On the Court, Leftist Justice vs. the Rule of Law
”Elections have consequences,” said Barack Obama upon becoming president. Among those consequences is the ability of any president to appoint justices of the Supreme Court, as well as a great many other federal judges, based on criteria rational or irrational, honorable or dishonorable, or no criteria other than flipping a coin or tossing a dart at a board festooned with the names of candidates.
On Dec. 12, the consequences of the election of Mr. Obama were illuminated in stark relief on Fox News Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, currently hawking his book Making Our Democracy Work. Wallace wisely questioned Justice Breyer on the Second Amendment. His answers and evasions were illuminating — and frightening.
Justice Breyer suggested that the primary job of a Supreme Court justice is to determine the values of the Founding Fathers. Breyer suggested that his second concern was to examine history, with the majority opinion of historians, perhaps, considered to rule. He did ultimately allow that judges should consider such matters as the the actual text of the Constitution and precedent, but Breyer’s answers to Wallace’s questions revealed his belief that the text and its clear meaning should be ignored in favor of the approach of judges like himself — who should “regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances.” Justice Breyer suggested that this was a “pragmatic” approach.
In explicating the text of the Second Amendment, Breyer said that it was not written to guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, but as a check on Congress nationalizing state militias. According to Breyer, James Madison included the amendment as an appeasement to the states to ensure that the Constitution was ratified. Breyer asserted that historians believe that Madison’s priority was “I’ve got to get this document ratified.”
Justice Breyer repeatedly brought up “liberty,” suggesting that the concept could not be understood unless one adopted his values-based approach to Constitutional interpretation. He also raised the argument that his approach was correct because the Founders did not foresee such things as the internet, television, and the telephone — implying that his flexible approach (an approach which ignores the text and its clear meaning in favor of adopting contemporary, politically correct interpretations that advance desired social policies) is the only legitimate way for a judge to make decisions.
Justice Breyer wrote the dissenting opinion in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case in which the majority affirmed the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms, as the clear meaning of the text and the historical record support. However, Breyer believes that the opposite holding, his own, is correct, reflecting the values and intentions of the Founders. Referring to the act of judging, Breyer said: “The difficult job in open cases where there is no clear answer is to take those values in this document, what all Americans hold, which do not change, and to apply them to a world that is ever changing. It’s not a matter of policy, it is a matter of what those framers intended.” Breyer ignores the fact that it is language, the written word, that reflects, embodies, and explains values, and nowhere was language so carefully chosen as in the Constitution. In Breyer’s construction, the clear language of the Constitution is untrustworthy, confusing, and cannot be understood by the layman, but only apprehended by a values interpretation discovered and imposed by judges.
For Justice Breyer a complete ban on handguns in D.C is completely acceptable and reflective of the true values embodied by the Constitution. “We’re acting as judges. If we’re going to decide everything on the basis of history — by the way, what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns? Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don’t think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun.”
Because Supreme Court justices almost never consent to interviews, this interview is fascinating for a look at the “living, breathing document” wing of the Supreme Court. Its view of the Constitution is mere subterfuge for the view that the Constitution means whatever a liberal majority of judges want it to mean at a given moment. Because conservative justices generally view the interpretation of the plain text of the Constitution, supported by the historical record, to be the primary determining factor in understanding the intent of the Founders, the view espoused by Justice Breyer is clearly that of the left — a left that views the Constitution not as America’s primary guarantor of liberty and democracy, but as an antiquated impediment to the imposition of their policies.
A well written and concise description of the coming tsunami of the debt/entitlement catastrophe.
If the supreme court forces it, what happens when the individual taxpayer can’t pay it? How’s the supreme court at bankruptcy laws or taxpayer;s freedom from costs that are arithmetically impossible for them to meet?
It is my dream, that in the afterlife, leftists as their eternal reward shall be granted an eternety living in the society which they would impose upon the rest of us.
All the while seeing how the society that the right would run but never able to move into that other place.
Leftists don’t have to wait for the afterlife to live in the type of society they would impose on the rest of us Americans.
They have their choice of a dozen different European countries right now.
Some of the more affluent leftists have lived in Europe, at least for a time. And they never tire of telling everybody how much more “enlightened” and “sophisticated” Europeans are compared to those “backward” Americans.
Isn’t the medical profession itself, the most tempting case for outsourcing? Maybe the only one which makes sense. US individuals think so, as health related visits to India are growing exponentially.
But of course, a left wing supreme court decision would deny this freedom.
Justice Breyer suggested that the primary job of a Supreme Court Justice is to determine the values of the Founding Fathers. Breyer suggested that his second concern was to examine history, with the majority opinion of historians, perhaps, considered to rule.
What Slappy means is, the historians he and his ilk deem worthy will always represent the majority, just like Global Warming. As if the vaunted scientific community doesn’t have enough prostitutes willing to subvert science for political expediency, now we will have liberal historians falling over themselves to tell us the history is settled, and the founding fathers were vehemently anti gun. Then we’ll be treated to a litany of bombastic condemnation by academicians who tell us we are not sufficiently trained to interpret history.
The same Republicans that agreed to confirm Justice Sotomayor are busy right now caving into Obama’s Tax-The-Bastards Election 2012 sucker punch.
Constitution…?
Tea Party…?
Fools like Breyer simple make the Constitution a worthless scrap of paper as Hitler said about the Versailles Treaty. They can make up anything in it. Up is down, black is white & the moon is made outta green cheese with this “living breathing” Constitution. This is where all of the liberal whackos on the SC are at now. They twist the Constitution to say anything that they want it to say. IF the Founding Fathers would have known what we know today, they would have greatly weakened the SC and put strong controls on them that say them must simply rule on what the Constitution says period. The idiots teaching these brain dead law students in law schools all of the crap that Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg & Sotomayor believe in to interpret the Constitution are simply traitors to our nation. The sooner we get rid of ‘em, the better. A truck driver pulled off of I-5 in CA, at random, could make far better & wiser decisions of what the Constitution says that this ship of fools.
This guy is a disaster.
So, Madison wrote the Second Amendment to appease the states; i.e., it’s void. Dear God, is this how these unelected tyrants rule America?
Did he miss the part of his oath that said to protect to Constitution – all of it, the 2nd Amendment included?
Let’s remove the Bill of Rights (what’s left of it), because it all was included to appease the states to ratify the Constitution.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. – Madison.
No wonder people are running around the forests in camos, buying millions of firearms and billions of ammunition, belonging to all kinds of groups from militias to III per centers …
Justice Breyer is living proof of the mental illness of the American left. He should immediately get rid of his gun-carrying bodyguards.
I’ve never uttered or posted this before, but now it seem appropriate: Μολὼν λαβέ
Breyer is another one of those Ruling Class elites who should end his days on a gallows platform.
Heck, the whole Bill of Rights was added to “appease” the states; it was their prerequisite to ratification.
If the federal government starts nullifying those rights and ignoring the 10 prerequisites, why should states continue to support such a regime?
Breyer’s “values approach” to initerpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution is misconceived nonsense. If a law student were to articulate such an approach in law school, the law student should be sternly told that such an approach is not what a judge should do, that the judge must begin with and focus on the constitutional text that was democratically adopted and supplement that focus by consideration of original sources concerning the intent of the text. Otherwise, the judge is engaged in an “inquiry” allowing the judge to do what the judge pleases.
Breyer, I think, is engaged in false history and wishful thinking in order to rationalize doing what he damn well pleases as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. He is trying to sound smart. It really is pathetic. Breyer is a bad judge.
I have become convinced that ‘constitutionalism’ is dead. Witness the recent case of the Columbia professor accused of ‘adult incest’. If supreme court precedent is followed to its coherent conclusion then surely any conviction obtained must declared unconstitutional as pointed out by Scalia in his dissent in the homosexual sodomy case.
Apparently the people thru its representative government have very limited ability to express itself on values questions yet Breyer arrogantly asserts the right to express His.
