Supreme Disconnect
So right now we’re in this asinine situation where we’re waiting for the Supreme Court to get back to us and tell us whether it’s okay for the federal government to force us to buy stuff whenever it feels like it. To the average American, who learned in school that the Constitution is a document that defines and constrains the power of the federal government, the notion that the dimwits in D.C. can start making spending decisions for individuals is patently ridiculous. But the left and “constitutional law scholars” are freaking out that anyone is even questioning the government’s power to do this. Obviously, there is a bit of a disconnect here.
Some people have recently coined the term “originalist.” That’s a fancy term meaning “you read the Constitution like it actually means something.” You don’t see this term applied to many things other than the Constitution.
“This road sign says, ‘Wrong Way,’ so we probably shouldn’t go down this street.”
“Oh, so you’re one of those simplistic road sign originalists.”
By default, most Americans are originalists, because they have this wacky habit of reading words as if there were meaning to them. They assume this philosophy applied to the Constitution when it was written, because if that document didn’t actually mean anything, how in the world was it supposed to hold back the powers of the government?
But there are many people who read the document as if it doesn’t hold meaning, if they read it at all. I’m not sure what the term is for these people. I think it’s “jackasses.” Instead of the text of the Constitution, they study “case law” and “precedent,” though a more accurate term for this stuff would be “constitutional fan fiction.” The only thing in the Constitution universe that is canon is the actual text of the Constitution, but they have all these made up stories they’d rather pay attention to. And while it’s pretty obvious that nothing in the text of the Constitution allows the federal government to make us buy stuff, in all the fan fiction about constitutional law, it’s super obvious that the government can always do whatever it wants if it is really, really, super certain that it’s about something important.
This is idiocy. It has to stop.
So how did we get here? Well, we keep hearing that most constitutional law scholars are surprised ObamaCare is even being questioned, but let’s look at how ridiculous the term “constitutional law scholar” is. The Constitution is only six pages long. So “constitutional law scholar” just means “guy who can read six pages.” Except, judging by their statements, it’s not provable that a lot of them have even completed this task.
We need to stop acting like the Constitution is this special, complicated document when it’s a simple thing that any normal person could understand. And to do that, we need to get rid of the Supreme Court. Because it’s idiotic. It’s the least well thought-out part of the Constitution and undermines the rest of it. We select the best and brightest minds in the country to be Supreme Court justices who… read a six page document. Of course they’re going to make it more complicated than it needs to be so they can justify their esteemed positions. We’re also stuck in this completely moronic situation where the justices have lifetime appointments, and we just keep hoping they die during an administration that actually acknowledges that the Constitution means what it says.
Currently, we’re one poorly timed death away from not having a right to bear arms. There are actually four justices on the Supreme Court right now who can’t find the right to bear arms in the Constitution — something any child can do. You just want to grab the justices by the head and shove their faces into the Second Amendment and shout, “There it is, you braindead twit!”
If we want the Constitution to have a simple, real meaning and successfully restrain the government, we need to get rid of the judges so we can stop acting like it’s complicated. Instead, the Supreme Court should be like jury duty — we just grab nine random people with basic reading skills for each case and give them an hour or two to read over the Constitution and the law in question. All decisions should be in the form of: “Article 2, Section 3 allows this” or “I didn’t see that in there,” and that’s it. All the lower courts can make complex pontifications, but at the very top, we have to keep things basic if we want the Constitution to have any power at all.
Think of what it would be like if we had this system in place now. Instead of ridiculously waiting for the ObamaCare decision, about an hour after ObamaCare reached the Supreme Court, we would get a 9-0 opinion on it — obviously, they couldn’t find anything in the Constitution that says the federal government can force people to buy stuff. Then all the people in Congress who voted for ObamaCare would be arrested for treason and exiled to Antarctica. I know exiling politicians to Antarctica isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but if you look at original intent, I think it’s pretty much implied.
“constitutional fan fiction” FTW.
I share your frustration. It bothers me to no end to know that the interpretations of the Constitution have more to do with whether you are left or right-leaning than it does with what is actually written on the paper.
However, I’ve been on a jury and can say without question it would be a nightmare to have common citizens making decisions on the law itself.
Wish I’d written this. Terrific.
