3, and took selection of senators away from state legislatures. They passed the 17th amendment.

6. How about one that appears less important? Article1, section 4 names the first Monday in December as the start of Congress. Simple enough to change the date: see the 20th amendment, section 2.

7. Don’t like how the vice-president is chosen, in Article 2…no prob, amend it….12th amendment.

8. Hey…what if something happens to the President? Well…is was covered in Article 2, section 1…but we like a formal list better: so, 25th amendment.

9. Exactly what the courts can rule on (Article 3)…well, let’s add an 11th amendment with more specificity.





10. Let’s see….I count 10 instances where the original Constitution has been changed by the amendment process. Some by each side.
Doesn’t seem to be any argument that the “my bad” process set in place by the Founders in Article V, doesn’t work…
…..why, then, are so many important issues allowed to be entirely changed by judges and Justices?





11. ‘There is a school of thought that validates constitutional law based on the good it can do for people now. This idea questions how adherence to a 200-year-old can be defended as beneficial today. Pragmatism, the progressive doctine, as the basis of judicial decision-making, places its weight on the consequences of a judges decisions; advocates would be Justice Stephen Breyer, and Judge Richard Posner.
In short, this idea replaces the rule of law with the rule of judges.’
“Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” by Steven G. Calabresi

a. The original Constitution is the only instrument that the people have consented to be governed by.

b. Abortion is covered no where in the Constitution. Nor is the ‘right of privacy.” Judges make these up. They find ‘penumbras.’ They imagine.


13. Why not an amendment if they are important to our nation?

a. Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which ‘Marbury v. Madison’ uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.

b. Marshall wrote that the ‘principles’ of the Constitution ‘are deemed fundamental and permanent’ and, except for formal amendment, “unchangeable.”
See ‘Marbury v. Madison.





14. In fact, St. George Tucker’s treatise, the first learned commentary on the Constitution, published in 1802, describes exactly the rule of construction with respect to the enumerated powers, and the rights retained by the states and by the people.

The opinions of the Supreme Court should echo the theory of strict construction first presented in works like St. George Tucker's View of the Constitution and James Madison's Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts, and reflect this rule of interpretation: federal power must be narrowly construed in order to prevent undue interference with matters best left under state control. In the words of St. George Tucker, the Constitution "is to be construed strictly, in all cases where the antecedent rights of a state may be drawn in question.” Tucker, View of the Constitution, supra note 6, ed. app. at 151.

Either the Constitution has the force of law....or judicial decisions make the law....not both.



America is getting hosed by these corrupt and illegal decision. The legitimate method for change of the Constitution is the amendment process.
Throw the bums out!

Jeeze, you sure have some long winded, meandering posts!

1. OJ as a liberal hero? WTF? And I've seen conservatives get all "weepy" about Reagan. Heck, Boner gets weepy about practically anything.

2. Why does the right try to paint the founders as infallible deities then. they always want to go back to the founders' intent, as though they were incapable of mistakes.

3. Strawman argument that liberals "worship" at the alter of the founders whereas the wonderful enlightened conservatives don't.

4. You'd probably go back to slavery if you could.

5. I thought federalism was big government? I suppose this would be one way for the Repugs to take control of the senate through their gerrymandered congressional districts.

6 - 9. OK with me. who cares?

10. Because they are politicians in robes. That's why each side tries to stack the court in their favor.

11. Plenty of right wing activism to be found in the court too.
a. Governance today has little to do with consent. The rules were in place long before you were born. You break the rules, you pay the consequences.

b. Abortion and privacy fall under the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Skipped right over 12.

13. What? You think that we have to enumerate all of our rights? I thought the purpose of the constitution was to limit the rights of the Government, not the governed.

14. I agree. If you don't want privacy or abortion rights, then a Constitutional amendment prohibiting them should be made.

" I thought federalism was big government?"

And here is the proof that the uneducated have no basis nor business in this discussion.



" I thought federalism was big government?"

This is why you should have remained in school beyond the fifth grade.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All we're really hearing here are conservative minority views about the Constitution that were minority, dissenting views of the Court over the years.

In other words, those views were given due process, and lost.

Correct, post- Lochner Era jurisprudence is predicated on the logical and sensible understanding that a modern, industrialized Nation of the 20th Century needs appropriate regulatory policies to ensure worker safety, that workers are paid a fair wage, and that workers are subject to fair hiring and employment practices.

The courts accurately understood that the era of 18th Century cottage industries and itinerate laborers and farm workers was long over, replaced with assembly lines, vast factories employing thousands, and a new, burgeoning service industry. The notion of ‘freedom of contract’ had clearly become an anachronism by the second quarter of the 20th Century. See: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).

Such is the obfuscation of those who are willfully blind as to the fact that the amendment process is the ONLY method for legally altering the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And you're as dunce.

