Breaking the Constitution

[Camp]

Two pages in and the OP is already having a melt down.

Why did you post that link?

Did it provide a counter view to the OP?

No...it didn't.....so you tried to suggest other than the truth, huh?

I am not concerned with whether the link supports your idea or not. It give a less harsh viewpoint and clearer indication of the book and hence authors intent and meaning. It is a more academic review than the more political one you posted. It is more balanced and offers a better opportunity for balanced critique of the authors conclusions and views.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Two pages in and the OP is already having a melt down.

Why did you post that link?

Did it provide a counter view to the OP?

No...it didn't.....so you tried to suggest other than the truth, huh?

I am not concerned with whether the link supports your idea or not. It give a less harsh viewpoint and clearer indication of the book and hence authors intent and meaning. It is a more academic review than the more political one you posted. It is more balanced and offers a better opportunity for balanced critique of the authors conclusions and views.

" It give a less harsh viewpoint and clearer indication of the book and hence authors intent and meaning. It is a more academic review than the more political one you posted."

Liar.

I posted the operative section of YOUR LINK....showing that it praises the article I've posted.

You must be a Liberal, huh?

 

[Camp]

Two pages in and the OP is already having a melt down.

Why did you post that link?

Did it provide a counter view to the OP?

No...it didn't.....so you tried to suggest other than the truth, huh?

I am not concerned with whether the link supports your idea or not. It give a less harsh viewpoint and clearer indication of the book and hence authors intent and meaning. It is a more academic review than the more political one you posted. It is more balanced and offers a better opportunity for balanced critique of the authors conclusions and views.

" It give a less harsh viewpoint and clearer indication of the book and hence authors intent and meaning. It is a more academic review than the more political one you posted."

Liar.

I posted the operative section of YOUR LINK....showing that it praises the article I've posted.

You must be a Liberal, huh?

No you didn't and no it didn't. I was reinforcing my contention that you were adding FDR into the review because of your obsession. The second review shows the disconnect that you clearly have with reality.
And why are people who disagree with you always liars? What is wrong with you? Something is wrong with a person who always thinks a different viewpoint from their own make the person a liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Two pages in and the OP is already having a melt down.

Why did you post that link?

Did it provide a counter view to the OP?

No...it didn't.....so you tried to suggest other than the truth, huh?

I am not concerned with whether the link supports your idea or not. It give a less harsh viewpoint and clearer indication of the book and hence authors intent and meaning. It is a more academic review than the more political one you posted. It is more balanced and offers a better opportunity for balanced critique of the authors conclusions and views.

" It give a less harsh viewpoint and clearer indication of the book and hence authors intent and meaning. It is a more academic review than the more political one you posted."

Liar.

I posted the operative section of YOUR LINK....showing that it praises the article I've posted.

You must be a Liberal, huh?

No you didn't and no it didn't. I was reinforcing my contention that you were adding FDR into the review because of your obsession. The second review shows the disconnect that you clearly have with reality.
And why are people who disagree with you always liars? What is wrong with you? Something is wrong with a person who always thinks a different viewpoint from their own make the person a liar.

" I was reinforcing my contention that you were adding FDR into the review because of your obsession."

1. Everything I ever post about your love object is true and accurate.
Short of lying, you have never been able to deny any of it.

2. Did your link include anything about FDR....or are you lying again?

 

[toxicmedia]

1. Just as the adage goes, "for Liberals, feeling often passes for knowing," so, too, do good intentions surpass results or methodology.....in any and every endeavor.

This view explains why slavery and oppression by communism, socialism, and even fascism (if instituted by Liberals/Progressives), are met with a shrug by Liberals and Progressives.

Although the Constitution, the greatest memorialization of mankind's ability to govern itself, is nominally known as 'the law of the land,' Leftists have no intention of honoring it as such.
Instead, they kill it with the prefix 'living.'




