What Boehner and the Tea Party Don't Seem to Understand About the Constitution

[Flaylo]

Elizabeth B. Wydra: What Boehner and the Tea Party Don't Seem to Understand About the Constitution

"This is because, as renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar recently told the Washington Post, when you "actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn't say what the tea party folks think it says." In fact, the Constitution as a whole is a remarkably progressive document"

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Elizabeth B. Wydra: What Boehner and the Tea Party Don't Seem to Understand About the Constitution

"This is because, as renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar recently told the Washington Post, when you "actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn't say what the tea party folks think it says." In fact, the Constitution as a whole is a remarkably progressive document"

Thank you for further exposing why your far left, wackaloon self has so few thanks and rep points.

The Constitution will ALWAYS be a majority conservative document. Find a passage or clause where it mentions single payer health care, totally open borders, amnesty, virtually no military, and THEN you'll have a case.

And HuffPo=EPIC FAIL. Bias source cites bias "experts" FOR BIAS BS. Try some variety dude.

 

[editec]

Oh yes,...whenever I want to understand the finer points of constitutional law I come here to read the deep thoughts of you guys.

Everything the government does is illegal, and the SCOTUS simply missed that for the last 225 years.

Thank god you scholars are here to set the Supreme Court right.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Don't feed liberal trolls.

 

[rightwinger]

To be sure, the powers of the federal government under our Constitution are not unlimited -- the Constitution establishes a central government of enumerated powers, and our States play a vital role in our federalist system -- but the powers our charter does grant to the federal government are broad and substantial. And, since the Founding, the American people have amended the Constitution to ensure that Congress has all the tools it needs to address national problems and protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. Eight separate amendments expanded the enumerated powers of the federal government, giving vast powers to the government to protect equality, civil rights, and voting rights, and to raise funds through taxes on income. Many Tea Partiers disdain these Amendments -- or even want to repeal them -- but they are just as much a part of the Constitution as the language written in 1787. When the new members of Congress are sworn in this week, they will swear to uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts written in the 18th century.

 

[Intense]

To be sure, the powers of the federal government under our Constitution are not unlimited -- the Constitution establishes a central government of enumerated powers, and our States play a vital role in our federalist system -- but the powers our charter does grant to the federal government are broad and substantial. And, since the Founding, the American people have amended the Constitution to ensure that Congress has all the tools it needs to address national problems and protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. Eight separate amendments expanded the enumerated powers of the federal government, giving vast powers to the government to protect equality, civil rights, and voting rights, and to raise funds through taxes on income. Many Tea Partiers disdain these Amendments -- or even want to repeal them -- but they are just as much a part of the Constitution as the language written in 1787. When the new members of Congress are sworn in this week, they will swear to uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts written in the 18th century.

Very well said. You realize then that the Supreme Authority is not the Court, but the will of the People, that the Whole construct of the Federal Authority, is by Us, for Us, and We have the final word, even if it be by Amendment or Convention. That's a start. There is hope for you. Let us battle Tranny and Injustice together Brother. Hop on board.

Let's start with Election Reform. One Citizen, of age, one Vote. I. D. Required. Felony for Voter Fraud or Election Tampering. NYC just came up with a new Ballot, it has issues, yet there is promise there, and Accountability. It's a start. State Conventions have issues with Voter fraud too. Maybe we need a Law to stop people from voting in more than one State Primary per Election Cycle. The ACORN's need to be shut down, Fined, and forced to pay restitution for the Messes they create at Voters expense. Let's start there huh? What do you say?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
And HuffPo=EPIC FAIL. Bias source cites bias "experts" FOR BIAS BS. Try some variety dude.

This from the (C)retin who cites Rasmussen as a reputable pollster.

 

[goldcatt]

What even more people fail to understand is the COTUS is politically neutral, neither conservative nor liberal. It sets forth no policy, it dictates no agenda, it merely provides a broad framework for the existence and operation of a government. What we do with it is wide open.

