The Constitutional Myths of the right

[Porter Rockwell]

Yes, both parties have just been doign whatever they want for so long that the majority of Americans are now sheep.

MOST of our problems would be solved if we truly followed the COTUS

We need to follow the Constitution's case law, something Republicans are loath to do.

I believe this provided that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.

Really? You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason? And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?

What idiocy! Here is the situation you have today:

Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court. The question reaches the United States Supreme Court. Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.

But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision. Now you are a criminal!!!

Lo and behold!! Such things aren't retroactive, moron. THAT would be against the law. Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case. Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled. If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.

Moron.

But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.

If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.

The United States Supreme Court is NOT the legislative department and you are NOT stuck with a law you don't like. You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench. It's not their job.

That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about. The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases. And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law. Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.

BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach. IF there is no new science that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade. If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.

And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved." 1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time. Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.

Save your name calling. You're getting you ass whipped and all you can do is call me names? Fuck you.

Try telling the people who were manufacturing bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws. Did the government exclude those made before the Executive Order? No. So, it appears YOU would be the moron. The government disrespects the Constitution at every level. I've worked on cases that went to the United States Supreme Court. Have you?

Since the science has evolved, we can better understand what a life consists of. Yes, it was a shit decision, but I used it as an example, not as an opportunity for your arrogant ass to start a pissing contest over. So stick it. Stupid slut.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We need to follow the Constitution's case law, something Republicans are loath to do.

I believe this provided that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.

Really? You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason? And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?

What idiocy! Here is the situation you have today:

Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court. The question reaches the United States Supreme Court. Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.

But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision. Now you are a criminal!!!

Lo and behold!! Such things aren't retroactive, moron. THAT would be against the law. Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case. Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled. If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.

Moron.

But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.

If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.

The United States Supreme Court is NOT the legislative department and you are NOT stuck with a law you don't like. You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench. It's not their job.

That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about. The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases. And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law. Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.

BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach. IF there is no new science that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade. If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.

And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved." 1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time. Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.

Save your name calling. You're getting you ass whipped and all you can do is call me names? Fuck you.

Try telling the people who were manufacturing bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws. Did the government exclude those made before the Executive Order? No. So, it appears YOU would be the moron. The government disrespects the Constitution at every level. I've worked on cases that went to the United States Supreme Court. Have you?

Since the science has evolved, we can better understand what a life consists of. Yes, it was a shit decision, but I used it as an example, not as an opportunity for your arrogant ass to start a pissing contest over. So stick it. Stupid slut.

Save your "You called me names, you're a meanie!". You just got your ass shredded, and all you can do is focus on one phrase, ignore the rest of the post, and hope to deflect the discussion.

I don't have to tell the people who manufactured bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws, but I do apparently have to explain them to you. The concept of laws not being retroactive has nothing to do with the items manufactured, dimwit; it has to do with whether or not the PEOPLE doing the manufacturing can be punished by law for actions which were legal when they did them. Are there any bump stock manufacturers being prosecuted for illegally manufacturing bump stocks during the time before they were banned? No? Then your argument is invalid, and YOU continue to be the moron.

. . . And with your "Aha! I have claimed unverifiable personal experience on the Internet, so I WINNNN!!!" you have surrendered the debate and disqualified yourself as a serious poster.

You are dismissed, and I will now be talking to adults who can win their debates on the merits. Have a nice day on the bench, Junior.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I believe this provided that once the United States Supreme Court interprets the law, they cannot use their positions to RE-INTERPRET and reverse their own decisions.

Really? You believe that the Constitution prohibits the Supreme Court from correcting bad previous decisions, and requires us to live with those bad decisions in perpetuity for no apparent good reason? And you figure in all the many decades of the Supreme Court doing EXACTLY that, no one but you has ever noticed this hidden "you fuck up, you're stuck with it" clause?

What idiocy! Here is the situation you have today:

Statutes are written and people argue and fight in court. The question reaches the United States Supreme Court. Let's say that whatever you're doing is deemed legal.

But, lo and behold another administration comes in and a new Supreme Court rethinks that decision. Now you are a criminal!!!