Don’t know the answer.
Clinton appointee.
Just for fun, someone should ask Bill if he agrees.
Why? You’ll just get a load of spin. Of COURSE he agrees! You haven’t fallen for that spiel that Bill Clinton is really a MODERATE, have you? He’s as fully Marxist as Obama, just with a different (more careful) approach to implementing it.
How did such a fool ever find his way onto the Supreme Court?
B.J. Clinton, 1994
We used to frequently hear a phrase “taking the law into one’s own hands”. We don’t hear that phrase, used to vilify the act of a vigilante, much any more. It seems that is what Bryer believes in, taking the law into his own hands. With so many judges willing to do just that, take the Constitution into their own hands, it should not be surprising that elected officials, who take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, wash their hands of responsibility for honoring that oath. It is sad. It is a shame and a disgrace, but it is not surprising.
Indeed. The Founders took the details so seriously that even an unintended semicolon was considered a grievous error.
Never before in America’s history has our political elite been so completely dominated by poseurs.
“Never before in America’s history has our political elite been so completely dominated by poseurs.”
Breyer is incapable of logical thought.
And the most punctillious annotator was the president of the convention, George Washington.
I saw this interview, and I’m not sure if the man is driven by evil intent, as are most such leftists, or if he’s just stupid.
The text of the Second Amendment is as follows:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Do allow me to translate this into language that any moron ought to be able to understand:
We are a nation that wishes to remain safe and secure from any and all armed enemies, and to ensure this security, we shall require a well-armed and regular militia. Thus, that the people themselves might remain free from threats posed by this militia and the government that directs it, Congress shall not infringe upon their right to arm and defend themselves.
Is that so hard?
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — …
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; …
Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; …
New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.
Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; …
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Etc. …
I wonder how Justice Breyer got through law school? How difficult is it to understand the words, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the states) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? The militia part is just a preamble. Also, Justice Breyer must be ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the history surrounding the establishment of the 14th Amendment. The amendment was established to give recently freed blacks the right to keep and bear arms that Southern states were depriving them of.
If Breyer had held a “constructivist” view of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, he probably wouldn’t have made it through law school. When he attended, the “living Constitution” view was prevalent, as it has been since the 1960s when the radicals began their “Long March Through The institutions”. As someone who studied Constitutional law thirty-odd years ago, I can assure you that maintaining that the “well-regulated militia” described in the Second Amendment meant anything other than the police and the National Guard was a fast route to an “F” with most law professors, the “original intent of the Framers” be d***ed. (Many of them didn’t even want the police included in that category, for purely personal and dogmatic reasons.)
It’s only relatively recently that the more “original” view of the Second Amendment has even been eligible for discussion in “learned legal” circles, beginning with an essay by Prof. Sanford Levinson in 1982. The title tells what Levinson, a doctrinaire liberal, thought of the subject; “The Embarrassing Second Amendment”. He desperately wanted to find it offered no protection for the individual from being disarmed “for his own good” by a “wise and enlightened” government, but he ended up having to admit that interpreting the term “the right of the people” in that restrictive way would also deprive himself, and his fellow “enlightened ones”, of their right to lecture everybody else on their current Cause of the Moment (under the First Amendment), plus other cherished rights that kept them from suffering the fates of, say, anyone who couldn’t demonstrate long-standing membership in the local Communist Party cell in Phnom Penh after Pol Pot & Co. took over Cambodia in 1975. Levinson concluded that the only legal way to “deal with” the Second Amendment was to repeal it with another Amendment.
Since then, that view has been quietly advocated by “experts” who just object to an armed citizenry on principle. But they do it only when they are sure that “The Great Unwashed” aren’t listening. I’m sure Breyer falls into this category.
clear ether
eon
Ahhh. the replacement of the Founding Fathers with the Fadding Fathers.
Whatever the latest fad, it should dig up the foundation of our self-governance and replace it with Pet Rock law and Hula Hoop law.
The Ten Commandments become the Ten Suggestions, stoplights are for tourists and laws are meant to be broken. It is the stark difference between those who are rules followers and those who are rules breakers at their core.
Leftists, of every ilk and derivation…love to break rules. Love to tear down the fabric of society, love to chip away at tradition, love to erode the status quo.
That they march in virtual lockstep while doing so, that they ostracize apostates for the slightest divergent thought is one of life’s great ironies.
The abject disrespect and the level of venom reserved for the rules followers, is so often unhinged and rabid, because tearing down society is a bloodsport. Red-eyed rage is not only common, it’s necessary to keep the movement alive. If there is not a reason to be enraged, one must be invented out of whole cloth.
In this way, the opposition is never on the same level of intensity, the battles are always pitched a bit higher and the resistance always a tad more tepid.
On those rare occasions that a line is crossed that does indeed get the normally tepid to a rolling boil, they simply pretend to be centrist and populist…until it recedes. Since they own nearly every mass pop culture outlet, the message is controlled…the heat applied in measured doses.
As we march, inexorably…toward anomie.
My contention has been, always will be, that each case coming before a court, any court, should be dealt with on it’s own merits, NOT precedent! With so many rulings being overturned by one higher court over another, using precedent to decide cases seems to be anti-climactic in many senses. Now, I have not read the qualifications/requirements for being a member of the SCOTUS, but it would make the best sense to me for the first & foremost requirement to be “to uphold the original wording of the constitution with as little personal interpretation of intent as humanly possible”. In reading the constitution, there appears to be an even flow of a commonality of intent, of which I am certain there was a plethora of compromises made, quite possibly with the thought of someone like Justice Breyer & many others in mind.
I wont argue with his assertion that Madison wanted to prevent the capricious and unnecessary Federalizing of State militias by a less than trustworthy future leader.
That may well have been a concern… I’m willing to even go so far as to say it may have been the PRIMARY concern, seeing how they feared an overly powerful central government…
But the fact they put such specific language into the Bill Of RIGHTS ends forever and all time, all debate as to whether such potential consolidation of power was to be blocked by a COLLECTIVE state right, or an INDIVIDUAL right.
The danger was foreseen.
The means for Just Resistance was acknowledged.
The right of THE PEOPLE to keep private arms was to be the means.
The language is clear.
The final check and balance, THE last difinitive means to prevent political tyranny, was to be an armed populace. Case Closed.
There is no honest debate whatsoever on this matter.
Only lies, by him and people like him.
They are Traitors, nothing more.
The fact that a rope and any nearby tree have YET to be their fate, relects more on OUR patience, compassion, and brothery kinship, than theirs.
But ours is wearing damn thin!
I’d like to see a movie where the Supreme Court Justices are forced to live in East LA in order to see their wisdom enacted on the twin concerns of illegal immigration and hand guns.
Perhaps they would stop viewing the entire world as de facto American citizens and the law abiding who wish protection in their true light.
I for one loathe the idea that American embassies around the world are handing out American passports to culture’s who had not one thing to do with the formation of this country and yet have the exact same status as those here for generations. If that’s the way it should be, then stop handing out passports and get rid of that odious anchor baby law.
There was no “odious anchorbaby” LAW,
It was simply an OPINION of a single federal judge in (1981?), who simply said “oh, and by the way, “this” no longer means “that” ” in a long written opinion on some other matter.
Thus overturning more than 150 years precident on who is, and who is not a U.S. citizen.
Law, by judicial fiat. The way Bryer and the rest like it.
the left cant stand the precise language of the constitution b/c their existence necessitates an ambiguous interpretaion
but the idiocy of “living and breathing” (mind you, this is the only method that is discussed and taught in american schools) is nothing but an insult to our founders
of course our founders couldn’t envision the country as it is today but they understood, more than most, the ageless tyranny of government w/ out checks and balances
a supreme court made up of 9 untouchable, unelectable, lifetime appointees that deviates from the original text of the constitution becomes a cabal capable of total destruction
yesterday’s ruling is a victory not only for the limit of government power but also for addressing the mutilation and distortion of the dreaded “commerce clause” that is the lefts primary weapon in imposing their demented ideology
…addressing the mutilation and distortion of the dreaded “commerce clause” that is the lefts primary weapon in imposing their demented ideology
It’s astonishing, the kinds of powers this government has attempted to attach to that simple and straightforward clause in Article 1, Section Eight of the Constitution, enumerating the powers of Congress.
