With all due respect, DGS49,
I have found that trying to talk logic with Liberals using the Constitution
is about like trying to reason with Atheists using the Bible.
It is rare to find one who is actually committed to follow the spirit of the laws
that they see as belonging to another group they are not part of.
The common ground or source of authority I've found most liberals using is political campaigns
to get elected leaders into office to push certain legislation by majority rule vote. They seem to understand
that. But very little of the Constitution really connects with them, again, like how Atheists are under natural laws instead of the sacred laws in the Bible;
the liberals I know who reject Conservatives, Christians and Constitutionalists are using some other route to establish and represent their policies.
That's fine, just like any other religion, but I do not feel this is fair, lawful or equally inclusive to impose either avenue onto opposing groups who establish their beliefs by another route.
I found out recently, what I thought was Democrats deriving "prochoice" defenses by citing either First Amendment religious freedom or due process, was really not invoked by Constitutional authority. The majority appear to be using the interpretation of their party, leaders and members like a RELIGION. They don't really respect Courts or Constitutional authority, but just what their party interprets from those sources.
It's more a Political Religion based on Party interpretation established through the media, similar to how the Pope decrees policy that doesn't derive from the Bible.
I don't see how else to address this but to go through Party leaders and address the Party.
Just like if you want to change Catholic policy, you don't depend on just the Bible or just pray through the spirit of Christ, but have to address the Catholic elders and their theology.
I'm willing to write up a complaint or petition to the Democrat Party to address
this issue of Political Religion and Ideology that is not derived directly from the Constitution.
I don't know where to begin to write it, but maybe focusing on the right to health care, ACA mandates, and also the issue over reparative therapy that brings up faith-based issues.
If we address CONCRETE examples, we can still teach the overall pattern going on, where Democrats and Liberals who do not believe in or connect with natural laws through God or Christ (on which the Constitution is supposed to be based) are somehow bypassing this and just using their connection with likeminded Political leaders and believers of the same things (such as health care being a fundamental right through government and not by free choice or free market charity or education/business) in order to establish their policy, similar to how religions establish interpretation of the Bible for their own denominations.
The USSC has no power to modify the Constitution, or to add new provisions, or to "void" provisions of the Constitution.
When they deign to address a case, their role is to look at the law in question, look at the case in question, and determine whether, in that case, the law has been applied according to the mandates of the Constitution.
It should be obvious that my POINT is that the Political Left does not recognize the constraints of Article I, Section 8, as fortified by the Tenth Amendment.
Anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of Constitutional Law knows that, prior to FDR, the USSC actually recognized the constraints of the Tenth Amendment, and FDR's nefarious strategy to nullify the Tenth Amendment was to pack the court with similarly-thinking political hacks, who would use their intellectual "gifts" to write opinions rendering the Tenth Amendment moot. They would write opinions claiming that the Feds had the power to create a compulsory retirement system, to create work programs (CCC, WPA), and many other things that prior Courts would have found grossly "unconstitutional."
Consider that in 1950, less than 10% of Federal outlays went to PEOPLE, and now federal handouts - all of which violate the Constitution - make up about half of outlays.
Did the Constitution change to permit these food, housing, education, and income subsidies by the Federal government? No it didn't. What changed was the willingness of the Court to allow Congress to flout the Constitution in order to move toward the socialist "Nanny State," which Leftist politicians and justices desired (and still desire).
Consider the following hypothetical: How would the State Legislatures react if a Constitutional Amendment were initiated to repeal the Tenth Amendment? (You all know, I assume, that the State Legislatures would have to ratify the amendment).
Repeal would basically mean that Congress could do anything it wanted. Which is what Liberals today believe is the case already.
Would the state legislatures ratify the amendment? Why or why not?