Lo and behold!! Such things aren't retroactive, moron. THAT would be against the law. Once the Supreme Court issues a ruling in your favor, that's it for your case. Even if the Supreme Court issues a ruling in another case reversing that precedent, YOUR case is still settled. If the ruling had been against you, then you would have the right to have your case retried on the basis of the later ruling, but the 5th Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy means that no one but you can ask for your case to be retried.

Moron.

But, IF the new administration thinks they are right, they take their case to the LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES which includes the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. They can then rewrite the law, make changes and agree to them, whereupon the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (currently headed by Donald Trump) can sign the changes into law.

If, for any reason, that is constitutionally insufficient, you change the Constitution via an AMENDMENT.

The United States Supreme Court is NOT the legislative department and you are NOT stuck with a law you don't like. You simply have to go through the proper process and not allow un-elected bureaucrats legislate from the bench. It's not their job.

That's nice, but it's not what we're talking about. The Supreme Court can and does apply the law to specific cases, and those decisions do become precedent as to how that law will be applied to future cases. And the Supreme Court can and does reverse decisions by earlier courts as being bad applications of the law. Feel free to Google the list of Supreme Court reversals; it's a long one.

BTW, though I'm pro-life, I practice what I preach. IF there is no new science that alters the balance of the argument, I will go record opposing the United States Supreme Court from rehearing Roe v. Wade. If there's nothing new except the faces on the United States Supreme Court, we should be stuck with abortion unless we can get the Constitution amended as per George Washington's admonishment.

And here you've veered off into "I want to claim the mantle of science and reason, but I don't actually know any of the science involved." 1) We already have "new science" in regards to embryology and reproduction far beyond what we had when Roe was decided, and 2) Roe was a shit decision with a shit application of even the science available at the time. Oh, and 3) the Constitution doesn't need to be amended; it just needs to be followed as written, with the federal government not meddling in things the Constitution relegates to the states in the first place.

Save your name calling. You're getting you ass whipped and all you can do is call me names? Fuck you.

Try telling the people who were manufacturing bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws. Did the government exclude those made before the Executive Order? No. So, it appears YOU would be the moron. The government disrespects the Constitution at every level. I've worked on cases that went to the United States Supreme Court. Have you?

Since the science has evolved, we can better understand what a life consists of. Yes, it was a shit decision, but I used it as an example, not as an opportunity for your arrogant ass to start a pissing contest over. So stick it. Stupid slut.

Save your "You called me names, you're a meanie!". You just got your ass shredded, and all you can do is focus on one phrase, ignore the rest of the post, and hope to deflect the discussion.

I don't have to tell the people who manufactured bump stocks legally about ex post facto laws, but I do apparently have to explain them to you. The concept of laws not being retroactive has nothing to do with the items manufactured, dimwit; it has to do with whether or not the PEOPLE doing the manufacturing can be punished by law for actions which were legal when they did them. Are there any bump stock manufacturers being prosecuted for illegally manufacturing bump stocks during the time before they were banned? No? Then your argument is invalid, and YOU continue to be the moron.

. . . And with your "Aha! I have claimed unverifiable personal experience on the Internet, so I WINNNN!!!" you have surrendered the debate and disqualified yourself as a serious poster.

You are dismissed, and I will now be talking to adults who can win their debates on the merits. Have a nice day on the bench, Junior.

The purchasers who owned a legally manufactured product are criminals today if they still own it and the Constitution requires the government to give just compensation to the bump stock corporations.

You can keep calling me names; it just shows what a low class, filthy, lying, uneducated stupid bitch you really are. Makes you wonder if your mother had any children that lived... if so, your existence may make a good court-room argument for abortion.

 

[Hiryuu]

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

Or attempts to manipulate it in order to violate it.
For instance, the old argument about the "defense of the Free State", "regulated militia" and "right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed" provisions in the Second Amendment.

A State could pass a law that requires all citizens above the age of 18 to own an AR-15, ammunition, and be prepared to answer the call in defense of the Free State in order to regulate a militia. None of that would violate any provision of the Constitution, and it would satisfy all the provisions.

It's only when you attempt to manipulate one provision, in order to violate another, that a problem arises.

 

[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

Dear IM2
And EVEN in the process of "altering or abolishing" this still follows
the natural laws of democratic due process based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

One group cannot declare or ordain that things must be changed THEIR WAY
at the expense of how the other half of the nation believes in reforming and correcting problems of govt!