I can’t think of any place in the Constitution that says explicitly that the Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the Constitution–that’s just something the Supreme Court made up (Marbury v. Madison). What the Constitution *does* say is that the Supreme Court is the highest federal appellate court, and that it has “jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” (Article III, Section 2)
So Congress can decide to constrain the Supreme Court if it so chooses.
1) True and 2) True
Here the court was acting in it’s appellate capacity (suits brought by States against the United States). Yes, Congress can restrain the Supreme Court. I’d be curious to see where in history it was done (I don’t know the answer to that).
Good post, thanks.
“So how did we get here?”
Via the voters who keep electing whores and thieves to congress and installing the same in the Oval Office who in turn appoint judges to the federal courts with the approval of other whores and thieves in the senate. Sorry to be blunt, but that’s how we got here. You are correct, the Constitution does not take a degree from Harvard to comprehend, but for DC thugs it is an inconvenience to be ignored.
Your absolutely right. But having said that, that’s all we get to vote for. That’s all that gets on the ballots. Regardless of party, we only get a bunch of boot licking loosers to vote for. It’s how the two party system stays in power.
But it does not have to be this way. Article V of the Constitution givees us, We the people, the power to make the Constitution a ‘more perfect union’ at any time of our choosing. Read it….
We can force the Federal Government right back into the box where the original founders had it. There is no reason for the fed to claim ownership of land within any state. There should not be any National Forests, nor Parks nor any of the other BS that the Fed has layed claim to. ANWAR is a figment of the imagination of the Federal Government. There is no grounds for this theft. All of this Progressive crap started with T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson, and it is all a farce. We can change all of this with a Constitutional Convention. Congress will never change anything, they love their power. We can change everything in a heartbeat, read Article V. The TEA PARTY is the perfect vehicle for this movement because there is already a TPP in every State. Get involved and start blogging on this issue. Lets force a Constitutional Convention, the very first one ever. Lets fix the Constitution and put the federal government back into the box where it belongs.
Oh dear God no!
The original framers of the Constitution were men who had fought in the revolution, understood the threat of an overbearing government from first-hand experience, and approached the task of crafting a federal Constitution with great trepidation and fear of creating a too powerful federal government that would undermine the sovereignty of the several states. Further, that generation of men were steeped in, molded by, and dedicated to a moral tradition that mocked by most today.
No, a Constitutional convention would almost certainly hasten our demise rather than reverse it.
I’d sooner support a secessionist movement than a Constitutional convention.
The question of how we got to this point is pretty easy.
SCOTUS justices are nominated by the Executive branch and approved or disapproved by the Legislative branch, and then seated on the bench in the Judicial branch.
The Judicial branch can’t place people on the bench on their own, it has to go through the other branches of government.
The Executive branch can’t seat a judge without Legislative branch approval, so likewise they are limited in reach as far as the SCOTUS goes (and not saying some real poor choices haven’t been offered before).
So what is the choke point, the one single keyhole everything has to go through to get from point A to point B, to go from nomination to being seated as a judge?
The Legislative branch.
Not the entire branch either, mind you, but only the Senate.
Senators used to be chosen by state legislatures as a check on government power vs state power. By virtue (using the term “virtue” loosely here) of the amendment process, Senators are now elected by popular vote and their continued membership in that most exclusive of clubs is dependent upon the popular vote within their state – rather than attaining their position via their state legislature.
This creates a strong incentive to cater to popular whim, whether or not it is detrimental to the interests and powers of the state they represent.
Given that over half of the states are currently party to legal action to stop it, if the states had a stronger say in federal matters, would Obamacare have ever seen the light of day???
Want to know the quickest way to make fast changes in the federal government? Simple – repeal the amendment in question and return selection of Senators back to the state legislatures.
Bingo.
Scott,
” make fast changes in the federal government?….return selection of Senators back to the state legislatures”
I dunno….
I DO know ignorant people use foolish priorities to chose criminal idiots for their Senators, and we all suffer for it….
But having them chosen NOT by “us”, but by a lower bunch of State Level Shyster-Theives doesnt sound like much of a better deal for me. God only KNOWS what rights and wealth of mine will promiseed away to the interests and puppet strings of THOSE guys, if “pretty-please and a Federal Value Added Tax, you’d select ME” to go to The Castle.
