The Constitutional Myths of the right

[Porter Rockwell]

cons the right into doing their dirty work

For the 43rd time do you have example or just more of your BS?

Since I have not posted BS, only words you don't understand, you get the same answer. If you want someone to respond to you, your dumb ass needs to learn how to be respectful.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It's evil to feed the world, fight their wars and get our own killed, and provide humanitarian aid all over the place. Nah. Don't think so.

the liberal feels homophobia, slavery, indian genocide, sexism, imperialism, capitalism more define the country.

That is because liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[theHawk]

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

Herman Cain?
So many fallacies.

The Democrats are Marxists pigs that hate the constitution, but you’re here ranting about a strawman argument about conservatives and the constitution, as if it were something you cherish.

No one is buying your bullshit.

 

[MadChemist]

Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress

What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation

"The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.

Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.

Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."

If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.

As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."

In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)

Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)

As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic

Madison in Federalist #45 stated....

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government.

Continuing...

Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress

What really drives this idea today isn't legal theory; it's the political fear that the people of the United States will enact progressive legislation

"The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose -- to restrain the federal government," Rep. Ron Paul said in 2008.

Bless his heart. (For those of you who didn't grow up in the South, that expression in context means, "He means well, but sometimes I just want to slap him.") Dr. Paul is a likeable and honest person, but he knows as much about the Constitution as I do about obstetrics--the difference being that I don't try to instruct the nation on how to deliver babies.

Dr. Paul is far from alone in this bizarre delusion. If there's anything the far right regards as dogma, it's that the "intent" of the Constitution was to restrain, inhibit, intimidate, infantilize, disempower, disembowel, and generally smack Congress and federal bureaucrats around. "Does anyone seriously believe that when the Founders gathered in Philadelphia 220 years ago they were aspiring to control the buying decisions of individual consumers from Washington?" Sen. Tom Coburn asks. "They were arguing for the opposite and implored future Courts to slap down any law from Congress that expanded the Commerce Clause." Sen. Jim DeMint claims that "although the Constitution does give some defined powers to the federal government, it is overwhelmingly a document of limits, and those limits must be respected."

If this is true, it's the kind of truth that comes to us only from divine revelation--because it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution or the history of its framing. Historically, in fact, it's ludicrously anachronistic, like claiming that the telescope was invented in 1608 so that people could watch Apollo 13 land on the moon. There was no federal government to speak of in 1787. "Congress" was a feckless, ludicrous farce. The concern that brought delegates to Philadelphia was that, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was too weak. Many of the Framers were close to panic because the Confederation Congress was unable to levy taxes, pay the nation's debts, live up to its treaty obligations, regulate commerce, or restrain the greedy, predatory state governments. The Union seemed on the verge of splitting into tiny republics, which would quickly be recolonized by Britain, France, or Spain.

As early as 1780, Alexander Hamilton (one of the authors of The Federalist) wrote to James Duane that "[t]he fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it."

In April 1787, James Madison, second author of The Federalist, wrote to George Washington his aim for a new Constitution: "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." (Madison also wanted a rule that no state law could take effect until Congress explicitly approved it.)

Shortly before, Washington had written to John Jay, "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." Jay, third author of The Federalist, made clear to Washington his own view:"What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes;and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." (Note the last part: State executives would be appointed by the federal government.)

As for the Constitution's text, if it was "intended" to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I § 8, a Homeric catalog of Congressional power, is the longest and most detailed in the Constitution. It includes the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, which delegates to Congress the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Constitutional Myth #2: The 'Purpose' of the Constitution Is to Limit Congress - The Atlantic

It isn't clear what the argument is here.

And there might as well be a discussion about the General Welfare Clause.

Madison was very clear when he stated:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. (Federalist 45)

The necessary and proper clause as well as the General Welfare clause make it clear that congress can do what it needs to fullfill it's responsibilities as defined by the Constitution.

So, by defining those powers, they have very much created a limit on what the federal government can do.

The argument by Garrett Epps, if it is within these boundaries, is acceptable.

However, if he is arguing that the powers delegated are not few and defined, he would be wrong.

 

[Overtime Paycheck]

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."

Idealistically that sounds great but realistically that is impossible.

 

[Regent23]

The Constitution is a liberal document establishing a nation based somewhat on the Age of Reason or Age of Enlightenment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"

I agree that this is a myth.