2. Until Franklin Roosevelt, America functioned via the Constitution, and the Founder's guidance. During Roosevelt's term, that changed. It's most clearly seen is comparison with the man who had the second greatest number of vetoes....Grover Cleveland. Cleveland refused to allow expenditures on endeavors not authorized under the enumerated powers....including charity.

a. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
James Madison, Federalist #45, January 26, 1788

If only.



The control exercised by Liberals has altered 'justice' to some rationalization that they call 'social justice.'

3. The meaning of the United States Constitution is “fixed by the original meaning of its words,” according to the authors of a highly engaging new book titled, simply,The Constitution: An Introduction. [ by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen]....

a. ... music to the ears of originalists like Justice Antonin Scalia—underlies the book’s central theme: defending the Constitution’s text against those politicians and judges who “seek to rewrite [its] terms in the service of what are thought to be desirable policies.” [Good intentions above all!]

4. .... —the book does an excellent job of placing legal controversies in historical context.... critiquing the modern era of judicial activism. .... the Warren Court (1953–69) produced “careless” decisions, because the justices were focused on achieving policy goals rather than upholding the law.
[Upholding the law: secondary for Liberals]

a. The nadir of this results-oriented jurisprudence was, ... the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v.Wade, which invented a federal right to abortion on demand. The authors assail Roe as “the most extreme example of judicial activism in the twentieth century.”

b. They even compare the decision—unfavorably—toDred Scott, the notorious pro-slavery decision that helped provoke the Civil War. “Not evenDred Scott,” they argue, “so completely seemed to disregard the text asRoedid.”
Against Judicial Activism by Adam Freedman City Journal June 16 2015



Who could argue that everything the authors claim is less than true an accurate?

I could argue with the conclusions you've jumped to a great deal.

You can't just cherry pick every procedural change within the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches since 1780, that you don't like...and characterize them as "breaking" the constitution. Especially when the only ones you accuse of that are lefties.

I don't hear enough from you about procedural changes that righties implemented during those administrations....and there were just as many as when the righties were in power.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1. Just as the adage goes, "for Liberals, feeling often passes for knowing," so, too, do good intentions surpass results or methodology.....in any and every endeavor.

This view explains why slavery and oppression by communism, socialism, and even fascism (if instituted by Liberals/Progressives), are met with a shrug by Liberals and Progressives.

Although the Constitution, the greatest memorialization of mankind's ability to govern itself, is nominally known as 'the law of the land,' Leftists have no intention of honoring it as such.
Instead, they kill it with the prefix 'living.'




2. Until Franklin Roosevelt, America functioned via the Constitution, and the Founder's guidance. During Roosevelt's term, that changed. It's most clearly seen is comparison with the man who had the second greatest number of vetoes....Grover Cleveland. Cleveland refused to allow expenditures on endeavors not authorized under the enumerated powers....including charity.

a. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
James Madison, Federalist #45, January 26, 1788

If only.



The control exercised by Liberals has altered 'justice' to some rationalization that they call 'social justice.'

3. The meaning of the United States Constitution is “fixed by the original meaning of its words,” according to the authors of a highly engaging new book titled, simply,The Constitution: An Introduction. [ by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen]....

a. ... music to the ears of originalists like Justice Antonin Scalia—underlies the book’s central theme: defending the Constitution’s text against those politicians and judges who “seek to rewrite [its] terms in the service of what are thought to be desirable policies.” [Good intentions above all!]

4. .... —the book does an excellent job of placing legal controversies in historical context.... critiquing the modern era of judicial activism. .... the Warren Court (1953–69) produced “careless” decisions, because the justices were focused on achieving policy goals rather than upholding the law.
[Upholding the law: secondary for Liberals]

a. The nadir of this results-oriented jurisprudence was, ... the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v.Wade, which invented a federal right to abortion on demand. The authors assail Roe as “the most extreme example of judicial activism in the twentieth century.”

b. They even compare the decision—unfavorably—toDred Scott, the notorious pro-slavery decision that helped provoke the Civil War. “Not evenDred Scott,” they argue, “so completely seemed to disregard the text asRoedid.”
Against Judicial Activism by Adam Freedman City Journal June 16 2015



Who could argue that everything the authors claim is less than true an accurate?