In order to “defeat” any potential senatorial choices/ideology traits I’d not want, I would have to “defeat” whole blocks of S.L.S.T’s that would be likely to choose such a person, many (most) of these local turds I simply cannot vote for as I’m not from that district/county.
Having Lower Class Theives choose Upper Class Scoundrels just further dilutes whatever small influence I have over my political leaders. It will make “King Makers” (well, Prince Makers at least) of these lower class traitors and encourage, not DIScourage, their corruption.
Its gotten so bad now, I’m to the point of running off with a pichfork every pretty face in business attire that approaches with a pamphlet to shake my hand.
And I’ll never believe letting them chose others, even higher up the chain, with do anything but make matters WORSE.
Interested in fixing the government? With a Constitutional Convention we can set term limits, salaries and benefits on all Congress people. We can even not let them campaign for office consecutively. In a Constitutional Convention we the people can make a ‘more perfect union’ of our constitution. We can do away with personal income taxes like it was in the beginning prior to 1913. We can make the federal government acquire its funding from import, export and excise taxes. We can abolish the privately owned Federal Reserve System and reinstitute it as a National Federal Reserve under the treasury with a State Reserve Bank in each state and a governing board of 51 members, one from each State Reserve Bank and one from the National Reserve. Just think the International Banking Cartel would no longer reap some $4 trillion per year as they manipulate our currency worldwide. Wake up, the Founding Fathers put Article V in the Constitution for a reason and it was to protect the Nation in time of crises or TREASON….
Good Point….but they will never allow it….
They do no want state by state popular vote to ratify it. We must be shut out of as much of the machinery of government as possible.
Remember Pelosi’s response to the question of Constitutional Authority (they clamed Commerce)
“Are you serious!…ARE YOU SERIOUS!”
Unless they fully control control the terms and agenda, like “redefining” the Second Amendment, we will be shipped to gas chambers before they allow is to challenge them.
They killed our country a long time ago, its just the fumes of her rotting corpse we smell in Obama’s breath
And amending the US Constitution is quick? On what planet? Whatever happened to the Equal Rights Amendment (RIP, btw).
Oh, it’s simple alright. African-Americans are 3/4′s of a person; health insurance isn’t a guaranteed right; a womyn’s choice to correct a biological mishap is not spelled out with the necessary clarity (it’s evidently hidden in that Article of the Bill of Rights that guarantees pnenumbrums and emmanations, or whatever it is); and it says absolutely nothing in terms of simple, quick, yet delicious baking recipes. Oh, but it’s simple alright. Simple for rich people (think old and white here, like a certain man running for high office) who wish to rape the working class and guarantee themselves their cherished “private property”. Here’s what’s “simple”: people who hold onto their cherished, outdated Constitution like it was a bible or a murdering gun. Heed the advice of Justice Ginsburg and come into the modern world, you morons.
Spoken like a true progressive/democrat/communist.
Well done.
Aha! A fan fiction here published. Fractions and facts both fictionalized.
Excellent commentary! Particularly the “you morons” part. Thank you.
Spoken like a true dunderhead.
“African-Americans are 3/4′s of a person”
If you knew history, you’d know why that was in there. Hint: It was to weaken the political power of the slavery states in the House of Representatives. Those states wanted to count slaves as whole people and the non-slavery states wanted to not count them at all. The compromise was to count them as 3/5ths a person. Do try to read.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The Constitution doesn’t guarantee righs that would require denying the rights of others. If health care is a right, then it should be free. You don’t have to pay for rights. Well, that means those people who provide health care are little more than slaves. Why stop at health care? Why not free houses, free cars, free everything?
As for abortion, while I personally oppose it, the Nineth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
That means that just because something isn’t explicitly called out in the Constitution (unlike that monstrosity of a European Union Constitution), the right still exists (so long as others aren’t forced to pay for it). The Constitution never says a word about a right to privacy but that doesn’t mean the right doesn’t exist.
>> African-Americans are 3/4′s of a person
Scarcely even that, these days. They merely serve as an ever-reliable kiddie chorus behind whatever cardboard candidate the “progressives” happen to be propping up this week.
Eh, please get the narrative right if you expect to get paid this week. It’s healthcare is a right not health insurance. I know our side is bad at confusing the two.
Also, never bring up slavery!! It was the GOP that freed the slaves don’t you remember?
Extra point for hypocrisy though (quoting an “old and white” person while denigrating another)!
