Breaking the Constitution

[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.

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

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

I favor the Constitution.

Why would I oppose it's provisions?

It is only Liberals/Progressives who eschew the amendment process....that's why they invented the bogus 'living Constitution.'

 

[Christophera]

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.

The act of 1871 ended the constitutional federal government, or the intent to be constitutional.

Aside from from the quality official who acts constitutional, the federal government, and increasingly states, are unconstitutional.

Yes, FD dealt the constitutionality a heavy blow, but President Wilson with the 1913 creation of the federal reserve act started the disservice to the constitution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

The act of 1871 ended the constitutional federal government, or the intent to be constitutional.

Aside from from the quality official who acts constitutional, the federal government, and increasingly states, are unconstitutional.

Yes, FD dealt the constitutionality a heavy blow, but President Wilson with the 1913 creation of the federal reserve act started the disservice to the constitution.

Actually, the Constitution has been picked at right from the beginning, as in 1803 when the Supreme Court made itself the final arbiter of all things constitutional, and therefore a greater-than-equal branch of government with the Marbury v. Madison decision.

 

[Christophera]

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.

The act of 1871 ended the constitutional federal government, or the intent to be constitutional.

Aside from from the quality official who acts constitutional, the federal government, and increasingly states, are unconstitutional.

Yes, FD dealt the constitutionality a heavy blow, but President Wilson with the 1913 creation of the federal reserve act started the disservice to the constitution.

Actually, the Constitution has been picked at right from the beginning, as in 1803 when the Supreme Court made itself the final arbiter of all things constitutional, and therefore a greater-than-equal branch of government with the Marbury v. Madison decision.

Yes, that's very true.

It actually starts with loyalists and Tory's amongst the group of framers in 1776.

My point about the PURPOSE of free speech demonstrates this social sabotage by creating distracting, contentious arguments on lessor points of relevance as distraction to the most important the saboteurs are trying to prevent inclusion of.

There was a profound philosophical doctrine understanding of natural law and free speech. It was completely removed from our written history by the same secret forces working to weaken the social agreement and it's functionality amongst the American people. If originated with the Seneca of the six nations Iroquois Confederacy who had great influence upon Franklin, Jefferson and Washington.

It was called the "Greater Meaning of Free Speech" and came from the practice of free speech tending to create unity. Free speech can create an understanding between people. From that understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit if happiness.

It was vital to keep that function out of the framing documents, so an intense competition for inclusion and exclusion of concepts was imposed by the covert and overt loyalists amongst the social group if framers.

It worked, resulting in the exclusion of the obvious PURPOSE of free speech, to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights.

 

[Abishai100]

Amazon Switchboard

When I watch episodes of the Batman (DC Comics) adapted American vigilantism-fantasy television series "Gotham" (Fox TV), I think about how populism catalyzes dialogue about jurisprudence paranoia.

Paranoia can be a good thing, since it promotes healthy intellectualism about governance frailties.

Maybe America is less of a nation than an environment --- an environment in which confluence (of cultures and races) defines the market (i.e., Chinatown, San Francisco).

Why shouldn't we raise questions such as "Does the Constitution reflect American schizophrenia?"

On "Gotham" (Fox TV), we find a young American detective named Jim Gordon dealing with the developing criminality in a fictional place called Gotham City, while the young prince Bruce Wayne hones his interests in crime-consciousness (hopefully becoming the future iconic Dark Knight).

Gotham City maybe represents a populism-turbulent 1970s New York City, a place where environment/mentality rather than statehood/institutionalism characterizes attitude.

You know, England's government boasted Scotland Yard, while America boasts only the Untouchables of the Prohibition Era, so it seems more 'tempting' to criticize the malleable American Constitution.

Why do we feel more 'sane' suggesting that America 'needs' more government (since America has to coordinate multi-culturalism with democracy)?

Only in America do we celebrate violence-constipation movies such as "Natural Born Killers" (1994). Only in America do we hype Charles Manson in the media. Only in America do we make people like Jerry Springer rich. Only in America do we deify Wall Street. Only in America do we commercialize Harvard University.

Is it any wonder that comic book heroes feel so American?




Gangs of New York (Film)

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why do we feel more 'sane' suggesting that America 'needs' more government (since America has to coordinate multi-culturalism with democracy)

America does not, and should drop all that multiculturalism crap immediately. It's just more divisive Leftist nonsense.