Actually most of the enumerated powers do NOT deal with "external objects". We're talking about the Constitution here, not the Articles of Confederation, right?

If you could be bothered to READ the Constitution (I know, its easier just to type, isn't it?) - you would see that only 7 of the 18 Article I Section 8 powers deal exclusively with external objects. Most of the other enumerated powers are also of a domestic nature.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Just as the adage goes, "for Liberals, feeling often passes for knowing," so, too, do good intentions surpass results or methodology.....in any and every endeavor.

This view explains why slavery and oppression by communism, socialism, and even fascism (if instituted by Liberals/Progressives), are met with a shrug by Liberals and Progressives.

Although the Constitution, the greatest memorialization of mankind's ability to govern itself, is nominally known as 'the law of the land,' Leftists have no intention of honoring it as such.
Instead, they kill it with the prefix 'living.'




2. Until Franklin Roosevelt, America functioned via the Constitution, and the Founder's guidance. During Roosevelt's term, that changed. It's most clearly seen is comparison with the man who had the second greatest number of vetoes....Grover Cleveland. Cleveland refused to allow expenditures on endeavors not authorized under the enumerated powers....including charity.

a. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
James Madison, Federalist #45, January 26, 1788

If only.



The control exercised by Liberals has altered 'justice' to some rationalization that they call 'social justice.'

3. The meaning of the United States Constitution is “fixed by the original meaning of its words,” according to the authors of a highly engaging new book titled, simply,The Constitution: An Introduction. [ by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen]....

a. ... music to the ears of originalists like Justice Antonin Scalia—underlies the book’s central theme: defending the Constitution’s text against those politicians and judges who “seek to rewrite [its] terms in the service of what are thought to be desirable policies.” [Good intentions above all!]

4. .... —the book does an excellent job of placing legal controversies in historical context.... critiquing the modern era of judicial activism. .... the Warren Court (1953–69) produced “careless” decisions, because the justices were focused on achieving policy goals rather than upholding the law.
[Upholding the law: secondary for Liberals]

a. The nadir of this results-oriented jurisprudence was, ... the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v.Wade, which invented a federal right to abortion on demand. The authors assail Roe as “the most extreme example of judicial activism in the twentieth century.”

b. They even compare the decision—unfavorably—toDred Scott, the notorious pro-slavery decision that helped provoke the Civil War. “Not evenDred Scott,” they argue, “so completely seemed to disregard the text asRoedid.”
Against Judicial Activism by Adam Freedman City Journal June 16 2015



Who could argue that everything the authors claim is less than true an accurate?

I could argue with the conclusions you've jumped to a great deal.

You can't just cherry pick every procedural change within the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches since 1780, that you don't like...and characterize them as "breaking" the constitution. Especially when the only ones you accuse of that are lefties.

I don't hear enough from you about procedural changes that righties implemented during those administrations....and there were just as many as when the righties were in power.

The point is simple and undeniable.
Liberal judges make decisions 100% contrary to the actual language of the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. The view that life-time tenure for Justices somehow shields them from outside pressures is called into question:

" Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter come in for heavy criticism from the authors for their less-than-courageous decision inPlanned Parenthoodv.Casey(1992) to reaffirmRoe“whether or not mistaken” for fear of provoking a political backlash. Rather than engaging in honest jurisprudence, the three justices were motivated by delusions of “fashioning a political compromise they thought should settle the abortion issue once and for all.



8. ....aim at many other sacred cows of progressive jurisprudence.

The famous police warnings mandated byMirandav.Arizona(1966) reflected the Court’s “policy judgment” and not the text of the Fifth Amendment.

