Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

[PoliticalChic]

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace."

Does that include the tradition of denying women the vote?

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2. Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. For Classical Liberals, known today as conservatives, there should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


3. The Founders, Classical Liberals, operated under the view that government is a necessary evil, simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, and incorporated principles based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

a. Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter. But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
“The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284





4. There are several incorrigible liars who insist that the Founders were of the same mentality as those we call 'liberals.'
Nothing could be further from the truth.
To see how this pertains to the title of the thread, "Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution," notice that those known as Liberals today, actually the group called Socialists until communist John Dewey had them steal the name 'Liberal,' work for the very opposite: collectivism, socialist economic dominance, and unlimited, overreaching government.


a. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


b. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” Taking liberties - LA Times

Yet another thread DOA. We wrote the Constitution, it's my country not yours, a Liberal Nation founded upon the ideals of Liberalism. If you don't like it Korean Girl, then hit the road. You aren't needed or wanted here.

Exactly the kind of lie this thread exposes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1. Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2. Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. For Classical Liberals, known today as conservatives, there should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


3. The Founders, Classical Liberals, operated under the view that government is a necessary evil, simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, and incorporated principles based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

a. Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter. But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
“The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284





4. There are several incorrigible liars who insist that the Founders were of the same mentality as those we call 'liberals.'
Nothing could be further from the truth.
To see how this pertains to the title of the thread, "Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution," notice that those known as Liberals today, actually the group called Socialists until communist John Dewey had them steal the name 'Liberal,' work for the very opposite: collectivism, socialist economic dominance, and unlimited, overreaching government.


a. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


b. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” Taking liberties - LA Times

Yet another thread DOA. We wrote the Constitution, it's my country not yours, a Liberal Nation founded upon the ideals of Liberalism. If you don't like it Korean Girl, then hit the road. You aren't needed or wanted here.

Exactly the kind of lie this thread exposes.

No, your thread is the lie, as usual.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems the Liberals in this thread are either liars, or ignorant of history.

As a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal....I'll do so right now:


6. 1880’s- 1920’s Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Dewey, Herbert Croly saw the Constitution as outdated; economic and social ills too great. Need for a ‘Living Constitution.’
The idea is based on German political philosophy.
The Progressives were German educated, or their teachers were, and believed in

a. in the state over the individual

b. intrusion on property rights. Teddy Roosevelt’s “The New Nationalism” speech The state is responsible for economic equality. Government is the superintendent over the use of private property: “the benefit to the community is the overriding consideration.”

e. Woodrow Wilson essay “Socialism and Democracy” ‘Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will.’ The collective is not limited by individual rights.

“As would be expected by the socialist part of National Socialism, the guiding principle of Nazi economics was that all property belongs to the people, the Volk, and was to be used only for the good of the people. Just as one’s body is no longer one’s private possession but rather belongs to the whole community, economic property was no longer anyone’s private possession but to be used by State permission and only for the good of the people.”
Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz Stephen Hicks Ph.D.

f. From Croly: The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation.
Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14


And this:
" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48




So, where is the line between fascism and Liberalism/Progressivism?

Doesn't exist....does it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This thread fails as a straw man fallacy and false dilemma fallacy

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread fails as a straw man fallacy and false dilemma fallacy

So....you can't find any errors in it, huh?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What is most fascinating to this thread, and the dozens which preceded it, is the theme: Liberalism is bad, Conservatism is good. Proved (in her mind) by hand-picked quotes mostly from obscure sources, supported by new definitions of words and concepts to fit the agenda underlined above, and defended by a host of personal attacks by the OP's Author of anyone who might dare to challenge her.

Above PC takes the phrase social justice and frames it in this manner: "Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way".

In fact, the actual definition of Social Justice is this: Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities.

A cause celebrated by liberals, progressives and the modern Democratic Party. All one needs to understand is that it was the conservatives who once claimed to be the party of the Big Tent, and defined themselves as Compassionate Conservatives. Facts belied by their actions (as true with political parties it is with people, "watch their feet, not their lips" (it's not what they say, it's what they do).

The conservatives opposed the Equal Right's Amendment, why any woman would support a political movement opposing Social Justice for women is bizarre.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is most fascinating to this thread, and the dozens which preceded it, is the theme: Liberalism is bad, Conservatism is good. Proved (in her mind) by hand-picked quotes mostly from obscure sources, supported by new definitions of words and concepts to fit the agenda underlined above, and defended by a host of personal attacks by the OP's Author of anyone who might dare to challenge her.