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”
The judge in the Florida case (20+ states have joined that suit) ruled a few months that the justice department would have to defend its position (requiring the citizen to purchase health insurance) under the commerce clause and not Congress’ taxation authority. Apparently, the justice dept. was trying to have it both ways.
At face value, finding cause to require a citizen to purchase a product or service under that single line, the Commerce Clause, is beyond ludicrous.
Interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been ludicrous for a long time. I recently read of Wickard v. Filburm, where by law a farmer was unable to feed his own wheat to his own animals and the SCOTUS upheld this monstrosity.
OTOH, maybe this SCOTUS will us the individual mandate as an opportunity to overrule Wickard and put some real limits regarding the Commerce Clause.
There is nothing in the Constitution that allows nine guys to make it up.
The real question is why we put up with these overreaching courts. Kelo is simply wrong. The majority of Americans disagree with it. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, not opinions of some unelected judges.
You can see from the way the Bond Holders of GM were treated how the current government feels about contracts. It’s the same way Breyer feels about the constitution. So I guess it does no good for me to say the constitution is a contract but it does mean what it says as does a contract. I have a contract to pay for my house mortgage here in California even though the house isn’t worth what I still owe on the mortgage I keep paying the bills because we have a contract. That’s what you do if you have any respect for others or your own word.
— who should “regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances.”
I guess Breyer has never heard of eternal principles that transcend societal change like the ones he cited, television, the internet, the telephone etc. He apparently assumes that technological evolution in society gives justices on the SCOTUS the right to channel the Founders willy nilly.
Judges at all levels seem to be into writing law as opposed to sticking to their only assigned job of interpreting law in the context of Constitutionality.
Apparently, there are too many self-designated “wise Latinas” out there, too many self-proclaimed wise old men and women. Or wiser than the hoi polloi, anyway.
Is Justice Breyer so isolated that he does not know that American gun owners understand that no right is unlimited…
Too busy playing Daddy to the unwashed masses.
Justices like Breyer and (retired) 90-year old JP Stevens provide a window into the liberal mind. In a 60 Minutes interview a couple of weeks ago, Stevens, blithely and without offering anything resembling a complete sets of facts, dissed the court’s rulings in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.
As for Obama and the second amendment, during his campaign he supported the DC ban on handguns, which law said something like you could keep a gun in your home but it had to be kept in a disassembled(!)condition (maybe you could assemble the handgun as an intruder was climbing in your window)
After the SCOTUS declared that law unconstitutional, Obama quickly announced he supported the citizen’s right to bear arms.
He performed a convenient, and quick, flip flop.
Liberals aren’t idealogues. They are thieves.
But since they use ideology as their cover story, it has to be addressed.
And the absolute core principle of the birds of a feather liberal / progressive / statist / socialist / fascist / royalist / oligarchic / marxist/ communist / totalitarian philosophies is the “Living Constitution”, or as it is more commonly known, relativism.
Because once you establish that, it’s clear sailing to total power. Without a Constitution as the basis of government, the law is whatever they want it to be. And you can be assured, it won’t be in YOUR favor.
I wish Conservatives would say it more often and louder. It’s a simple principle everybody instantly understands. If Mom and Dad don’t set the rules, or if the rules change all the time, there can only be chaos. Stability is even more important than the rules themselves, provided there is a reasonable means to make adjustments to them.
So this Breyer fellow isn’t a jurist at all, he is just another piglet apologist sucking at Stalin’s teat.
Recall that Barack Obama, that soaring intellectual, declared the Bill of Rights to be a litany of “negative liberties”.
Apparently, negative because those pesky amendments, especially the original 10, are a list of limits on federal power, and Obama is more into an all-inclusive Jabba the Hutt style of governance.
Breyer is a Dick, and a thief, as you point out.
Wasnt he the one who expanded Eminent Domain to include public “benefit” instead of public “use”.
Of course…. EVERYTHING Dear Leaders proposes if for our own good, or Dear Leaders would not propose it, would they?
I live in the Delaware Valley of PA, near where Washington crossed during the Revolution. Bucollic, historic, still semi rural, and lately very desirable and expensive, as its commutable by train to Manhattan (90 mins) and Philly (30 min.). Lots more Yuppies and McMansions springing up the last ten years.
After the “Breyer” rule on eminent domain, a local town had a mans entire farm “condemned” because of a delapadeted old barn on a portion of it, seized over 100 acres, and built a PRIVATE golf club on it.
What is the PUBLIC benefit to a PRIVATE golf club? Why, its increase in the property values of the new McMansions, that now are close to a swank private golf club!
Higher property values mean higher TAXES, with which the HIGHEST PAID TEACHERS IN THE STATE EARN $94,0000 FOR 180 DAYS OF WORK.
See the enourmous public benefit that can be achieved by a “living” constitution?
The needs of the many (public employees) clearly outweigh the ‘rights” of the few greedy landowners who were sitting on property they DARED to want to pass on to their CHILDREN.
Just left a long reply/diatribe on “Thief Justice” Breyer and eminent domain, might show up as anonymous, forgot to put my name in, thet jerk makes me SO mad!
Really, can’t you ignorant little people clinging to religion and g-ns understand? That dreadful Second Amendment speaks clearly of the militia — it only means that SOLDIERS have the right to carry g-ns!
/end sarcasm.
And the First Amendment only applies to JOUR-O-LIST members, MSM network TV anchors, left wing actors and talk show hosts….
Everything else is “hate speach”
Thanks, psychodad!
If you do encounter that “well-regulated militia” argument, point them to the “Federalist 46″ Madison essay I mention in another post on this thread.
Dwight, I would like to impose on your good nature to ask you two questions: (1) Do you believe that if one freely takes an oath, one should afterword honor that oath? (2) Would you take the oath of office that Congresspersons now take, whether or not you were elected or appointed to a public office?
I anticipate an interesting read in your response.
After the “Breyer” rule on eminent domain…
The decision in “Kelo” should have been raised a giant red flag for every person in America.
Since then, a number of states have passed legislation to prevent such a thing happening within their boundaries.
In the view of the Founders, private property was a pillar of the representative republic.
Ironically, since kicking Suzanne Kelo out of her house in Connecticut & seizing the land, that property has sat entirely vacant and undeveloped. The city fathers (or whomever) don’t have the resources or the backers to proceed with the “development” that, they had argued to the Court, was going to be such a great economic boon to the region.
Sounds like a “local citizens militia” ought to escort her back to “her own land” and assist in raising a barn and farmhouse, and patrol it in perpetuity to “re-protect” her rights from the armed palokas the Breyer team would send in..
Well, lookie here… Clear and convincing evidence that the Senate Repubs should use the filibister to stop all nominees who do not espouse originalist jurisprudence and have a track record to support their testimony.
Liberal — living document — judges remain and have been the greatest threat to our liberty and health of our culture.
Attorneys who reinterpret plain speech or try to twist and bend someone’s words to have a different meaning have for generations been considered the lowest of the lot. Slippery shysters.
The realization that these shyster types have managed to weasel their way into the Supreme Court is scary to say the least.
Stephen Breyer and the girls on the SCOTUS (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan) might appreciate this “living” version of an old favorite…
The 12 Days of Winter
I do hope our conservative justices are eating well and exercising!!!!!!
There is no need to have very broad interpretations of the constitution. The founding fathers gave us means to make necessary changes. The Bill of Rights were the first changes made and they came at the very beginning. The 2nd amendment is difficult to interpret in any other way except that it recognizes the right of citizens protect themselves – to bare arms. Would anyone have us believe that it grants the right of the army or navy to bare arms? If in fact the majority want to ban this right of the people, the 2nd amendment can be repealed as have several other amendments. But it is not up to some judge to take this right from the people simply because he feels we would have a better ordered society. These changes to the Constitution should be made under the light of day, with discourse among all sides and an honest analysis of information pertinent to the decision.
