The Constitutional Myths of the right

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Total Crap.

Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.

The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure

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.

Case law changes. The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.

 

[Lastamender]

Amendments....

Oh yeah, they do that all the time. You must not know what that takes.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They charge interest on the money they created out of thin air....Adds up to far more than a penny.

Nice work if you can get it.

are you saying that they personally keep the money to buy yachts, houses etc??????

 

[regent]

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

Total Crap.

Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".

The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Total Crap.

Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".

The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.

The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.

I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj

So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

Total Crap.

Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".

The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.

The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.

I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj

So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.

Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure

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.

Case law changes. The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.

While what you say is true, the United States Supreme Court has NO authority in the United States Constitution to reverse their own rulings.

Such a practice is also known as legislating from the bench AND it requires that you look into the future as if you had a crystal ball to determine if a perfectly legal act may be reinterpreted, making you a criminal without any laws having changed.

George Washington was opposed to the practice and warned:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position."


“Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.” – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Total Crap.

Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".

The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.

The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.

I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj

So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.

Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure

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.

Case law changes. The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.

While what you say is true, the United States Supreme Court has NO authority in the United States Constitution to reverse their own rulings.

Such a practice is also known as legislating from the bench AND it requires that you look into the future as if you had a crystal ball to determine if a perfectly legal act may be reinterpreted, making you a criminal without any laws having changed.

George Washington was opposed to the practice and warned:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position."


“Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.” – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775

What are you talking about ?

They can do it.

They do it all the time.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

Total Crap.

Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".

The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.

The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.

I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj

So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.

Scalia was a fucking joke. A lot of the rights "conservative heroes" are jokes.
The only way our constitution could be considered a living document is if you consider the amendment process. Nothing else. However, that didnt stop it from getting raped.
Fuck our federal govt. 75 percent of it unconstitutional and 80 percent of it is failure

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.

Case law changes. The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.

While what you say is true, the United States Supreme Court has NO authority in the United States Constitution to reverse their own rulings.

Such a practice is also known as legislating from the bench AND it requires that you look into the future as if you had a crystal ball to determine if a perfectly legal act may be reinterpreted, making you a criminal without any laws having changed.

George Washington was opposed to the practice and warned:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position."


“Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.” – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775

What are you talking about ?

They can do it.

They do it all the time.

Bank robbers rob banks all the time and that is illegal too. There is NO provision in the United States Constitution that allows the United States Supreme Court to reverse its own decisions.

I'm not arguing whether or not the high Court does it, as you said, they do it all the time. They have the POWER to do it, but they do NOT have the AUTHORITY to do it. They are able to get away with it because the American people are too ignorant to learn the law and their legal Rights to make the change to stop judicial activism.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Libertarian is Liberalism "

* Conservation Of Government Authoritarianism Is Conservative *

legal discrimination against gays or atheists or muslims is NOT limited or smaller goverment.

Legal discrimination against fictional ishmaelism is based upon whether the creed violates non violence principles .

A creed that violates non violence principles entitles those subject to its edicts and tenets to self defense , which justifiably includes not extending an opportunity for citizenship to enter the voting booth .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Public Deprived Of Illegal Migrant Status As Subjects Of Foreign Jurisdiction "

* What Something Else *

The illegally ratified 14th and Amendment (which gave you so called "anchor babies") are the work of Republicans as is the so - called "Patriot Act."

At some point , a criteria for citizenship would have been remanded .

The us 14th amendment provides the ability to not allow anchor babies by the clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , but thus far there has been only indifference , or more succinctly - ineptitude , on the part of those capable of challenging the policy .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Public Deprived Of Illegal Migrant Status As Subjects Of Foreign Jurisdiction "

* What Something Else *

The illegally ratified 14th and Amendment (which gave you so called "anchor babies") are the work of Republicans as is the so - called "Patriot Act."

At some point , a criteria for citizenship would have been remanded .