This is the fallacy and failure of liberals who believe THEY represent the "will of the people."
What about people who believe in reforming govt by FOLLOWING the process built in
to PROTECT the representation of the very people affected by changing govt?

When you change a contract, doesn't it make sense that the PARTIES to the contract
should AGREE what to amend and the process and terms for changing it?

This is where I do not understand why it never occurs to both sides of conflicts
that the CONSENT of the other side is necessary for laws and reforms to reflect
and represent the FULL public interest. How can you even think to represent
the public by leaving out and overruling the beliefs or objections of other citizens?

 

[IM2]

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

Dear IM2
And EVEN in the process of "altering or abolishing" this still follows
the natural laws of democratic due process based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

One group cannot declare or ordain that things must be changed THEIR WAY
at the expense of how the other half of the nation believes in reforming and correcting problems of govt!

This is the fallacy and failure of liberals who believe THEY represent the "will of the people."
What about people who believe in reforming govt by FOLLOWING the process built in
to PROTECT the representation of the very people affected by changing govt?

When you change a contract, doesn't it make sense that the PARTIES to the contract
should AGREE what to amend and the process and terms for changing it?

This is where I do not understand why it never occurs to both sides of conflicts
that the CONSENT of the other side is necessary for laws and reforms to reflect
and represent the FULL public interest. How can you even think to represent
the public by leaving out and overruling the beliefs or objections of other citizens?

Liberals don't believe anything you have said. And it would serve you best to take a real, hard long look at how this nation has operated and what specific group has changed and altered law to benefit their group at everyone elses expense. It is that group who today whines that junk you just posted in their attempt to gaslight people into allowing them to continue to change and alter law to their benefit.

 

[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

Dear IM2
And EVEN in the process of "altering or abolishing" this still follows
the natural laws of democratic due process based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

One group cannot declare or ordain that things must be changed THEIR WAY
at the expense of how the other half of the nation believes in reforming and correcting problems of govt!

This is the fallacy and failure of liberals who believe THEY represent the "will of the people."
What about people who believe in reforming govt by FOLLOWING the process built in
to PROTECT the representation of the very people affected by changing govt?

When you change a contract, doesn't it make sense that the PARTIES to the contract
should AGREE what to amend and the process and terms for changing it?

This is where I do not understand why it never occurs to both sides of conflicts
that the CONSENT of the other side is necessary for laws and reforms to reflect
and represent the FULL public interest. How can you even think to represent
the public by leaving out and overruling the beliefs or objections of other citizens?

Liberals don't believe anything you have said. And it would serve you best to take a real, hard long look at how this nation has operated and what specific group has changed and altered law to benefit their group at everyone elses expense. It is that group who today whines that junk you just posted in their attempt to gaslight people into allowing them to continue to change and alter law to their benefit.

Dear IM2
Liberals who don't believe or understand how the democratic process works
are still governed by natural laws that all people respond to because it's universal.

As many Christians have abused Christian church laws and authority,
as corporate interests have abused corporate loopholes in the laws and legal system,
as Party members have abused the Party system to impose policies without
the consent of others by bullying by exclusion or coercion.

I think by the time you track all the abuses, every system out there has been abused.
You could blame any number of groups under any number of "labels" who have
abused institutions to oppress individuals without the same collective influence and access to resources.

Overall I would say it is a "class war" - where people WITH knowledge of the laws
and access to resources exert advantages over people with less, and this DISPARITY has been exploited.

Not sure if you can blame more liberals than conservatives,
or more leftwing than rightwing.

All I can say from experience is
* Christians respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Christians using Christian laws
* Constitutionalists respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Constitutionalists using Constitutional laws
* Buddhists respond likewise to fellow Buddhists using Buddhist laws they both respect and agree to follow
etc.

So whichever person or group you see fit to blame for certain injustice or oppression, IM2
I support you in addressing that particular audience by invoking the very laws
they profess to follow by forming alliances of peers with that group
so it's neighbor helping neighbor to correct a problem.

if it's done in an "adversarial" way to project blame and reject or change the other person/group
that tends to get rejected and fail.

