What Does The World Think About Obama?

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not that either. I once was, but upon studying sociology and psychology, I came to realize that for all the wonderful idealism of much that is Libertarianism, the odds of the U.S. implementing Libertarian principles to any meaningful extent were slim-to-none, at least in the foreseeable future, and slim was boarding the train right then and there.

Now, I'm merely someone who searches for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Upon finding it, I use it to form my points of view. That my viewpoints may concur with those of Dems, Reps, Libs, Communists, Socialists, conspiracy theorists, or even Martians is really of no concern to me.

If there were any one thing I can accurately be called, it's capitalist, but there's no party for that.

"....but upon studying sociology and psychology,...."

Now all is clear.

The more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise an individual is.

Case closed.

You just earned yourself a spot on my ignore list with that childish remark. Good day.

Leave her alone...

She majored in cut and paste

Do you know what my major was?

Did it involve coloring within the lines?

Just wanted to prove you have no clue what my major was.

Exactly the same level of knowledge you have of every other topic.

Without lies you wouldn't be able to post, would you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....but upon studying sociology and psychology,...."

Now all is clear.

The more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise an individual is.

Case closed.

You just earned yourself a spot on my ignore list with that childish remark. Good day.

Leave her alone...

She majored in cut and paste

Do you know what my major was?

Did it involve coloring within the lines?

Major; pain in the ass doctorate..

Seems that it annoys you when you can't rebut anything I post,huh?

Well....you could do what 'winger does, and simply lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....but upon studying sociology and psychology,...."

Now all is clear.

The more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise an individual is.

Case closed.

You just earned yourself a spot on my ignore list with that childish remark. Good day.

Leave her alone...

She majored in cut and paste

Off Topic:
I really don't care what she majored in. I haven't the time to read posts that do nothing but insult others personally instead of coherently amplifying or refuting a substantive point.

This is a PC thread....she is always the topic
You don't think it is a serious topic do you?

PC channels Ann Coulter on the board

The game is....make an outlandish claim
Cut...paste....cut....paste....repeat
When some one challenges......cut and paste some more
Then make personal insults and claim victory

It is fun unless you mistake her for a serious poster

Oh, okay. TY for letting me know. I will "unwatch" this thread now. I find rigorous forensics debate entertaining, but not so much empty banter, I especially do not take joy berating total strangers. I don't give a damn about total strangers beyond considering how "this or that" policy decision may affect them as groups of the U.S. polity.

Yes, I did think it was serious. The title question is weighty enough for plenty of serious discussion, serious discussion from multiple angles, including political science, psychology, cultural anthropology, and more.

Honestly....you don't look a day over 300.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not that either. I once was, but upon studying sociology and psychology, I came to realize that for all the wonderful idealism of much that is Libertarianism, the odds of the U.S. implementing Libertarian principles to any meaningful extent were slim-to-none, at least in the foreseeable future, and slim was boarding the train right then and there.

Now, I'm merely someone who searches for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Upon finding it, I use it to form my points of view. That my viewpoints may concur with those of Dems, Reps, Libs, Communists, Socialists, conspiracy theorists, or even Martians is really of no concern to me.

If there were any one thing I can accurately be called, it's capitalist, but there's no party for that.

"....but upon studying sociology and psychology,...."

Now all is clear.

The more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise an individual is.

Case closed.

You just earned yourself a spot on my ignore list with that childish remark. Good day.

Leave her alone...

She majored in cut and paste

Off Topic:
I really don't care what she majored in. I haven't the time to read posts that do nothing but insult others personally instead of coherently amplifying or refuting a substantive point.

This is a PC thread....she is always the topic
You don't think it is a serious topic do you?

PC channels Ann Coulter on the board

The game is....make an outlandish claim
Cut...paste....cut....paste....repeat
When some one challenges......cut and paste some more
Then make personal insults and claim victory

It is fun unless you mistake her for a serious poster

That moron doesn't know that your post is as true as your avi!!!!!

As believable as the rumor that the Tooth Fairy was caught with a bag of teeth.

 

[Camp]

Al Qaeda, ISIS, North Korea, Russia and PoliticalChic give low approval ratings to Obama. The rest of the world gives him pretty good ratings. Far better liked and respected than his predecessor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Al Qaeda, ISIS, North Korea, Russia and PoliticalChic give low approval ratings to Obama. The rest of the world gives him pretty good ratings. Far better liked and respected than his predecessor.

Really?

How about 52% of the UK?