 

[Darkwind]

Elizabeth B. Wydra: What Boehner and the Tea Party Don't Seem to Understand About the Constitution

"This is because, as renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar recently told the Washington Post, when you "actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn't say what the tea party folks think it says." In fact, the Constitution as a whole is a remarkably progressive document"

Wow, you'll believe anything, won't you?

The Constitution is a liberal Document. It follows along the lines of 'Classical Liberal" which is not the same as today's progressive liberal. In fact, today's progressive liberal is as antithetical to the Constitution as King George and the English Parliament was to the fledgling American country.

A Classical Liberal can be considered the same as Conservative's of the past and some who today adhere to small, limited government with emphasis on States Rights.

The Constitution IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT! Even brain dead 3rd graders know this.

 

[rightwinger]

Elizabeth B. Wydra: What Boehner and the Tea Party Don't Seem to Understand About the Constitution

"This is because, as renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar recently told the Washington Post, when you "actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn't say what the tea party folks think it says." In fact, the Constitution as a whole is a remarkably progressive document"

Wow, you'll believe anything, won't you?

The Constitution is a liberal Document. It follows along the lines of 'Classical Liberal" which is not the same as today's progressive liberal. In fact, today's progressive liberal is as antithetical to the Constitution as King George and the English Parliament was to the fledgling American country.

A Classical Liberal can be considered the same as Conservative's of the past and some who today adhere to small, limited government with emphasis on States Rights.

The Constitution IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT! Even brain dead 3rd graders know this.

Afraid you are wrong there

The Constitution is the culmination of the original document, amendments and two centuries of legal interpretations

Sorry....but you can't ignore legal precedents

 

[Oddball]

Elizabeth B. Wydra: What Boehner and the Tea Party Don't Seem to Understand About the Constitution

"This is because, as renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar recently told the Washington Post, when you "actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn't say what the tea party folks think it says." In fact, the Constitution as a whole is a remarkably progressive document"

Since when do howling Marxist moonbats like you and the freak show over at HRPuffinstuffPo give a hoot in hell about the constitution to begin with, let alone anyone else's reputed "misunderstanding" of it?

 

[Darkwind]

Elizabeth B. Wydra: What Boehner and the Tea Party Don't Seem to Understand About the Constitution

"This is because, as renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar recently told the Washington Post, when you "actually read the Constitution as a whole, it doesn't say what the tea party folks think it says." In fact, the Constitution as a whole is a remarkably progressive document"

Wow, you'll believe anything, won't you?

The Constitution is a liberal Document. It follows along the lines of 'Classical Liberal" which is not the same as today's progressive liberal. In fact, today's progressive liberal is as antithetical to the Constitution as King George and the English Parliament was to the fledgling American country.

A Classical Liberal can be considered the same as Conservative's of the past and some who today adhere to small, limited government with emphasis on States Rights.

The Constitution IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT! Even brain dead 3rd graders know this.

Afraid you are wrong there

The Constitution is the culmination of the original document, amendments and two centuries of legal interpretations

Sorry....but you can't ignore legal precedents

It can be turned and marginalized however. Poor, progressive rulings doe not make the Constitution a Living document, nor does it change the fact that the document was written by people who are best described as 'Classical Liberals' and not progressive liberals.

The misuse of the General Welfare Clause alone is proof of that.

 

[Talismen]

What even more people fail to understand is the COTUS is politically neutral, neither conservative nor liberal. It sets forth no policy, it dictates no agenda, it merely provides a broad framework for the existence and operation of a government. What we do with it is wide open.

Ahh but the liberal mind views the constitution as having a clear agenda.
One they've been hell bent on changing for hundreds of years.

Otherwise, the phrase "it's a living, breathing document", and the notion that it should be simpler to alter the constitution, would've never come about. Ok, maybe with RINO's.

At any rate...dems have wanted to use the COTUS to mandate social order for years.
Same with "social cons".

 

[goldcatt]

What even more people fail to understand is the COTUS is politically neutral, neither conservative nor liberal. It sets forth no policy, it dictates no agenda, it merely provides a broad framework for the existence and operation of a government. What we do with it is wide open.