If correction is sought by ALLIES on the same team,
that tends to be more effective in compelling corrections and positive outcome.

I'm happy to help find and form teams of allies in such a process
of reform and corrections to end oppression and abuse.

The Center for the Healing of Racism is organizing a conference this
fall to address ending institutionalized racism, discrimination and oppression.
If you would like to be part of this outreach, I am happy to introduce you
to other educators and advocates working on solutions that empower people
just like you and me to change the system around us instead of
being caught in perpetual victimhood. As much as problems are blamed
on liberals on the far left or the opposite extremes on the far right,
I find this adversarial system of partisan competition of the
"party of the poor blaming the rich" vs. the
"party of the rich blaming the poor" merely continues the "class war" going on
instead of investing our resources and focus on equalizing knowledge
and access to laws and training people in self-government and equal ownership.

 

[IM2]

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

Dear IM2
And EVEN in the process of "altering or abolishing" this still follows
the natural laws of democratic due process based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

One group cannot declare or ordain that things must be changed THEIR WAY
at the expense of how the other half of the nation believes in reforming and correcting problems of govt!

This is the fallacy and failure of liberals who believe THEY represent the "will of the people."
What about people who believe in reforming govt by FOLLOWING the process built in
to PROTECT the representation of the very people affected by changing govt?

When you change a contract, doesn't it make sense that the PARTIES to the contract
should AGREE what to amend and the process and terms for changing it?

This is where I do not understand why it never occurs to both sides of conflicts
that the CONSENT of the other side is necessary for laws and reforms to reflect
and represent the FULL public interest. How can you even think to represent
the public by leaving out and overruling the beliefs or objections of other citizens?

Liberals don't believe anything you have said. And it would serve you best to take a real, hard long look at how this nation has operated and what specific group has changed and altered law to benefit their group at everyone elses expense. It is that group who today whines that junk you just posted in their attempt to gaslight people into allowing them to continue to change and alter law to their benefit.

Dear IM2
Liberals who don't believe or understand how the democratic process works
are still governed by natural laws that all people respond to because it's universal.

As many Christians have abused Christian church laws and authority,
as corporate interests have abused corporate loopholes in the laws and legal system,
as Party members have abused the Party system to impose policies without
the consent of others by bullying by exclusion or coercion.

I think by the time you track all the abuses, every system out there has been abused.
You could blame any number of groups under any number of "labels" who have
abused institutions to oppress individuals without the same collective influence and access to resources.

Overall I would say it is a "class war" - where people WITH knowledge of the laws
and access to resources exert advantages over people with less, and this DISPARITY has been exploited.

Not sure if you can blame more liberals than conservatives,
or more leftwing than rightwing.

All I can say from experience is
* Christians respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Christians using Christian laws
* Constitutionalists respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Constitutionalists using Constitutional laws
* Buddhists respond likewise to fellow Buddhists using Buddhist laws they both respect and agree to follow
etc.

So whichever person or group you see fit to blame for certain injustice or oppression, IM2
I support you in addressing that particular audience by invoking the very laws
they profess to follow by forming alliances of peers with that group
so it's neighbor helping neighbor to correct a problem.

if it's done in an "adversarial" way to project blame and reject or change the other person/group
that tends to get rejected and fail.

If correction is sought by ALLIES on the same team,
that tends to be more effective in compelling corrections and positive outcome.

I'm happy to help find and form teams of allies in such a process
of reform and corrections to end oppression and abuse.

The Center for the Healing of Racism is organizing a conference this
fall to address ending institutionalized racism, discrimination and oppression.
If you would like to be part of this outreach, I am happy to introduce you
to other educators and advocates working on solutions that empower people
just like you and me to change the system around us instead of
being caught in perpetual victimhood. As much as problems are blamed
on liberals on the far left or the opposite extremes on the far right,
I find this adversarial system of partisan competition of the
"party of the poor blaming the rich" vs. the
"party of the rich blaming the poor" merely continues the "class war" going on
instead of investing our resources and focus on equalizing knowledge
and access to laws and training people in self-government and equal ownership.