You seem to be very ignorant of our history

That happens when you cut and paste.

And here is the post of one who'd like to be relevant....but has no understanding of the amendment process and why it is avoided by progressives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Abortion is covered no where in the Constitution. Nor is the ‘right of privacy.” Judges make these up. They find ‘penumbras.’ They imagine.
...Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which ‘Marbury v. Madison’ uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.

Marshall wrote that the ‘principles’ of the Constitution ‘are deemed fundamental and permanent’ and, except for formal amendment, “unchangeable.” ...The opinions of the Supreme Court should echo the theory of strict construction

a textbook case of having just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

The inventors of Strict Construction (Jefferson and Madison) were bitch-slapped by Marshall in Marbury, and as in the later decision of Roe v Wade, his originalism extended to the English Common Law and it's context:

"I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress."
-- John Marshall; quoting Blackstone in decision of Marbury v. Madison

The Myth of Strict Construction - Broowaha

Such is the obfuscation of those who are ignorant of the fact that the amendment process is the ONLY method for legally altering the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” explained that mobs can only grasp the “very simple and very exaggerated.” Their chosen images must be absolute and uncompromising…

The Regressives always project what they hate about themselves onto Progressives!

Drill, baby, drill!
I hope he fails.
9-9-9 for jobs-jobs-jobs.

June 9, 2011
RUSH: Ann, do you mean...? In "mob," do you mean physical, literal mob-like behavior, or do you mean intellectual mob-like? What kind of mob behavior do you mean here?

COULTER: That's a great question, because it's both, actually. The first quarter of the book is on how liberals are a psychological mob. It has to do with their slogans, how they formulate arguments. They get a lot of slogans, whereas conservatives just don't speak in slogans and we don't understand slogans, and for good reason: It's always sort of glib and superficially appealing, but if you stop and actually think about it for five seconds, slogans never make sense.

As gas prices soar, Republicans and oil company executives have revived a rallying cry that echoed around the country the last time gas prices spiked: "Drill, baby, drill!"
Ann Coulter - Apr 23, 2011

And here, the drooling of a total moron who knows not the subject of the thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, I could have sworn that Obama's healthcare mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court.

It was... As a Tax.

Social Security is funded by a tax. Why all the nonsense about it being unconstitutional?

Such is the obfuscation of those who are willfully blind as to the fact that the amendment process is the ONLY method for legally altering the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The founders must have had it in mind or they would not have included a Ninth Amendment,

which extends to the Court broad latitude in discerning, defining, establishing the existence of non-enumerated rights.

Additionally, the concept of implied powers was clearly understood by the Founders and clearly they expected such implications to be utilized.

Horsefeathers.

A rationalization along the lines of '...bankers must have clearly understood that some would come in and take money that they felt they needed, or the bank wouldn't keep so much money there."


The Founders wrote words....words had, and have meaning.

"1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

a. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
“Originalism,” Steven Calabresi,


The Founders allowed for any missing elements only- only- by the method given in Article V.


Any other method is theft of the liberty of the American people.

For the 'nth' time, what is the point of the Ninth Amendment if there are no unenumerated rights?

What is the only acceptable method for changing the Constitution?


Simple question for a simple mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All we're really hearing here are conservative minority views about the Constitution that were minority, dissenting views of the Court over the years.

In other words, those views were given due process, and lost.

1. According to you....does a court have the right to change the Constitution?


Essentially, that is the crux.

2. For Progressives/Liberals/Democrats....the answer is 'of course! It's all about social justice."

3.For classical liberals/conservatives, the answer is a resounding "No! The amendment process is the only method for changing the Constitution. It's all about the law!"



4. For the former folks, I recommend Dr. Thomas Sowell's book “Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.”

It challenges individuals to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) impact.

5. Progressives do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.


a. What better example, and proof, than the mortgage meltdown.
FDR instituted Fannie and Freddie......neither authorized in the Constitution, and the result is the financial crisis....

....as Sowell says: "... much later when the long term consequences appear."



6. Had FDR been brave enough to demand an amendment...there would have been great debate and discussion....and it would have failed.
QED...no mortgage meltdown.




I dare you to answer the above.

 

[edthecynic]

Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” explained that mobs can only grasp the “very simple and very exaggerated.” Their chosen images must be absolute and uncompromising…

The Regressives always project what they hate about themselves onto Progressives!

Drill, baby, drill!
I hope he fails.
9-9-9 for jobs-jobs-jobs.

June 9, 2011
RUSH: Ann, do you mean...? In "mob," do you mean physical, literal mob-like behavior, or do you mean intellectual mob-like? What kind of mob behavior do you mean here?