Ahh but the liberal mind views the constitution as having a clear agenda.
One they've been hell bent on changing for hundreds of years.

Otherwise, the phrase "it's a living, breathing document", and the notion that it should be simpler to alter the constitution, would've never come about. Ok, maybe with RINO's.

At any rate...dems have wanted to use the COTUS to mandate social order for years.
Same with "social cons".

Maybe you didn't know that I'm a liberal.

And no, the COTUS does not advance any agenda. Not social (unless you count the 13th Amendment as social policy), not in foreign policy, definitely not economic. It spells out in many cases who makes those decisions, but not what decisions must be made. Nobody remotely literate, conservative or liberal, could read the document and make that argument with a straight face.

Are you perhaps referring to the differences of opinion on narrow v. broad interpretation strategies, or maybe the differences of opinion over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States and the comparative meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments? There have been several swings on those issues with the various amendments, particularly in the second half of the 19th Century - for fairly obvious reasons.

 

[Talismen]

What even more people fail to understand is the COTUS is politically neutral, neither conservative nor liberal. It sets forth no policy, it dictates no agenda, it merely provides a broad framework for the existence and operation of a government. What we do with it is wide open.

Ahh but the liberal mind views the constitution as having a clear agenda.
One they've been hell bent on changing for hundreds of years.

Otherwise, the phrase "it's a living, breathing document", and the notion that it should be simpler to alter the constitution, would've never come about. Ok, maybe with RINO's.

At any rate...dems have wanted to use the COTUS to mandate social order for years.
Same with "social cons".

Maybe you didn't know that I'm a liberal.

Nope. Didn't know that.
I don't judge people by the "R" or "D".
It's what they say, and do, that tells me what I need to know.

Your statement was a valid one.
It wasn't something I'd hear or see a 'typical online liberal' say.

'Typical online liberals' believe they can squeeze out of the constitution anything they'd like, as long as they can spin it fast enough. Same thing for most RINO's and "social cons".

And no, the COTUS does not advance any agenda. Not social (unless you count the 13th Amendment as social policy), not in foreign policy, definitely not economic. It spells out in many cases who makes those decisions, but not what decisions must be made. Nobody remotely literate, conservative or liberal, could read the document and make that argument with a straight face.

Yep, that's right.

Maybe I should've marked part of my 1st reponse with "sarcasm".

Are you perhaps referring to the differences of opinion on narrow v. broad interpretation strategies, or maybe the differences of opinion over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States and the comparative meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments? There have been several swings on those issues with the various amendments, particularly in the second half of the 19th Century - for fairly obvious reasons.

Well, a little bit of all of that actually.

Those who interpret "wide" and think the government has all encompassing power over states, tend to be progressives, IMO.

 

[uscitizen]

Hmm I thought the constitution specified that the supreme court was the final word on what was legal or not.

Legal is not always the same as correct or right.

 

[Oddball]

Hmm I thought the constitution specified that the supreme court was the final word on what was legal or not.

Legal is not always the same as correct or right.

Umm...No, it didn't.

USSC seized that power --to the consternation of Federalist Madison AND Anti-federalist, Jefferson-- for themselves, in the Marbury v. Madison ruling.

Nice try, though.

 

[rightwinger]

Wow, you'll believe anything, won't you?

The Constitution is a liberal Document. It follows along the lines of 'Classical Liberal" which is not the same as today's progressive liberal. In fact, today's progressive liberal is as antithetical to the Constitution as King George and the English Parliament was to the fledgling American country.

A Classical Liberal can be considered the same as Conservative's of the past and some who today adhere to small, limited government with emphasis on States Rights.

The Constitution IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT! Even brain dead 3rd graders know this.

Afraid you are wrong there

The Constitution is the culmination of the original document, amendments and two centuries of legal interpretations

Sorry....but you can't ignore legal precedents

It can be turned and marginalized however. Poor, progressive rulings doe not make the Constitution a Living document, nor does it change the fact that the document was written by people who are best described as 'Classical Liberals' and not progressive liberals.