Your problem is that conservatives are the ones who don't understand the process and you are seeing how much they don't every day. Emily there has been one group who made the laws in this nation and used those laws to abuse others. In fact they still do. Until that group in total accepts their responsibility to do what is right, then you're just running in quicksand. The first thing YOU can do to heal is stop using terms created by racists to belittle people actually trying to heal this nation of racism. There is no such thing as perpetual victimhood. Not in the manner you and other conservatives use the word.

Conservatism is based on a false premise Emily. And Kings unfinished dream was for economic equality. That's what I am about. There can and will be no healing when those who are descendants of thieves refuse to return what they have stolen. There are laws greater than mans law. And the lords government supersedes any talk of self government. Spiritual laws have been broken here Emily. I don't think you understand the severity if this because all you are doing is repeating the attitude that broke the laws when you start talking that blame stuff.

When one group is abusing another it is not "blame" when the abusers are held accountable.

 

[miketx]

Amendments....

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.

Poor butt hurt boy.

 

[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

Dear IM2
And EVEN in the process of "altering or abolishing" this still follows
the natural laws of democratic due process based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

One group cannot declare or ordain that things must be changed THEIR WAY
at the expense of how the other half of the nation believes in reforming and correcting problems of govt!

This is the fallacy and failure of liberals who believe THEY represent the "will of the people."
What about people who believe in reforming govt by FOLLOWING the process built in
to PROTECT the representation of the very people affected by changing govt?

When you change a contract, doesn't it make sense that the PARTIES to the contract
should AGREE what to amend and the process and terms for changing it?

This is where I do not understand why it never occurs to both sides of conflicts
that the CONSENT of the other side is necessary for laws and reforms to reflect
and represent the FULL public interest. How can you even think to represent
the public by leaving out and overruling the beliefs or objections of other citizens?

Liberals don't believe anything you have said. And it would serve you best to take a real, hard long look at how this nation has operated and what specific group has changed and altered law to benefit their group at everyone elses expense. It is that group who today whines that junk you just posted in their attempt to gaslight people into allowing them to continue to change and alter law to their benefit.

Dear IM2
Liberals who don't believe or understand how the democratic process works
are still governed by natural laws that all people respond to because it's universal.

As many Christians have abused Christian church laws and authority,
as corporate interests have abused corporate loopholes in the laws and legal system,
as Party members have abused the Party system to impose policies without
the consent of others by bullying by exclusion or coercion.

I think by the time you track all the abuses, every system out there has been abused.
You could blame any number of groups under any number of "labels" who have
abused institutions to oppress individuals without the same collective influence and access to resources.

Overall I would say it is a "class war" - where people WITH knowledge of the laws
and access to resources exert advantages over people with less, and this DISPARITY has been exploited.

Not sure if you can blame more liberals than conservatives,
or more leftwing than rightwing.

All I can say from experience is
* Christians respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Christians using Christian laws
* Constitutionalists respond to rebukes and corrections best from fellow Constitutionalists using Constitutional laws
* Buddhists respond likewise to fellow Buddhists using Buddhist laws they both respect and agree to follow
etc.

So whichever person or group you see fit to blame for certain injustice or oppression, IM2
I support you in addressing that particular audience by invoking the very laws
they profess to follow by forming alliances of peers with that group
so it's neighbor helping neighbor to correct a problem.

if it's done in an "adversarial" way to project blame and reject or change the other person/group
that tends to get rejected and fail.

If correction is sought by ALLIES on the same team,
that tends to be more effective in compelling corrections and positive outcome.

I'm happy to help find and form teams of allies in such a process
of reform and corrections to end oppression and abuse.

The Center for the Healing of Racism is organizing a conference this
fall to address ending institutionalized racism, discrimination and oppression.
If you would like to be part of this outreach, I am happy to introduce you
to other educators and advocates working on solutions that empower people
just like you and me to change the system around us instead of
being caught in perpetual victimhood. As much as problems are blamed
on liberals on the far left or the opposite extremes on the far right,
I find this adversarial system of partisan competition of the
"party of the poor blaming the rich" vs. the
"party of the rich blaming the poor" merely continues the "class war" going on
instead of investing our resources and focus on equalizing knowledge
and access to laws and training people in self-government and equal ownership.