Perhaps you should actually read it? You do realize it’s been amended several times and hasn’t defined africans as 3/4s of a person since after the civil war?
And the 14th amendment is pretty clear that all people regardless of race or income level have equal rights? It took courts twisting the meaning of the document to bring us to the state we’re in granting advantages to various groups for various reasons.
As for abortion, think of the constitution as a contract. Do you really want to be told that a contract you signed giving the other party rights or putting limitations on you that aren’t spelled out in the contract? I’m very uncomfortable with the idea a court can just suddenly invent or eliminate my rights.
My my are we a little confused? The Constitution sets forth what the Federal government cannot do or what powers they cannot claim. If it isn’t explicitly stated what the federal powers are then those unmentioned powers belong to the several states. If this mandate is upheld then the rest of the Constitution can be trashed because the shifty bastards in Congress can frame any issue in trade or commerce terms and hence have total control over it. Who in their most confused state of mind, like you, could ever imagine that NOT buying something is commerce! BTW, anything that is deemed “Free” cannot depend on another person for that freedom. So for you that would mean when you get your free healthcare that you get to do your own surgery, anesthesia and post op care!
Like a moth (moron) to the flame bait! Nice troll LE, very nice troll. Definitely a 8.5 from the 4chan judge! Lulz
I’m curious about the hourly wage paid for Trolling by Obama’s Office of the Director of Progressinve Media And Onine Response. Are you making a decent living from it?
Wow.
Just, wow.
Hahahah….leave it to an uneducated but thoroughly indoctrinated liberal to confuse the 13th (1865), 14th (1866), and15th (1869) Amendments that addressed ending slavery, defined citizenship, and addressed voting – all passed in the 19th century – with the 17th (1912) Amendment passed in the 20th century!
Somehow, in her world, repealing a 20th century Amendment would send us back to antebellum days…..
This kind of comedy relief is priceless!
In your defense, Frank did say it takes a “guy who can read six pages.”
The Troll came out from under the bridge (again).
And where did you go to school, LovelyEarth?
Everybody knows it’s pnenumbra, not pnenumbrums.
In defense of LovelyEarth’s 3/4 comment, let us consider that is about 25% inflation from 3/5 (60%) to 3/4 (75%) (15 being 1/4 or 25% of 60). Although 15% is much better than the inflation our money has suffered in the last 4 years. – and I don’t mean ‘offical rate excluding gas and food’.. um.. when the less income one earns, the more proportionally has to go to food and gas, so gas in 2008 at $2 and now at $3+ is 50% inflation. THANKS!
btw, Jeffersion or was it S.Adams would have approved of the idea of ‘common men making the most important decissions’ as they described the jury system judging the guilt of a man who would hang for murder if found guilty. OTOH, $190 mil because you can’t understand that HOT coffee is HOT??? yeah I’m not sure that jury’s would work for SCOTUS.
Oh, my dear Earth, you’ve done it again…
Such sark and so many replies…
I try so hard to generate conversation with HONEST passionate positions,
and you (always!) slay me with your leftist word salad in a blender.
I am a mere workman, sweating brow and soiled hands calloused fact, passion and opinion.
Lovely Earth is an ARTIST!
Dancing free, as effortless as a veil upon the wind as she ties the thread up in knots
Opine Du Provocateur!
I bow to your Greatness!
A great phrase of currency has been coined!
the constitution was deliberately written this way so it would meet the needs of every generation which will interpret it according to the times. It keeps the law fresh and up to-date ,however when you veer to much to the left or the right you affect the balance of this Historical document and you ruin the flavor for which it was intended, to sustain the fires of freedom and protection from an over zealous government.
No, the Constitution is NOT meant to be interpreted according to the ephemera of a particular generation. This is not to say the Framers were ignorant of the fact that future generations would develop new and different requirements of their government, and that is why they included a built-in process by which to amend the Constitution. The problem for progressives is that the amendment process deliberately holds the bar very high, so as to assure there is a consistent and widespread agreement on the need for the amendment. None of the things the progs want to do could ever pass amendment muster, so instead they try to accomplish things statutorily and through novel interpretations of existing law. For the Left, the courts are a secondary, backup legislature.
That is the real, enduring value of our Constitution. It describes something that is and seems complex in a simple and straightforward way that should be clear to anyone who takes the time to read it and comprehend it.
