The Constitutional Myths of the right

[danielpalos]

So, you do not believe in the implied Right to Life pursuant to the Fifth Amendment?

why do you say that????????????

A poster claims there is no Right to Life in the Constitution. Is that an implied Right in the Fifth Amendment?

Natural born, is what our Constitution expresses.

 

[MadChemist]

The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.

Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'
Garrett Epps

Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."

This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."

First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.

Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"

In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."

A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."

The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.

The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.

Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic

Thanks. Nobody should take right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or politics. Right wing fantasy is all they have. And, they are willing to insist they are Right, simply because they are on the right wing not because they are actually Right.

Epps, in now way supports that argument in his Atlantic article. The article is condensed from a book he wrote on the same subject.

Now, as to the claim that nobody should take rightwingers seriously....just because they insist they are right (can only assume you mean they insist with no proof)....just because they are on the right wing....where is your proof of this claim.

Seems your statement is somewhat falling into the same trap.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution

What could be more embarrassing than your total liberal illiteracy??? The Enumerated Powers granted to the Federal Govt are obviously enumerated in the Constitution. And, any possible fantasy that the Federal govt can assume more powers than those granted is killed dead by the Bill of Rights.

Not one single state would have ratified the Constitution if the Founders had said, please ratify this although we have no idea how much power it grants to the Federal government and how much it takes away from the states and the people.

Madison was very clear on this subject.

Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined.

Yes so this makes liberals and socialists like Biden/Harris illegal or unconstitutional. How can they be allowed to run for office?

 

[anynameyouwish]

A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.

and people LIVING today have EVERY right to determine what morals or laws they accept.

people living today are NOT BOUND BY the DICTATES of people who died 200 years ago

our forefathers were NOT tyrants who DEMANDED that EVERY GENERATION MUST ABIDE by THEIR DICTATES!

I will NOT be forced to bow to any god or rules that were made hundreds of years ago but NO LONGER APPLY!

 

[westwall]

A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.

and people LIVING today have EVERY right to determine what morals or laws they accept.

people living today are NOT BOUND BY the DICTATES of people who died 200 years ago

our forefathers were NOT tyrants who DEMANDED that EVERY GENERATION MUST ABIDE by THEIR DICTATES!

I will NOT be forced to bow to any god or rules that were made hundreds of years ago but NO LONGER APPLY!

No, they don't. The FOUNDERS set up a system for change. That is why this country is still not a socialist shithole.

 

[MadChemist]

A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.

and people LIVING today have EVERY right to determine what morals or laws they accept.

people living today are NOT BOUND BY the DICTATES of people who died 200 years ago

our forefathers were NOT tyrants who DEMANDED that EVERY GENERATION MUST ABIDE by THEIR DICTATES!

I will NOT be forced to bow to any god or rules that were made hundreds of years ago but NO LONGER APPLY!

No, they don't. The FOUNDERS set up a system for change. That is why this country is still not a socialist shithole.

While we certainly have not behaved accordingly, the constitution was sold as a document that set up a federal government whose purpose was to preserve and protect the union. It was also to present the union as a single entity to those outside our borders.

What was to happen within the union was to primarily be up to the individual states with minimal interference from the federal government.

 

[danielpalos]

The lunacy of the right starts with their errant understanding of the constitution.

Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic'
Garrett Epps

Politifact Georgia reports that pizza magnate Herman Cain told the audience at an Atlanta rally to read the Constitution, explaining that "for the benefit for those that are not going to read it because they don't want us to go by the Constitution, there's a little section in there that talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... When you get to the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, don't stop right there, keep reading. 'Cause that's when it says that when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. We've got some altering and some abolishing to do."

This quote neatly illustrates two pathologies of 21st-century "constitutionalism."

First, many of these patriots love the Constitution too much to actually read it (in case you were wondering, the language Cain is quoting is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution). Second, they love the Constitution so much they want to "alter or abolish" it to make sure it matches the myth in their heads. Those myths are a problem. They get in the way of honest debate. Last week I proposed a parlor game in which we look at some of the more corrosive myths circulating about the Constitution, and I offered by own list. Readers have responded with some suggestions of their own, and I will answer some of their nominations as the summer wears on. For now, though, I want to start working my way through my own list of the Top 10 Myths about the Constitution. I look forward to thoughtful responses, as the game begins.

Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"

In a 2006 speech in Puerto Rico, Justice Antonin Scalia explained why conservatives are the only ones who actually believe in the Constitution. Progressives, he said, believe in "the argument of flexibility," which "goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something, and doesn't say other things."

A year later, George W. Bush told the Federalist Society, "Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a 'living constitution.' In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean."

The idea of a "living constitution" is useful because it lets right-wingers like Scalia pose as principled advocates and ridicule anyone who disagrees with his narrow ideas as an idiot. But if one side of a debate gets to define what the other side supposedly believes, it's no big trick to win the argument.

The argument is a classic bait-and-switch. It begins with the claim that the Constitution has a definite, fixed meaning. We must apply that meaning and only that meaning, or we are "changing" the Constitution. But then it turns out that the words themselves aren't clear. Then we learn that their meaning isn't what's written in the Constitution's text; it is actually somewhere else. The words on the page have to be interpreted, and they are to be interpreted in a secret way that conservatives "know" because they have looked it up in the Big History Book. If we do not accept their claims about what the words "really" mean, we are "changing" what is written on the page, trying to "amend" it on the sly.

Constitutional Myth #1: The Right Is 'Originalist,' Everyone Else Is 'Idiotic' - The Atlantic

Thanks. Nobody should take right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or politics. Right wing fantasy is all they have. And, they are willing to insist they are Right, simply because they are on the right wing not because they are actually Right.

Epps, in now way supports that argument in his Atlantic article. The article is condensed from a book he wrote on the same subject.

Now, as to the claim that nobody should take rightwingers seriously....just because they insist they are right (can only assume you mean they insist with no proof)....just because they are on the right wing....where is your proof of this claim.

Seems your statement is somewhat falling into the same trap.

You obviously have not been following the arguments I have been having with them. Ask them the same question you asked me. See what response you get. Nothing but fallacy, not any valid arguments.

 

[Gdjjr]

Left or right, up or down. Words mean things. The purpose of the constitution is laid out in the pre-amble-

The Bill of Rights are lines to not be crossed by the federal gov't.. There is but one caveat in them-


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, (caveat>but upon probable cause, < caveat) supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The Patriot Act, supported by BOTH sides eviscerated the 4th amendment.

An inert piece of paper cannot. Live. Period. There are rules for changing the constitution and I don't recall seeing an alleged, or supposed, voter mandate as one of them.

BOTH sides are equally guilty of usurping authority. BOTH sides subscribe to the Neocon policy of world wide hegemony. BOTH sides subscribe to borrow to spend. NEITHER side works to secure our Liberty. BOTH write laws to restrict Liberty, which is contrary to the explanation of the pre-amble- BOTH sides subscribe to Public Education and not a word is said, or implied, about a Dept of Education in the original document.

SMH- Public Education has failed big time.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.

and people LIVING today have EVERY right to determine what morals or laws they accept.

people living today are NOT BOUND BY the DICTATES of people who died 200 years ago

our forefathers were NOT tyrants who DEMANDED that EVERY GENERATION MUST ABIDE by THEIR DICTATES!

I will NOT be forced to bow to any god or rules that were made hundreds of years ago but NO LONGER APPLY!

well actually you have to pledge allegiance to the constitution to hold office in America. Our Constitution was written by Geniuses So if you have a better idea than our founding father geniuses why not tell us what it is? What are you so afraid of. Is your better idea socialism even though it’s just killed 120, million people.l? It is very very embarrassing indeed.

 

[MadChemist]

A "living" Constitution is an invitation to rewrite how they please.

and people LIVING today have EVERY right to determine what morals or laws they accept.

people living today are NOT BOUND BY the DICTATES of people who died 200 years ago

our forefathers were NOT tyrants who DEMANDED that EVERY GENERATION MUST ABIDE by THEIR DICTATES!

I will NOT be forced to bow to any god or rules that were made hundreds of years ago but NO LONGER APPLY!

What dictates did the founders give that you believe we are bound by ?