The us 14th amendment provides the ability to not allow anchor babies by the clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , but thus far there has been only indifference , or more succinctly - ineptitude , on the part of those capable of challenging the policy .

I don't know where that insanity originated from, but to call it B.S. would be an insult to the term B.S.

If a foreigner is not subject to the jurisdiction, then they cannot be tried and judged in an American court. Period. The very first and I mean very first point of attack in any legal action is to challenge jurisdiction. When you file a response to any legal action, if there is ANY possibility that the court lacks jurisdiction for any reason, it is the first defense you use. Period. End of story.

So, what does that phraseology "subject to the jurisdiction" mean in the 14th Amendment? That was put there for primarily people like diplomats and maybe foreign troops who are here fighting / training at the behest of the U.S. government. They are NOT subject to the jurisdiction. Diplomats have diplomatic immunity. Whoever fed you that swill is either ignorant or a liar.

I don't fret over it to begin with since the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and has no meaning to me. It isn't worth the paper it's written on and without it, you wouldn't have so - called "anchor babies" to whine about. See what I did there?

You cannot deport anyone if the court or the Attorney General (in this case) does not have jurisdiction.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Having Civil Liberties Issues Traveling Abroad Then See Your Local Consulate "

* Useless Bias *

So, what does that phraseology "subject to the jurisdiction" mean in the 14th Amendment? That was put there for primarily people like diplomats and maybe foreign troops who are here fighting / training at the behest of the U.S. government. They are NOT subject to the jurisdiction. Diplomats have diplomatic immunity. Whoever fed you that swill is either ignorant or a liar.

Your concern appears to be to blubber about whether the 14th amendment is valid and are certainly opposed to any justification of it for use against " anchor babies " .

As to why you are arguing against your own interests , while also ignorantly omitting that jus sanguinis has not ever been challenged beyond " us vs wka " , whom was present in the us by legal agreement ( as a subject of us legal immigration system ) and in good standing ( law abiding ) , is pathetic .

* Direct Argument *

The majority opinion of us v wka deduced that obeying us law ( law abiding ) was relevant for an entitlement to jus soli ( citizenship by birth ) , and the minority opinion deduced that not being a subject to foreign jurisdiction ( lost the argument because wka was a legal migrant and a subject of title register in the us legal immigration system ) was relevant to jus sangiunis ( inheriting citizenship of parent ) .

The latter opinion disqualifies children from us citizenship by a mother which is an illegal migrant for not being a subject of title register in the us legal immigration system ( neither a legal migrant and , perhaps subjectively , not law abiding for being in violation of the same ) .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2] The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[9]


* How To Become A Legal Subject Of A Foreign Government *

Prior to committing a crime a sojourner remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction , as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with our without authorization .

A sojourner may become a subject of us jurisdiction through registration of title with its legal immigration systems ; or , a sojourner may become a legal subject of us jurisdiction through its criminal justice system ; yet , in either , the sojourner also remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with or without authorization .


* Simple Contract Law Exclusion As Subject Of Jurisdiction *

The third clause of " subject to contractual terms " separates a general meaning for the term " subject " from a more formal meaning for the term " subject " of an agreement , for the clause " subject to the jurisdiction " .

Contractual term - Wikipedia
3 . It is merely an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations, and the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Having Civil Liberties Issues Traveling Abroad Then See Your Local Consulate "

* Useless Bias *

So, what does that phraseology "subject to the jurisdiction" mean in the 14th Amendment? That was put there for primarily people like diplomats and maybe foreign troops who are here fighting / training at the behest of the U.S. government. They are NOT subject to the jurisdiction. Diplomats have diplomatic immunity. Whoever fed you that swill is either ignorant or a liar.

Your concern appears to be to blubber about whether the 14th amendment is valid and are certainly opposed to any justification of it for use against " anchor babies " .

As to why you are arguing against your own interests , while also ignorantly omitting that jus sanguinis has not ever been challenged beyond " us vs wka " , whom was present in the us by legal agreement ( as a subject of us legal immigration system ) and in good standing ( law abiding ) , is pathetic .

