Posted on 12/11/2009 6:28:41 AM PST by rhema
You raise some good points. I hope to respond at a later time.
.
As do you and Jacquerie.
What the leftists don't want to admit, and their dupes don't realize, is that America is unique and extraordinary both in itself and in it's Constitution.
The foundation that all human rights originate from and are granted or restricted ONLY by the Creator. The government may not grant, restrict, or revoke human rights. The government has powers and responsibilities ONLY as enumerated in the Constitution, and NO OTHERS.
Unique in the history of the world and exceptional by any measure.
Properly defended by good men, the Constitution could protect a civilization that would last as the Creator wished.
The Marxist alternative is a large scale pogrom every couple hundred years, spaced by mass misery, bread and circuses.
Excellent post. Save it for later use.
I wager not one in a hundred are even aware of the Creator/Natural Law basis of our Declaration and Constitution.
That's my point. The interpretation, even when left to the independent SCOTUS, is a political decision. It doesn't have to do with the actual meaning of the Constitution. To me, that's a fatal flaw. If you're going to decide the meaning of the Constitution in a political way, might there be a better way of doing it?
Conservatives don't have to act like DemoRats just because they have power. Conservatives would be wise enough to just overturn the nation killing Marxist crap at first.
Like what?
Why would you think that SCOTUS would not or could not seat a jury when required by the Constitution? They would do so in the same manner as any other Federal court.
I'm not saying it isn't possible. It was considered back in the day. I don't know if juries would make it better or worse, but I give you credit for at least looking at the problem, and trying to figure out a DIFFERENT way of doing it, because the way it's been done--the way the framers designed it--doesn't work.
and you can be sure that those with power and the anti American Marxists they coddle and protect, will hurl any charge to derail the restoration of an originalist court.
Scalia is an originalist, and he recently affirmed Wickard, writing for a liberal majority. Wickard is pure Marxist crap. I personally think the situation is far worse than you presume.
These ideas were floating around for some time, were they not? Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, etc? What made the USA unique was the circumstance--a new continent, and the opportunity to start a government from scratch. They incorporated the best ideas of the time.
The government has powers and responsibilities ONLY as enumerated in the Constitution, and NO OTHERS.
Except of course that the system, as designed, does a very poor job of delivering on that principle.
Properly defended by good men, the Constitution could protect a civilization that would last as the Creator wished.
"Properly defended by good men" to me is like saying "assuming pigs wear lipstick and speak perfect French." That's not secure enough. It's actually assinine to assume good men will run government. Far better to assume the opposite, and design a system around THAT.
After all, supposedly the Framers DID consider bad actors. The whole "checks and balances", ambition pitted against ambition, was supposed to keep it in check. Well, has it?
If it's all reliant on good men acting rightly, why bother with a Constitution? The bottom line is FORCE. The Constitution created a national government with supreme power, and the states surrendered enough of their sovereignty to lose their ability to place a check on the national system. The states are mere agents of the national system. Federalism? Bosh. Federalism signed its death warrant when the Constitution was ratified.
The Justices are men, so the potential is that every decision is a political decision. There is no cure, if we add another layer (the super duper supreme court), men still decide. If we remove a layer (disband SCOTUS), what CongressMEN decide will be law of the land.
Every human construct has flaws. If you look at those constructs in the long term, every one has a Fatal Flaw. I am optimistic that those in the Constitution can be repaired. I never represented that they did not exist or that success was sure.
Like what?
The Environmental Protection Act would be a good start.
--the way the framers designed it--doesn't work, perfectly.
There, helped you out a bit. Now you got the ball, what's your plan?
Scalia is an originalist
And not the first conservative to disappoint. There is a list, too long for my comfort. Again, men.
Of course, but (and this is not flippant) I don't see their signatures on the Declaration of Independence or the Constitutional Convention roll.
It's actually asinine to assume good men will run government. Far better to assume the opposite, and design a system around THAT.
....Ah, OK. Remember, in my post I discussed the foundation of the Constitution in the spirit that it was written. I did not mention the Articles that designated the construction of the government, so
After all, supposedly the Framers DID consider bad actors. The whole "checks and balances", ambition pitted against ambition, was supposed to keep it in check.
Yep, that's what they did.
If it's all reliant on good men acting rightly, why bother with a Constitution? The bottom line is FORCE.
I think we've established that neither you, I, or the founders believed that only good men would wrap themselves in the Constitution.
The use of force is, of course, always the bottom line, with or without any constitution anywhere. Interestingly, OUR Declaration and Constitution comes closer to specifically authorizing the use of force by the citizen or state government than any document that I know of (2A). Yet it is written as a whole to avoid such an event.
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.