02-16-2018 12:28:03 PM -0800
01-23-2018 09:55:12 AM -0800
01-18-2018 11:02:22 AM -0800
01-09-2018 01:54:15 PM -0800
12-22-2017 09:40:32 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

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.