It isn't the "rules" they gave us. It is the processes and the division of powers they gave us that are so important.

 

[justinacolmena]

Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined

That is as it should be, of course.

But there is no excuse for the growth of state governments, and especially local and municipal governments, out of proportion, so far beyond the size and budget needed to regulate, govern and dictate every detail of every citizen's waking and sleeping life, working, eating, drinking, washing, and chores from cradle to grave.

 

[Gdjjr]

But there is no excuse for the growth of state governments,

There are lots of "excuses", but very few reasons. "The people" hold the control of the elected. They are elected after all. That there is a great deal of apathy is a multi-faceted abomination that begins at home and continues in the Public Education system- education/schools has become centers for conformity. Uniform mandates heads the list and dress codes is a close second. Home is a place to eat (sometimes) and sleep- a place to hang your hat.
The Sports emphasis epitomizes the win at all cost mentality vs what should be taught to achieve a proper education. There is nothing wrong with winning, BTW. But, in school the emphasis should be on reading, writing and arithmetic. Sports are, by nature, recreational. Extra curricular. Extra being key. Not an *a* or *the* focal point.
Brain exercise is more important- the body does what the brain tells it to do, good, bad and/or indifferent.
Apathy is born of contentment. Contentment is gained from acquisition of stuff- stuff can be replaced but quality of life is an on going commitment and never really fully achieved. It is a big part of the meaning that should be discussed in a proper education, the words of the Declaration of Independence- to start, Independence is not spelled co-dependent. Yet, co-dependent is where we are with the Nanny State (local to federal) our benefactor- simply due to the "abomination" of improper education, at home and the centers for conformity.

 

[justinacolmena]

That there is a great deal of apathy … Apathy is born of contentment.

The reason for the apathy is that people are hesitant to stick their necks out and get involved in "local" politics when City Hall is running a guillotine.

 

[Gdjjr]

The reason for the apathy is that people are hesitant to stick their necks out and get involved in "local" politics when City Hall is running a guillotine.

I'd call that scared- apathy comes from either contentment or not giving a flying fuck or a lot of both.

 

[MadChemist]

Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined

That is as it should be, of course.

But there is no excuse for the growth of state governments, and especially local and municipal governments, out of proportion, so far beyond the size and budget needed to regulate, govern and dictate every detail of every citizen's waking and sleeping life, working, eating, drinking, washing, and chores from cradle to grave.

In theory (and I emphasize that) the citizens of each state should be watching their individual stores.

I am concerned that with all the focus on federal politics...the rather unsexy nature of state/county/municiple politics (and I might rather unprofitable too).....people don't pay attention.

 

[justinacolmena]

the rather unsexy nature of state/county/municiple politics (and I might rather unprofitable too).....people don't pay attention.

The City Hall budget is too fat. There's a bipartisan Democrat/RINO ballot box, but there are no options short of revolution and bloodshed to control the size of local government or limit its exponential growth or progressive encroachment upon the private lives of law-abiding citizens.

 

[MadChemist]

the rather unsexy nature of state/county/municiple politics (and I might rather unprofitable too).....people don't pay attention.

The City Hall budget is too fat. There's a bipartisan Democrat/RINO ballot box, but there are no options short of revolution and bloodshed to control the size of local government or limit its exponential growth or progressive encroachment upon the private lives of law-abiding citizens.

I hope that isn't the case (that revolution and bloodshed are our only options).

I would ask if you can get information on city spending ?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined

That is as it should be, of course.

But there is no excuse for the growth of state governments, and especially local and municipal governments, out of proportion, so far beyond the size and budget needed to regulate, govern and dictate every detail of every citizen's waking and sleeping life, working, eating, drinking, washing, and chores from cradle to grave.

Well, sadly, you might say our Founders were tyrants who wanted a tiny Federal government so it would not interfere with their local tyrannies.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Amendments....

what does it take to get amendments passed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure

Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.

MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS

We need to follow the Constitution's case law, something Republicans are loath to do.

you'll say that until the supreme court has a 7-2 conservative bench
Because of judicial activism, the Constitution has been altered to fit the leftist's agenda