The Constitutional Myths of the right

[whoisit]

Now when I think of deep and scholarly writing, The Atlantic comes immediately to mind....NOT!

View attachment 243118

Oddball, have you ever listened to this woman? She is a Constitutional layer.
if you get time to listen it is interesting video.
This one is about ' the living document '. Skip through it at least.
I know none of the libs will put any time into knowledge not on the plantations list though,although they need it most of all,LOL

At last start at 1:03 into video towards the end.

Yes....KrisAnne is the bomb, even though I no longer lend the Constitution any credence as an effective constraining document.

Well it was good while it lasted, and wasn't really pushing the constitution just doing some corrections of those here who brought it up.
I don't think it or anything else will stop the rapid decline going on now.

 

[ChristopherABrown']

Amendments....

Are really, really hard to get passed. As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.

And certainly way the hell smarter than you.

No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!

The only way I will be convinced that any of the supposed intelligence will help us is if one of you can tell me if free speech has a purpose, and if there is an ultimate purpose?

C'mon Einstein & Einstein, you can do it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Hilarity. Instead of a 'fixed' Constitution which Scalia can interpret how he pleases.

Dude, you know Scalia's dead, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

We need to follow the Constitution, instead of the contradictory judicial revisions made by activist judges, something Democrats are loath to do, and barely understand.

 

[westwall]

Amendments....

Are really, really hard to get passed. As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.

And certainly way the hell smarter than you.

No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!

The only way I will be convinced that any of the supposed intelligence will help us is if one of you can tell me if free speech has a purpose, and if there is an ultimate purpose?

C'mon Einstein & Einstein, you can do it.

Yes, free speech is important for one reason, when government can control what you say, you are then either very close to, or are actually living in, a police state. Wow, talk about raising a sock puppet from the dead, what did you do, forget your password?

 

[ChristopherABrown']

Amendments....

Are really, really hard to get passed. As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.

And certainly way the hell smarter than you.

No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!

The only way I will be convinced that any of the supposed intelligence will help us is if one of you can tell me if free speech has a purpose, and if there is an ultimate purpose?

C'mon Einstein & Einstein, you can do it.

Yes, free speech is important for one reason, when government can control what you say, you are then either very close to, or are actually living in, a police state. Wow, talk about raising a sock puppet from the dead, what did you do, forget your password?

Wow, an effort at accountability. Commendable! I did hope you would go on and on listing the purposes, explaining their importance.

Of course the purpose you cite is important, but it is not that simple. I've studied this for a long time and have exclusive sources that have info not recorded in writing. From those, I derive this.

The ultimate biological purpose of free speech is assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

Do you comprehend the basic level I'm coming from westwall? Can you make a guess at the ultimate legal purpose of free speech now that you have some context for the inquiry?

 

[ChristopherABrown']

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.

We need to follow the Constitution, instead of the contradictory judicial revisions made by activist judges, something Democrats are loath to do, and barely understand.

YES, but the people need to understand the framing documents as the framers intended, which is not easy, because critical information shared between the framers is gone. Their writing were plundered over time to impair the peoples understanding of the intent of the constitution.

For example, the concept of free speech was shared with them by First Nations leaders within a spiritual, philosophical doctrine.
The Six Nations, but more specifically the Seneca, who had fought a psychological battle with the agents of the English crown in the ranks of the powerful and influential who were also demanding a role in creating the framing documents, while secretly paying people who would accept their gold to oppose the framers efforts. This made intense competition for inclusion/exclusion of concept in the proposed documents. In that competition the entire doctrine was fragmented and the notion of free speech was separated from the rest of the concepts of the doctrine which were very powerful when used together.

The doctrine undoubtably was deemed too long and too philosophical to be included in the Declaration of Independence by the torys working to weaken the new nations founding precepts, so "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was broken off from the rest of the "Greater Meaning" for inclusion in the Declaration of Independence.

The complete concept of the greater meaning of free speech is as follows:

The "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" is or was, an actual, practiced philosophical doctrine by the Six Nations. The "meaning" is derived from an understanding that can come from the practice of free speech. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For example, the concept of free speech was shared with them by First Nations leaders...

However true this may be, freedom of expression is a long, firmly held tenet of British common law; while these Indian leaders may have discussed their concept of free speech with the people who created the constitution, its inclusion into same was not in any way dependent on said discussion.