Your problem is that conservatives are the ones who don't understand the process and you are seeing how much they don't every day. Emily there has been one group who made the laws in this nation and used those laws to abuse others. In fact they still do. Until that group in total accepts their responsibility to do what is right, then you're just running in quicksand. The first thing YOU can do to heal is stop using terms created by racists to belittle people actually trying to heal this nation of racism. There is no such thing as perpetual victimhood. Not in the manner you and other conservatives use the word.

Conservatism is based on a false premise Emily. And Kings unfinished dream was for economic equality. That's what I am about. There can and will be no healing when those who are descendants of thieves refuse to return what they have stolen. There are laws greater than mans law. And the lords government supersedes any talk of self government. Spiritual laws have been broken here Emily. I don't think you understand the severity if this because all you are doing is repeating the attitude that broke the laws when you start talking that blame stuff.

When one group is abusing another it is not "blame" when the abusers are held accountable.

???

No IM2 it's not just one group.
It's anyone who has been abusing power and that's a LOT of different groups!

Religious groups from the Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS, and Catholics
have abused their religious organizations and "house rules" to cover up abuses
including child abuse and sex abuse that are criminal violations outside church policy.

Corporations have abused personhood and legal resources
to seize and destroy national landmarks at taxpayers' expense,
without any check by laws or courts they bought out with their collective influence
that exceeds and oppresses the equal rights of individuals affected by such misconduct.

IM2 if YOU are even EXCUSING such abuses as "not illegal" or
"not constitutional" THEN YOU ARE PART OF THIS SAME ENABLING.

Since I am a taxpayer and my taxes paid into the resources
these corporate interests used to DESTROY national historic landmarks
(such as in Freedmen's Town) and environmental landmarks
(such as Headwaters Forest in California costing taxpayers over 1.6 billion),
then you can say that I am part of this "problem of abuses by collective entities"

The problem is the ABUSE and the INABILITY of
citizens like you and me to address, prevent it, or correct it before it gets worse.

Why are you insisting it's only one group?

Name ALL the instances of oppression and abuse in the
entire history of the US and how you can possibly blame
it on ONE DEMOGRAPHIC group.

The reason I blame Democratic Party members and leaders
is they are NOT teaching empowerment by Constitutional laws
and authority that would CORRECT and PREVENT these abuses.

I also have been confronting both Republicans, Libertarians and
even CONSTITUTION PARTY members and leaders why
THEY haven't stood up to enforce the Constitution in order
to teach DEMOCRATS to do that by example.

I get MORE response and support from Conservatives
who BELIEVE in enforcing Constitutional standards and principles
than I do from Democrats and Liberals who don't believe in those,
as you said.

If you want to make this point that it is "only one group"
IM2 can you list how all the oppression and abuse
is tied to this one group.

I'm saying that the UNIVERSAL LAWS the Constitution is based on
applies to ALL people and equally includes NATIVE AMERICAN
culture and practices in that system because it's based on NATURAL LAWS.

So that's not just about WHITE people.

My friend Lenwood who got the campus plans legislated through HUD reforms
invoked and used EQUAL CONSTITUTIONAL rights and freedoms to teach others
to defend their rights. And this is coming from a low income predominantly BLACK community.

IM2 if you don't recognize that equal power comes from invoking these laws
directly, as Lenwood used and other leaders, THAT'S where the problem is coming from.

Just blaming WHITE people isn't empowering people to invoke laws directly
and exercise equal authority as anyone else.

Gladys House has been working by this authority on her own while "men" like you bitch whine and moan saying it's "white man's fault" or whatever
AS AN EXCUSE NOT TO GET OUT AND BUILD PROGRAMS YOURSELF
AS LENWOOD DID AND LED OTHERS TO DO.

That victim-blame mentality doesn't solve the problems: rich blaming poor
and poor blaming rich, black and white blaming each other for
destroying themselves or others, just goes in circles.

Even when I blame the disparity on the lack of equal education,
experience and knowledge of the LAWS, I include ALL people
in the solution of building campus programs to TEACH
and TRAIN people to govern themselves by the LAWS.
NOT by blaming one group or another.

in EACH CASE IM2, let's hold the specific WRONGDOERS
responsible for correcting each and every VIOLATION instead of
trying to blame a whole group. That's not solving the problem,

But tracking EACH INSTANCE and CORRECTING each one,
is going to solve the problems REGARDLESS who gets blamed.