* Direct Argument *

The majority opinion of us v wka deduced that obeying us law ( law abiding ) was relevant for an entitlement to jus soli ( citizenship by birth ) , and the minority opinion deduced that not being a subject to foreign jurisdiction ( lost the argument because wka was a legal migrant and a subject of title register in the us legal immigration system ) was relevant to jus sangiunis ( inheriting citizenship of parent ) .

The latter opinion disqualifies children from us citizenship by a mother which is an illegal migrant for not being a subject of title register in the us legal immigration system ( neither a legal migrant and , perhaps subjectively , not law abiding for being in violation of the same ) .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2] The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[9]


* How To Become A Legal Subject Of A Foreign Government *

Prior to committing a crime a sojourner remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction , as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with our without authorization .

A sojourner may become a subject of us jurisdiction through registration of title with its legal immigration systems ; or , a sojourner may become a legal subject of us jurisdiction through its criminal justice system ; yet , in either , the sojourner also remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with or without authorization .


* Simple Contract Law Exclusion As Subject Of Jurisdiction *

The third clause of " subject to contractual terms " separates a general meaning for the term " subject " from a more formal meaning for the term " subject " of an agreement , for the clause " subject to the jurisdiction " .

Contractual term - Wikipedia
3 . It is merely an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations, and the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.

Again you are trying to baffle people with B.S. in order to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about. I invite all to read the following link:

An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship

The author of that article is both a lawyer and a reporter of United States Supreme Court decisions. As a point of fact, the case to which you refer means exactly opposite of what you're arguing. The above link unequivocally proves that point.

You look at immigration through a very narrow prism that is based upon race (which is why you are using the standard white supremacist talking points on this.) It is the white supremacists who are arguing against their own best interests.

Unalienable Rights are far more important than your little immigration issue. The bottom line is, the 14th Amendment nullifies the Bill of Rights and proclaims that the federal government is the benefactor of ALL of your Rights. You are advocating God given Rights. You can support it all you want, but there are some Rights that are above the reach of the government if you support the Constitution as originally written and intended.

The reality is that the millions of children born in the U.S. over the last three or four generations whose parents were undocumented have birth certificates, Socialist Surveillance Numbers / National ID (aka a "Social Security Number.") and teach your children, serve in the military, are police officers, doctors, scientists, etc., etc. The federal government is not going to uncitizen them and deport them. It's not going to happen and you're selling a pig in a poke. The United States Supreme Court "could," in theory over-rule themselves; however, once you understand how far they have been willing to go in creating ex post facto laws, you would see that what you're selling simply will NOT happen.

Your understanding of that Court ruling is 180 degrees opposite of reality. The better course of action is to rebel against the 14th Amendment because the government big enough to give all you want is big enough to take it away. The only way you preserve the Bill of Rights is to declare a war against the illegally passed 14th Amendment.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Total Crap.

Read Federalist 45 (look up "The Federalist Papers" on the net) and read away.
The duties of the federal government are "few and defined".

The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.

The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.

I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj

So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.

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.

Case law changes. The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.

While what you say is true, the United States Supreme Court has NO authority in the United States Constitution to reverse their own rulings.

Such a practice is also known as legislating from the bench AND it requires that you look into the future as if you had a crystal ball to determine if a perfectly legal act may be reinterpreted, making you a criminal without any laws having changed.

George Washington was opposed to the practice and warned:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position."


“Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.” – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775

What are you talking about ?

They can do it.

They do it all the time.

Bank robbers rob banks all the time and that is illegal too. There is NO provision in the United States Constitution that allows the United States Supreme Court to reverse its own decisions.

I'm not arguing whether or not the high Court does it, as you said, they do it all the time. They have the POWER to do it, but they do NOT have the AUTHORITY to do it. They are able to get away with it because the American people are too ignorant to learn the law and their legal Rights to make the change to stop judicial activism.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Federalist Papers is a series of "letters to the editor" and have the same amount of power.