Amen.
The level of subversion and totalitarianism that we have witnessed in the last two years would be NOTHING compared to what a second term could “accomplish” (against Freedom and America).
We have to work relentlessly from now until November 2012.
Excellent review of this SCOTUS Justice, far and away the worst now setting on the left side of the bench.
I would suggest that his flippant carping about…’do you like to target shoot…are you a sportsman…’ ect is in one way quite reassuring. It was petulant and snippy the way he tossed off these important issues, and I believe the reason is that like most progressives Bryer is a very sore loser.
He is a bad judge, but he is an even worse judge of the American people. Bryer is the most political of the four to the left. In the C-Span indepth review run about a year ago – where they went into Chambers to discuss with each Jurist at length their many views about the court and their role in it – Bryer was constantly bringing up the current obsessions the left hold about the current court; Organic VS Originalism; International Law – and how it appropriately should be drawn upon to augment/enhance our jurisprudence (Another reflection of repudiating the idea of American Exceptionalism); Gay rights as an extention of Civil Rights; Immigration as a human rights issue rather than economics – in short every leftist talking point on the docket today. In doing so he made Ginsberg look like a girl scout.
The fact that Bryer, who prides himself on being an unflappable optimist, always smiling, always laughing, the kinder and gentler tyrant in my view, really came pretty close to having a hissy fit about the gun rights question Wallace put to him, in one way reflects the kind on angst the left has about where the public has gone in ultimately winning the day during my lifetime, ressurecting and enshrining 2nd ammendment rights for all Americans.
They hate it. And esspecially idiots like Bryer, who look to the Warren/Burger courts as the high point in American civilization. Not many under the age of 50 can realize how good we have it now, nor how close the left was to owning this issue, and how close in the 70′s (after the civil unrest in the late 60′s into the early 70′s) they got to really abolishing gun ownership.
This, I believe, is why Bryer got so red-faced and snippy. The left came close to winning on gun rights and now can’t handle that they have lost the public completely. Judges like Bryer are constantly relitigating their brilliant views when the Brady Law was the proposed solution to gun violence in America.
With the kind of open poltical activism that Obama’s slight at the State of the Union represented, besides the sham the whole Senate approvial process has become, besides the more subtle forms of activism Bryer exhibits with his new book, these in toto reflect the need to revist the constitutional relevance of having these jurists, who like Stevens, live on the bench for 40+ years.
The SCOTUS has become way to polticized – and limiting, by age or otherwise term (say a twenty year term limit) – would help depoliticize it.
I’ll bet Breyer is a CFR member. The CFR hates the constitution of these United States. It gets in the way of a North American Union, and stands for Nationalism.
Breyer should be tried for Treason.
Has Breyer ever read “Federalist 46?” It is, in part, Madison’s essay on the necessity of an armed citizenry. Go ahead and Google “Federalist 46″, and when you go to the actual content, search on the word “arms” and watch the search tool light up the content like a skyscraper at night. Madison was very detailed in his reasoning, which is 180 degrees different from Breyer’s bizarre interpretation.
Also, Breyer seems to know nothing about the DC Metropolitan area he has lived in for decades. Suggesting that people could take the subway (while armed!) to go to Maryland?. Virginia is the gun rights state, maryland is not. Why should someone not clued into everyday reality have so much power over us?
What gets me about liberals when they try to mollify gun owners is their clueless, patronizing phrase, “we support the rights of hunters and sportsmen.”
Translation: It’s OK to shoot, kill and eat Bambi’s Mom, but it’s NOT OK for, say, a woman to scare off a would-be rapist by pointing a handgun at him
I’m fine with hunting; it’s natural for some humans to engage in this, and it really serves practical purposes, but handguns are what a majority of people are interested in owning for the purpose of defending their “right to life.”
Lets assume for a moment that the Constitution IS a “Living Document” for which I believe it is under limited and certain circumstance…as disclosed in action by the Founders themselves.
FIRST and foremost. The Founders are precise in who and how the Constitution can be amended…even if by interpretation(s). The Supreme Court by redefining the constitution is NOT one of the processes authorized by the Constitution.
ONLY the Congress, The States and the People (Tenth Amendment) can effect an Amendment to the Constitution and such Amendment MUST be ratified by 2/3 of the States.
SECOND. The Constitutions mandate of authority to the Supreme Court is a very direct and simple one! Article III, Section 2 ["The judicial power shall extend to all cases, *in law and equity*, arising under this Constitution...."]. (Emphasis *_* added)
Does anybody see the Constitution authorizing the Supreme Court to define and construe the meanings of the U.S. Constitution in Article III, Section 2? As was often quoted back in time…”the Constitution is written.” The Supreme Courts job was narrowly defined to uphold laws within the “equity” of the Constitution as written. It is left to the People, the States and Congress to Amend the Constitution to mean anything other than what IS WRITTEN.
The unlawful, unconstitutional exceptions has conditioned the masses into ignorance for decades now. In our most modern times the Congress’ have hand over to the Supreme Court, their Constitutional authority to safeguard the Constitution [as written] and effect any needed Amendments.
In terms of legal reality, ALL the decisions of the Supreme Court that has rendered interpretations contrary to the [written words] of the Constitution are NULL AND VOID. The Constitution does NOT grant to the Supreme Court, that authority! Again, the problem remains that the Congress, the States and the People have “surrendered” their constitutional authortity to the Supreme Court.
Is it not time for “WE THE PEOPLE” to take back our Constitution?
Excellent points on the amendment process. It has been abandoned, because those who believe as Breyer does are well aware that almost none of their agenda would have seen the light of day had these governance and judicial policy proposals been subjected to the amendment process. Breyer and his ilk think of the people are their enemies.
You have fallen into the same thinking as Breyer, just to a lesser degree. The constitution is a contract and means exactly what it says. The second amendment’s clause that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” means exactly that. You don’t need a license or permission to exercise a right. If they can tell you or me what kind of arms we can keep or where we can bear them then they are infringing on our right. Simple as that. If I can afford to buy it I have the right to get it. If I can carry it, I have the right to do so. If they don’t like it, there is a process to change it. Silly as it may sound to you, I have a right to carry a bazooka if I can afford one and want to go to the trouble to do so. Anyone who doesn’t want me to be able to do so should start the amendment process. Ignoring the constitution just because you don’t happen to like what it says is what has gotten us into the mess we are in now.
Breyer would find some way to interpret the Founders’ values as requiring Communism.
Maybe you guys might want to look up what the “Rule of Law” actually means. One telling bit from my link goes: Law must stay constant through time to allow the formalization of rules; however, law also must allow for timely revision when the underlying social and political circumstances have changed.
Nice cherry pick.
This, from the article you linked, would be more applicable:
“In the most basic sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.”
Which is why the constitution provides for amendment. By vote of 2/3 of the states, *NOT* 5/9 of the SCOTUS.
Actually, Mr. McDaniel mis-captioned his article when using the words “Rule of Law” as he did. The Constitution only establishes the authorities of delegation to the Congress to establish the Rules of Law…the writing of laws.
The Supreme Courts Constitutional authority is, if called upon, to determine if the laws as established by the States and Federal Congress’ are within the purview of the Constitutions written word and to make sure that the laws and conclusions (trials, sentences and awards) by courts are applied with “equity” in the lower courts, as mandated in the Constitution…..nothing more!
You are allowing yourself to fall into the trap of decades of unconstitutional revisionism.
Damn that John Marshall!!!
Thank you for this detailed, thought-provoking article … and the empassioned commentary it has prompted. Breyer and his ilk are truly dangerous.
Breyer is just another judge, from a long line of federal judges, who should never be allowed in a courtroom…except as a criminal defendant.