How about the dictators he bows down to?
No Respect: Obama removes restrictions on Cuba, gets nothing in return. And....he visits, but Raul Castro couldn't be bothered to be at the airport: " As the plane landed at a rainy Jose Marti International Airport, Mr Obama tweeted: "What's up Cuba? Just touched down here, looking forward to meeting and hearing directly from the Cuban people." The president was greeted by foreign minister Bruno Rodriguez - not president Raul Castro. Instead he will hold talks with his Cuban counterpart on Monday."
Obama Arrives In Cuba For Historic Visit





Exposing the asininity of posters is one of my guilty pleasures.....but it would be redundant in your case.

 

[rightwinger]

"....but upon studying sociology and psychology,...."

Now all is clear.

The more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise an individual is.

Case closed.

You just earned yourself a spot on my ignore list with that childish remark. Good day.

Leave her alone...

She majored in cut and paste

Do you know what my major was?

Did it involve coloring within the lines?

Just wanted to prove you have no clue what my major was.

Exactly the same level of knowledge you have of every other topic.

Without lies you wouldn't be able to post, would you.

The skills you picked up from your major are easily defined by your posts

How much extra credit did you get for coloring within the lines?

 

[Camp]

Al Qaeda, ISIS, North Korea, Russia and PoliticalChic give low approval ratings to Obama. The rest of the world gives him pretty good ratings. Far better liked and respected than his predecessor.

Really?

How about 52% of the UK?



How about the dictators he bows down to?
No Respect: Obama removes restrictions on Cuba, gets nothing in return. And....he visits, but Raul Castro couldn't be bothered to be at the airport: " As the plane landed at a rainy Jose Marti International Airport, Mr Obama tweeted: "What's up Cuba? Just touched down here, looking forward to meeting and hearing directly from the Cuban people." The president was greeted by foreign minister Bruno Rodriguez - not president Raul Castro. Instead he will hold talks with his Cuban counterpart on Monday."
Obama Arrives In Cuba For Historic Visit





Exposing the asininity of posters is one of my guilty pleasures.....but it would be redundant in your case.

This is typical PoliticalChic distortion and spinning of cherry picked quotes and reports. Raul Castro and the Cuban leadership did not want to seem or show too much excitement at the US President's visit. The incident was designed for Cuban domestic political purposes and consumption where President Obama has an 80% approval rating from the Cuban people, twice that of Raul Castro. His non-appearance at the airport to greet the President was a signal that he was still 100% in control of his government.
Again, to address the OP, 80% approval from the Cuban people.

 

[rightwinger]

"....but upon studying sociology and psychology,...."

Now all is clear.

The more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise an individual is.

Case closed.

You just earned yourself a spot on my ignore list with that childish remark. Good day.

Leave her alone...

She majored in cut and paste

Off Topic:
I really don't care what she majored in. I haven't the time to read posts that do nothing but insult others personally instead of coherently amplifying or refuting a substantive point.

This is a PC thread....she is always the topic
You don't think it is a serious topic do you?

PC channels Ann Coulter on the board

The game is....make an outlandish claim
Cut...paste....cut....paste....repeat
When some one challenges......cut and paste some more
Then make personal insults and claim victory

It is fun unless you mistake her for a serious poster

That moron doesn't know that your post is as true as your avi!!!!!

As believable as the rumor that the Tooth Fairy was caught with a bag of teeth.

The professor does not even know what an avi is

 

[boedicca]

To the Ruling Elites around the world: Obama is a Useful Idiot.

To the regular people: Obama is a Tyrant.

 

[Camp]

To the Ruling Elites around the world: Obama is a Useful Idiot.

To the regular people: Obama is a Tyrant.

Common trash talk bouncing around in your head. No evidence or substantiation for your brainwashed partisan fantasies.

 

[boedicca]

To the Ruling Elites around the world: Obama is a Useful Idiot.

To the regular people: Obama is a Tyrant.

Common trash talk bouncing around in your head. No evidence or substantiation for your brainwashed partisan fantasies.

Clearly, I touched a "noive". My job hear is done.

 

[Camp]

To the Ruling Elites around the world: Obama is a Useful Idiot.

To the regular people: Obama is a Tyrant.

Common trash talk bouncing around in your head. No evidence or substantiation for your brainwashed partisan fantasies.

Clearly, I touched a "noive". My job hear is done.

Without a link to back up your lying bullshit, yes, you should run away.

 

[boedicca]

To the Ruling Elites around the world: Obama is a Useful Idiot.