See:
A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA. (Jefferson 1774)
A Summary View of the Rights of British America by Thomas Jefferson

 

[SandSquid]

Where, exactly, is affirmative action in the Constitution? Where does the Federal government get the right to start a compulsory retirement system, let alone a national health insurance program? When did the USSC get the right to define when a baby in the womb becomes a citizen? Where do federal district court judges get the right to countermand the President on immigraton policy?

The answer to all is...only in the minds of Leftist judges.

Hmmm, not a fan of history are you?

Blackmun (appointed by Nixon) wrote the confirming opinion in Roe v Wade. JFK's appointee wrote the dissenting opinion and 100% of the dissenters were Democrat appointed.

Roberts, a Bush appointee who was appointed to the AG's office under Reagan was the author of the majority opinion that ACA was in fact Constitutional. Same one who voted to give a majority to not allowing Trump to bar migrants from seeking asylum.

Eisenhower's nominee (Harlan) was the one who wrote the majority opinion to uphold social security. Brennan, the liberal wrote the dissenting.

Sandra Day a Reagan appointee wrote the majority opinion in Grutter v Bollinger upholding affirmative action.

All upheld by Republican appointees, most dissented by Democrats only.

But if you are curious where those judges get that right? Well in the US, we have a Constitution. This Constitution is what determines how to nominate and confirm judges and gives the Supreme Court the power to both fact and law in those cases. Some I guess prefer a different country under a different set of laws than the Constitution.

 

[ChristopherABrown']

For example, the concept of free speech was shared with them by First Nations leaders...

However true this may be, freedom of expression is a long, firmly held tenet of British common law; while these Indian leaders may have discussed their concept of free speech with the people who created the constitution, its inclusion into same was not in any way dependent on said discussion.

See:
A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA. (Jefferson 1774)
A Summary View of the Rights of British America by Thomas Jefferson

Yes, freedom of expression is of historical value in England, but I would like to see the exact law and how it reads.

In America, the inclusion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" shows that the specific Native philosophy was deemed the best and so was included. Accordingly, the first 70% needs to be put back in.

forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It would be logical that the Magna Carta would be the origins of English law protecting freedom of expression, but I cannot recall the specific clause if it is.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

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

oh theirs a lot of us who are under no illusions as to whats been going on for a long time..
its why we go berserker in our defense of the 2nd
oh you better Believe we're clingin.....word mofo G

 

[westwall]

Are really, really hard to get passed. As was the intention of the Founders who were way the hell smarter than you.

And certainly way the hell smarter than you.

No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!

The only way I will be convinced that any of the supposed intelligence will help us is if one of you can tell me if free speech has a purpose, and if there is an ultimate purpose?

C'mon Einstein & Einstein, you can do it.

Yes, free speech is important for one reason, when government can control what you say, you are then either very close to, or are actually living in, a police state. Wow, talk about raising a sock puppet from the dead, what did you do, forget your password?

Wow, an effort at accountability. Commendable! I did hope you would go on and on listing the purposes, explaining their importance.

Of course the purpose you cite is important, but it is not that simple. I've studied this for a long time and have exclusive sources that have info not recorded in writing. From those, I derive this.

The ultimate biological purpose of free speech is assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

Do you comprehend the basic level I'm coming from westwall? Can you make a guess at the ultimate legal purpose of free speech now that you have some context for the inquiry?

Considering you aren't fluent in English, i have no idea what your google translate spewed out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For example, the concept of free speech was shared with them by First Nations leaders...

However true this may be, freedom of expression is a long, firmly held tenet of British common law; while these Indian leaders may have discussed their concept of free speech with the people who created the constitution, its inclusion into same was not in any way dependent on said discussion.

See:
A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA. (Jefferson 1774)
A Summary View of the Rights of British America by Thomas Jefferson

Yes, freedom of expression is of historical value in England, but I would like to see the exact law and how it reads.
In America, the inclusion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" shows that the specific Native philosophy was deemed the best and so was included.

You can believe that clause was placed int the declaration of independence because of the native Americans, but to do so, you must delude yourself.

 

[ChristopherABrown']

And certainly way the hell smarter than you.

No doubt about that either, and I'm way the hell smarter than you!

The only way I will be convinced that any of the supposed intelligence will help us is if one of you can tell me if free speech has a purpose, and if there is an ultimate purpose?

C'mon Einstein & Einstein, you can do it.