That's why I don't care how authoritarian the justice's political views, as long as the justice respects the Constitution and the amendment process.

THERE IS NO LIVING CONSTITUTION. If it does not work today, it MUST be AMENDED, not manipulated.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Amendments....

Agreed. Don't let these bastards, any of them, get away with re-writing the Constitution. If an amendment is needed, it will happen. Otherwise, forget it.

Now, "shall not be infringed" should mean what?

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"

More accurately, The Right and our genius Founders believed in their written Constitution. Had our Founders gone to the American people and said, please ratify this Constitution; it is a living document which means anything you want it to mean, it would not have gotten one single vote!!

 

[MadChemist]

Myth #1: The Right Believes in a "Written Constitution," Everyone Else Believes in a "Living Constitution"

I agree that this is a myth.

That's why I don't care how authoritarian the justice's political views, as long as the justice respects the Constitution and the amendment process.

THERE IS NO LIVING CONSTITUTION. If it does not work today, it MUST be AMENDED, not manipulated.

.

O.K., so I am lost.

That is the myth you say is a myth, then you repeat it.....

I think we agree....but I am confused by your statement.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Agreed. Don't let these bastards, any of them, get away with re-writing the Constitution.

They are able to rewrite it simply by ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments. I think Thomas is the only one who takes Constitution seriously.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Constitution is a liberal document

You mean a very very conservative document that strictly limits the size and scope of government to the granted enumerated powers. This is why modern big government socialist liberals hate the Constitution and see it as a living or communist Constitution that can mean anything including the opposite of what the Founders intended.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution

What could be more embarrassing than your total liberal illiteracy??? The Enumerated Powers granted to the Federal Govt are obviously enumerated in the Constitution. And, any possible fantasy that the Federal govt can assume more powers than those granted is killed dead by the Bill of Rights.

Not one single state would have ratified the Constitution if the Founders had said, please ratify this although we have no idea how much power it grants to the Federal government and how much it takes away from the states and the people.

 

[MadChemist]

it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution

What could be more embarrassing than your total liberal illiteracy??? The Enumerated Powers granted to the Federal Govt are obviously enumerated in the Constitution. And, any possible fantasy that the Federal govt can assume more powers than those granted is killed dead by the Bill of Rights.

Not one single state would have ratified the Constitution if the Founders had said, please ratify this although we have no idea how much power it grants to the Federal government and how much it takes away from the states and the people.

Madison was very clear on this subject.

Stating in Federalist 45 that the powers of the federal government are few and defined.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Thanks. Nobody should take right wingers seriously about economics, the law, morals, or politics. Right wing fantasy is all they have. And, they are willing to insist they are Right, simply because they are on the right wing not because they are actually Right.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It is about free political speech. And to petition for redress of grievances. Our First Amendment is first not second, for a reason.

 

[danielpalos]

it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution

What could be more embarrassing than your total liberal illiteracy??? The Enumerated Powers granted to the Federal Govt are obviously enumerated in the Constitution. And, any possible fantasy that the Federal govt can assume more powers than those granted is killed dead by the Bill of Rights.

Not one single state would have ratified the Constitution if the Founders had said, please ratify this although we have no idea how much power it grants to the Federal government and how much it takes away from the states and the people.

It is the right wing who have no understanding of how our Constitutional form of Government is supposed to work. The proof is, any implied right wing fantasy will do for them. Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.

 

[hadit]

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

"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."

Ironic poster is ironic. You do realize that is EXACTLY what you are attempting to do, right? Thread after thread, post after post, comment after comment is based on the premise that you know what somebody else believes.

 

[danielpalos]

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??

It should be a private question of the subjective value of morals for each individual person, not law established for purely political purposes.

 

[hadit]

it sure doesn't appear in the text of the Constitution

What could be more embarrassing than your total liberal illiteracy??? The Enumerated Powers granted to the Federal Govt are obviously enumerated in the Constitution. And, any possible fantasy that the Federal govt can assume more powers than those granted is killed dead by the Bill of Rights.

Not one single state would have ratified the Constitution if the Founders had said, please ratify this although we have no idea how much power it grants to the Federal government and how much it takes away from the states and the people.

It is the right wing who have no understanding of how our Constitutional form of Government is supposed to work. The proof is, any implied right wing fantasy will do for them. Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.

And there you go again, right back into the failed mantra.