Let's track each problem and fix it instead of arguing.

Let the credit go to the people who SOLVE the problems
so THEY own the programs and property it takes to back that solution.

Then it's clear which people to focus on, instead of arguing over the problems
that are from all over the place!

 

[ThisIsMe]

So if government has ultimate authority, then why have a constitution? Why not just write a single line that says "government has complete authority, and all others must get approval before doing anything".

If the constitution is not a limiting document, then what we are left with is essentially a dictatorship, not by a single person, but by a body of people. Our government is of, by, and for the people, and the powers are given to government by consent of the governed.

My interpretation of that is, we give government certain powers to be able to work on our behalf, but ultimately, it is the peoples country. Had the intent have been that we were to give up all of our power to the government for it to be able to rule over us, I would think less people would have been likely to go along with that.

 

[emilynghiem]

So if government has ultimate authority, then why have a constitution? Why not just write a single line that says "government has complete authority, and all others must get approval before doing anything".

If the constitution is not a limiting document, then what we are left with is essentially a dictatorship, not by a single person, but by a body of people. Our government is of, by, and for the people, and the powers are given to government by consent of the governed.

My interpretation of that is, we give government certain powers to be able to work on our behalf, but ultimately, it is the peoples country. Had the intent have been that we were to give up all of our power to the government for it to be able to rule over us, I would think less people would have been likely to go along with that.

Dear ThisIsMe
You have pretty much summed up how people view government who DON'T have faith that Constitutional laws and limits have any compelling authority of enforcement.

The liberal friends I have discussed this with DO BELIEVE that with people "anything goes". Anyone can pass anything through govt, so it is a "dog eat dog" competition to push YOUR beliefs through govt if you want those rights respected.

They aren't just inherently given for people to invoke by claiming them.

Justice has to be FOUGHT for. It's whatever laws, rules or terms you can pass that are going to get recognized.

So they use Government to serve as the central authority by which the "collective will of the people" is established by agreed process. Then turn around and use "whatever means necessary" (courts, media, parties, and any level of govt or public institution or private) to FORCE compliance.

You described the raw political process from the viewpoint of people who don't see a given structure in natural laws already inherent and in place for managing the democratic process. To these with no such faith in a unifying natural law governing all humanity, it's whatever you can get by majority rule.

They don't believe anyone is really bound by the laws in the Constitution, so they don't enforce that, but only listen to court rulings or orders that spell out what interpretations to follow.

It is ABSOLUTELY like a theocracy (or kritocracy) where judges are authorized with "divine right to rule" and make laws from the bench. If people do not believe natural laws are pre-existent, and our democratic process and laws merely reflect that not DICTATE it, then instead of using God or churches for higher authority, they use Govt as a secular substitute for "universal authority."

Thus I have found that Conservatives make "God their Government."
And Liberals make "Government their God."

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So if government has ultimate authority, then why have a constitution? Why not just write a single line that says "government has complete authority, and all others must get approval before doing anything".

If the constitution is not a limiting document, then what we are left with is essentially a dictatorship, not by a single person, but by a body of people. Our government is of, by, and for the people, and the powers are given to government by consent of the governed.

My interpretation of that is, we give government certain powers to be able to work on our behalf, but ultimately, it is the peoples country. Had the intent have been that we were to give up all of our power to the government for it to be able to rule over us, I would think less people would have been likely to go along with that.

Dear ThisIsMe
You have pretty much summed up how people view government who DON'T have faith that Constitutional laws and limits have any compelling authority of enforcement.

The liberal friends I have discussed this with DO BELIEVE that with people "anything goes". Anyone can pass anything through govt, so it is a "dog eat dog" competition to push YOUR beliefs through govt if you want those rights respected.

They aren't just inherently given for people to invoke by claiming them.

Justice has to be FOUGHT for. It's whatever laws, rules or terms you can pass that are going to get recognized.

So they use Government to serve as the central authority by which the "collective will of the people" is established by agreed process. Then turn around and use "whatever means necessary" (courts, media, parties, and any level of govt or public institution or private) to FORCE compliance.

