[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

The Constitution...Who Cares?

"I'll take 'Potential Campaign Slogans for Obama/Biden in 2012' for $500, Alex."

[EdReform]

BTTT

[Loud Mime]

I care and I have written at length about the matter. See my tagline.

To get this nation back on track.....heck, to get the dialogue back on track, we need to work from the Constitution and forget this party-talk.

[Soul Citizen]

BUMP

[Boxsford]

Excellent read. Thank you for posting.

[.338 lapua]

“...to the States, or to the people.” To quote Nancy Pelosi: “ You’ve got to be kidding, you’ve got to be kidding me!”

[Repeat Offender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXAtZkx5Ykc

[ex-snook]

If leaders can find a Constitution work-around to go to war with a Congressional Declaration then anything goes.

PS It didn’t start with Bush.

[Ken H]

The unprincipled leaders have stretched this clause to mean that they can regulate anything under the commerce clause. Original intention of the clause is irrelevant to them since they use the clause as a ruse for anything they want. Why do they do this? The answer is simple, they are unprincipled men and women who have no respect for the Constitution that they swore to protect.

Someone should show this article to self-proclaimed originalist Justice Scalia. He thinks the New Deal Commerce Clause is just fine:

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

J. Scalia, concurring in Raich, 6 June 2005

[supercat]

The Constitution was written to be read and understood by ordinary citizens. The bulk of so-called "Constitutional law" is an effort by the Men in Robes to seize power by obfuscating what should be relatively clear.

If courts actually wanted to follow the Constitution, a good start would be acknowledging that many Constitutional issues involve factual matters and as such are matters for a jury to determine in each individual case. If a cop is serving a knock-and-announce warrant, procedures which may be reasonable (and thus legitimate) in one set of circumstances may be unreasonable (and thus illegitimate) in another. Courts have declared that if cops follow a procedure that was "reasonable" in one case, such a procedure is proper in any other case whether or not someone looking at the facts of that case would deem it to, in fact, be "reasonable". If a procedure is at least vaguely like some other procedure that was at least vaguely like something the court had found wasn't totally unreasonable, the court will deem it acceptable. If the matter were simply put to the jury: "Is that reasonable", the answer would be much more in keeping with the Constitution.

[Gilbo_3]

ping to link to last nites 2A vs suitcase nukes thread...

The one problem with a Constitutional Representative Republic is that it depends on men of honor to run it, and citizens of honor to keep it.

[rfreedom4u]

Who cares???

I do Dammit!

[Oceander]

Without the Constitution this country is nothing more than a cult of personality.