The Court’s rejection of school prayer inEngelv.Vitale(1962) was based on a notion of the separation of church and state that is “found nowhere in the Constitution.”

The Court’s 2013 decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act was “cryptic and meandering in its reasoning.”

Lawrencev.Texas(2003)—which struck down state anti-sodomy laws—is portrayed as an abrupt reversal of an earlier precedent (Bowersv.Hardwick) driven by certain justices’ desire to legislate from the bench.

On affirmative action, the authors take a hard line: the plain meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “renders nearly all forms of state affirmative action programs illegal”—notwithstanding the Court’s continued tolerance of certain forms of affirmative action." Ibid.


The Constitution itself provided the the exact, and only, method of altering the text.....the amendment process.

Any other alteration is an illegal act.....the method of Liberals and Progressives.

No one can deny this......

....unless they lie.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

7. The view that life-time tenure for Justices somehow shields them from outside pressures is called into question:

" Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter come in for heavy criticism from the authors for their less-than-courageous decision inPlanned Parenthoodv.Casey(1992) to reaffirmRoe“whether or not mistaken” for fear of provoking a political backlash. Rather than engaging in honest jurisprudence, the three justices were motivated by delusions of “fashioning a political compromise they thought should settle the abortion issue once and for all.



8. ....aim at many other sacred cows of progressive jurisprudence.

The famous police warnings mandated byMirandav.Arizona(1966) reflected the Court’s “policy judgment” and not the text of the Fifth Amendment.

The Court’s rejection of school prayer inEngelv.Vitale(1962) was based on a notion of the separation of church and state that is “found nowhere in the Constitution.”

The Court’s 2013 decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act was “cryptic and meandering in its reasoning.”

Lawrencev.Texas(2003)—which struck down state anti-sodomy laws—is portrayed as an abrupt reversal of an earlier precedent (Bowersv.Hardwick) driven by certain justices’ desire to legislate from the bench.

On affirmative action, the authors take a hard line: the plain meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “renders nearly all forms of state affirmative action programs illegal”—notwithstanding the Court’s continued tolerance of certain forms of affirmative action." Ibid.


The Constitution itself provided the the exact, and only, method of altering the text.....the amendment process.

Any other alteration is an illegal act.....the method of Liberals and Progressives.

No one can deny this......

....unless they lie.

Where does the Constitution say that the President is Commander in Chief of the Air Force?

 

[Camp]

Two pages in and the OP is already having a melt down.

Why did you post that link?

Did it provide a counter view to the OP?

No...it didn't.....so you tried to suggest other than the truth, huh?

I am not concerned with whether the link supports your idea or not. It give a less harsh viewpoint and clearer indication of the book and hence authors intent and meaning. It is a more academic review than the more political one you posted. It is more balanced and offers a better opportunity for balanced critique of the authors conclusions and views.

" It give a less harsh viewpoint and clearer indication of the book and hence authors intent and meaning. It is a more academic review than the more political one you posted."

Liar.

I posted the operative section of YOUR LINK....showing that it praises the article I've posted.

You must be a Liberal, huh?

No you didn't and no it didn't. I was reinforcing my contention that you were adding FDR into the review because of your obsession. The second review shows the disconnect that you clearly have with reality.
And why are people who disagree with you always liars? What is wrong with you? Something is wrong with a person who always thinks a different viewpoint from their own make the person a liar.

" I was reinforcing my contention that you were adding FDR into the review because of your obsession."

1. Everything I ever post about your love object is true and accurate.
Short of lying, you have never been able to deny any of it.

2. Did your link include anything about FDR....or are you lying again?

The authors nor the reviewers of their book are not obsessed with anti FDR fervor the way you are. The link I posted reinforced that. You go to great lengths to blame that guy for everything. They authors wrote about cases before FDR and after FDR, yet you focus on the object of your hatred'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why did you post that link?

Did it provide a counter view to the OP?

No...it didn't.....so you tried to suggest other than the truth, huh?