To the regular people: Obama is a Tyrant.

Common trash talk bouncing around in your head. No evidence or substantiation for your brainwashed partisan fantasies.

Clearly, I touched a "noive". My job hear is done.

Without a link to back up your lying bullshit, yes, you should run away.

Here's a link:

DuckDuckGo

Just search for Obama's failures.

 

[Camp]

To the Ruling Elites around the world: Obama is a Useful Idiot.

To the regular people: Obama is a Tyrant.

Common trash talk bouncing around in your head. No evidence or substantiation for your brainwashed partisan fantasies.

Clearly, I touched a "noive". My job hear is done.

Without a link to back up your lying bullshit, yes, you should run away.

Here's a link:

DuckDuckGo

Just search for Obama's failures.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the OP about "What Does The World Think About Obama?"
Your post is nothing more than an attempt to deflect away from the topic with generic off topic bashing. It does not in the least bit address the threads topic.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm a libertarian, you're preaching to the choir

I'm not that either. I once was, but upon studying sociology and psychology, I came to realize that for all the wonderful idealism of much that is Libertarianism, the odds of the U.S. implementing Libertarian principles to any meaningful extent were slim-to-none, at least in the foreseeable future, and slim was boarding the train right then and there.

Now, I'm merely someone who searches for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Upon finding it, I use it to form my points of view. That my viewpoints may concur with those of Dems, Reps, Libs, Communists, Socialists, conspiracy theorists, or even Martians is really of no concern to me.

If there were any one thing I can accurately be called, it's capitalist, but there's no party for that.

"....but upon studying sociology and psychology,...."

Now all is clear.

The more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise an individual is.

Case closed.

You just earned yourself a spot on my ignore list with that childish remark. Good day.

Leave her alone...

She majored in cut and paste

Do you know what my major was?

Bullshit, a special class for special people.

 

[The Professor]

​

who knew 'Britain' was the entire world? can you name one country that actually wants to ban him? can you name one country that wants to ban Trump? I can name a few.... including........... Britian.

Bet you noted his whining about the Supreme Court decision on his immigration grab.

As they say, "Time wounds all heels."

uh-huh. there was no 'decision' on his immigration 'grab' because the Court is in a deadlock due to the inactiveness from the (R) congress going fwd with hearings on Scalia's replacement. so the status quo remains. that is far different than the Court making a ruling.

There certainly was a decision.
The correct one.

Did you know that until the early 1800s there were an even number of justices on the court?
There is no reason for the Supreme Court to provide decisions in every case. The 10th amendment indicates that, and we saw it in yesterday's allowing the lower court decision to apply.



The Supreme Court remains the single best reason to vote for Trump.

Did you know that the reason why the Constitution is a living document, means it can be amended? Why do you suppose the # of justices was changed to an odd number ?

1. It is not a 'living document/' That phrase was invented by those who wish to assassinate it.
The amendment process proves that.

2. The number of justices was increased due to more 'western' states entering the Union, more cases, and the need for lawyers with knowledge of those states' law.

3. Did you notice that four Justices voted as a block to allow the President to write laws????
Clearly they should be imprisoned for pretending that they honor the Constitution.

of course it is a living document. the constitution cannot be changed, but our founding fathers provided an avenue for additions. ya.... that silly pesky amendment process which is actually PART of the US Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States
* * * * * * * * * *

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

The concept of the U.S. Constitution as a “living document” has nothing to do with the amendment process. Rather, it involves the purported ability of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to look beyond the original wording in the constitution and to interpret the document in terms of the needs of an ever-changing society. Here is what I consider to be a good explanation:

“'Living Constitution' is a term used to describe the Constitution's ability to change to meet the needs of each generation without major changes. This is a concept used in interpreting the Constitution of U.S. It is based on the notion that Constitution of the United States has relevant meaning beyond the original text and is an evolving and dynamic document that changes over time. Therefore the views of contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.

“There are many views for and against the theory of Living Constitution. The pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter, and therefore an evolving interpretation is necessary. Another view is that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the idea argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that the theory can be used by judges to inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation.”

Living Constitution Law & Legal Definition

My studies of various SCOTUS decisions has shown that in some cases the Court has interpreted the Constitution in such a way as to completely nullify the original meaning of the document, or to assume authority or to establish “rights” for which there is no supportive language. I will give three examples.

