When it comes to the Constitution, there are two main camps – the Constitutionalists and the “Living” Constitutionalists. The Constitutionalists believe that the Constitution of 1787 can work at all times. The Framers’ Constitution has guided this nation for most of the first two centuries and has rendered the freest, most prosperous, and most creative nation in the history of the world.
Then there are the liberals, who believe that the Constitution (and it interpretation) must “evolve” with the times and therein lies the problems we face today. Proponents of the “21st century constitution” or “living constitution” aim to transform our nation’s supreme law beyond recognition – and with a minimum of public attention and debate. Indeed, if there is an overarching theme to what they wish to achieve, it is the diminishment of the democratic and representative process of American government. It is the replacement of a system of REPUBLICAN government, in which the Constitution is largely focused upon the architecture of government in order to minimize the likelihood of abuse of power, with a system of judicial government, in which substantive policy outcomes are increasingly determined by federal judges. Rather than merely defining broad rules of the game for the legislative and executive branches of government, the new constitution would compel specific outcomes.
Forms of the Founders’ Constitution would remain – a bicameral legislation, periodic elections, state governments – but the important decisions would increasingly be undertaken by the courts, specifically the federal courts. It will be the California referendum process writ national, a process by which the decisions of millions of voters on matters such as racial quotas, social services funding and immigration policy have been routinely overturned by single judges acting in the name of the Constitution – not the Framers’ Constitution, but a “constitution for our times”, a “living constitution”.
One of the liberals’ favorite argument for a “living constitution” is the “the founding fathers could not have predicted …. (insert favorite liberal cause or ideology here). That is where they ignore the obvious. The Framers put into place a means for the nation to amend the Constitution – to change it “with the times”. This process has worked for over 200 years. But this would put too much power into the hands of the people and not that of the politicians and their special interests (as we have seen in the last 40 years). This process has been undermined time and again to the point where many “rights” have been granted through creative interpretation.
The Framers, through long experience of witnessing abuse of power, knew what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution, it amending process and its Bill of Rights, which specifically addressed situations and solutions to conditions that are not covered in the Constitution. Too bad, MODERN liberals and their activists do not understand (or choose not to) these basic principles. It is time that they did.
Blogs For Victory 
I’m wondering would the founders agree with the Citizens United case wherein corporations can actually utter free speech with their $, or really have speech at all? I don’t think so.
This decision was not a popular one, nor a good one, but the only one possible given the parameters of the case.
A corporation is a legal entity, as is a union. Unions have been given the de facto legal right to function in the same way individuals have, regarding their ability to use the funds of their members to advance political agendas and policies through political contributions.
The Court was not given, within the parameters of the case, the ability to rule on the legality of unions having the same rights and protections as individuals, but if they were to rule that corporations did not have these rights they would have been setting up a discriminatory rule of law in which some legal entities could do some things, and others could not.
I view this ruling as a stopgap ruling, till the Court is given the opportunity to rule on the legality of both unions and corporations being able to fund political activities. But till then, the Court could not in good conscience rule that unions could use member dues to mount media campaigns which would hurt businesses but that the businesses would not have the legal right to respond or counter such campaigns.
There is nothing in the Constitution which says the government can pick and choose which legal entities to empower and which to restrict—the same laws and rules must apply to all. This ruling accomplishes that, but in my opinion the ideal outcome will be the eventual banning of both unions and corporations from the political arena, or at least restricting their roles.
Excellent reply Zonie,
I was also going to point out the union comparison, as well as go on and ask 620 if he opposed corporations like GE and their billion dollar influence on Obama. Liberals only see ‘corporations” as some faceless, evil entity, when in reality, corporations are contribute greatly to our communities and employ many union members and afford them good salaries and great benefits. Who does 620 think can afford to pay those union contracts?
Sorry, drone6206j, but that decision was not an instance of “a single judge acting in the name of the Constitution”, now was it? It was decided just as the Framers designed through the Supreme Court.