Above PC takes the phrase social justice and frames it in this manner: "Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way".

In fact, the actual definition of Social Justice is this: Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities.

A cause celebrated by liberals, progressives and the modern Democratic Party. All one needs to understand is that it was the conservatives who once claimed to be the party of the Big Tent, and defined themselves as Compassionate Conservatives. Facts belied by their actions (as true with political parties it is with people, "watch their feet, not their lips" (it's not what they say, it's what they do).

The conservatives opposed the Equal Right's Amendment, why any woman would support a political movement opposing Social Justice for women is bizarre.

Everyone, whether able to articulate it or not, has a values system. The trick -- often a difficult trick -- is to isolate precisely what those values are. The Left is now, as it has always been, the child of the French Revolution and of Karl Marx.
For both,the greatest evil is not injustice, not cruelty, not even murder; it is inequality.
Columns « The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

 

[Wry Catcher]

What is most fascinating to this thread, and the dozens which preceded it, is the theme: Liberalism is bad, Conservatism is good. Proved (in her mind) by hand-picked quotes mostly from obscure sources, supported by new definitions of words and concepts to fit the agenda underlined above, and defended by a host of personal attacks by the OP's Author of anyone who might dare to challenge her.

Above PC takes the phrase social justice and frames it in this manner: "Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way".

In fact, the actual definition of Social Justice is this: Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities.

A cause celebrated by liberals, progressives and the modern Democratic Party. All one needs to understand is that it was the conservatives who once claimed to be the party of the Big Tent, and defined themselves as Compassionate Conservatives. Facts belied by their actions (as true with political parties it is with people, "watch their feet, not their lips" (it's not what they say, it's what they do).

The conservatives opposed the Equal Right's Amendment, why any woman would support a political movement opposing Social Justice for women is bizarre.

Everyone, whether able to articulate it or not, has a values system. The trick -- often a difficult trick -- is to isolate precisely what those values are. The Left is now, as it has always been, the child of the French Revolution and of Karl Marx.
For both,the greatest evil is not injustice, not cruelty, not even murder; it is inequality.
Columns « The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

I have no idea who Dennis Prager is (or was) but it's pretty clear he didn't suffer the indignity of hunger, cold unabated by warm clothes, gloves and socks, nor suffer the murder of his child, as the parents of those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary did will live with that anguish for a lifetime.

God is unfair, we are not born equal, equal in appearance, health, intelligence, talent or abilities; but Americans are born where a government was established with the vision to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, government which levels the playing field if the people elect those whose governance seeks such an end, and not those who choose parse this vision to fit their ideological agenda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is most fascinating to this thread, and the dozens which preceded it, is the theme: Liberalism is bad, Conservatism is good. Proved (in her mind) by hand-picked quotes mostly from obscure sources, supported by new definitions of words and concepts to fit the agenda underlined above, and defended by a host of personal attacks by the OP's Author of anyone who might dare to challenge her.

Above PC takes the phrase social justice and frames it in this manner: "Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way".

In fact, the actual definition of Social Justice is this: Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities.

A cause celebrated by liberals, progressives and the modern Democratic Party. All one needs to understand is that it was the conservatives who once claimed to be the party of the Big Tent, and defined themselves as Compassionate Conservatives. Facts belied by their actions (as true with political parties it is with people, "watch their feet, not their lips" (it's not what they say, it's what they do).

The conservatives opposed the Equal Right's Amendment, why any woman would support a political movement opposing Social Justice for women is bizarre.

Everyone, whether able to articulate it or not, has a values system. The trick -- often a difficult trick -- is to isolate precisely what those values are. The Left is now, as it has always been, the child of the French Revolution and of Karl Marx.
For both,the greatest evil is not injustice, not cruelty, not even murder; it is inequality.
Columns « The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

I have no idea who Dennis Prager is (or was) but it's pretty clear he didn't suffer the indignity of hunger, cold unabated by warm clothes, gloves and socks, nor suffer the murder of his child, as the parents of those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary did will live with that anguish for a lifetime.

God is unfair, we are not born equal, equal in appearance, health, intelligence, talent or abilities; but Americans are born where a government was established with the vision to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, government which levels the playing field if the people elect those whose governance seeks such an end, and not those who choose parse this vision to fit their ideological agenda.

