The Case For Moderation

[PoliticalChic]

5. There are two versions of jurisprudence today, originalism, and judicial activism.

The Constitution is the only document that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, hence the title ‘law of the land.’

Originalists believe that it is to be understood by the meaning of the text as written, when it was written.

As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’



For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’



6.The other side:

Charles Evans Hughes, who would later become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, famously said about a century ago that the Constitution is “what the judges say it is.” Since judges cannot change the words of the Constitution, Hughes was really saying what today seems to be widely accepted, that the Constitution means whatever judges say it means. But if Hughes was right, then judges in effect become the Constitution and judicial review means that statutes must yield to judges. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/187384/what-constitution/orrin-hatch#

Which view produces explosive change at any time?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. The Leftists don’t subscribe to originalism. Rather they want to ignore what was written and “interpret” the Constitution anew…..the idea known as “a living Constitution.”

Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”



Brennan falls back on the idea that moderns should not be bound by “a world that is dead and gone.” Of course, there are lots of laws on the books today by folks dead and gone: Social Security laws, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Sixteenth Amendment imposing an income tax, and all nine justices who participated in Roe v. Wade are now dead. Would Brennan suggest ignoring any of these….or does he simply wish to allow judges to pick and choose which laws written by dead people we are to be bound by? No, this ‘transformative’ view would simply allow justices to erase parts of the Constitution.”

Calabresi, “Originalism”

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “The “living constitution” approach has also been used to erode our Second Amendment rights, and to grow an increasingly oppressive regulatory state, and to generally undermine other liberties the Founders had naturally envisioned and expected.

….those on the Left are gnashing their teeth because their ability to get the courts to give the power of law to what they could never pass legislatively has been foiled by five conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — and one squishy chief justice, John Roberts, who sadly seems more interested in being liked by the Left than in being right on the law.

Originalism is indeed in its ascendancy on the Supreme Court,…. no constitutional right to abortion, a broad constitutional right to have concealed weapons in public, a constitutional requirement for government to subsidize religious schools, and a constitutional right for high school coaches to lead prayers at school football games.”
Why the Left Hates Constitutional Originalism



The ‘moderation’ referred to in the title is ‘change.’ It is slowed by a textual reading of the Constitution.
Imagine what the Democrats would do it they could rip up the document and write their own. They’ve already show they would put citizens in concentration camps.

 

[alang1216]

Moderation, ratiocination, careful thoughtfulness and analysis of the future......found in one of the two parties.


1.Just one example of the brilliance of our Founders is that they aimed to make certain that change didn’t occur too quickly….as in the words of the song:

“Slow down, ya’ move too fast….”

.




2. A defining difference between conservatives and Liberals/Democrats is how each views change.

Liberals/Democrats are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

From Eric Hoffer in The True Believer, “…people with a sense of fulfillment think it is a good world land would like to conserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change.”



3. Moderation is embedded in the law of the land, our Constitution.

“Our Founding Fathers—in the eighteenth century—had a very different view of democracy from that of their contemporary revolutionary colleagues in France. There, Enlightenment philosophers felt that it was the duty of government to heed what they called the “general will.” So they developed a political system in which there were no checks and balances, but the popular will ruled the day. Every day.

By contrast, our Founders were skeptical of the “general will,” and worried that it could be too easily inflamed by passion and prejudice. So they developed a constitutional system designed to enable—but also to thwart—the popular will by making it wait until after passions had cooled to be enacted.

This suspicion of the general will led to their decision to stagger the terms of presidents, senators, and congressman so that one election could not completely change the government. While congressmen—the core of representative democracy—were elected every two years, senators were elected every six, and presidents every four.” Dick Morris, “The Return”




The Constitution is the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by. This doesn’t apply to Democrat voters, as that party is not an American party, but a European creation.

Note how often the Democrats have ignored the powers that the Founders gave to the central government, and, most recently, in the 2020 election, in order to steal the election.

While the GOP wants to go backwards in time. Overturning Roe v Wade is a good example. A compromise that has been popular with a major of Americans has been taken away.

The GOP has this absurd notion that their idealized past was better than the present. It might have been for a minority (affluent, White, Christian males) but not for most Americans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While the GOP wants to go backwards in time. Overturning Roe v Wade is a good example. A compromise that has been popular with a major of Americans has been taken away.

The GOP has this absurd notion that their idealized past was better than the present. It might have been for a minority (affluent, White, Christian males) but not for most Americans.

"Overturning Roe v Wade is a good example."

Once again you prove that you will never be anything but lying scum.

It was not overturned.

 

[alang1216]

"Overturning Roe v Wade is a good example."

Once again you prove that you will never be anything but lying scum.

It was not overturned.

It is still a Constitutional right? What a relief, thanks for the update.

 

[meaner gene]

Moderation, ratiocination, careful thoughtfulness and analysis of the future......found in one of the two parties.


1.Just one example of the brilliance of our Founders is that they aimed to make certain that change didn’t occur too quickly….as in the words of the song:

“Slow down, ya’ move too fast….”

Yet the Trumpian supreme court, went balls to the wall to overturn Roe v Wade, not by chipping down 26 weeks to 20 or even 15. Instead they went to zero instantaneously.

 

[hadit]

Yet the Trumpian supreme court, went balls to the wall to overturn Roe v Wade, not by chipping down 26 weeks to 20 or even 15. Instead they went to zero instantaneously.

Oh, stop the hysterics. All they did was toss the matter back to the states where people can vote on it. They prohibited or outlawed nothing.

 

[hadit]

While the GOP wants to go backwards in time. Overturning Roe v Wade is a good example. A compromise that has been popular with a major of Americans has been taken away.