I am not concerned with whether the link supports your idea or not. It give a less harsh viewpoint and clearer indication of the book and hence authors intent and meaning. It is a more academic review than the more political one you posted. It is more balanced and offers a better opportunity for balanced critique of the authors conclusions and views.

" It give a less harsh viewpoint and clearer indication of the book and hence authors intent and meaning. It is a more academic review than the more political one you posted."

Liar.

I posted the operative section of YOUR LINK....showing that it praises the article I've posted.

You must be a Liberal, huh?

No you didn't and no it didn't. I was reinforcing my contention that you were adding FDR into the review because of your obsession. The second review shows the disconnect that you clearly have with reality.
And why are people who disagree with you always liars? What is wrong with you? Something is wrong with a person who always thinks a different viewpoint from their own make the person a liar.

" I was reinforcing my contention that you were adding FDR into the review because of your obsession."

1. Everything I ever post about your love object is true and accurate.
Short of lying, you have never been able to deny any of it.

2. Did your link include anything about FDR....or are you lying again?

The authors nor the reviewers of their book are not obsessed with anti FDR fervor the way you are. The link I posted reinforced that. You go to great lengths to blame that guy for everything. They authors wrote about cases before FDR and after FDR, yet you focus on the object of your hatred'

"....obsessed with anti FDR fervor the way you are."


So....you think the FBI was 'obsessed' with John Dillinger?

 

[toxicmedia]

1. Just as the adage goes, "for Liberals, feeling often passes for knowing," so, too, do good intentions surpass results or methodology.....in any and every endeavor.

This view explains why slavery and oppression by communism, socialism, and even fascism (if instituted by Liberals/Progressives), are met with a shrug by Liberals and Progressives.

Although the Constitution, the greatest memorialization of mankind's ability to govern itself, is nominally known as 'the law of the land,' Leftists have no intention of honoring it as such.
Instead, they kill it with the prefix 'living.'




2. Until Franklin Roosevelt, America functioned via the Constitution, and the Founder's guidance. During Roosevelt's term, that changed. It's most clearly seen is comparison with the man who had the second greatest number of vetoes....Grover Cleveland. Cleveland refused to allow expenditures on endeavors not authorized under the enumerated powers....including charity.

a. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
James Madison, Federalist #45, January 26, 1788

If only.



The control exercised by Liberals has altered 'justice' to some rationalization that they call 'social justice.'

3. The meaning of the United States Constitution is “fixed by the original meaning of its words,” according to the authors of a highly engaging new book titled, simply,The Constitution: An Introduction. [ by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen]....

a. ... music to the ears of originalists like Justice Antonin Scalia—underlies the book’s central theme: defending the Constitution’s text against those politicians and judges who “seek to rewrite [its] terms in the service of what are thought to be desirable policies.” [Good intentions above all!]

4. .... —the book does an excellent job of placing legal controversies in historical context.... critiquing the modern era of judicial activism. .... the Warren Court (1953–69) produced “careless” decisions, because the justices were focused on achieving policy goals rather than upholding the law.
[Upholding the law: secondary for Liberals]

a. The nadir of this results-oriented jurisprudence was, ... the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v.Wade, which invented a federal right to abortion on demand. The authors assail Roe as “the most extreme example of judicial activism in the twentieth century.”

b. They even compare the decision—unfavorably—toDred Scott, the notorious pro-slavery decision that helped provoke the Civil War. “Not evenDred Scott,” they argue, “so completely seemed to disregard the text asRoedid.”
Against Judicial Activism by Adam Freedman City Journal June 16 2015



Who could argue that everything the authors claim is less than true an accurate?

I could argue with the conclusions you've jumped to a great deal.

You can't just cherry pick every procedural change within the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches since 1780, that you don't like...and characterize them as "breaking" the constitution. Especially when the only ones you accuse of that are lefties.

I don't hear enough from you about procedural changes that righties implemented during those administrations....and there were just as many as when the righties were in power.

