The Constitutional Myths of the right

[ChristopherABrown']

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

What an Effort!

A worthy one too. I see the intent as positive.

A couple of things however.

1. The correct definition of the root meaning of the word “idiot” is not published and implications of true meanings not understood.

2. Written history is heavily censored and revised making the natural law (DNA) aspects as well as origins fairly well unknown, and not effectively denied.

Needless to say, consideration of the 9th Amendment shows that the people, at any given time can define rights retained but not enumerated.

How that is done is not taught in schools. Lincoln was trying to use a version of it to stop the civil war, but newspapers would not publish his speeches in big cities.

Firstly it is only done through formal, lawful majorities in states. Then a supermajority of states at Article V.

Ummm, anyone ever consider preparation for Article V as a retained right?

Why would the constitution not retain that right to see people using it to control tyranny, adapt, evolve?

 

[presonorek]

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

The constitution itself tells us how to re-write it.

 

[westwall]

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

The constitution itself tells us how to re-write it.

Indeed it does. And it is extremely difficult to do. Intentionally so.

 

[ChristopherABrown']

The Framers' main plan for preventing overreach by the federal government lay not in coded restrictions on Congress's powers but in the Constitution's political structure. This is what George Washington meant when he expressed hope that "a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded & closely watched, to prevent incroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability & consequence, to which we had a fair claim, & the brightest prospect of attaining."

Well guarded means the people are appraised at each step of the way of what amendments are proposed by delegates and have opportunity to correct any error.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

????? Abortion is not in original Constitution so conservatives oppose using Constitution to justify abortion while Democrats say it is, in effect, in living, changing, even communist Consitution and thus does support abortion or even communism. Now do you understand?

 

[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

????? Abortion is not in original Constitution so conservatives oppose using Constitution to justify abortion while Democrats say it is, in effect, in living, changing, even communist Consitution and thus does support abortion or even communism. Now do you understand?

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

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Spinning Wheels "

* State Interests Versus Personal Religion *

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

A state is concerned with , and comprised of , citizens for who the constitution was devised .

To receive citizenship one must be born and therefore birth is a logical requirement for equal protection that includes a wright to life .

The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun , Roe V. Wade , in the statement , "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Spinning Wheels "

* State Interests Versus Personal Religion *

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

A state is concerned with , and comprised of , citizens for who the constitution was devised .

To receive citizenship one must be born and therefore birth is a logical requirement for equal protection that includes a wright to life .

The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun , Roe V. Wade , in the statement , "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .

What is a "wright" to life?

 

[emilynghiem]

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

????? Abortion is not in original Constitution so conservatives oppose using Constitution to justify abortion while Democrats say it is, in effect, in living, changing, even communist Consitution and thus does support abortion or even communism. Now do you understand?

Dear EdwardBaiamonte cc: IM2
1. Many right to life adherents interpret "right to life" (as in the 14th Amendment) as including unborn, while others go by the legally established standard of recognizing personhood starting at birth.

This is a difference in BELIEF and INTERPRETATION that as long as it is FAITH BASED cannot be "established NOR prohibited" by govt because of the First Amendment.

Basically you cannot disparage another Constitutional principle by pushing another one "too far" where it starts to violate other rights and protections.

Sure you can defend your own BELIEF in right to life, but not at the expense of someone else's equal right to believe otherwise. Otherwise, if you violate the First Amendment, you are violating the very Constitutional laws you are claiming to enforce, and the arguments become circular and self-defeating. We do not solve any problems this way, but just complicate them worse!

2. The OTHER Constitutional right being argued at stake in abortion legislation and enforcement is DUE PROCESS or "substantive due process" as was the issue in Roe V Wade that got abortion laws struck down because the govt couldn't pursue prosecution without the process itself violating the accused's rights BEFORE they were convicted of any wrongdoing.

This is the other side of Constitutional protections that has to be equally weighed and included:

NOT punishing or depriving a person of LIBERTY
BEFORE that person is convicted of a crime or violation.

So the key to resolving issues of
abortion laws and rights is similar to conflicts with gun laws and rights:
DUE PROCESS and not depriving people of liberty without first
proving they have committed an abuse, crime, violation or threat to others,
has to be EQUALLY protected or laws get challenged on technicalities,
similar to abortion laws that attempt to protect rights or beliefs,
but if they impose complications that violate OTHER Constitutional
rights and protections, those laws get struck down or thrown out for that reason.

We are supposed to uphold ALL the laws and rights,
not compromise or "disparage" one for another and fight politically
over which is more important. ALL the laws/rights should be respected,
so we need to write legislation that doesn't compromise one for another!
================
NOTE: after studying this issue and getting feedback from advocates for reform on different sides, I concluded the way to satisfy both prochoice and prolife is to eliminate abortion so that we do not have these arguments. And do it by "prochoice" methods without banning or introducing other legislation/regulations that are contested. Agree on the goal of preventing abortion 100% and then work on steps that achieve that goal which people AGREE to take, one step at a time. Let people fund their own solutions, and only implement through govt what people AGREE on. Keep the rest separate. If the goal is to prevent abortion, then steps can be taken that work effectively, that don't require arguing what to legalize or regulate or not.

Any legislation would have to be approved by both prolife and prochoice to be fully Constitutional, so good luck with that!

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Legalism From Craftsmen "

* In A Word *

What is a "wright" to life?

Legal positivism - Wikipedia

*Over And Again *

Pro Life Pro Gun Democrat

 

[peach174]

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

Not myths historical facts.
Taught in our schools from the beginning of our Nation, till the far left radicals came in in the 1960's
and reinterpreted it to fit their far left ideology.
They have never liked our Constitution, have continually attacked it for 50 years and for Pelosi to use it now is appalling.
They all use the Constitution when it fits their cause but never follow it.

Just a handful of congress actually adhere to it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Legalism From Craftsmen "

* In A Word *

What is a "wright" to life?

Legal positivism - Wikipedia

*Over And Again *

Pro Life Pro Gun Democrat

I was asking more about that word wright.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

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

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sure you can defend your own BELIEF in right to life, but not at the expense of someone else's equal right to believe otherwise.

Silly gibberish of course. Founders did not think about abortion at all, directly or indirectly, so Constitution does not address it. If you want Federal approval, an amendment to Constitution is clearly necessary. Do you understand??

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Correct Overview Against False Posturing "

* More Obvious *

Silly gibberish of course. Founders did not think about abortion at all, directly or indirectly, so Constitution does not address it. If you want Federal approval, an amendment to Constitution is clearly necessary. Do you understand??

The founders did not address citizenship and , at least for them , per son meant male and countable by census .

A state is concerned with citizens and birth is a requirement for citizenship and for equal protection .

A constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion is not required , as sure at the 9th amendment precedes the 10th .

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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?

if it is implied then anything can be implied and the Constitution serves no purpose and can even be communist

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"The founders did not address citizenship and , at least for them , per son meant male and countable by census .

yes and so amendments were necessary to change Constitution. 1+1=2

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"
A state is concerned with citizens and birth is a requirement for citizenship and for equal protection
.

birth is a requirement for everything so Constitution can govern everything according to your liberal logic??????????????????????????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion is not required , as sure at the 9th amendment precedes the 10th .

how can it not be required when the Constitution does not mention it?????????? Can the Feds govern everything that is not mentioned in Constitution?????????