The real argument isn't left or right its whether the constitution is a living document that should adapt to changing times or not (strict constructionist). It's an interesting intellectual debate if you strip the left right politics and natty light expert commentary out of it. The judges themselves seem to respect that.
teedubbya wrote:
First off, cacman is spot on with his "fix" of TW post.
Nextly (yes I said "nextly"),
The "living breathing" Constitution argument was "concocted" because Pres. Wilson hated the constraints that the Constitution placed on the government. So, this B.S. was given birth to and liberals run with it as if it were gospel.
The Constitution isn't "living and breathing."
It is a contract with laws that the fed government is supposed to adhere to LIMITING their power and reach. There are provisions for the Constitution to adapt and be changed, through a Constitutional amendment process, which is not fast enough, nor liberal enough for democrats to push through their agenda items.
Why don't we just consider all contracts living and breathing?
Tell the business party on the other side of the agreed to document, that you consider it living and breathing and that you are changing the terms...see how that goes.
So we conservatives are painted as "strict constructionists" to make us sound like we are ever unchanging. Conservatives are ok with the change to the Constitution, but by the amendment process in Article V.
Look at the runaway constant Constitutional convention we have going on now.
The president, ad hoc, passes laws by fiat, or he ignores laws or parts of laws he doesn't feel fit his agenda.
The EPA and other bureaucracies are passing laws that are given the imprimatur by the Supreme Court. These bodies aren't beholden or accountable to anyone, and no where in the Constitution does it say these bodies can make laws.
Look how Roberts twists the Obamacare penalty, claiming it was a "tax", when we have audio, video, written text claiming the exact opposite- it was not a tax, but a penalty on the individual for not acting. Didn't matter, Roberts wanted the law to be law of the land, so he pushed his and the other 4 justices' agenda.
This is NOT following the Constitution, this is trying to make law from the bench.
These are people, just like the citizenry, with their own prejudices and agendas and just because they wear black robes, doesn't mean they are following the Constitution. In fact, we now rely on the vote of one justice in 5-4 votes to say that this is an ok law or not. - what if Roberts went the other way? Then Obamacare is Unconstitutional because HE decided it was?
If the justices all followed the Constitution, why would FDR try and pack the S.C. with justices sympathetic to his agenda? Why do that if all justices follow the Constitution anyway?
The left 4 S.C. judges are never going to change their minds from their liberal bents. Hell, Ruthy Ginsberg thinks South Africa's constitution is THE document to point to for the shining example to the world.
So, if we don't place another "strict constructionist" on the S.C. we are going to go to a place that mindless Utopia-ists like tonygraz and Brewha want to take us to- someplace with a living breathing constitution where the fed government takes whatever liberties it wants... ahhh nirvana.
Edited by user
10 years ago |
Reason: Not specified