Yea Mike! I like Mark Levin’s description of the Constitution as a contract like a mortgage, where your situation may change, but the contract doesn’t. What we have are justices who would have a mortgage payment of, say, $1000 due, and only send $800 because their ‘situation’ had changed- someone invented an Iphone, so the payment made won’t be what was ‘contracted’, it’ll reflect the unanticipated change that took place that month.
The Constitution is the Real Contract with America, it shouldn’t be changeable unless done properly: Ammended. Of course, our Courts can get around that pesky limitation with judges like Breyer. More importantly, if the government can ignore limitations, then every facet of life can be regulated to some extent. How far and by whom is anyone’s guess. Michelle’s $4.5 Billion school lunch intervention may be a good harbinger.
Any justice worthy of a black robe should never trip over the phrase: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It just doesn’t get more precise than that, and as you say, the Founders were very aware of their precision when crafting the Constitution. The 2nd ammendment is the canary in the mine, when it croaks, run for the exits. Well, the bird’s been dead and I’m still chipping away at a vein, noticing that things just don’t smell right. 2011 should bring some relief and fresh air. Poor bird.
Breyer has Typical Liberal/Progressive delusions of grandeur. He is an all knowing god to himself. Liberalism certainly is a mental disease.
Justice Breyer, is being intentionally dishonest in his argument, that the Second Amendment, was not meant to be an individual right, by the Founders.
Regardless of whatever his interpretation of “A well regulated militia….”, may be, the rest of the Amendment states “the right of the people”. That clearly indicates that the Founders meant the right to be an individual one, and the words “to keep” mean in ones possession, not locked up in some government armory.
The words “shall not be infringed” are clear enough so that even Justice Breyer’s muddled thinking should be able to understand them. And that means that any regulation cannot infringe on the individual’s right to own firearms in any part of the United States. In fact, I would argue that, the Founders considered an armed citizenry a protector of our freedoms, and a check and balance against an armed government. That being the case, the 2nd Amendment protects weapons suitable for war, and not for sport. Thus, the very weapons the government seeks to deny citizens, hand guns and semi automatic military style rifles, are the very weapons that the Amendment protects for citizen ownership.
Breyer states: “Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them”. And it would seem that Madison’s worry was justified, as the federal government can and has nationalized state military organizations, which liberals incorrectly argue, is the militia referred to by the Founders.
Breyer argument, indicates his arrogance and his disdain for “we the People”. He obviously thinks we’re stupid enough to buy his terribly weak argument. And, there in lies the problem with the courts today. Too many justices are making political decisions instead of legal ones. They don’t like what the Constitution clearly says, so their opinions disregard the clearly written words of that document, that is the path to the subversion of that document and ultimately to tyranny. The only bad thing about Breyer being retired from SCOTUS, is the fact that his replacement is worse, in every way.
R
KJA, you 100% are correct:
“the 2nd Amendment protects weapons suitable for war, and not for sport”
Interesting to note, in the 70′s the anti-gun crowd was heavily focused on banning HANDGUNS, their rationale then was:
Handguns aren’t primarily a “soldiers” weapon, a long arm is, so therefore if we ban HANDGUNS, we’re not violating the Second Amendment because IT INTENDS FOR US TO HAVE A “SOLDERLY” TYPE OF LONG ARM, NOT CONCEALABLE LITTLE PISTOLS.
Morph to the 80′s – 90′s and they do a 180 degree turn, the same people, now seeking to ban “MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS”, principally shoulder fired AK and AR types.
The exact things they claimed ten years earlier were THE ONLY “protected” class of weapons to be EXEMPT from a ban.
Same people, two opposite arguments, yet always claiming to be in line with the Constitution.
What’s that word you call someone who keeps changing their story?
Sounds like “Fire” ?
“In the most basic sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.”
Yeah, but if we had that, then “liberals”, like Roosevelt, couldn’t just round up Japanese-American citizens and toss them in concentration camps when they hadn’t done anything wrong.
Also, the “liberals” couldn’t get us involved in big old nasty foreign wars and then force millions of young men to serve as involuntary cannon fodder (on account of the 13th Amendment and all).
i don’t thuink folllowing the rule of law would really work too well.
It would spoil all the “liberals” fun.
You need to read the actual Constitution. What FDR did WAS Constitutional! There is a specific exception for habeus corpus during time of war. Lincoln used it, too. He jailed journalists, and even a Congressman. Habeus corpus had been legally suspended as allowed by the Constitution.
This is the real reason we have war resolutions now, rather than war declarations. Neither side wants the other to have the power to just jail the opposition to shut them up.
In a full hour C-Span interview with Lamb, Breyer appeared impressive. In twenty minutes on Fox, Wallace lifted the veil and exposed Breyer’s view of the Constitution as a document containing values that we must interpret based on implied values rather than strict reading of the text. And, of course don’t forget to consult your favorite historians for further hints at interpretation. Thank God he wants to sell his book or we wouldn’t see his philosophy so clearly. This country needs sweeping judicial reform to save our Constitution and our liberties. P.S. Did anyone else sense an air of superiority in the man?
Federalist 46 excerpts… I am working my way through, and so far am very aware that Madison is talking bout esentially a different country, than we have become; certainly a very different situation.
—————-
If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.
…It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government.
…But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.
…Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
…But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. ¶
…On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.
So in Federalist 46 Madison’s clear purpose is to re-assure skeptics that the Federal government will be a good an necessary thing. He throws in the possibility of the checks which could be brought about by militias etc. but once one considers the next 200 years, the Civil War, the huge advancement of Federal firepower over personal and state firepower, we really are talking an essentially different world. So when Justices posit a living Constitution, when our pal above is brought into court for having his bazooka and me for my re-assembled Scud missile, can we evoke Madison to defend us?
I believe in my right to bear arms, but given the wording, the connection to militia powers IS in there in a way that is more ambiguous than true-believers on either side want to acknowledge; but then, what else is new.
The irony here is that Madison is going full-bore to convince the skeptics that they should accept the Federal yoke/wagon. Madison is a big government guy. He, GWB, and Obama are all Federalists, even if the names of the parties have morphed. The centrist aspects of Obama and GWB, where they share common ground is Federalist, isn’t it?
There were no decent football games on yet and I watched the interview. When Justice Breyer said that one of the framers, Madison, added the 2nd Amendment to appease the states I didn’t really give it much thought. A few days later I read rebuttals to his interview and was directed to Federalist 47 and Madison never said what Breyer stated. I especially laughed when he made some reference taking guns on the subway to go the shooting range? Too funny but it is how they think. Why didn’t write the opinion and just say, the four of us don’t want any of you to have guns and leave it at that? But you have to remember distortions and lies are only reported if it is in the conservative agenda.
OK, but can’t you hear that appeasement in 46? I will take a look at 47.
“Appeasement”. Hmm. Ugly choice of words. Slanderous. Let’s use the correct word: compromise.
It was a compromise. A deal was struck. But wait, says Breyer, because he was just mollifying the other side, we can ignore that the other side had a voice in this. Madison had his fingers crossed behind his back the whole while! Therefore, we can just set aside this contract with them. We can just annul their voices. Fairness? WE in charge decide what is fair.
I can’t respond to Breyer’s position here exactly, but my larger point would be that there were a lot of compromises and close votes 230 years ago. It’s kind of like the Councils in the earlier Christian Church voting over what would or would not be Holy Writ. Some people say, “well this is what they agreed upon and it now is absolute truth.” My point was that everyone cherry-picks the Founders to support their own political position. My point would be, about as baldly as I can put it would be that the whole history of the discussion in any judicial area shows you where (some of) your wiggle room is. Obviously, a lot of wiggle room got “found” for the Commerce clause.