COULTER: That's a great question, because it's both, actually. The first quarter of the book is on how liberals are a psychological mob. It has to do with their slogans, how they formulate arguments. They get a lot of slogans, whereas conservatives just don't speak in slogans and we don't understand slogans, and for good reason: It's always sort of glib and superficially appealing, but if you stop and actually think about it for five seconds, slogans never make sense.

As gas prices soar, Republicans and oil company executives have revived a rallying cry that echoed around the country the last time gas prices spiked: "Drill, baby, drill!"
Ann Coulter - Apr 23, 2011

And here, the drooling of a total moron who knows not the subject of the thread.

And what does it say about YOU that your screed was discredited at step 1 by a MORON!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Regressives always project what they hate about themselves onto Progressives!

Drill, baby, drill!
I hope he fails.
9-9-9 for jobs-jobs-jobs.

June 9, 2011
RUSH: Ann, do you mean...? In "mob," do you mean physical, literal mob-like behavior, or do you mean intellectual mob-like? What kind of mob behavior do you mean here?

COULTER: That's a great question, because it's both, actually. The first quarter of the book is on how liberals are a psychological mob. It has to do with their slogans, how they formulate arguments. They get a lot of slogans, whereas conservatives just don't speak in slogans and we don't understand slogans, and for good reason: It's always sort of glib and superficially appealing, but if you stop and actually think about it for five seconds, slogans never make sense.

And here, the drooling of a total moron who knows not the subject of the thread.

And what does it say about YOU that your screed was discredited at step 1 by a MORON!!!

What a clever come-back: "So are you!"

Good to see you still work to ability.

 

[Borillar]

1. Progressives have a rather unique view of their heroes.

“The mob characteristic most gustily exhibited by liberals is the tendency to worship and idolize their political leaders. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” explained that mobs can only grasp the “very simple and very exaggerated.” Their chosen images must be absolute and uncompromising… As Le Bon says, the “primitive” black-and-white emotions of a crowd slip easily into “infatuation for an individual.” Liberals worship so many political deities that they must refer to them by initials, just to save time- FDR, JFK, RFK, MLK, LBJ, and O.J. Ever hear a conservative get weepy about “RWR” or refer to something as hokey as “Camelot”? Passionate adoration are the primitive emotions of a mob, sentiments generally associated with women, children, and savages, according to Le Bon.”
Coulter, “Demonic.”

2.The Founders were men, not gods. “The framers of the Constitution combined the best political ideas from the past with what “The Federalist” called an improved science of politics: federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Doing so, they created a form of government which had, in the words of James Madison, ‘no model on the face of the earth.’
Larry P. Arnn, Hillsdale College.

3. Still, in the view of conservatives, the Founders were men- brilliant, -but still men. Not gods, not perfect beings, but men; we do not worship them. We are not like the Liberal mob! Therefore, we are capable of considering that the document that they produced to memorialize our nation, the Constitution, has flaws.





4. Here’s for-instance. Whether the original Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person because the Founders felt slaves less than human, or because allowing as a full person would prove the South 40% more toward representation in government, and therefore prevent ever doing away with slavery…it was recognized as needing a change. And section 2 of the 14th amendment did just that.
Passed by Republicans, btw.

5. Then there was the time that the Progressives decided that big government was better than federalism, and it would benefit their intentions to wrest power away from the states. They went to work on Article one, section 3, and took selection of senators away from state legislatures. They passed the 17th amendment.

6. How about one that appears less important? Article1, section 4 names the first Monday in December as the start of Congress. Simple enough to change the date: see the 20th amendment, section 2.

7. Don’t like how the vice-president is chosen, in Article 2…no prob, amend it….12th amendment.

8. Hey…what if something happens to the President? Well…is was covered in Article 2, section 1…but we like a formal list better: so, 25th amendment.

9. Exactly what the courts can rule on (Article 3)…well, let’s add an 11th amendment with more specificity.





10. Let’s see….I count 10 instances where the original Constitution has been changed by the amendment process. Some by each side.
Doesn’t seem to be any argument that the “my bad” process set in place by the Founders in Article V, doesn’t work…
…..why, then, are so many important issues allowed to be entirely changed by judges and Justices?





11. ‘There is a school of thought that validates constitutional law based on the good it can do for people now. This idea questions how adherence to a 200-year-old can be defended as beneficial today. Pragmatism, the progressive doctine, as the basis of judicial decision-making, places its weight on the consequences of a judges decisions; advocates would be Justice Stephen Breyer, and Judge Richard Posner.
In short, this idea replaces the rule of law with the rule of judges.’
“Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” by Steven G. Calabresi

a. The original Constitution is the only instrument that the people have consented to be governed by.

b. Abortion is covered no where in the Constitution. Nor is the ‘right of privacy.” Judges make these up. They find ‘penumbras.’ They imagine.