Do you have any arguments from the Founders in regard to this matter that would go along with this mindless talking point that you present?
Liberal PACs and other leftist special interest groups, namely UNIONS, can have free speech with their $ while corporations can not? Interesting…..
666
more lefty garbage
As an Aussie I can’t understand why the rich in your country are so opposede to paying their fair share of tax rather than taking from the poor!
Moderator: Please comment on the topic at hand and not some mindless liberal talking point.
If you are really an Aussie, which I doubt, you are an indictment of the Australian educational system, as this is one of the most profoundly ignorant and stupid posts ever seen here—and that is saying something!
But I’ll play, “Maureen”—-
1……What is the “fair share” of the so-called “rich” and how is the “fairness” determined?
2…..What is “taken from the poor”?
And more to the point, what does this whine have to do with the thread topic?
Or are radical Libs in Australia equally unable to actually discuss what is on the table and equally dependent on changing the subject when the topic is too inconvenient?
I would think the answer to your questions elementary dear Amazon.
1……As much as is needed to care for the poor, at current levels adjusted for inflation, is the “Riches'” fair share and this will be determined by liberal judicial fiat via the Federal Courts!
2……Only dignity will be taken from the poor.
3. …nothing whatsoever.
4. …absolutly nothing, sing it again! (Sung to the tune of War by War, I think;)
Maureen,
Please take a minute and look at the percentages of taxes paid, by class, before posting here and making yourself, and Australia look bad.
Appreciate it
Maybe Australia really IS “Upside-Down Land”. Maybe in Australia, giving tax breaks,money, food, housing, health care and special treatment (paid for to a large extent by “the rich”) to the poor really IS “taking from the poor”.
tired, this is an excellent post, focusing on what is probably the single most important issue at stake in the country—that is, the determination of whether or not this nation will be governed according to its Constitution or by a new set of laws and policies which contradict the intent and wording of the Constitution but are allegedly excused by the claim that the Constitution must be reinterpreted and redefined according to modern Leftist ideology.
The framers did realize that as the nation grew and matured, its needs would change, and they included a reasonable and workable mechanism for effecting such change in its body of governing law. This mechanism, the amendment process, has been used 27 times since the original Constitution was ratified, ample proof that the process works.
As a proven matter of fact, the CONSTITUTION works, providing a rule of law and governance which, as you pointed out, allowed this young nation to leapfrog ahead of other older and more established countries to set a new standard of personal liberty, economic prosperity, and national progress.
A careful reading of the Constitution shows that its intent was always to provide protections for citizens, leaving issues of morality and charity to the states. Or to the people, themselves. Nearly anything “the people” want their government to do can be done, at the state and/or local levels. This is the genius of the document and its creators. The freedoms allowed to citizens of this nation are astounding in their scope and range, and the powers of the federal government are severely restricted as to ITS scope and range—a brilliant distribution of power and authority designed to keep that power and authority close to the people and not concentrated at the federal level.
Moderator: Completely off topic.
Suggest all you want. I read the post, I found it vile in its racism and stupid in its mindless assertion that the stock market is the deity of the Right, and in general not just crap but tired old, silly, hateful crap.
You Lefties are not entitled to the courtesy of a response just because you string together a lot of words which do nothing but illustrate political illiteracy and sheer vicious bigotry.
mitch, how about going ON topic for a change and discussing the Constitution. How about explaining why the current amendment process which has worked so well for over 200 years, is now not considered adequate for the “modern” America? Or why the Founders’ distrust of the concentration of power in a central government is no longer relevant. Or any of the points I made in my post.