The GOP has this absurd notion that their idealized past was better than the present. It might have been for a minority (affluent, White, Christian males) but not for most Americans.

There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything, and Roe was the wrong way. Note that in the 50 years since Roe was decided, the democrats never even attempted to write and pass legislation encoding it into law, which is what they should have done if they really wanted it to last.

 

[Riff Raff]

5. There are two versions of jurisprudence today, originalism, and judicial activism.

The Constitution is the only document that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, hence the title ‘law of the land.’

Originalists believe that it is to be understood by the meaning of the text as written, when it was written.

As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’



For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’



6.The other side:

Charles Evans Hughes, who would later become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, famously said about a century ago that the Constitution is “what the judges say it is.” Since judges cannot change the words of the Constitution, Hughes was really saying what today seems to be widely accepted, that the Constitution means whatever judges say it means. But if Hughes was right, then judges in effect become the Constitution and judicial review means that statutes must yield to judges. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/187384/what-constitution/orrin-hatch#

Which view produces explosive change at any time?

A little of this and a little of that. The Constitution remains the guide book but present-day judges must interpret those rules when applying them to current situations.

Moderation in all things.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A little of this and a little of that. The Constitution remains the guide book but present-day judges must interpret those rules when applying them to current situations.

Moderation in all things.

The Constitution is written in English.
No "interpretation" is necessary.

You should read it some time.


It is the law of the land.

A little of this and a little of that. The Constitution remains the guide book but present-day judges must interpret those rules when applying them to current situations.

Moderation in all things.

7. The Leftists don’t subscribe to originalism. Rather they want to ignore what was written and “interpret” the Constitution anew…..the idea known as “a living Constitution.”

Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”



Brennan falls back on the idea that moderns should not be bound by “a world that is dead and gone.” Of course, there are lots of laws on the books today by folks dead and gone: Social Security laws, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Sixteenth Amendment imposing an income tax, and all nine justices who participated in Roe v. Wade are now dead. Would Brennan suggest ignoring any of these….or does he simply wish to allow judges to pick and choose which laws written by dead people we are to be bound by? No, this ‘transformative’ view would simply allow justices to erase parts of the Constitution.”

Calabresi, “Originalism”

 

[alang1216]

There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything, and Roe was the wrong way. Note that in the 50 years since Roe was decided, the democrats never even attempted to write and pass legislation encoding it into law, which is what they should have done if they really wanted it to last.

So you think they should have eliminated the filibuster to pass it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you think they should have eliminated the filibuster to pass it?

No, lying scum......it had to be an amendment to be constitutional.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So, super high tax rates really didn't have much to do with making America a wonderful place to live in the years after the war. Then why the incessant wailing that we need to take the majority of what a person earns away from them? Even serfs in the Middle Ages didn't have to pay those kinds of rates.

And yeah, I like the idea of lowering tax rates by more than 20 points.

Dynasty Cannot Be Destiny. Turn Dynasty Into Dust.

Limiting inheritance to $100,000 per heir will make all other taxes unnecessary. Abolish large concentrations of that unearned wealth and it will be easy to get the Income-tax Amendment repealed. Americans are so brainwashed by the sponges off Daddy's Money that they'd rather tax the living than the dead.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Constitution is written in English.
No "interpretation" is necessary.

You should read it some time.


It is the law of the land.



7. The Leftists don’t subscribe to originalism. Rather they want to ignore what was written and “interpret” the Constitution anew…..the idea known as “a living Constitution.”

Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”



Brennan falls back on the idea that moderns should not be bound by “a world that is dead and gone.” Of course, there are lots of laws on the books today by folks dead and gone: Social Security laws, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Sixteenth Amendment imposing an income tax, and all nine justices who participated in Roe v. Wade are now dead. Would Brennan suggest ignoring any of these….or does he simply wish to allow judges to pick and choose which laws written by dead people we are to be bound by? No, this ‘transformative’ view would simply allow justices to erase parts of the Constitution.”

Calabresi, “Originalism”

View attachment 696474

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto Establishing Traditional Elitist Tyranny

The Constitution enables its own distortions. This lie about the fickle public is exactly what happens instead when all political decisions are left up to the politicians and judges.

 

[MarathonMike]

A Liberal, is a Liberal, is a Liberal

They look at challenges and seek ways to address them. Been that way throughout history

Total bullshit and you know it. Liberals of today are anything but "Liberal".

 

[rightwinger]

Total bullshit and you know it. Liberals of today are anything but "Liberal".

Liberal?

Like supporting healthcare, education, equal rights, the environment?

 

[alang1216]

No, lying scum......it had to be an amendment to be constitutional.

You should note that hadit wrote:

There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything, and Roe was the wrong way. Note that in the 50 years since Roe was decided, the democrats never even attempted to write and pass legislation encoding it into law, which is what they should have done if they really wanted it to last.

hadit was correct, it didn't have to be in the Constitution, a Federal law granting the right to abortion would be perfectly fine. Just ask Lindsey Graham, he is trying to do the exact same thing and having no better luck among the GOP than the Dems would have.

 

[PoliticalChic]

An Anti-Democratic Manifesto Establishing Traditional Elitist Tyranny

The Constitution enables its own distortions. This lie about the fickle public is exactly what happens instead when all political decisions are left up to the politicians and judges.

But it doesn't leave what happens up to politicians and judges.

Democrats do.

 

[rightwinger]

But it doesn't leave what happens up to politicians and judges.

Democrats do.

You mean like Trump did with his self appointed Mara Lago Judge?