I think that you are acknowledging that the standing army piece has changed greatly since the days of the writing of the Constitution. Strict constructionists would say, that’s OK, because it is within the parameters of the Federal Government. And I will say for the twentieth time that to expand that level of a Federal Authority WITHOUT also eventually expanding many of the others, would be miraculous, the kind of thing that humans just do not do; history has already proven that. The evolution (dastardly plot to some) by which the Federal Government has taken over much of the original role of the state governments is OUR history, the Civil War being one of the most significant turning points along the way. Maybe some republic somewhere could have let the Feds do guns and the states do butter, but that is not what happened in our Republic.
And to belabor the obvious (to me) when he writes “If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due;” He’s talking about a living something, isn’t he? A reasonable person could take this and make the case for a “living Constitution.” Another might say, “but you must amend, not “legislate from the bench,” but hasn’t the Supreme Court, since Marshall asserted its powers beyond what MAY have been envisioned, ALWAYS fudged the matter? Righties and lefties complain when the fudging does not go there way, but “strict constructionism” in the face of Madison’s thinking here, is not the only way to go. The lines are not so clear and bright in a world that’s constantly changing.
Hell, you can say that you agree with a certain approach, but a lot of the rhetoric here is that Breyer is a scoundrel, because he does not see things YOUR way. And YOUR way is God and the Constitution’s way. Isn’t it pretty to think so? It is politics and government we are talking here; NOT absolute truth.
All this talk of Madison, as if his was the only voice which mattered. “Oh, but he was one of the Founders.” You’ll notice that Madison did NOT get his way! The Constitution was NOT set up the way Madison had hoped. He was the LOSER in this. We were set up as a very limited government, period.
“But Madison said….” Oh, bite me. Madison got spanked when it came to his love of big government! Leftists seize upon him as their authority, ignoring the overwhelming majority of opinion against him in this.
As for your standing army argument, the Founders opposed such, because throughout history, the purpose of such were not defense against outside aggression, but as a means to subjugate the people. For an actual war, they still had the callup of citizens.
Our system exists, because it is impossible to win a war with no professional core. We have Posse Comitatus and the professionality of the military to ensure that they are not used against the people they are meant to protect. They are not garrisoned in our cities and homes.
Or, at least they weren’t until we militarized the police. Now we have a standing army in the form of our police forces. The meaning of a standing army has been lost to antiquity. Just look at our modern police forces to see what the term actually meant in the 1700′s, not as we might understand it today. It was an idiomatic concept then. A very clear one.
After giving examples of varying separation of powers in each of the sate constitutions, Madison writes:
“In citing these cases, in which the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments have not been kept totally separate and distinct, I wish not to be regarded as an advocate for the particular organizations of the several State governments. I am fully aware that among the many excellent principles which they exemplify, they carry strong marks of the haste, and still stronger of the inexperience, under which they were framed. It is but too obvious that in some instances the fundamental principle under consideration has been violated by too great a mixture, and even an actual consolidation, of the different powers; and that in no instance has a competent provision been made for maintaining in practice the separation delineated on paper. What I have wished to evince is, that the charge brought against the proposed Constitution, of violating the sacred maxim of free government, is warranted neither by the real meaning annexed to that maxim by its author, nor by the sense in which it has hitherto been understood in America. This interesting subject will be resumed in the ensuing paper.”
Now think about “I am fully aware that among the many excellent principles which they exemplify, they carry strong marks of the haste, and still stronger of the inexperience, under which they were framed.” in the context of our Constitution, which was written less than twenty years into our country-hood for a country which is now about 235 year old. Hmmmm. Let me get this straight, the state constitutions being framed “hastily” were flawed, but the United States Constitution is perfect, as inspired by God and George Washington. That makes sense only to people who need to believe something absolutely, not that we have any shortage of such people at PJM.
The above is from #47
This is from 53. Dwight.
“Let me get this straight…”
“…but the United States Constitution is perfect, as inspired by God and George Washington. That makes sense only to people who need to believe something absolutely, not that we have any shortage of such people at PJM.”
D-White, it’s looking more like you are sitting on Humpty Dumpty’s Picket Fence topped with Concertina wire. The pickets just aren’t enough, as the comment “above is from #53″ shows. The razor sharpness of your observation (…people at PJM) with supporting evidence from a Dead-White Man is nothing short of what you call blathering.
This is award winning blathering. Take that star from the top of the Holiday Tree, plant it in you forehead, go to the Mall, and Proclaim.
As a matter of fact, this D-White Series of Golden Thought Blathering is now on sale on 8-track tape, on channel 1972.
Track titles are –
“Let Me Get This Straight”
“God and George Washington”
“People at PJM”
“Need to Believe”
“That Makes Sense”
“Hmmmm”
and the Finale… “But”. Interesting, “But” is in 5/4.
The Picket Fence is bending under the weight of D-White heaviness.
Lather was thirty years old today,
They took away all of his toys.
What are you, some kind of Ant-Federalist plant paid by the tobacco companies to sandbag rational discourse? I am shocked, just shocked. As usual, you have nothing to add on the topic at hand; just your own quaint brand of sniping.
Since you are into record-keeping and cataloguing, though, why don’t you give us a list of the commenters on this thread who have proposed death for Breyer, leftists, etc. I wouldn’t want to over-state the case, so we will rely on your, er, integrity.
“Absolutely” “But”.
Hi D-White. Take It Easy. You are The Topic at Hand. Or…
Those who live on Picket Fences must have Tweezers at Hand.
And turn down the chainsaw in the mix for “People at PJM”. It’s overpowering the sound of you playing ping pong with your tongue.
And Lather came foam from his tongue.
Wow–the Second Amendment was put in so as to snooker the States into joining the US as we know it. And since the authors had their fingers crossed when they put it in, it doesn’t count. I wonder how many of the other Constitutional provisions don’t count? Oh yeah–none of them do these days.
Read Brutus and the Anti federalist papers on this site – maybe the anti federalist ideas were not that far out?
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp17.html
This one is trying to resist the enticements of the “commerce clause.”
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp22.html
And their (gulp) objections to a standing army.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp24.html
“Gulp”
D-White, you didn’t swallow the ping pong ball, did you?
Conservative truths are distorted and reported as lies (Death Panels?)
Notice that the Second Amendment did not GRANT the right to own and bear arms, it protected a pre-existing right. That is part of the text the liberals ignore.
And as to perceiving the “values” of the framers. Breyer has not been able to perceive the concept of a federal government of defined and limited powers. Wow. The most basic value has been cast aside by the SCOTUS for so long that Breyer can’t uncover it!
No wonder I had a problem with ConLaw.
Exactly!
“Living document” = treason.
Bill…is there a possiblility that you could re-think through your comment: ["Living document” = treason.]
Living vs. Dead ?
Don’t wish to get into all the “legal” jockeying of many decades by a certain sector of political interests to indoctrinate revisionism BUT…if the U.S. Constitution were [not] a living document, it would no longer serve any purpose(s) to the construction and governance of the Republic.
The question is NOT whether the Constitution is a living document, as that is defined in the Constitution istself and evidenced by the founders and writers own Constitutional Amendments and followed by others, but rather, WHAT and BY WHOM can changes be made.
My position is, that the Constitution as written, in its origns, is not to be re-interpreted but can under very strict and narrow necessity, be added to. The Constitution is a “mechanical” blueprint of construction and operation in addition to, authorities for, whom and how changes can be effected.
Bottom line is, that the Constitution grants to the PEOPLE and the STATES, the MAJORITY POWER and RULE. Between surender and unconstitutional revisionists we find our Republic under attack from within….and now, in a vast and complex mess!
ONLY the PEOPLE can rise up, armed with the Constitutional powers granted them…… and reverse the damage! All the intellectualizing over the [peripheral] political and social philosophists of old and new are irrelevant to the Constitution as written!
If the constitution is sufficiently flexible to permit the Supreme Court to function as political actors instead of legal ones, the consequences of that do not stop with the opinions Breyer and his cohort would write. Supreme Court justices serve “during good behavior.” With the justices assuming a political role in lieu of their legal one, what’s to stop the Congress from saying that “good behavior” means that we like your decisions, that if Congress stops liking your decisions, it can remove you from the court? Why would that be inappropriate if the court were primarily a political instead of a legal institution?