You described the raw political process from the viewpoint of people who don't see a given structure in natural laws already inherent and in place for managing the democratic process. To these with no such faith in a unifying natural law governing all humanity, it's whatever you can get by majority rule.

They don't believe anyone is really bound by the laws in the Constitution, so they don't enforce that, but only listen to court rulings or orders that spell out what interpretations to follow.

It is ABSOLUTELY like a theocracy (or kritocracy) where judges are authorized with "divine right to rule" and make laws from the bench. If people do not believe natural laws are pre-existent, and our democratic process and laws merely reflect that not DICTATE it, then instead of using God or churches for higher authority, they use Govt as a secular substitute for "universal authority."

Thus I have found that Conservatives make "God their Government."
And Liberals make "Government their God."

IF what you way is true about conservatives, they have a shitty way of showing it.

They support a fat, rich, lying, egotistical, megalomaniac whose followers think he has a direct line to God almighty.

The liberals, by and large, reject God - except in the form of a democratic God. Hell, neither sides acknowledges the Republic. Neither side invokes principles like unalienable Rights or Liberty. Both sides are willing to violate the separation of powers and give whatever branch of government will deliver the best result to them with no regard for the long term consequences.

 

[Tinhatter]

Silly Libtards and their addiction to commie/socialist tactics are always amusing. Want to know what the Constitution says? Read the damn Constitution! It ain't written in no Marxist/Leninist commie intelligentsia jargon, in need of egghead interpreters. Want to know what it means? Try reading books like ' View of the Constitution of the United States' (ISBN# 9780865972018). Want to know what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they wrote it? Try reading the numerous written works authored by the Founding Fathers!

 

[miketx]

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

Liar.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

crack is wack lay off of it.

 

[regent]

State Constitution with most amendments

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Amendments....

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 thing dumber than I am 2 is a turnip.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

A huge pile of stinking bullshit that lets everyone interpret the Constitution anyway they see fit.

 

[IM2]

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

"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."

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."

The idea was that a bicameral legislature, an independent executive with the power of veto, and a separation between legislative and judicial power would channel Congress's broad powers into constructive channels. State governments would advocate effectively for their own interests both in Congress and with the people. That's a very different vision than the current right-wing claim that the Constitution contains between-the-lines "thou shalt nots" placing various areas off limits to regulation.

The far-right argument has the seductive power of any half-truth. Of course there are limits on Congress's power--they are located in Article I § 9: Congress, for example, can't pass a "bill of attainder," tax exports, or grant titles of nobility. In addition, the Bill of Rights explicitly prevents Congress from limiting freedom of speech, "the right to bear arms," trial by jury and so forth. But conservatives mean something different: What they mean is that if something isn't written down in the Constitution in so many words, the "intent" of the Framers was to keep Congress from doing it. If Congress wasn't doing it before 1787, it can't do it now.

The worst insult they can level at a governmental measure is that it is "unprecedented." Before the Civil War, conservatives argued that Congress couldn't build roads and canals; it was unprecedented. After the Civil War, Congress "couldn't" regulate child labor; it was unprecedented. When the Depression hit, Congress "couldn't" pass Social Security; it was unprecedented. When the Civil Rights movement arose, Congress "couldn't" outlaw discrimination in public accommodations; it was unprecedented. Medicare was unprecedented; so was the National Environmental Policy Act; so was the School Lunch program. Today, Congress "can't" enact a health-care system. We've never had one, so we can't have one.

In fact, the Constitution itself did the unprecedented. It created a national, republican government with adequate power to maintain and govern a strong Union during the unforeseeable events ahead. "Nothing can therefore be more fallacious, than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the National Government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities," Hamilton wrote in Federalist 34. "There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies, as they may happen; and, as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity." From the record and the text, that was the "purpose" of the Constitution--to create a government with adequate power, even under new circumstances, to make the United States what George Washington, in his final address as Commander of the Continental Army, called "a respectable nation."

Articles of Confederation.

The current war on federal power, like the other attacks on its power throughout history, is really motivated by an entirely realistic fear that those idiots, the people, will enact progressive legislation. Only by importing prohibitions on Congress into the Constitution can that terrible outcome be prevented.

But the more tightly we bind Congress with imaginary chains, the less we, the people, can create a "respectable nation."

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