Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
DGS49
The idea that the USSC should interpret laws and determine their "constitutionality" was not a NEW concept or legal construct. You should learn to read a broader range of history, than be spoon fed narrow selections that fit a preconceived narrative and conclusion
The idea that many of the founders would disagree with modern interpretations is plain nonsense as it is an impossibility to divine. As a matter of fact many of them thought we should not have to love by what they thought.
Stop claiming you 'respect' the Constitution and people who happen to disagree with your opinions somehow are disrespectful of the Constitution.
You my friend are the one making shit up
Consider the following: When Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, he dated the founding of the country at 1776 (87 years before 1863) - NOT 1789, the date when the Constitution was ratified. September, 1789 is when the Federal Government was founded, but the birth of the nation (as opposed to the Government) was 1776.
For anyone wanting to understand the Constitution, it must be considered alongside the principles articulated in the DoI. Most poignantly, the Second Amendment is a curious provision until you consider the words of the DoI, to wit, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government..." Clearly, the right to keep and bear arms flows out of the right of citizens to abolish a government that forgets its rightful purpose and authority.
The right of the USSC to interpret laws and to determine finally their "constitutionality" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but is a logical construct that has been accepted for a couple hundred years. But it was not until relatively recently that the Court had the temerity to begin reading nonsense into the interstices of the words themselves, and to create new "constitutional rights" that would have outraged the very people who crafted the words that the USSC cites.
The "freedom of speech" that was intended to prevent government from punishing people who criticized government and office holders, was used to void local censorship laws that had been around since the beginning of the nation.
Regulating "...commerce...among the several states..." became an umbrella that now permits the Federal government to force coal-fired power plants into premature obsolescence.
The right of the Federal Government to impose compulsory retirement and elderly health insurance programs was created out of thin air - in the process of "interpreting" the Constitution.
The expression, "settled law" is often used by Prog's to indicate that some legal and constitutional subjects are now beyond discussion and/or debate. But when the USSC makes up shit it can never be "settled law," and those of us who respect the Constitution as the founding document of a potentially great central government will continue, if you please, to hope that some future President will have the balls (or ovaries if you must) to appoint USSC justices who can READ and WRITE, and who are not so totally compromised as to buy into this mountain of "constitutional" bullshit which we are all suffering with at present.
The idea that the USSC should interpret laws and determine their "constitutionality" was not a NEW concept or legal construct. You should learn to read a broader range of history, than be spoon fed narrow selections that fit a preconceived narrative and conclusion
The idea that many of the founders would disagree with modern interpretations is plain nonsense as it is an impossibility to divine. As a matter of fact many of them thought we should not have to love by what they thought.
Stop claiming you 'respect' the Constitution and people who happen to disagree with your opinions somehow are disrespectful of the Constitution.
You my friend are the one making shit up