One of my greatest fears is the potential for a constitutional convention at some point. The last time our country held a constitutional convention its stated purpose was to fix the existing constitution, the Articles of Confederation. That constitution instead produced a completely new document and scrapped the old one in its entirety. I suspect that if we ever convened a new convention, that there would be a significant number of (progressive) delegates clamoring that we start from scratch in order to fix real or perceived flaws in our current governing document.
When I see a health care bill that stretches over 2,000 pages and a European Union proposed (never approved) constitution spanning several hundred, I’m certain that we’d end up with something less workable and much more seriously flawed, with plenty of trap doors included to facilitate further rounds of feckless social engineering.
Instead of the text of the Constitution, they study “case law” and “precedent,” though a more accurate term for this stuff would be “constitutional fan fiction.”….let’s look at how ridiculous the term “constitutional law scholar” is.
Yep, and to focus the mind still further, reflect on the malign contributions of ”scholars” like, say, Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe, a brace of arrogant axe-grinders in search of a monkey. And also recall Wm. F.Buckley’s famous observation that he would rather be governed by a Congress comprised of the first two thousand names in the Boston phone book than the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.
After all the mess the lawyers have made to our lives, our country and our future, the deeper insanity here is how deep is the sense of entitlement that still prevails within the profession. ‘We’re a big part of the problem, so plainly we’re the solution too’ — a nutso idea that takes you to the weird world down the rabbit hole, beyond the looking-glass, where nothing has ever worked and never will. Yet most of the electorate simply nod up’n'down like those damn furry animal toys in the back window of the car stuck in front.
Like everything that’s inherently unstable, guess what happens eventually, often sooner not later. Meantime, the flop-sweat is showing — see, e.g., the mess on aisle 7 above.
That’s a great piece but I think you meant “a brace of organ grinders” not ax grinders:-).
OOps! Thank you.
SCOTUS is the location of ultimate judicial activism loved by liberals. We now have some justices who entirely ignore established law and the Constitution to vote yea or nay based solely on their liberal ideology. The arguments they write in support of their positions are often totally nonsensical. We have had two examples of this in the past week. We will no doubtedly see at least two more tomorrow.
Liberal Presidents will continue to nominate people who place liberal ideology ahead of the law including the clear meaning of the Constitution. Conservatives must stop rubber stamping these nominations. The “Washington Way” is the “go along and get along” game. It is called “deferring to the President” and other names. What has happened in following the Washington Way is that conservatives have failed to defend the country. We need conservatives in Washington who will stand up for what is right – what is correct under the law and the Constitution.
Another way to end the madness would be to impeach a justice or two for their blatant refusal to honor their oath of office. That oath does not say “I will defend the Constitution unless it conflicts with my liberal ideology.” It does not say “I will defend the Constitution unless it conflicts with the laws of the EU, United Nations, or a foreign country.” And frankly, I don’t care if that turned into a war against the politicians that populate the judicial branch. A thorough house cleaning is healthy.
“The Constitution is only six pages long. So ‘constitutional law scholar’ just means ‘guy who can read six pages.’”
This is particularly funny, since earlier this week, some TV talking head referred to PresBO as a “constitutional law scholar.”
“Instead, the Supreme Court should be like jury duty — we just grab nine random people with basic reading skills for each case and give them an hour or two to read over the Constitution and the law in question.”
Sad thing is those same nine citizens would likely swear that the constitution says we have a right to vote, that it contains the phrase “separation of church and state”, and that it defines marriage.
“Instead, the Supreme Court should be like jury duty — we just grab nine random people with basic reading skills for each case and give them an hour or two to read over the Constitution and the law in question.”
Sad thing is those same nine people would likely say the constitution says we have the right to vote, that it guarantees a separation of church and state and that it define marriage as between a man and a woman.
I feel the same way when people’s eyes glaze over when talking about reading the Bible. Now the Bible is a bit longer than six pages of course, but with the exception of a few apocalyptic chapters, it’s very simple to read.
“instead, the Supreme Court should be like jury duty…”. Agreed, but why stop there? We should determine Representatives by lot as well. This would ensure that the government is truly “of the people”; reduce the chance of a Congressman serving multiple terms to just about nil, and make it a tad more difficult to make our legislature the best “money can buy”.