The misuse of the General Welfare Clause alone is proof of that.

Your definition of "Classical Liberals" vs "Progressive Liberals" is rightwing mythology. Liberals are still liberals. They look at the crucial issues of the day and propose radical ways of dealing with them. Just because the issues have changed does not mean that liberals have changed

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh well this will come as a suprise to my cousin who is a professor of constitutional law at a major university.

I am sure that he will understand that potitical board partisan hacks know far more than he does.

 

[goldcatt]

Maybe you didn't know that I'm a liberal.

Nope. Didn't know that.
I don't judge people by the "R" or "D".
It's what they say, and do, that tells me what I need to know.

Your statement was a valid one.
It wasn't something I'd hear or see a 'typical online liberal' say.

'Typical online liberals' believe they can squeeze out of the constitution anything they'd like, as long as they can spin it fast enough. Same thing for most RINO's and "social cons".

And no, the COTUS does not advance any agenda. Not social (unless you count the 13th Amendment as social policy), not in foreign policy, definitely not economic. It spells out in many cases who makes those decisions, but not what decisions must be made. Nobody remotely literate, conservative or liberal, could read the document and make that argument with a straight face.

Yep, that's right.

Maybe I should've marked part of my 1st reponse with "sarcasm".

Are you perhaps referring to the differences of opinion on narrow v. broad interpretation strategies, or maybe the differences of opinion over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States and the comparative meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments? There have been several swings on those issues with the various amendments, particularly in the second half of the 19th Century - for fairly obvious reasons.

Well, a little bit of all of that actually.

Those who interpret "wide" and think the government has all encompassing power over states, tend to be progressives, IMO.

Well, I only use "liberal" as message board shorthand for team identification purposes. It's always more complicated than that.

But that's beside the point I suppose. I'm still not quite clear on the definition of a RINO, different people seem to use it to mean different things. But I'd agree that some progressives, some groups that are often thought of as conservative but aren't like the neocons, and the social cons have a definite authoritarian outlook when it comes to social "engineering" as some phrase it and constitutional interpretation. Others in both camps have a more libertarian (small-l) approach. Sounds from what you're saying here that we both fit in the latter category, even if we probably disagree on a whole host of other stuff.

IMO, there are real questions surrounding the meaning and application of the 9th and 10th that have never really been answered. The 14th's first section renders some of those questions moot, but certainly not all of them. Then there are the questions over the exact meaning and application of Section 1 of the 14th and how it changes (or affirms) the Federal government as prime sovereign and to what extent - especially when taken with some of the other late-19th Century amendments and the (often dreadful) applications of the 14th and other provisions in their historical context, which is no longer our reality but with which we have to work anyway. All interesting and fundamental questions.

I like balance, and I usually read as a nonoriginalist pragmatist which is a pretty middle of the road position on interpretation. Although I've been known to play a mean game of Devil's Advocate from time to time.

I do believe the Feds need to be primary, the States secondary sovereigns but not powerless, and I don't disregard as many (especially a certain breed of States Righters) do the role of the 9th, its interaction with the 10th and the unenumerated powers reserved to the people as part of the balance.

So to me anyway what's most important if I had to pick just one issue? Individual civil liberties. These must be safeguarded, preserved to and for the people and read as broadly as possible as they apply to individuals in order to ensure the people's place in the mix. That means safeguarding them from the States as well as the Feds, which is where Federal supremacy is key to maintaining not only the obvious cohesion but relative uniformity and balance as the dog bigger than the States and to whom the States must accede. It's then also easier to keep an eye on that one big dog than the fifty smaller ones.

Long answer to a short observation/question/comment I suppose. But that's a fairly detailed and nuanced POV and not one most people would take the time to write a novel about an a message board or expect people to read. But if you ask ten different people on any one "side" for something similar, you're going to get either nine or ten different answers. I simply dislike the broadbrushing that happens in these places. Just because two people are liberal, or two people are conservative, it doesn't mean they think alike.

No browbeating intended with that last. Just one of my little pet issues.