The point is simple and undeniable.
Liberal judges make decisions 100% contrary to the actual language of the Constitution.

It's hardly simple, and quite deniable.

Conservative judges have made just as many decisions 100% contrary to the actual language of the Constitution, as Liberal justices, including Scalia

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Just as the adage goes, "for Liberals, feeling often passes for knowing," so, too, do good intentions surpass results or methodology.....in any and every endeavor.

This view explains why slavery and oppression by communism, socialism, and even fascism (if instituted by Liberals/Progressives), are met with a shrug by Liberals and Progressives.

Although the Constitution, the greatest memorialization of mankind's ability to govern itself, is nominally known as 'the law of the land,' Leftists have no intention of honoring it as such.
Instead, they kill it with the prefix 'living.'




2. Until Franklin Roosevelt, America functioned via the Constitution, and the Founder's guidance. During Roosevelt's term, that changed. It's most clearly seen is comparison with the man who had the second greatest number of vetoes....Grover Cleveland. Cleveland refused to allow expenditures on endeavors not authorized under the enumerated powers....including charity.

a. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
James Madison, Federalist #45, January 26, 1788

If only.



The control exercised by Liberals has altered 'justice' to some rationalization that they call 'social justice.'

3. The meaning of the United States Constitution is “fixed by the original meaning of its words,” according to the authors of a highly engaging new book titled, simply,The Constitution: An Introduction. [ by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen]....

a. ... music to the ears of originalists like Justice Antonin Scalia—underlies the book’s central theme: defending the Constitution’s text against those politicians and judges who “seek to rewrite [its] terms in the service of what are thought to be desirable policies.” [Good intentions above all!]

4. .... —the book does an excellent job of placing legal controversies in historical context.... critiquing the modern era of judicial activism. .... the Warren Court (1953–69) produced “careless” decisions, because the justices were focused on achieving policy goals rather than upholding the law.
[Upholding the law: secondary for Liberals]

a. The nadir of this results-oriented jurisprudence was, ... the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v.Wade, which invented a federal right to abortion on demand. The authors assail Roe as “the most extreme example of judicial activism in the twentieth century.”

b. They even compare the decision—unfavorably—toDred Scott, the notorious pro-slavery decision that helped provoke the Civil War. “Not evenDred Scott,” they argue, “so completely seemed to disregard the text asRoedid.”
Against Judicial Activism by Adam Freedman City Journal June 16 2015



Who could argue that everything the authors claim is less than true an accurate?

I could argue with the conclusions you've jumped to a great deal.

You can't just cherry pick every procedural change within the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches since 1780, that you don't like...and characterize them as "breaking" the constitution. Especially when the only ones you accuse of that are lefties.

I don't hear enough from you about procedural changes that righties implemented during those administrations....and there were just as many as when the righties were in power.

The point is simple and undeniable.
Liberal judges make decisions 100% contrary to the actual language of the Constitution.

It's hardly simple, and quite deniable.

Conservative judges have made just as many decisions 100% contrary to the actual language of the Constitution, as Liberal justices, including Scalia

I notice that, unlike myself, you haven't provided examples of your contention.
Now....why would that be?

 

[toxicmedia]

1. Just as the adage goes, "for Liberals, feeling often passes for knowing," so, too, do good intentions surpass results or methodology.....in any and every endeavor.

This view explains why slavery and oppression by communism, socialism, and even fascism (if instituted by Liberals/Progressives), are met with a shrug by Liberals and Progressives.

Although the Constitution, the greatest memorialization of mankind's ability to govern itself, is nominally known as 'the law of the land,' Leftists have no intention of honoring it as such.
Instead, they kill it with the prefix 'living.'




2. Until Franklin Roosevelt, America functioned via the Constitution, and the Founder's guidance. During Roosevelt's term, that changed. It's most clearly seen is comparison with the man who had the second greatest number of vetoes....Grover Cleveland. Cleveland refused to allow expenditures on endeavors not authorized under the enumerated powers....including charity.

a. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
James Madison, Federalist #45, January 26, 1788

If only.