The federalist papers were written, in large part by the man who had the most influence over the consistitution.

I realize they carry no weight, although the SCOTUS has quoted them from time to time.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3032&context=ylj

So, you might want to rethink your shallow and foolish comment.

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

Case law changes. The SCOTUS has reveresed itself on a couple hundred of cases.

While what you say is true, the United States Supreme Court has NO authority in the United States Constitution to reverse their own rulings.

Such a practice is also known as legislating from the bench AND it requires that you look into the future as if you had a crystal ball to determine if a perfectly legal act may be reinterpreted, making you a criminal without any laws having changed.

George Washington was opposed to the practice and warned:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position."


“Cities may be rebuilt, and a People reduced to Poverty, may acquire fresh Property: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.” – John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, July 7, 1775

What are you talking about ?

They can do it.

They do it all the time.

Bank robbers rob banks all the time and that is illegal too. There is NO provision in the United States Constitution that allows the United States Supreme Court to reverse its own decisions.

I'm not arguing whether or not the high Court does it, as you said, they do it all the time. They have the POWER to do it, but they do NOT have the AUTHORITY to do it. They are able to get away with it because the American people are too ignorant to learn the law and their legal Rights to make the change to stop judicial activism.

You posted and "quoted" me, but there is nothing there. Were you trying to make a point or just repeating what I just said?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Deny A Child Of An Illegal Migrant Citizenship Then Take It To Court And Prove It "

* Simple Dispatch Of Self Validating Tripe *

Again you are trying to baffle people with B.S. in order to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about. I invite all to read the following link:

An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship

The author of that article is both a lawyer and a reporter of United States Supreme Court decisions. As a point of fact, the case to which you refer means exactly opposite of what you're arguing. The above link unequivocally proves that point.

You are as ignorant as they come , as you obviously lack an ability to discern that the mother and father of wong were legally allowed to enter the us via its work visa program , and if they had not been legally allowed to enter the use via its work visa program the majority would have concluded that they were not in good legal standing and disallowed the citizenship by birth .

* Fuck Off Coward *

You look at immigration through a very narrow prism that is based upon race (which is why you are using the standard white supremacist talking points on this.) It is the white supremacists who are arguing against their own best interests.

* Blathering Hubris *

Unalienable Rights are ..

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Deny A Child Of An Illegal Migrant Citizenship Then Take It To Court And Prove It "

* Simple Dispatch Of Self Validating Tripe *

Again you are trying to baffle people with B.S. in order to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about. I invite all to read the following link:

An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship

The author of that article is both a lawyer and a reporter of United States Supreme Court decisions. As a point of fact, the case to which you refer means exactly opposite of what you're arguing. The above link unequivocally proves that point.

You are as ignorant as they come , as you obviously lack an ability to discern that the mother and father of wong were legally allowed to enter the us via its work visa program , and if they had not been legally allowed to enter the use via its work visa program the majority would have concluded that they were not in good legal standing and disallowed the citizenship by birth .

* Fuck Off Coward *

You look at immigration through a very narrow prism that is based upon race (which is why you are using the standard white supremacist talking points on this.) It is the white supremacists who are arguing against their own best interests.

* Blathering Hubris *

Unalienable Rights are ..

The Court decision means 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what you are arguing. I have quoted a lawyer who reports on constitutional law to prove you wrong. Because I don't take the word of an anonymous B.S. artist, posting under a board name over an attorney with experience and does this for a living means that you are stupid and calling me a coward sounds like you are desperate.