Or anything that goes above and beyond your usual efforts to keep commentary in your comfort zone, which seems to consist of calling people pimps and filth and exhibiting various bigotries, in the pretense of engaging in political discourse………
Moderator: Rambling on off topic and the usual personal attacks. Comment on topic or go away.
mitch, here is a start. Tell us what you agree or disagree with in the following statement:
“A careful reading of the Constitution shows that its intent was always to provide protections for citizens, leaving issues of morality and charity to the states. Or to the people, themselves. Nearly anything “the people” want their government to do can be done, at the state and/or local levels. This is the genius of the document and its creators. The freedoms allowed to citizens of this nation are astounding in their scope and range, and the powers of the federal government are severely restricted as to ITS scope and range—a brilliant distribution of power and authority designed to keep that power and authority close to the people and not concentrated at the federal level”
“A careful reading” involves subjective interpretation. Consensus if you will since the understanding of the intent of the document by a few, effects the many.The intent of providing protections I agree with, although you have not specified what these protections are.
Legislating morality I emphatically do not. (Other than murder and perhaps theft. Under greedy circumstances.)
Charity can be left to the benevolence of human empathy but I also think that a maturated society has both a financial and moral obligation to provide for the less fortunate, the downtrodden, the sick and the infirm. In other words those who; through no fault of their own, cannot sustain themselves. As hard as they try.
I disagree with the 3rd sentence. There are somethings that the state and local governments cannot provide for. National defense. A monetary system. Educational standards. A highway system. Standardized building codes and consumer safety laws, etc. Uniform mass production of manufacturing combined with the necessary regulations to insure the public’s well being and confidence.
I am not sure if the things you highlighted are indicative of the “genius” of the creators of the document, but you are secure in your opinion so OK.
The last sentence requires some more examination on my part. First of all, I think it is unrealistically ideological. This is not 1776. It’s 2011. We have a population of over 300 million people with diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds, economic realities and everything in between. The memory of a repressive monarchy is long gone but I also believe that human nature is relatively unchanged. Those in power want to accumulate more and will resort to any means necessary to stay in such. Unfortunately this power allows them to legislate personal opinions, morality, religious beliefs,attitudes and dogma. In a perfect world, the Fed is the peoples paid bodyguard and state their weak but chosen friend. Collectivism does have it’s positive attributes and it seems to me that you are in favor of concentrating political power in hands of the people, not the government; federal or not. Which is what Marx was all about. Communism. So based on your query, I take it that you Amazona are a Marxist, communist ,socialist who despises the very model of a government that you pine for as an ideal.
Ama, the post mitchiethekid suggests it the typical vile cr@p from the Pitchfork. It is no surprise that mitchie likes it since his posts are similar in theme and half-witted intellect.
I know, tired. The post that mitch no doubt found “exquisite” was so vitriolic and so profoundly stupid the only thing to do with it was ignore it, as it had not been removed, as other racist screeds had been in the past.
mitchethekid July 24, 2011 at 6:10 pm #
Moderator: Completely off topic.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha …AMF TROLL
It might be interesting to talk about why the Constitution was written in the first place.
“The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were the first constitution of the United States of America.[6] The problem with the United States government under the Articles of Confederation was, in the words of George Washington, “no money”.[7]
Congress could print money, but by 1786, the money was useless. Congress could borrow money, but could not pay it back.[8] Under the Articles, Congress requisitioned money from the states. But no state paid all of their requisition; Georgia paid nothing. A few states paid the U.S. an amount equal to interest on the national debt owed to their citizens, but no more.[8] Nothing was paid toward the interest on debt owed to foreign governments. By 1786 the United States was about to default on its contractual obligations when the principal came due.[9]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
The main reason the constitution was written was to create a stronger central government.
“The main reason the constitution was written was to create a stronger central government.”
The same Constitution also places LIMITS on that “stronger central government”. Limits that are clearly being violated and exceeded.
Casper, is the only reason you can find for writing the Constitution a need for a stronger central government?
Is this all you get out of it?
Amazona,
It fits the littler authortarian struggling to get out of our friend Casper…liberals are like that…never met a freedom they didn’t want regulated.
Mark Noonan July 24, 2011 at 10:29 pm #
“Amazona,
It fits the littler authortarian struggling to get out of our friend Casper…liberals are like that…never met a freedom they didn’t want regulated.”