The control exercised by Liberals has altered 'justice' to some rationalization that they call 'social justice.'

3. The meaning of the United States Constitution is “fixed by the original meaning of its words,” according to the authors of a highly engaging new book titled, simply,The Constitution: An Introduction. [ by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen]....

a. ... music to the ears of originalists like Justice Antonin Scalia—underlies the book’s central theme: defending the Constitution’s text against those politicians and judges who “seek to rewrite [its] terms in the service of what are thought to be desirable policies.” [Good intentions above all!]

4. .... —the book does an excellent job of placing legal controversies in historical context.... critiquing the modern era of judicial activism. .... the Warren Court (1953–69) produced “careless” decisions, because the justices were focused on achieving policy goals rather than upholding the law.
[Upholding the law: secondary for Liberals]

a. The nadir of this results-oriented jurisprudence was, ... the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v.Wade, which invented a federal right to abortion on demand. The authors assail Roe as “the most extreme example of judicial activism in the twentieth century.”

b. They even compare the decision—unfavorably—toDred Scott, the notorious pro-slavery decision that helped provoke the Civil War. “Not evenDred Scott,” they argue, “so completely seemed to disregard the text asRoedid.”
Against Judicial Activism by Adam Freedman City Journal June 16 2015



Who could argue that everything the authors claim is less than true an accurate?

I could argue with the conclusions you've jumped to a great deal.

You can't just cherry pick every procedural change within the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches since 1780, that you don't like...and characterize them as "breaking" the constitution. Especially when the only ones you accuse of that are lefties.

I don't hear enough from you about procedural changes that righties implemented during those administrations....and there were just as many as when the righties were in power.

The point is simple and undeniable.
Liberal judges make decisions 100% contrary to the actual language of the Constitution.

It's hardly simple, and quite deniable.

Conservative judges have made just as many decisions 100% contrary to the actual language of the Constitution, as Liberal justices, including Scalia

I notice that, unlike myself, you haven't provided examples of your contention.
Now....why would that be?

Alrighty...since lefties see no sense in creating misleading impressions for you to cut and paste, I'll have to find some stuff I have from a few years ago, on another site.

Hope the thread ain't over by then. I work for a living, and only have time on breaks to post and research,

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. "... “substantive due process”—the legal doctrine at the heart of activist decisions like Roe v.Wade—is the central villain. The authors assert, for example, that substantive due process was invented by Chief Justice Roger Taney inDred Scott,...

...[In] the years after the Civil War, the book faithfully describes the rise of substantive due process culminating in Lochner v.New York(1905), in which the Supreme Court struck down state business regulations, ostensibly for violating the “liberty” protected by the due process clause, but more likely because the justices simply thought the regulations unwise.

The Paulsens, however, don’t merely criticize the so-called Lochner Era of cases; they label the entire period of 1876 to 1936 as one of constitutional “betrayal.”.... In Hammer v.Dagenhart(1917), for example, the Court correctly struck down the federal Child Labor Act as beyond Congress’s enumerated powers.


[But the] authors are left trying to shoehorn the Court’s New Deal decisions into a tale of constitutional “restoration.” Alas, this was the era in which the Court tore down the Constitution’s express limitations on federal power in order to clear the way for FDR’s massive increase in federal power.


The most extreme New Deal decision, Wickard v.Filburn(1942)—which upheld the power of the federal government to dictate how much wheat a farmer could grow for his own use—is depicted as “restoring the broad interpretation of national legislative power” asserted by Chief Justice John Marshall in the early years of the Republic. But that’s an odd kind of restoration—rather than restoring the Constitution’s text, the Court was restoring the (already-overbroad) interpretations that Marshall had asserted and that later courts had rejected.