If you come here, be American. Otherwise stay the hell home with your culture.

One thing I've wondered: If English proficiency is a requirement of gaining citizenship, and therefore the right to vote, why are voting instructions given in Spanish as well as English at the polls?

 

[shadow355]

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?

Many years ago, I worked a transportation job. I was standing beside a building ( at a sand and gravel lot ) in the town north of where I currently work. I was minding my own business, enjoying tobacco - when I say a city cop place a huge trash bag of marijuana in the truck of his cruiser. That particular township......I had not a clue. THAT particular officer use to live just south of where I grew up...in a trailer...west of a pipeline company. One Sheriffs Deputy I knew, whom was in the reserves with me in the mid 90's ( we were in different military branches ) , told me in the year 1992 or so... he never goes to that town. He told me that when I got out of active duty military and he was doing security at the pipeline company.

There are good people, and there are bad people. BUT don't let people play the + and - role, and let them pretend they are the "Good Guys".


Shadow 355

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

Anyone with a fucking brain and an understanding of constitutional law and jurisprudence would argue that what you wrote is utter bullshit. Most constitutional lawyers; liberal, moderate and conservative would think you an idiot. The notion that only the founders had the wisdom to address where the power of government would begin and end is idiotic; that we can not advance to a better understanding of what liberty, due process and equal protection mean to us today is the height of stupidity and, frankly, is the opposite of what the founders wanted.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The notion that only the founders had the wisdom to address where the power of government would begin and end is idiotic

More wisdom than you, certainly.

that we can not advance to a better understanding of what liberty, due process and equal protection mean to us today is the height of stupidity and, frankly, is the opposite of what the founders wanted.

Considering that the Democrats mean to merely replace the slavery of black-to-white with the slavery of all to the State, such advancement is impossible so long as they have any significant influence. In terms of what the Founders wanted, the behavior and continual deterioration of the Democratic Party since the mid-20th Century into a tool of Socialist Internationale is a study in opposites where concerns American foundational thought.

 

[paddymurphy]

The notion that only the founders had the wisdom to address where the power of government would begin and end is idiotic

More wisdom than you, certainly.

that we can not advance to a better understanding of what liberty, due process and equal protection mean to us today is the height of stupidity and, frankly, is the opposite of what the founders wanted.

Considering that the Democrats mean to merely replace the slavery of black-to-white with the slavery of all to the State, such advancement is impossible so long as they have any significant influence. In terms of what the Founders wanted, the behavior and continual deterioration of the Democratic Party since the mid-20th Century into a tool of Socialist Internationale is a study in opposites where concerns American foundational thought.

Odd to have my wisdom questioned by someone as so obviously lacking in intellect as you. This nation rose to greatness in the 20th century, when the progress you falsely and stupidly call socialism, happened. I am amazed on a daily basis how utterly stupid so many of you extreme right wingers are. No wonder you never win elections, never are allowed to govern, never accomplish much of anything in life.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

The act of 1871 ended the constitutional federal government, or the intent to be constitutional.

Aside from from the quality official who acts constitutional, the federal government, and increasingly states, are unconstitutional.

Yes, FD dealt the constitutionality a heavy blow, but President Wilson with the 1913 creation of the federal reserve act started the disservice to the constitution.

Hardly when a progressive republican started the ball rolling, and his last name was Roosevelt...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Odd to have my wisdom questioned by someone as so obviously lacking in intellect as you.

It's good to have a laugh this early. Thanks!

 

[candycorn]

Had a great week this week. You?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Had a great week this week. You?

My week has been just dandy thank you, because none of this stuff affects me personally, and pendulums swing both ways.

 

[Dot Com]

Had a great week this week. You?

me as well. Fantastic week

 

[candycorn]

Had a great week this week. You?

My week has been just dandy thank you, because none of this stuff affects me personally, and pendulums swing both ways.

You sound as happy Mark Levin

 

[Dot Com]

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'

she is a VERIFIED rw tinfoiler

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Had a great week this week. You?

My week has been just dandy thank you, because none of this stuff affects me personally, and pendulums swing both ways.

You sound as happy Mark Levin

Happy as the proverbial clam.

Have you corrected your lie yet, or do you like the tag?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Breaking the Constitution"

Oh, brother.

 

[Dot Com]

"Breaking the Constitution"

Oh, brother.

PoliSpice is nothing if not a rw hyperbole queen