In the end, the only sure way to stop the judicial tyranny of the “living Constitution” school is to amend the Constitution to restore it to its original meanings, including an amendment restricting judges to following the original plain meaning of the constitutional or statutory language and making it an impeachable offense if they don’t.
To achieve this the new Congress should be urged to enact a constitutional amendment giving the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without the cumbersome and unnecessary convention now required by Article V. With this power, grassroots constitutionalists can launch amendments restoring the Constitution’s original meanings and structure and end the arrogant judicial legislating of judges like Stephan Breyer.
See http://www.timelyrenewed.com for more specifics on these proposals.
If I understand you correctly, then ANY amendment would be facilitated. You might want to think that through a little more.
Timely EXACTLT RIGHT and perfectly stated! Re your ["In the end, the only sure way to stop the judicial tyranny of the “living Constitution” school is to amend the Constitution to restore it to its original meanings, including an amendment restricting judges to following the original plain meaning of the constitutional or statutory language and making it an impeachable offense if they don’t."]
Short-form comment! The Constitution grants to the PEOPLE, the power to initiate a Constitution Convention for amendments. The problem here, is that its never been tested and there has for some time been those intellectuals lined up on both sides…one defending and one opposing.
Right now, the nation is very close to lining up with GOP leadership to facilitate the 2/3 States ratifying requirement. We have to start NOW to discuss and evangelize for a constitutional amendement…especially, Article I, Section 8, Commerce Clause.
What has happened to us?? As Madison foresaw: “If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the Federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due;”
As Madison clearly foresaw the possibility of happening, the majority of Americans over the last 200 years have moved toward a major expansion of Federal powers. That is a fact. To what do we attribute this?
I’ll go with the simple fact that we became the most powerful, richest country in the world, a feat that you just don’t do with some bare bones principle of “limited government.” Every time we fought a major war, the guvment expanded. The states all sent men who fought together and it did not seem like such a reach to do a lot of Federally sponsored things together after the war, time after time after time. Rather than being a demonic plot of evil leftists, it was a predictable progression from growing from a country where there were strong arguments made against keeping a standing army to a nation which can project its power to any spot on earth.
We oscillate back and forth from Reagans to Clintons, Bushes to Obamas, but government always gets bigger. You can read the Constitution along with Glenn Beck and wonder, “My God, how could we get to THIS, if it says THAT?” Read the damned history; not just cherry-picked quotes from the Founders, but a description of the whole process of government, wars, elections, compromises, disasters, panics, booms, and on and on. We got here by as “natural” as process as a tree growing rings with or without enhanced CO2. My God, how did the tree get so big? It started from such a little seed.
Fire up the Husqvarna, eh?
More regurgitated ping pongism D-White.
“My God, how did the tree get so big?”
Follow the money. Read Animal Farm. Consider Socrates.
Better yet, Blather.
And Sergeant Dow Jones, twenty-seven years old,
Commanding his very own tank.
Yeah, the day we get some substantive comment from you regarding Federalism, anti-Federalism, the changes that have happened to us or we have made happen in our history, will be a first for you. You can drop a few names and imply that Orwell or Socrates somehow answer a question which resonates through our whole history, but you would not dirty your dainty hands with the work of fleshing out your driblets.
I can understand why you might want to create a distraction from the Madison quotation, because it undercuts a significant amount of the premise of the strict constructionists. I never knew that he said it until I checked the site yesterday. You are going on about ping pong, fences, and the usual stuff, but don’t comment on Madison, because you would have to do the tiniest amount of “work” and actually respond to what he wrote.
Mmm, mmm, mmm. “… dirty your dainty hands with the work of fleshing out your driblets.”
Channel 1972, Agnew 8 track tapes on sale!
Look D-White, like some Modern “Centrists”, when poked a bit, the rage comes blathering forth in a tongue foamed rage, accompanied by marching orders, in an attempt to control something that they know almost nothing about. You know, if the mask you made fits, it fits! Much like Alaska Fascination and “Sarah Poo”.
So when is the next riff, Love is a Many Splintered Picket Fence Thing coming out?
And “going on about ping pong” a bit more, is that sponge or a sandpaper tongue paddle?
But wait, oh Lather’s productive you know,
He produces the finest of sound.
You ARE sensitive to define rage that broadly. Undoubtedly, what is on display regularly here (remember your task?) is righteous indignation. Got it. Again, no Madison, no substance, nothing on the topic of the thread.
Dwight…Re your ["Read the damned history; not just cherry-picked quotes from the Founders..."]
We DON”T govern by history! We govern by the Constitution as written unless, the Congress and or the States by a 2/3 ratifying process amends the constitution as written!
All the discussions over a “standing Army/Navy” is rubbish! Read the damned Constitution!
So when the Justices are trying to determine the extent to which the Founders might have extended the commerce clause, all the history, Federalist Papers etc are irrelevant? How DOES one determine the appropriate limits of said clause? Through ones political leanings? Through a reasoned approach to what commerce is now, as opposed to what it was then? I just ain’t that clear.
I understand the desire to keep things simple and clear, but if the Supremes interpret the Constitution differently than you do, or I do, or you and I interpret it differently and they have to judge between us, it isn’t nearly as simple as your statement implies.
For example, what does “shall not be infringed” mean in our current society, no gun laws whatsoever/no back ground checks, bazookas for you and Scuds for me?
Dwight’s law of Founder foraging: quote any Founder when he supports your case, but keep it narrow and never let on that he may have also said the opposite at some other time. History is knowing that he DID say the opposite at another time, or governed differently when he was in power, and may even have violated the Constitution in what he said or did.
Oh boy… 7-0.
D-White’s Hee-Haw History of Flounder For Raging: Quote any Flounder when it supports your Picket Fence, but keep the Ping Pong Paddle Tongue serving and never let on that “The Centrist” may even have violated any Founder foraging for Flounder at some other time at another time differently when he was knowing that he DID power the opposite Constitution in what he said or did.
And thrashing the air with his hands.
You’re floundering all right. I’d like to be able to tell you that help is on the way. Can you identify any landmarks that might help a rescue party locate you? A ping pong emporium maybe? Fenced in somewhere? We are pretty sure that you are not on picket duty, but may be surrounded by 8 track tapes wherever you are. Can you hear mermaids singing? Are they singing to you?
11-0. Jimi. 1983.
Why D-White, it seems that you have stooped to the level of the proletariat. Landmark… Well there’s a giant butt folded across a Picket Fence, and it looks to be requesting barbed toilet paper from both sides of the divide. Cleanliness is next to “God and George Washington”.
It does come off the Picket Fence on the Left Side when it thinks no one is looking, and it appears that the Admonishment Orifice continues to Blather to downcast student eyes. The need to be in control is overwhelming, as the Young Butt’s Dream of being a Director/Writer/Power Broker dissolved into a “Guvment” Blathering Ping Pong Tongue Gig with a side order of “Sarah-poo”.
Dwight
“As for lust for Sarah-poo…”
October 20, 2010 – 5:05 pm
Take It Easy. D-White. Don’t let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy.
10. Dwight
“The speciality here is shoot-from-the-hip blather…”
July 17, 2010 – 2:14 pm
Commanding his very own tank.
Dwight…The historical documents surrounding the “intent” of the commerce clause was long settled to mean…..Regulate tariff free trade and passage of citizens among the many States…and it goes well into the details of the concerns prompting the government regulating of this matter. ["The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce in order to ensure that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various states."] They did not wish the “REPUBLIC” become many soverign nations independent in commerce and trade, charging tariffs for commerce and trade between the States. ["Intrastate, or domestic, commerce is trade that occurs solely within the geographic borders of one state. As it does not move across state lines, intrastate commerce is subject to the exclusive control of the state."] This is a vast topic unto itself and thus the intent of the federal government to consolidate the nations commerce as much as possible to affect and increase “interstate” commerce! Remember when States and communities had “independent” flour mills, creameries, feed mills, bakeries, grocer’s, etc., that are all gone now from federal commerce consolidation?