"I have no idea who Dennis Prager is (or was) but it's pretty clear he didn't suffer the indignity of hunger, cold unabated by warm clothes, gloves and socks, nor suffer the murder of his child, as the parents of those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary did will live with that anguish for a lifetime."


Pleeeezzzeee tell me you aren't such an imbecile that you actually believe that the above description applies to the clients of the welfare industry!!!

Please tell me that you were posting a satire based on some Dickens novel you happen to peruse.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Am I the only person who can't read PC's long, drawn out posts that are full of red herrings and sophomoric arguments?

Why bother?

Like Flanders and emilynghiem they just wander around aimlessly for a while and then poop out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution. In fact, it is known as 'the law of the land.'


a. "in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, soin free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
"Common Sense," Thomas Paine.

That was once upon a time.
How very far we have fallen from Paine's precept, now that Liberals have taken hold of the judiciary.

The seeds of destruction of the nation imagined, created, by the Founders can be found in article III of our Constitution.
The courts. Judges.




b. When lying, self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed individuals find their way into the judiciary, and a portion of the electorate is made of such dullards that they accept black as white, and up as down....well, we have what we are witnessing today.

When the Constitution was written, the view was that judges are there to apply the law.....not to write law, or 'interpret' or improvise or decode or adapt law.
Apply...employ....administer the law.....as written!!!

Definition of 'apply': to employ diligently or with close attention; to bring into action




8. . "The Founding Fathers felt strongly about limiting the power of judges because they had suffered under tyrannical and dictatorial British judges," the position paper says, adding, "Since the New Deal of the 1930s, however, the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches.

The judiciary has acted on the premise of 'judicial supremacy,' where courts not only review and apply laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new constitutional law from the bench that the Supreme Court has asserted should be binding on the other two branches."
"Item No. 9" in the Newt Gingrich 2012 position paper, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

7. The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution. In fact, it is known as 'the law of the land.'


a. "in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, soin free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
"Common Sense," Thomas Paine.

That was once upon a time.
How very far we have fallen from Paine's precept, now that Liberals have taken hold of the judiciary.

The seeds of destruction of the nation imagined, created, by the Founders can be found in article III of our Constitution.
The courts. Judges.




b. When lying, self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed individuals find their way into the judiciary, and a portion of the electorate is made of such dullards that they accept black as white, and up as down....well, we have what we are witnessing today.

When the Constitution was written, the view was that judges are there to apply the law.....not to write law, or 'interpret' or improvise or decode or adapt law.
Apply...employ....administer the law.....as written!!!

Definition of 'apply': to employ diligently or with close attention; to bring into action




8. . "The Founding Fathers felt strongly about limiting the power of judges because they had suffered under tyrannical and dictatorial British judges," the position paper says, adding, "Since the New Deal of the 1930s, however, the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches.

The judiciary has acted on the premise of 'judicial supremacy,' where courts not only review and apply laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new constitutional law from the bench that the Supreme Court has asserted should be binding on the other two branches."
"Item No. 9" in the Newt Gingrich 2012 position paper, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution."

If you don't like my Liberal nation then get the fuck out Korean Girl. You aren't needed or wanted here.

 

[norwegen]

Your choice, GOP. Follow wingnuts and the path of the Whigs, or acknowledge reality.

Did you just contradict your fellow progressives on these boards? The ones who say that that the "wingnuts" were the Tories?

Revisionism confuses you liberals senseless, doesn't it.

 

[norwegen]

Am I the only person who can't read PC's long, drawn out posts that are full of red herrings and sophomoric arguments?

If you can't read, then you can't read long, drawn-out posts, whatever the content.

 

[norwegen]

5. While those Classical Liberals who wrote the Constitution memorialized the ideas of private property, individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government, the 'Liberals/Progressives' had very different plans for America.


These usurpers differed dramatically from earlier views in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism of the Constitution. This separation from earliest traditions was the backbone of the Progressive movement.

a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’

b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.

c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.

d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.

e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.

f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.

This is the nub of the leftist confusion, I think. Identifying the purpose of the Progressive Era, an era they embrace that impugns our revolutionary principles.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution


We made that choice long ago, in 1789, when we ratified the Constitution. A document that outlawed the socialism called "modern liberalism".

