Skip to comments."Living and breathing" vs. original intent [the Constitutionality of The Bailout and The Stimulus]
Posted on 02/05/2009 3:08:39 PM PST by rabscuttle385
BY BONNIE ALBA
In just six months the so-called movers and shakers in our nation's Capitol have managed to, and continue to add to, an impossible burden of National Debt on the backs of present and future generations. In effect they have murdered the "Republic for which we stand."
The most serious questions that can be asked: Does the U.S. Constitution provide the Congress and the President 1) this unprecedented power? 2) bailing out all manner of capitalist businesses, the banking system, homeowners or any other combo you might name?
Throughout the 20th century, thoughtful citizens observed as Congress and residing presidents made policy decisions and enacted laws and regulations which in earlier times would have been declared unconstitutional. Yet, for the most part, the people were silent. Some saw the differences, but couldn't quite grasp the why.
The reason for the present silence can be attributed to two divisive camps of thought one is the result of the embedded liberal world view within our education system. It all boils down to how we interpret the U.S. Constitution.
In a 2000 campaign interview with NBC's Jim Leherer, Al Gore gave his view on how he would select Supreme Court Justices. He let slip his liberal philosophy on the U.S. Constitution, "... I believe the Constitution is a 'living and breathing document'...."
Mr. Gore declared the antithesis of his liberal world view would be moving backwards to a pre-modern "...strict constructionist, narrow-minded, harkening back to a literalist reading from 200 years ago,...I think that's a mistake."
Like so many progressive liberals, Gore rejects the founders' "Original Intent." Declaring our governing document "living and breathing," Gore demonstrated America's move away from America's Republic to a full-blown democracy. America's freedom and liberty is sinking into a mire of combined democratic socialism. color="#ff0000">The Constitution as interpreted by all three present-day branches of government embodies .
Over the past 100 years, many presidents and the Congress have dodged Article Five of the Constitution which addresses the constitutional amendment process in the Constitution. The government no longer acts in the best interests of our country, but in accordance with the liberal whims and fads of political opportuneness and power grabs.
The new President and the Congress are in an irresponsible "do something, anything" mode. They are about to repeat the same mistake made in the last months of 2008, throw more money at the problem. These reckless, panicky government actions only prove the people right politicians love to throw money at a problem hoping it will go away. It hasn't gone away.
The guiding principles of the U.S. Constitution do not extend to pouring money down a bottomless Black Hole with our grandchildren and future generations liable for the payback. The fact remains: The present debacle will add $7000-plus debt to each man, woman and child for this latest $1 trillion boondoggle alone, not counting what has come before and what is to come.
There remain very few in Congress who are "original intent" thinkers. One is Rep. (TX) Ron Paul and there's Sen. (SC) Jim DeMint, both staunch fiscal conservatives.
Present government actions are predicated on the "living and breathing" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. It's a continued growth of power in an authoritarian centralized government that "we the people" seemingly are unable to stop. With each liberal step forward, "Original Intent's" liberty and freedom decreases and eventually will disappear.
On leaving Independence Hall at the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Founder Benjamin Franklin had this to say when asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got a Republic or a Monarchy?" According to Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland delegate, he replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Most politicians almost never refer to our nation as a Republic with a democratic government. They like Democracy better. Many of our founders voiced warnings against placing Democracy above the Republic. John Adams stated: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
For all intents and purposes, the U.S. Constitution is "living and breathing" in all three branches of government. One way to combat this philosophy is to educate ourselves and teach our children about the history of this great country. Show them the difference between a Republic with a democratic form of government and a simple Democracy.
It's up to "we the people" to return to "original intent."
Combined Jim DeMint/Ron Paul/Constitution ping!
Exactly! It's the same as NO constitution. The Founders knew the dangers to liberty inherent in an unwritten constitution. A 'living, breathing' constitution is, in essense, an unwritten constitution . . . which is what our enemies want.
.....The Constitution CANNOT BE a living document because.....
.....If it is, there was no point in writing it in the first place.
Hehe...you are on a roll today :)
I saw an interview with Supreme Court Justice Scalia a while back. It mirrored the speech described in this article:
....Scalia's trademark mixture of humor, confidence and combativeness was on full display Tuesday at a luncheon put on by the Palm Beach County Forum Club and Bar Association.
In a half-hour speech, he described the division on the nation's highest court, not between liberal and conservative, but how the justices view the U.S. Constitution. More than 750 people packed the luncheon, including judges, politicians and prominent local attorneys, to listen to a man admired as fervently as he is maligned. In the back corner, sat Jeck and her Florida Atlantic University classmates, excited to hear Scalia speak.
His speech centered on two main schools of thought on constitutional law: "originalists" who try to read the Constitution as the original framers wrote it and those who interpret the Constitution as something that evolves over time to match current moral standards. Scalia, perhaps the most ardent and famous contemporary originalist said the Constitution was meant to be read as a static, legal document, not something meant to change.
"The Constitution was regarded as an unchanging rock to which the society was anchored," he said....
According to some Republicans, it’s living enough for the president to have “executive privilege”.
“In effect they have murdered the ‘Republic for which we stand.’”
Can’t murder what’s already dead.
I am sickened. But not too sickened to fight.
According to Some of the Founding Fathers there certainly was a basis for such a thing.
Mind you, i'm not convinced one way or the other, but it is an area where there is honest disagreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.