In reality, the Court in Wickard did exactly what the Paulsens argue against: it rewrote the Constitution to further its desired policy goals."
Against Judicial Activism by Adam Freedman City Journal June 16 2015




And this is the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal Supreme Court:
"...New Deal decisions ... tore down the Constitution’s express limitations on federal power in order to clear the way for FDR’s massive increase in federal power. "

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Just as the adage goes, "for Liberals, feeling often passes for knowing," so, too, do good intentions surpass results or methodology.....in any and every endeavor.

This view explains why slavery and oppression by communism, socialism, and even fascism (if instituted by Liberals/Progressives), are met with a shrug by Liberals and Progressives.

Although the Constitution, the greatest memorialization of mankind's ability to govern itself, is nominally known as 'the law of the land,' Leftists have no intention of honoring it as such.
Instead, they kill it with the prefix 'living.'




2. Until Franklin Roosevelt, America functioned via the Constitution, and the Founder's guidance. During Roosevelt's term, that changed. It's most clearly seen is comparison with the man who had the second greatest number of vetoes....Grover Cleveland. Cleveland refused to allow expenditures on endeavors not authorized under the enumerated powers....including charity.

a. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
James Madison, Federalist #45, January 26, 1788

If only.



The control exercised by Liberals has altered 'justice' to some rationalization that they call 'social justice.'

3. The meaning of the United States Constitution is “fixed by the original meaning of its words,” according to the authors of a highly engaging new book titled, simply,The Constitution: An Introduction. [ by Michael Stokes Paulsen and Luke Paulsen]....

a. ... music to the ears of originalists like Justice Antonin Scalia—underlies the book’s central theme: defending the Constitution’s text against those politicians and judges who “seek to rewrite [its] terms in the service of what are thought to be desirable policies.” [Good intentions above all!]

4. .... —the book does an excellent job of placing legal controversies in historical context.... critiquing the modern era of judicial activism. .... the Warren Court (1953–69) produced “careless” decisions, because the justices were focused on achieving policy goals rather than upholding the law.
[Upholding the law: secondary for Liberals]

a. The nadir of this results-oriented jurisprudence was, ... the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v.Wade, which invented a federal right to abortion on demand. The authors assail Roe as “the most extreme example of judicial activism in the twentieth century.”

b. They even compare the decision—unfavorably—toDred Scott, the notorious pro-slavery decision that helped provoke the Civil War. “Not evenDred Scott,” they argue, “so completely seemed to disregard the text asRoedid.”
Against Judicial Activism by Adam Freedman City Journal June 16 2015



Who could argue that everything the authors claim is less than true an accurate?

I could argue with the conclusions you've jumped to a great deal.

You can't just cherry pick every procedural change within the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches since 1780, that you don't like...and characterize them as "breaking" the constitution. Especially when the only ones you accuse of that are lefties.

I don't hear enough from you about procedural changes that righties implemented during those administrations....and there were just as many as when the righties were in power.

The point is simple and undeniable.
Liberal judges make decisions 100% contrary to the actual language of the Constitution.

It's hardly simple, and quite deniable.

Conservative judges have made just as many decisions 100% contrary to the actual language of the Constitution, as Liberal justices, including Scalia

I notice that, unlike myself, you haven't provided examples of your contention.
Now....why would that be?

Alrighty...since lefties see no sense in creating misleading impressions for you to cut and paste, I'll have to find some stuff I have from a few years ago, on another site.

Hope the thread ain't over by then. I work for a living, and only have time on breaks to post and research,

And this is the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal Supreme Court:
"...New Deal decisions ... tore down the Constitution’s express limitations on federal power in order to clear the way for FDR’s massive increase in federal power. "
See post #35

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

"the Founder's dream of a nation of and for free people."

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?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"the Founder's dream of a nation of and for free people."

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.

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

"the Founder's dream of a nation of and for free people."

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.

Now there is a passive agressive parting jab, if ever there were one.

I'm curious....are you against consitutional amendments?