Project much, Mark.
You might try reading all of my posts before making comments like that.
“The main reason the constitution was written was to create a stronger central government”
Actually, it was to create a more functional central government. If the only goal was to make the central government STRONGER, there would not have been the stringent restrictions on federal power first laid out in the enumerated duties and then tightened up the Bill of Rights.
The Articles of Confederation were a stopgap measure, just to get the new nation on its feet with some sort of national constitution.
* Each state only had one vote in Congress, regardless of size.
* Congress had not have the power to tax.
* Congress did not have the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce.
* There was no executive branch to enforce any acts passed by Congress.
* There was no national court system.
* Amendments to the Articles of Confederation required a unanimous vote.
* Laws required a 9/13 majority to pass in Congress.
Under the Articles of Confederation, states often argued amongst themselves. They also refused to financially support the national government. The national government was powerless to enforce any acts it did pass. Some states began making agreements with foreign governments. Most had their own military. Each state printed its own money. There was no stable economy.
In 1786, Shays’ Rebellion occurred in western Massachusetts as a protest to rising debt and economic chaos. However, the national government was unable to gather a combined military force amongst the states to help put down the rebellion.
It is too easy for Big Government people to point at the wikipedia type of reference to the need for a STRONGER central government as some sort of permission to increase the strength and power of our federal government now. That would be very wrong, and the Founders were quite vehement in their determination to severely limit the size and scope of the federal government.
That said, they still realized that the federal government needed more structure than the loosely knit conglomeration of states within the Articles of Confederation, so a careful effort was mad to strengthen areas of weakness without conveying much additional power to the federal government.
Amazona July 24, 2011 at 8:29 pm #
“The main reason the constitution was written was to create a stronger central government”
Actually, it was to create a more functional central government. ”
Stronger? More functional? You say potato I say potato. What they ended up with was a stronger and more functional government. I didn’t say the ONLY goal was to make the central government stronger, just that it was the main goal.
“The Articles of Confederation were a stopgap measure, just to get the new nation on its feet with some sort of national constitution.”
Really? And your source for this is? I have yet to read anything written by any of the founding fathers that The Articles of Confederation was a stopgap measure. It took three years before it was ratified. I doubt that very many people at that time considered it stopgap.
“It is too easy for Big Government people to point at the wikipedia type of reference to the need for a STRONGER central government as some sort of permission to increase the strength and power of our federal government now.”
I’m not suggesting that we need to strengthen our federal government right now. In fact, I believe there are areas we could cut it back. What I wold want to see is a more effective government with less waste.
Stronger? More functional? You say potato I say potato.
Actually, Casper, “stronger” would be correct. But at the time, “stronger” was a relative term. The Articles of Confederation” resulted in a government that was about one step from anarchy. So a Constitutional Convention was convened to establish a stronger federal government — but NOT A STRONG, ALL-POWERFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as we have now.
Spook,
I agree with you 100% except for one minor point. The Constitutional Convention wasn’t called to write a new constitution. It was called to amend the Articles of Confederation. The delegates were there “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation’ in ways that, when approved by Congress and the states, would ‘render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.’”
Once together they decided to throw out the Articles of Confederation and write a new Constitution.
BTW, one of the highlights of my summer was going to Philly and standing in the room were the Constitution was created. It was a very powerful experience.
The Constitutional Convention wasn’t called to write a new constitution.
I never said it was.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the premise of a living Constitution interpretation employed, almost exclusively, to strengthen the power of the Federal Government over the States and the people by bypassing the very protections provided by a traditional interpretation of the Constitution? If not, please site some examples where a living interpretation reduces the collective’s power over the individual. I can’t think of any. Still, you claim the power of Government could stand to be cut back bit. Really?
BTW, one of the radical documents I plan on exposing my students to this year is this one:
http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html
And yes I know that Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution.
catspuke
i suggest you return to Jr college and ask for a refund.