First, there is nothing within the Constitution which addresses abortion and there is also nothing in the document which grants a specific right to privacy (the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is not applicable); yet the Court managed to use the non-existent Constitutional right to privacy to justify a Constitutional right to abortion. Strict constructionists (those who advocate a literal interpretation of the Constitution) believe the issue should have been left to the individual states to resolve.

Second, the Fifth Amendment provides that the process known as Eminent Domain can be used to take private property for a public use - such as for a school or library - providing the owners receive just compensation. However, in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the SCOTUS interpreted the words “public use” to include “public purpose”. With this interpretation, the government can take the homes of hardworking poor and middle class families and put it into the hands of real estate developers to build luxury homes, resorts or malls. There is no public use involved, but there was a stated public purpose: higher tax rates which would bring more revenue into the government coffers.

Third, in Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), the SCOTUS used the Commerce Clause to prevent two women in California (where pot was legal under state law) from growing Marijuana solely for their own private consumption. Clearly, these ladies were not involved in interstate commerce or commerce of any kind; however the Court concluded that by growing their own pot instead of buying it in the interstate market they had an effect on interstate commerce thus giving the government the right to regulate/prohibit their activities! The Supreme Court failed to note that such out-of-state purchases would have been illegal. The Court used the same perverted logic in other cases to regulate purely intrastate (not interstate) commerce.

The problem of treating the Constitution as a living document is that it gives a mere nine appointed-for-life justices who are not accountable to the public the ability to make law. From the examples I gave you (and there are many others), it is apparent that the decisions of the Court were agenda-driven and had no constitutional authority; in other words, the justices made law to suit their personal beliefs.

 

[playtime]

of course it is a living document. the constitution cannot be changed, but our founding fathers provided an avenue for additions. ya.... that silly pesky amendment process which is actually PART of the US Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States
* * * * * * * * * *

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Gads, you're a moron.

"Living Constitution ' Is the very opposite of the amendment process.

It means you make stuff up that is not in the text of the document.

awwww sweety, you are in such denial. it must really suck to be you. the language is plain enough. just cause you don't like it doesn't mean you get your way. neener neener.

Homo habilis discovering his opposable thumbs says what?

yaaaaaaaa, thanx 'super' girl for proving what I thought. you got nuthin' to refudiate & have no back up to actually counterpoint & prove otherwise. because... well..... you


are nothing.

You've made clear that you don't even understand the terms you've used.

Now.....amble on back to the last seat in the dumb row.

Dismissed.

nuthin'. got it.

 

[playtime]

​

who knew 'Britain' was the entire world? can you name one country that actually wants to ban him? can you name one country that wants to ban Trump? I can name a few.... including........... Britian.

uh-huh. there was no 'decision' on his immigration 'grab' because the Court is in a deadlock due to the inactiveness from the (R) congress going fwd with hearings on Scalia's replacement. so the status quo remains. that is far different than the Court making a ruling.

There certainly was a decision.
The correct one.

Did you know that until the early 1800s there were an even number of justices on the court?
There is no reason for the Supreme Court to provide decisions in every case. The 10th amendment indicates that, and we saw it in yesterday's allowing the lower court decision to apply.



The Supreme Court remains the single best reason to vote for Trump.

Did you know that the reason why the Constitution is a living document, means it can be amended? Why do you suppose the # of justices was changed to an odd number ?

1. It is not a 'living document/' That phrase was invented by those who wish to assassinate it.
The amendment process proves that.

2. The number of justices was increased due to more 'western' states entering the Union, more cases, and the need for lawyers with knowledge of those states' law.

3. Did you notice that four Justices voted as a block to allow the President to write laws????
Clearly they should be imprisoned for pretending that they honor the Constitution.

of course it is a living document. the constitution cannot be changed, but our founding fathers provided an avenue for additions. ya.... that silly pesky amendment process which is actually PART of the US Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States
* * * * * * * * * *

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

The concept of the U.S. Constitution as a “living document” has nothing to do with the amendment process. Rather, it involves the purported ability of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to look beyond the original wording in the constitution and to interpret the document in terms of the needs of an ever-changing society. Here is what I consider to be a good explanation:

“'Living Constitution' is a term used to describe the Constitution's ability to change to meet the needs of each generation without major changes. This is a concept used in interpreting the Constitution of U.S. It is based on the notion that Constitution of the United States has relevant meaning beyond the original text and is an evolving and dynamic document that changes over time. Therefore the views of contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.

“There are many views for and against the theory of Living Constitution. The pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter, and therefore an evolving interpretation is necessary. Another view is that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the idea argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that the theory can be used by judges to inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation.”