13. Why not an amendment if they are important to our nation?

a. Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which ‘Marbury v. Madison’ uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.

b. Marshall wrote that the ‘principles’ of the Constitution ‘are deemed fundamental and permanent’ and, except for formal amendment, “unchangeable.”
See ‘Marbury v. Madison.





14. In fact, St. George Tucker’s treatise, the first learned commentary on the Constitution, published in 1802, describes exactly the rule of construction with respect to the enumerated powers, and the rights retained by the states and by the people.

The opinions of the Supreme Court should echo the theory of strict construction first presented in works like St. George Tucker's View of the Constitution and James Madison's Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts, and reflect this rule of interpretation: federal power must be narrowly construed in order to prevent undue interference with matters best left under state control. In the words of St. George Tucker, the Constitution "is to be construed strictly, in all cases where the antecedent rights of a state may be drawn in question.” Tucker, View of the Constitution, supra note 6, ed. app. at 151.

Either the Constitution has the force of law....or judicial decisions make the law....not both.



America is getting hosed by these corrupt and illegal decision. The legitimate method for change of the Constitution is the amendment process.
Throw the bums out!

Jeeze, you sure have some long winded, meandering posts!

1. OJ as a liberal hero? WTF? And I've seen conservatives get all "weepy" about Reagan. Heck, Boner gets weepy about practically anything.

2. Why does the right try to paint the founders as infallible deities then. they always want to go back to the founders' intent, as though they were incapable of mistakes.

3. Strawman argument that liberals "worship" at the alter of the founders whereas the wonderful enlightened conservatives don't.

4. You'd probably go back to slavery if you could.

5. I thought federalism was big government? I suppose this would be one way for the Repugs to take control of the senate through their gerrymandered congressional districts.

6 - 9. OK with me. who cares?

10. Because they are politicians in robes. That's why each side tries to stack the court in their favor.

11. Plenty of right wing activism to be found in the court too.
a. Governance today has little to do with consent. The rules were in place long before you were born. You break the rules, you pay the consequences.

b. Abortion and privacy fall under the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Skipped right over 12.

13. What? You think that we have to enumerate all of our rights? I thought the purpose of the constitution was to limit the rights of the Government, not the governed.

14. I agree. If you don't want privacy or abortion rights, then a Constitutional amendment prohibiting them should be made.

" I thought federalism was big government?"

And here is the proof that the uneducated have no basis nor business in this discussion.



" I thought federalism was big government?"

This is why you should have remained in school beyond the fifth grade.

It is National Government plus Regional Government. Sounds pretty big to me. Maybe you should get off your high horse and address the arguments made rather than resort to petty insults.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All we're really hearing here are conservative minority views about the Constitution that were minority, dissenting views of the Court over the years.

In other words, those views were given due process, and lost.

1. According to you....does a court have the right to change the Constitution?


Essentially, that is the crux.

2. For Progressives/Liberals/Democrats....the answer is 'of course! It's all about social justice."

3.For classical liberals/conservatives, the answer is a resounding "No! The amendment process is the only method for changing the Constitution. It's all about the law!"



4. For the former folks, I recommend Dr. Thomas Sowell's book “Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.”

It challenges individuals to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) impact.

5. Progressives do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.


a. What better example, and proof, than the mortgage meltdown.
FDR instituted Fannie and Freddie......neither authorized in the Constitution, and the result is the financial crisis....

....as Sowell says: "... much later when the long term consequences appear."



6. Had FDR been brave enough to demand an amendment...there would have been great debate and discussion....and it would have failed.
QED...no mortgage meltdown.




I dare you to answer the above.

Overturning Roe v Wade would change the Constitution since under the Constitution as it now exists,

abortion in some cases is a Constitutional Right.

Now does the Court have the right to overturn Roe, and thus change the Constitution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You seem to be very ignorant of our history

That happens when you cut and paste.

And here is the post of one who'd like to be relevant....but has no understanding of the amendment process and why it is avoided by progressives.

Then you must agree with those who desire to put a so-called life amendment in the Constitution,

to give the unborn rights of personhood that they do not currently have in the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Horsefeathers.

A rationalization along the lines of '...bankers must have clearly understood that some would come in and take money that they felt they needed, or the bank wouldn't keep so much money there."


The Founders wrote words....words had, and have meaning.

"1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

a. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’"
“Originalism,” Steven Calabresi,


The Founders allowed for any missing elements only- only- by the method given in Article V.


Any other method is theft of the liberty of the American people.

For the 'nth' time, what is the point of the Ninth Amendment if there are no unenumerated rights?

What is the only acceptable method for changing the Constitution?


Simple question for a simple mind.

The Ninth Amendment offers a method for the Constitution to be changed without amendment,

since via case law the Supreme Court can identify and protect RIGHTS that are not enumerated.

Griswold v Connecticut would be a good example.