Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.What Conservatives call a 'Constitutional Originalist' is just a judge that interperts the Constitution the way they'd like it to be interperted.
Now explain the Biden rule. For extra credit throw in a paragraph about how the Biden rule now applies to midterms when it didn’t during the Kagan nomination.Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
So called "originalists" stood around with their thumb up their ass while Mitch, Ted, Marco and Co. put the Constitution on Hold for a year in 2016. And the Dems didn't do much to stop them as they thought Hillary was a shoe-in.
In the end, we found out that Ted Cruz really sees the Constitution as something that can be turned off when necessary -- like if a sitting black President is going to replace Justice Scalia. Don't you love how he played the GOP base as ignorant sheep telling them all how he found this magical 'precedent'...and they ate it up.
The constitution has been degraded into an often meaningless document that Government only follows when politically convenient.
The right will convince their rube low-educated voters, the Dems are going to take away their guns, meanwhile any overreach on Gun rights by Feds or states has been overturned by SCOTUS. "Gun Grab" fear tactics are about selling guns.
I find that most so-called "Constitutionists" don't really believe in the constitution as they don't really believe in Article III. Because they can't always control the courts. Anytime a decision doesn't go their way, it's JUDICIAL ACTIVISM... but you never hear them cry fowl when the pedophile judge in AL wipes his ass with the law and does whatever he wants.
Bunch of phonies. You believe in nothing.
do u actually believe that the Democrats don't gerrymander?What a gigantic load of crap.
Conservatives cheat, gerrymander, and use whatever court they have a majority in to outright ignore the Constitution. Cheating is in con DNA.
What a gigantic load of crap.
Conservatives cheat, gerrymander, and use whatever court they have a majority in to outright ignore the Constitution. Cheating is in con DNA.
Thanks for making their point.
You think repeating what you hear from others makes a point? The OP is radical nonsense to be laughed at. You should figure out how strange it is when you try to appear coherent but miss the mark.
Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
And if jonah had gotten his way, hilary would have picked Scalia's replacement and now kennedy's replacement, and the rulings we have had in the last week would have gone the other way... all because he doesn't like the way Trump tweets..... jonah used to be an intelligent writer.... now he is sitting in a chair talking about the crew stealing his strawberries...
What Conservatives call a 'Constitutional Originalist' is just a judge that interperts the Constitution the way they'd like it to be interperted.
Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.What Conservatives call a 'Constitutional Originalist' is just a judge that interperts the Constitution the way they'd like it to be interperted.
Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.What Conservatives call a 'Constitutional Originalist' is just a judge that interperts the Constitution the way they'd like it to be interperted.
As long as you have partisan politics taking over everything, the Supreme court will be partisan.
Get rid of partisan politics with Proportional Representation and the Supreme Court might end up being filled be proper people who look out for the interests of the country and not the interests of the guy who put them there.
Now explain the Biden rule. For extra credit throw in a paragraph about how the Biden rule now applies to midterms when it didn’t during the Kagan nomination.Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
So called "originalists" stood around with their thumb up their ass while Mitch, Ted, Marco and Co. put the Constitution on Hold for a year in 2016. And the Dems didn't do much to stop them as they thought Hillary was a shoe-in.
In the end, we found out that Ted Cruz really sees the Constitution as something that can be turned off when necessary -- like if a sitting black President is going to replace Justice Scalia. Don't you love how he played the GOP base as ignorant sheep telling them all how he found this magical 'precedent'...and they ate it up.
The constitution has been degraded into an often meaningless document that Government only follows when politically convenient.
The right will convince their rube low-educated voters, the Dems are going to take away their guns, meanwhile any overreach on Gun rights by Feds or states has been overturned by SCOTUS. "Gun Grab" fear tactics are about selling guns.
I find that most so-called "Constitutionists" don't really believe in the constitution as they don't really believe in Article III. Because they can't always control the courts. Anytime a decision doesn't go their way, it's JUDICIAL ACTIVISM... but you never hear them cry fowl when the pedophile judge in AL wipes his ass with the law and does whatever he wants.
Bunch of phonies. You believe in nothing.
Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.What Conservatives call a 'Constitutional Originalist' is just a judge that interperts the Constitution the way they'd like it to be interperted.
Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.What Conservatives call a 'Constitutional Originalist' is just a judge that interperts the Constitution the way they'd like it to be interperted.
Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.
In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.
Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.What Conservatives call a 'Constitutional Originalist' is just a judge that interperts the Constitution the way they'd like it to be interperted.
Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.
In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.
The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.
Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.What Conservatives call a 'Constitutional Originalist' is just a judge that interperts the Constitution the way they'd like it to be interperted.
Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.
In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.
The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.
Seriously?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
"Well-Regulated" - what do you think that means?
It means controlled by the state.
You seem to be the worst example of "I'll just interpert the Constitution any old way that I feel like".
You are a prime example of an extreme case!
Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.What Conservatives call a 'Constitutional Originalist' is just a judge that interperts the Constitution the way they'd like it to be interperted.
Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.
In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.
The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.
Seriously?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
"Well-Regulated" - what do you think that means?
It means controlled by the state.
You seem to be the worst example of "I'll just interpert the Constitution any old way that I feel like".
You are a prime example of an extreme case!
Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing
The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.
******************
This guy nailed it.
And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.
What a gigantic load of crap.
Conservatives cheat, gerrymander, and use whatever court they have a majority in to outright ignore the Constitution. Cheating is in con DNA.
Thanks for making their point.
You think repeating what you hear from others makes a point? The OP is radical nonsense to be laughed at. You should figure out how strange it is when you try to appear coherent but miss the mark.
Like this is a new concept. The mention of a "Living Constitution" was from the 1930's.
FDR was pissed because the conservative court would not allow his bastardization to stand.
He tried his court packing scheme.
Death finally gave him a chance and he put a bunch of morons on the bench.
We are still reeling from the their stupdidity.
Time to do something different.
You don’t do counter points very well so let me ask you this.Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.
Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.
In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.
The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.
Seriously?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
"Well-Regulated" - what do you think that means?
It means controlled by the state.
You seem to be the worst example of "I'll just interpert the Constitution any old way that I feel like".
You are a prime example of an extreme case!
Wow are you a prime example, seriously...thanks for proving my argument!
So, in your interpertation, what would a non-well regulated miltia be?
Unarmed people who are not willing to defend themselves?
"Living Constitution" means that the Bill of Rights gets to be interpreted by left wing administrations and laws are handed down by unelected judges.