This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Regarding the jury duty approach, I just got one thing to remind ya’ll of…..
The O.J. Simpson trial.
Was OJ guilty of the crime? Almost definitely.
Did the State of California present a clearly defined case that accurately portrayed OJ’s guilt. No.
Did the jury on the OJ case therefore make the correct decision under the “beyond a reasonable doubt” rule of a capital muder case? Yes.
I would rather have had the OJ jury making the decision on ObamaCare than the nine SC justices we have. With a copy of the Constitution before them I would have expected them to have read the text of the Constitution and the text of the bill and summarily struck it down.
brilliant
But there are many people who read the document as if it doesn’t hold meaning, if they read it at all. I’m not sure what the term is for these people. I think it’s “jackasses.”
rofl, thanks for the laugh. i really needed that
at my office we are planning a party tomorrow to celebrate the death of obamacare and the contempt of congress charge against holder. will be a very interesting day indeed
With all due respect: there are many people willing to mouth off without ever reading the document. I know this from observation. Remember, Erick Holder, upon being asked, said that he never read the Arizona immigration law before suit was filed against it. To me, it’s astounding that an Attorney General would do such a thing, and simply f’n amazing that he’d confess to failing to educate himself about such a matter within the scope of his responsibility.
And then he did not get fired.
This administration doesn’t read, or write, or do math.
Ah yes, the entire Deconstructionist movement of literary analysis depends on people searching for the “secret meaning” in the texts before them; rather like our Supreme Court Justices. This usually leads to the situation where a deconstructionist tells the author of something or other that the author doesn’t the meaning of what was written. A classic example of this is when a deconstructionist told Harlan Ellison that the line “her face was black against the snow” had deep philosophical meaning, blah, blah, blah, and to this Harlan replied “I wrote that because she was an alien trying to pass as a black human female.”
We need a constitutional amendment that says if 3/4 of the state vote to resend a decision of the SCOTUS it is rescinded. Nothing in the Constitution changes only the vote of the “9″ is overturned..
Ever since bork became a verb, of before, this axiomatic understanding of the meaning of our basic law, the Constitution, has see sawed on this fulcrum. A large segment of our lawyers and judges simply do not believe in the US Constitution, as written. They do not look to the meaning of the words for their legal position; they look to their personal ideology. In their mode of thinking, the document is a living being and grows into a form, only they can divine. Hence our judiciary has been elevated to the role of high priests. Only high priests could go behind the veil, into the holy of holies, and come out with the word. THE word. Mere mortals could not possibly hold this power. Viewers of the Wizard of Oz can grasp the concept of authority.
There are good and valid reasons for a rewrite of the document. Basic popular clarity and understanding by an educated population is a prime reason. But there are down sides. Train loads of lawyers would instantly become commercially useless. Ivy league schools would lose their mystic. Judges would instantly lose their power. And where would we get intellectual Titans e.g. Jefferson, Adams, Washington, or Madison. The US Senate?
The prime role of the US Senate has degraded to that of a primary for our penultimate rulers, Supreme Court Judges. It is inevitable that what ever comes down on the constitutionality of Obamacare, that scholarly rebuttals in Law Reviews will prove conclusively that my side is right, and you are wrong. Those words mean nothing.
This is where our nation really is.
The catch is “normal”.
This is a long overdue essay, so true and so important. As I recall, the Framers adopted as a primary editing rule that to be worthwhile the thing had to meet a test whereby it could be read and understood by a high school graduate. In those days that meant understood by a farmer, a grocer, a shop keeper, a blacksmith, anybody. It was not to be the exclusive preserve of lawyers.
Here’s a joke: what is an ambitious lawyer called? A constitutional lawyer, that’s what.
Look, you’re misunderstanding the issue here. There are certain people in our country who are MUCH MUCH smarter than you and I. They are called Constitutional Law Scholars. We know they’re smarter than us because they’ve told us so, repeatedly. Since they’re smarter than us, we need to cede all decision-making with regards to the Constitution to them…because they’re smarter than we are.