I will make it easy for everyone here and repeat that link:

An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship

I'm prepared to meet anyone at any time, face to face and say what I just said. The last thing you have to worry about is me being a coward. I'm not. The best way any person can find out is to use their PM and tell me to name the time and the place. Then you can find the answer to that quite easily. Because you support a legally and morally bankrupt strategy does not make me a coward. It makes you uneducated... which is why you had to resort to name calling.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Fallacy Of False Equivalence "

* Pretentious Rhetoric *

The Court decision means 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what you are arguing. I have quoted a lawyer who reports on constitutional law to prove you wrong. Because I don't take the word of an anonymous B.S. artist, posting under a board name over an attorney with experience and does this for a living means that you are stupid and calling me a coward sounds like you are desperate.
I will make it easy for everyone here and repeat that link:
An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship

Repeat the link to left wing blather all you wish , i read it when you provided it and i read it again just to be certain , it does not address the point of issue .

The idiocy of the reich to challenge roe v wade day in and day out is notorious , but challenging a poignant , direct and valid issue that was not addressed by us vs wka is despicable .

* Put Up Or Shut Up *

I'm prepared to meet anyone at any time, face to face and say what I just said. The last thing you have to worry about is me being a coward. I'm not. The best way any person can find out is to use their PM and tell me to name the time and the place. Then you can find the answer to that quite easily. Because you support a legally and morally bankrupt strategy does not make me a coward. It makes you uneducated... which is why you had to resort to name calling.

So ascribing the obvious valid technicality of law that the parents of wka were legally allowed entry into the us as a white supremacist argument , as do the anti-racist racist of the left , is not ad hominem , name calling , or intellectual cowardice ?

So dogmatically alluding to the witless ramblings of a biased article at some random site on the internet promoting dogma that does not address in any way a consideration for the legal status of wka parents at the time of his birth is not intellectual cowardice ?

Keep your loathsome petty excuses and bring a case before the us supreme court challenging the technical element of law that was not addressed by us vs wka and stop pretending that you are more than you can prove yourself or your opinion to be .

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Fallacy Of False Equivalence "

* Pretentious Rhetoric *

The Court decision means 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what you are arguing. I have quoted a lawyer who reports on constitutional law to prove you wrong. Because I don't take the word of an anonymous B.S. artist, posting under a board name over an attorney with experience and does this for a living means that you are stupid and calling me a coward sounds like you are desperate.
I will make it easy for everyone here and repeat that link:
An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship

Repeat the link to left wing blather all you wish , i read it when you provided it and i read it again just to be certain , it does not address the point of issue .

The idiocy of the reich to challenge roe v wade day in and day out is notorious , but challenging a poignant , direct and valid issue that was not addressed by us vs wka is despicable .

* Put Up Or Shut Up *

I'm prepared to meet anyone at any time, face to face and say what I just said. The last thing you have to worry about is me being a coward. I'm not. The best way any person can find out is to use their PM and tell me to name the time and the place. Then you can find the answer to that quite easily. Because you support a legally and morally bankrupt strategy does not make me a coward. It makes you uneducated... which is why you had to resort to name calling.

So ascribing the obvious valid technicality of law that the parents of wka were legally allowed entry into the us as a white supremacist argument , as do the anti-racist racist of the left , is not ad hominem , name calling , or intellectual cowardice ?

So dogmatically alluding to the witless ramblings of a biased article at some random site on the internet promoting dogma that does not address in any way a consideration for the legal status of wka parents at the time of his birth is not intellectual cowardice ?

Keep your loathsome petty excuses and bring a case before the us supreme court challenging the technical element of law that was not addressed by us vs wka and stop pretending that you are more than you can prove yourself or your opinion to be .

You should talk about blather! Whatever in the Hell you just wrote isn't even in English.

Aren't you the one who accused me of being a coward? I haven't received a PM telling me to name the time and the place, so I'm not a coward. And you never went to law school.

I don't have to pretend anything. You are uneducated and full of yourself. And if anyone is doing any pretending, it is you. Trying putting your sentences into some form that conveys a response.

For those wanting to know what this guy's nonsensical post is about:

An 1898 US Supreme Court case confirmed birthright citizenship