Living Constitution Law & Legal Definition

My studies of various SCOTUS decisions has shown that in some cases the Court has interpreted the Constitution in such a way as to completely nullify the original meaning of the document, or to assume authority or to establish “rights” for which there is no supportive language. I will give three examples.

First, there is nothing within the Constitution which addresses abortion and there is also nothing in the document which grants a specific right to privacy (the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is not applicable); yet the Court managed to use the non-existent Constitutional right to privacy to justify a Constitutional right to abortion. Strict constructionists (those who advocate a literal interpretation of the Constitution) believe the issue should have been left to the individual states to resolve.

Second, the Fifth Amendment provides that the process known as Eminent Domain can be used to take private property for a public use - such as for a school or library - providing the owners receive just compensation. However, in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the SCOTUS interpreted the words “public use” to include “public purpose”. With this interpretation, the government can take the homes of hardworking poor and middle class families and put it into the hands of real estate developers to build luxury homes, resorts or malls. There is no public use involved, but there was a stated public purpose: higher tax rates which would bring more revenue into the government coffers.

Third, in Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), the SCOTUS used the Commerce Clause to prevent two women in California (where pot was legal under state law) from growing Marijuana solely for their own private consumption. Clearly, these ladies were not involved in interstate commerce or commerce of any kind; however the Court concluded that by growing their own pot instead of buying it in the interstate market they had an effect on interstate commerce thus giving the government the right to regulate/prohibit their activities! The Supreme Court failed to note that such out-of-state purchases would have been illegal. The Court used the same perverted logic in other cases to regulate purely intrastate (not interstate) commerce.

The problem of treating the Constitution as a living document is that it gives a mere nine appointed-for-life justices who are not accountable to the public the ability to make law. From the examples I gave you (and there are many others), it is apparent that the decisions of the Court were agenda-driven and had no constitutional authority; in other words, the justices made law to suit their personal beliefs.

as i said, the constitution cannot be 'changed', but it can be added to by interpreting the law of the land.i believe the amendment process is part of that- by giving the states some control by ratification.

i never thought a lifetime appointment was a good thing, given that us humans have the great abiilty to decline in so many ways. but it's essential we have n odd number of justices. look at the mess it is creating since not even allowing the President's nominee to have his hearings.

as for that example you gave :

Second, the Fifth Amendment provides that the process known as Eminent Domain can be used to take private property for a public use - such as for a school or library - providing the owners receive just compensation. However, in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) the SCOTUS interpreted the words “public use” to include “public purpose”. With this interpretation, the government can take the homes of hardworking poor and middle class families and put it into the hands of real estate developers to build luxury homes, resorts or malls. There is no public use involved, but there was a stated public purpose: higher tax rates which would bring more revenue into the government coffers.

i am from CT & am quite familiar with that case. i remember it well. that lovely Pfizer takeover that seized that prime waterfront property & bulldozed those homes? they decided to boogy after a short time & it's become a vast abandoned wasteland.




http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html?_r=0

as a matter of fact, after that case, many towns in CT have added to their charters, not to allow for that to happen again.

 

[playtime]

And you cherry picked to make it look like ~he was supporting your supposition. Wrong, but that is the game the so much of the left plays --dishonesty is thy middle name~. Yours, not mine.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf
You just might want to read Justice Rehnquist's The Notion of a Living Constitution

[...]
I shall refer to this interpretation of the phrase “living Constitution,” with which scarcely anyone would disagree, as the Holmes version. The framers of the Constitution wisely spoke in general language and left to succeeding generations the task of applying that language to the unceasingly changing environment in which they would live. Those who framed, adopted, and ratified the Civil War amendments7 to the Constitution likewise used what have been aptly described as “majestic generalities”8 in composing the fourteenth amendment. Merely because a particular activity may not have existed when the Constitution was adopted, or because the framers could not have conceived of a particular method of transacting affairs, cannot mean that general language in the Constitution may not be applied to such a course of conduct. Where the framers of the Constitution have used general language, they have given latitude to those who would later interpret the instrument to make that language applicable to cases that the framers might not have foreseen [...]

poor 'super' chicky just cant wrap that brain cell around the Constitution in ALL its glory. only what's Convenient for her & the ilk that she is most familiar with

LOL. btw, that is one interpretation overall ain't it? that is the part i agree with & .. that is one opinion by one justice. that's why we need 9. don't preach to me about picking & choosing when the President who is STILL in office for several more months & he can't even get garland a meeting. per the constitution.

& i am center left.