Skip to comments.Time Mag’s Constitutional Baby Babble
Posted on 06/27/2011 5:07:14 PM PDT by mjonesee04
Several readers sent me for comment a lengthy cover article in Time Magazine by managing editor Richard Stengel.
Stengels piece is one result of new public interest in our Constitution and in first principlesinterest that has forced political liberals to think about the documents real meaning. While its good that they are now addressing it, like a baby learning language the results are often garbled.
Correcting all of the irrelevancies, distortions, and errors in his essay of nearly 5000 words would take far longer than it is worth. Below is just a sample:
Stengel: Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga.
Answer: Well, yes, but so what? What, really, is the impact of miniskirts on whether the Founders views are relevant today? Is Mr. Stengel saying that sexting renders James Madison irrelevant?
Airplanes? If they fly across state lines, Congress can regulate them under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Lady Gaga? Her performances are (largely) protected from federal interference by the First Amendment. So what really is the problem here?
Stengel: No one really disputes Congresss power to regulate interstate commerce, and its silly to argue that health care which accounts for 17% of the U.S. economy doesnt involve interstate commerce.
Answer: Under the Constitution, Congress has power to regulate Commerce . . . among the several States, not activities that merely involve (or, in the words of the Supreme Court, substantially affect) interstate commerce. (Commerce in the Constitution means mercantile trade, transportation, and a few other activities.) The Founders left most economic activities, including those that impacted interstate commerce, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the states.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitution.i2i.org ...
Our Constitution is timeless because human nature is static.
Thanks mjonesee04. Slime Magazine ping.
Why don’t these critics propose Constitutional amendments?
Obviously, because it’s easier to simply rely on the judicial branch to twist the meaning, to suit the cause of the moment.
Still — why aren’t the critics challenged about this more?
What they are really saying is that rule of law is an impediment to arbitrary executive fiat. If Constitutions lose legitimacy over time then it could argued that they day after they are signed into law they are potentially out of step with latest invention or fad.
Why should they propose amendments when they can undermine and destroy the very foundation of our country without doing so?