Yes, free speech is important for one reason, when government can control what you say, you are then either very close to, or are actually living in, a police state. Wow, talk about raising a sock puppet from the dead, what did you do, forget your password?

Wow, an effort at accountability. Commendable! I did hope you would go on and on listing the purposes, explaining their importance.

Of course the purpose you cite is important, but it is not that simple. I've studied this for a long time and have exclusive sources that have info not recorded in writing. From those, I derive this.

The ultimate biological purpose of free speech is assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

Do you comprehend the basic level I'm coming from westwall? Can you make a guess at the ultimate legal purpose of free speech now that you have some context for the inquiry?

Considering you aren't fluent in English, i have no idea what your google translate spewed out.

BS does not communicate anything sensical.

My trying to illicit it under these conditions has exposed a lower intelligence than I had anticipated. Or, one unconstitutional.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

I believe this provided that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

I don't give much credibility to your source. What they want to do is apply their personal interpretation and say anything they don't like is a myth.

I'd rather go to the source... and the father of this country disagreed with your article so much that his last words to the nation in his official capacity as Commander in Chief go like this:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield." George Washington, Farewell Address 1795

Avalon Project - Washington's Farewell Address 1796

That is all we needed to debunk your double talking article.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I believe this provided that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.

Really? You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason? And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

I believe this provided that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.

Really? You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason? And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?

What idiocy! Here is the situation you have today:

Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court. The question reaches the United States Supreme Court. Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.

But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision. Now you are a criminal!!!

But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.

If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.

The United States Supreme Court is NOT the legislative department and you are NOT stuck with a law you don't like. You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench. It's not their job.

BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach. IF there is no new science that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade. If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Wishful Thinking Four Other Subliminal Suggestions "

* Demographic Proportion Bias *

Where, exactly, is affirmative action in the Constitution?

A theory for affirmative action is that for government to comply with a precedence to represent indifference towards its citizen populace based upon race , participation of government partners will reflect some proportion for racial incidence , while advantages are afforded to others as small disadvantaged businesses .

* Nature Versus Nurture Inn Ability Train Bound *

At the core for those issues is an extremely missed perception that " Equal Protection " within us 14th amendment is analogous with " Equal Endowment " - Equal Protection From Government Versus Equal Endowment From Government .

A significant issue to contest in the courts beginning with a federal government remanding states to fund migrant children of sojourners who are not subject to us jurisdiction for legal immigration .

The " subject to clause " equivocates with a " subject to contract law " , and " subject to contract law " includes privileges to not establish a contract until a later time when additional criteria are met such as authorized permission , whence such an individual would a subject of us jurisdiction .

The government has stipulated that illegal migrants are not entitled to social security for themselves ; noted , however , is that social subsistence is collected based upon caregiver income of illegal migrants , whether for anchor babies , or for lunch programs , etc . , as stipulated upon states .

* Dumb Old Basset Hound *

Where does the Federal government get the right to start a compulsory retirement system, let alone a national health insurance program?

A life insurance policy at the level of social security collections would be magnanimous for those receiving the disbursement .

* Logical Deduction *

When did the USSC get the right to define when a baby in the womb becomes a citizen?

The constitution states that one becomes a citizen of a state and of the united states at birth ; the only thing roe v wade did was to adjudicate that after viability , a standard of parturition ( natural live birth ) became relative and from thenceforth a state may proscribe abortion in the third trimester .

* Convincing Every One It Is Too Complicated To Be Of Concern *

Where do federal district court judges get the right to countermand the President on immigraton policy?

It would be nice to know where the us public stands on an entitlement of government to determine immigration policies , as the pathetic elected officials appears to be countermanding the us public at large to remain in office .

* Legal System On The Take Playing The Circuit *

The answer to all is...only in the minds of Leftist judges.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I believe this provided that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.

Really? You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason? And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?

What idiocy! Here is the situation you have today:

Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court. The question reaches the United States Supreme Court. Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.

But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision. Now you are a criminal!!!

Lo and behold!! Such things aren't retroactive, moron. THAT would be against the law. Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case. Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled. If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.

Moron.

But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.

If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.

The United States Supreme Court is NOT the legislative department and you are NOT stuck with a law you don't like. You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench. It's not their job.

That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about. The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases. And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law. Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.

BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach. IF there is no new science that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade. If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.

And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved." 1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time. Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.