They’ve decided that parts of the Constitution are too confusing to be interpreted, and so they’ve decided to ignore them. Constraints on Federal power are typicallly too restrictive, in this modern world, so they can be dispensed with in the interests of justice, and of course for the children. The 2nd Amendment is no longer neccessary because now the police are just a phone call away, and at least in the neighborhoods where these very smart people live, security is so tight and the police are so vigilant that only very rarely do people get hurt by criminals. If you don’t live in that neighborhood, that might mean that the really smart people have decided that your survival isn’t as important as their interpretation of the Constitution–but you can rest assured they’ve weighed this issue very carefully before deciding to rule against you.
Since these people are so incredibly smar, and since they’ve decided to torture logic and grammar until they scream uncle and say whatever the “Constitutional Law Scholars” want them to say, it follows that common people don’t need to read the Constitution or anything written about it (except for opinions as to what it all means, written by Constitutional Law Scholars, of course) ever again. Merely put your worthless, anti-intellectual opinion in their hands, and let them decide these complex questions for you. Anything else would be anti-American, anti-government, and (of course) racist.
Ever noticed the elisions in the news entertainment biz? Certain things are either left undiscussed or even unreported, wouldn’t wanna confuse the folks. The “simplifying” that goes on is at the root of how the nation (and Europe) got into such a deep mess as this. But, when it comes to simplification, you can always count on the Supremes to take it to the hilt. “It” being the need to screw people out of their rights for the good of the… people.
Yes. easy to undertand for any literate person. PLAIN English. And importantly IT IS the Law. Already in place for a couple centuries. So “we don’t have to pass it to know what’s in it”.
Only a few pages, not thousands into which items intended to limit ever further the rights and liberties of the people are enacted as law by their putative representatives/guardians. As has been done within the 20th century and following by lawyers who made it their plaything to twist and turn and manipulate to their designs for increasing their powers over the citizens “in the name of the law”. As in earlier days it was “in the name of the crown. the king, queen…”.
Only a few pages on the foundation of the principles in the Declaration of Independence. With clear statements of permissible actions in the governing bodies/representatives of the citizens. The sovereign citizens as understood in that “We The People … do ordain and Establish this Constitution for the United States of America…”
The Constitution is the property of the citizens, NOT the representative bodies of those citizens. Changes to that Constitution that in any way change the embedded liberties of Americans may be made lawfully ONLY with their direct consent/assent. American citizens are sovereign, NOT subjects of any crown.
Meaning of sovereign from Chambers 20th Century Dictionary of the English language: supreme ruler, possessing supreme power or dominion. THAT is what WE The People means.
The Constitution of/by We The People WAS the Law until the lawyers in Legislature and Judiciary in the 20th century and following decided it was their plaything to twist and turn, to manipulate to their designs. CHANGING not only intent and letter but the spirit of that law.
WHY so many lawyers in Congress/Senate? Couldn’t they succeed honestly in their “professions”? So opted for the sinecure of lifelong “representative of the people” who they could then steal blind with permission?
Exempars extraordinaire those who name themselves Democrats with their twinned RINOs. More recently lberals and progessives. As pet name feel your pain compassionates. None of whom – these snake-oil salesmen – has ever had from their de haut en bas positions any experience similar to the demos of their compassion.
No, we should not do away with the Supreme Court…can you even imagine Politicians turned loose with absolutely zero checks on their actions. We should, however, make certain that those on the court have actually read and understand the Constitution, and that they understand what their duty is. In addition, Impeachment of rogue Justices should not be a rare thing, and a reasonable term should be assigned to the position rather than the current lifetime absurdity.
We need to stop acting like the Constitution is this special, complicated document when it’s a simple thing that any normal person could understand.
The fly in the ointment is the assumption that the constitutional law scholar is a normal person.
Constitutional law scholar is an invented position for people who don’t have enough to do, just like “UN ambassador” or “global warmist” and a whole host of titles.
So “constitutional law scholar” just means “guy who can read six pages.”…We’re also stuck in this completely moronic situation where the justices have lifetime appointments, and we just keep hoping they die during an administration that actually acknowledges that the Constitution means what it says…Currently, we’re one poorly timed death away from not having a right to bear arms.
Great to read some truth in the ton of garbage and high falutin’ verbiage currently being spewed.
“This road sign says, ‘Wrong Way,’ so we probably shouldn’t go down this street.”