The unfortunate circumstance is all the revisionist interpretation of the commerce clause forcing….["It is for the courts to decide the national or local character of the subject of regulation, by Balancing the national interest against the State Interest in the subject. If the state interest is slight compared with the national interest, the courts will declare the state statute unconstitutional as an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce."] So, here we are today with an ideological judicial rather than a constitutional judicial thus, the need for a Constitutional Amendment of the Commerce Clause.
I could load you down with reading of the documents, historical framing and post judicial, supporting the intent …..which was [essentially] NOT disturbed until the 20th century and more agressively during the tranformation era of the Great New Society and the 40 years post 1960′s and 70′s. One of the first violations of the commerce clause within the founders intent was the federal government itself creating a highway “use tax” for the interstate commercial transportation (freight of goods) between the States. All trucks had to pay for a highway use tax permit when entering another State from which the truck was licensed. This was done with the establishment of weight and inspection (tax permits) stations in all States….go figure!
Banking and eventually, insurance was another area in which the federal government intervened and declared the States could no longer refuse any banks to operate in their States or across States lines…..except for health care insurance….go figure.
The federal government adopted new “policies” allowing for the consolidating America’s economic industries which has had lasting and devastating economic consequences on communities far and wide across America…..not to mention all the “to large to fail” economics of today….not to mention the creation of bizare new valuing methods of America’s consolidated corporations, 20, 30 and more time a company’s book value.
One could write volumes and volumes on this matter, but the bottom line is simply, that the federal governments abuse of the commerce clause has destroyed constitutional intended States Rights, destroyed the nations fundamental economic distribution of commerce structure and destroyed the nations economy. The only logical “purpose” can be for the systemic centralization of federal government authority over the nations commerce and economy….systemic progress towards socialism progressivism!
[What does “shall not be infringed” mean today.]
Dwight…it means the very same today as it did in English Law and when inserted in the U.S. Constitution by the founders and writers of the U.S. constitution. It is centuries old “settled, defined law” and CANNOT be
re-defined or stricken from the constitution by any other means, than by a Constitutional Amermendment. There legal term “Shall Not” is absolute!
So apparently, things were good (at least Constitutional) through all the canal-building, Whig tariffs, boms. busts, panics, rail road constructing, Guilded Age-Robber Baron fun, TR’s trust busting and FDR’s New Deal…and then we started building highways and taxing for them. No wonder Robert Welch thought that Ike was a Commie, eh? At any rate, we kept getting more and more well-off, despite or because of all that regulated interstate commerce, and if something appears to help commerce, it becomes an irresistable force whose coattails almost everyone attempts to grab.
So are you saying that “shall not be infringed” DOES mean a bazooka for him and a Scud for me, if we can afford it? It it is a great example of a phrase which certainly sounds absolute, but has been moderated by the militia fuzziness AND common sense. Would you agree that if there were NO restrictions on firearms, and anyone, including felons and minors could purchase whatever, whenever, that there would probably be a repeal of the Second Amendment within twenty years, or at a minimum a strong move to do so?
As to Breyer, he wants to divine what the Founders really intended? He wants to find a different intent from what was clearly put into place as our Constitution?
Ouija-board Justice. He’s just making it up as he goes.
Scratch a liberal “justice”,and find… a Stalinist!
My Lucky, Again, I would like to be able to tell you that help is on the way, and although you have given us a few more details of where you might be, the appropriate authorities have been unable to locate the “giant butt” that you are being forced to contemplate daily, if not hourly. They do tell me that your images of the barbed wire, the toilet paper, and the associated orifices have certainly raised your priority on their search list. Are you being tortured? Alas, it sounds so, or maybe you are just lonely, but at least you have the consolation of many of my past posts to study and ponder to help you bear up in your hour(s) of need.
Don’t despair; at least you have your music.
Indeed D-White, you have come off the Picket Fence on one question. The perceived desire to use Soviet era techniques on those who might dare to approach The Monolithic Picket Fence Committee and question the veracity of its existence. But that renders the Picket Fence useless. Other than to provide a Blathering Platform for a Leftist with the usual desire for control over others.
All the usage of “us” and “we” truly denotes a collectivist in sheep’s skin. As if there are acres of those who would sell their souls for Picket Fence Thought Agreement. The use of extremes (Scuds, authorities, anyone?) indicates a deep distrust of the motives of anyone not of D-White. When prodded, the repressive aspect comes to the fore. Those “righties” really are the problem, are they not? Force them to do as you want and all will be well. And of course, those who might not exhibit proper reverence have a such a destabilizing effect.
If the mask fits, it fits. But the mask slipped some time ago. But then again, there always was a mask.
Is it true that I’m no longer young?
Since you are sticking your toe in the waters of some actual content here, let me make the point that a centrist approach to the Second Amendment, makes the possibility of all guns (including mine) getting grabbed less likely. What would be likely to stir up our majority non-gun owning populace to push for a repeal of the Second Amendment? In my opinion: overassertion of “shall not be infringed.”
And now you are supposedly worked up over “Soviet era techniques” and whether you are no longer young. The “mask” is fitting or not fitting, slipping a long time ago. What?
And your citing my alleged “use of extremes” is also odd, given the strange little world of music and other odd images out of which you speak. Is it “extreme?” Well, it’s extremely odd.
Golden D-White Ping Pong Tongue – In my opinion: overassertion of “shall not be infringed.”
Certainly Picket Fence induced.
“They” already have come for your “guns”. You just don’t care to know. That is the essence of the Picket Fence. The uncomfortable becomes the comfortable, accepted and welcomed by a numbed down Leftist donning the mask of the “Centrist” in order to avoid the reality of loss of control. The steady leakage of freedoms made palatable by simply asserting “I like it” and then becoming a beacon of self defeat, all the while expecting others to see that “logic” as path to… more freedom. No, it’s just what it is. A loss of freedom. And make sure everyone is in D-White. Those who don’t want it are in need of authoritative “rescue”.
One wonders what is more insipid, those who wish to take others rights in their name by force, or those who loudly proclaim, “Here I am. Take what you wish. Please. And take his too. So I feel good.”
Roll over D-White, the next Picket Fence is ready.
And I should have told him, “No, you’re not old.”
Mr Lucky wrote ““They” already have come for your “guns”. You just don’t care to know. That is the essence of the Picket Fence. The uncomfortable becomes the comfortable, accepted and welcomed by a numbed down Leftist donning the mask of the “Centrist” in order to avoid the reality of loss of control.”
So was I just imagining that I had a gun in my hands in a tree stand this afternoon, with many more at home in my gun cabinet?
You say that they have already come for them, whereas my hunting (it sure seemed cold enough to be real) this afternoon tells me that I still have more guns than ever, even if I do need an FID card to buy and legally use them. I can now hunt with a “primitive firearm” (which is a lot more accurate than my shotguns) and which for a few more dollars for an extra stamp, extends my season three weeks. I am out there using my freedoms, while you are apparently brooding about an abstraction that someone has come or will come for your (if you have any) freedom/guns. I used to resent all fish and game laws and tended to violate them at will, but now it seems that paying the fees and being discreet in the ways I choose to bend them, works just fine, thank you. Close enough to “liberty” for me.
In The Land of the Progressive, laws are only for “The Little People” (the better to keep the rabble from the gates).
Their governing precept is “fairness”, and “social justice”
(we must control them so as to prevent them from committing their usual destructive behavior).
It is always “do as I say, not as I do”;
For, after all, they are at heart Totalitarians!
Pretty nice post. I simply stumbled upon your weblog and wished to mention that I’ve truly loved browsing your blog posts. After all I?ll be subscribing on your feed and I am hoping you write again very soon!