Liberals have been trying to evade, misinterpret, and otherwise violate that document ever since.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What is most fascinating to this thread, and the dozens which preceded it, is the theme: Liberalism is bad, Conservatism is good. Proved (in her mind) by hand-picked quotes mostly from obscure sources, supported by new definitions of words and concepts to fit the agenda underlined above, and defended by a host of personal attacks by the OP's Author of anyone who might dare to challenge her.

Above PC takes the phrase social justice and frames it in this manner: "Social Justice requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way".

In fact, the actual definition of Social Justice is this: Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities.

A cause celebrated by liberals, progressives and the modern Democratic Party. All one needs to understand is that it was the conservatives who once claimed to be the party of the Big Tent, and defined themselves as Compassionate Conservatives. Facts belied by their actions (as true with political parties it is with people, "watch their feet, not their lips" (it's not what they say, it's what they do).

The conservatives opposed the Equal Right's Amendment, why any woman would support a political movement opposing Social Justice for women is bizarre.

Everyone, whether able to articulate it or not, has a values system. The trick -- often a difficult trick -- is to isolate precisely what those values are. The Left is now, as it has always been, the child of the French Revolution and of Karl Marx.
For both,the greatest evil is not injustice, not cruelty, not even murder; it is inequality.
Columns « The Dennis Prager Show The Dennis Prager Show

I have no idea who Dennis Prager is (or was) but it's pretty clear he didn't suffer the indignity of hunger, cold unabated by warm clothes, gloves and socks, nor suffer the murder of his child, as the parents of those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary did will live with that anguish for a lifetime.

God is unfair, we are not born equal, equal in appearance, health, intelligence, talent or abilities; but Americans are born where a government was established with the vision to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, government which levels the playing field if the people elect those whose governance seeks such an end, and not those who choose parse this vision to fit their ideological agenda.

"I have no idea who Dennis Prager is (or was) but it's pretty clear he didn't suffer the indignity of hunger, cold unabated by warm clothes, gloves and socks, nor suffer the murder of his child, as the parents of those killed at Sandy Hook Elementary did will live with that anguish for a lifetime."


Pleeeezzzeee tell me you aren't such an imbecile that you actually believe that the above description applies to the clients of the welfare industry!!!

Please tell me that you were posting a satire based on some Dickens novel you happen to peruse.

Dickens vis a vis Prager? Are you kidding? Well, I suppose you felt a need to respond to my post, even if you cannot produce anything of substance. The more you post, the less education I believe you have; pretense, arrogance and the works of others can only take a dilettante so far.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution


We made that choice long ago, in 1789, when we ratified the Constitution. A document that outlawed the socialism called "modern liberalism".

Liberals have been trying to evade, misinterpret, and otherwise violate that document ever since.

And they've been able to ensconce a similarly minded thug in the White House.


9. " The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions whose purpose is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind?

Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it.

Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment. There is no allowance for a president to override it according to his supposed superior conception. "
From a speech delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on September 20, 2010 by Mike Pence,U.S. Representative
Indiana's Sixth Congressional District.
The title of the thread is"Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution"



Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment.
And the same applies to dictates by judges or justices.


Don't Liberals believe in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution?

Not hardly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

7. The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution. In fact, it is known as 'the law of the land.'


a. "in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, soin free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
"Common Sense," Thomas Paine.

That was once upon a time.
How very far we have fallen from Paine's precept, now that Liberals have taken hold of the judiciary.

The seeds of destruction of the nation imagined, created, by the Founders can be found in article III of our Constitution.
The courts. Judges.




b. When lying, self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed individuals find their way into the judiciary, and a portion of the electorate is made of such dullards that they accept black as white, and up as down....well, we have what we are witnessing today.

When the Constitution was written, the view was that judges are there to apply the law.....not to write law, or 'interpret' or improvise or decode or adapt law.
Apply...employ....administer the law.....as written!!!

Definition of 'apply': to employ diligently or with close attention; to bring into action




8. . "The Founding Fathers felt strongly about limiting the power of judges because they had suffered under tyrannical and dictatorial British judges," the position paper says, adding, "Since the New Deal of the 1930s, however, the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches.

The judiciary has acted on the premise of 'judicial supremacy,' where courts not only review and apply laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new constitutional law from the bench that the Supreme Court has asserted should be binding on the other two branches."
"Item No. 9" in the Newt Gingrich 2012 position paper, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution."

If the American People wanted to alter the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting our Constitution, they could do it by amendment.

They havent' and they won't, the crybabying from a fraction on the far right notwithstanding.