Frank, I know this is supposed to be sarcasm, but, you obviously have not driven in any semi populated suburban area, lately. Red lights are now merely suggestions, as are the signs that say, “Slower Traffic Keep Right.” Clearing the lane for merging traffic is the exception, no longer the rule. Yo might say that finding stuff in the Constitution has “trickled down” to include finding stuff in common traffic law; not to mention common courtesy.
This reminds me of two tales of my experiences in the Northeast. New York is the only state in which I’ve driven where I’ve been honked at for not running a red light and New Jersey is the only state in which I’ve seen school buses run red lights.
This steady drift towards lawlessness has been well represented by this latest Supreme Court travesty. What little respect I still had for the Supreme Court, after the Kelo V. City of New London decision, is now lost. The rule of law no longer exists in the USA and I mourn its loss.
I knew Roberts was a secret liberal because he once said:
“There are no individual rights, beyond what the state assigns to us! Whee!”
I think Roberts may just have achieved that for which secretly he has lusted for some very long time: Fame. A few more rulings like this last, and he will be fit to join the “Oliver Wendell Holmes” gallery of infamy. OWH, that secretly card-carrying Fabian and Common Law Process applicator to our Constitution will become his best and most frequent companion in the nadir! They deserve each other!
To Progressives, the “originalist” meaning of NO! has been overturned, as they ‘progress’ along their slippery slope from rational, moral law, to irrational, immoral chaos! “YES, we CAN fulfil our potentials as the lemmings we were meant to be, to “Go Forward!” over that cliff and onto our bright, new, shiny futures despite what you all say, anyway! Nyah!”
Krauthammer, over on NRO, has tried to justify this decision as Roberts’ attempt to maintain the appearance of neutrality of the court. He has completely missed the point. The Supreme Court is not meant to be neutral to politics. It is meant to say yea or nay this is correct law or this is not correct law.
The entire Supreme Court decision shouldn’t have been more than a handful of sentences and should have been something on the order of the following.
“The Commerce Clause is not of infinite extent and the Individual Mandate’s requirement to purchase a product is beyond that extent. As there is no severability clause in the legislation the entire law is hereby struck down. The law being struck all other questions are thereby rendered moot and need not be addressed.”
Eggs-ackly
“guy who can read six pages.”
Contact any law student who has taken a course in Constitutional Law and ask him if at any time during the semester his class actually read those 6 pages. You may be surprised to hear him tell you, “No.” They don’t study the Constitution, they study other lawyers’ opinions and listen to what the instructor says the Constitution “really means”.
[W3]
… and with the kinds of prof’s like, say, Elisabeth Warren, and the kinds of deans like, say, Kagan, it is no longer difficult to imagine what nonsense they must have been required to remember … and regurgitate on exams. Yuck. Yuck. Yuck. What gets me is that these drips like to think of themselves as “intellectuals”, and actually get confirmed by similar “minds” in the Senate. Time to purge Congress of lawyers! Also, time to shut down Haaarvoood Law!
This is precisely the argument that I have been making for years; the U.S. Constitution is so simple and so clearly written, that anyone with an 8th grade education can read and understand it. The very idea of a “constitutional scholar” seems beyond ridiculous.
The Constitution is, in fact, so simply and so clearly written that it has taken 223 years for legions of brilliant legal minds to completely screw it up.
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it as passed.” — Thomas Jefferson
I visited Gettysburg and bought a souvenir of the original Constitution on parchment. I was surprised when I read “The Constitution FOR The United States of America” Now every copy I see all say “The Constituion OF The United States of America” What’s the diff? It is a direction. The original Constitution is FROM the people FOR the Government. The second is From the Government FOR the people. These are 2 different documents that say the same thing, or do they?????
—————————from Dictionary.com
of1 /ʌv, ɒv; unstressed əv or, especially before consonants, ə/ Show Spelled[uhv, ov; unstressed uhv or, especially before consonants, uh] Show IPA
preposition
1. (used to indicate distance or direction from, separation, deprivation, etc.): within a mile of the church; south of Omaha; to be robbed of one’s money.
2. (used to indicate derivation, origin, or source): a man of good family; the plays of Shakespeare; a piece of cake.
for /fɔr; unstressed fər/ Show Spelled[fawr; unstressed fer] Show IPA
preposition
1. with the object or purpose of: to run for exercise.
2. intended to belong to, or be used in connection with: equipment for the army; a closet for dishes.
Remember Clinton “that depends on what is is”