Posted on 02/14/2012 12:14:24 PM PST by neverdem
It is certainly no surprise for gun owners to see the New York Times run a story belittling the United States Constitution. After all, the Times has worked for decades to devalue our founding document.
"[I]ts influence is waning," opines the Times. It is "terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights." The paper faults the Constitution for being difficult to amend and reflective of the times in which it was written. While the Times does not go so far as to claim the U.S. Constitution has been bad for America, it does lament that it is of "little current use to, say, a new African nation."
But it was a much bigger shock when the Times reported in the same story that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a sitting associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and grande dame of the Court's liberal voting bloc, shares the Times' dim view of the Constitution. Ginsburg said "I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012." Her personal recommendations would instead include "the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights."
None of this should come as a surprise. One wonders, for example, if Justice Ginsburg even looks to the United States Constitution when interpreting it in 2012. Having had only limited success in getting the courts to creatively re-imagine the Constitution to suit their individual tastes, America's legal, academic, and media elites are now determined to minimize what is left of the founding charter's original meaning and intent by making unflattering comparisons to "sexier," more expansive documents that empower state bureaucracies, undermine individual rights, and micromanage citizens' day-to-day lives.
Those who hold this view would be happy see our Constitution abandoned in favor of a more "modern" document that grants "rights" such as health care, housing and employment, while eliminating protections for the right to keep and bear arms and restrictions on the powers of the central government. What these visionaries see as deficiencies in our Constitution are exactly the things that make it work so well. Its purpose is to guarantee fundamental rights and to protect liberty by restricting government power.
While it is lamentable that the Times cannot see the greatness of our Constitution, it is far more troubling that Justice Ginsburg cannot. And most troubling of all is the possibility that if elected to a second term, President Obama could appoint even more justices who share Justice Ginsburg's views.
http://www.newt.org/solutions/protecting-life-and-religious-liberty
Newt is right.
Congress CAN put the Courts back in their place, by simple majority vote!
Precisely the problem.
Documents don't 'grant' rights.
God is the author of rights.
Our godless government can only grasp a document conferring rights.
Only tyrants and their enablers have a problem with the US Constitution, thereby proving that the only problem liberals ever had with slavery is that the slaves were privately owned.
So Liberals are alright with publicly owned slaves.
After our dear leader, President Downgrade.
He’s downgraded our credit rating, the economy, our security and stature in the world, that was next on his list.
They use deconstructionism to simply invalidate the Constitution in favor of their own “intellect”.
Deconstructionism:
A term tied very closely to postmodernism, deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to “deconstruct” the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious “truths.” Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all.
They are more than alright with publicly owned slaves. It is their endgame, as with all dictatorships, to enslave the people, direct their actions, mold their minds, and confiscate their fruits of their labor.
In fact, when you get right down to it, Liberals are the new Uncle Toms.
Ann Coulter was just on the radio predicting higher health insurance rates for gun owners. Once Obama makes another appointment to the Supreme Court he can do anything he wants.
The Downgrade Administration has mandated that companies in the private sector must provide products and services free of charge.
What’s to stop them from doing what you’ve described?
Do people realize how close we are to the tipping point of crashing like Greece in a few years?
Mark Steyn: Obama goes Henry VIII on the church
Speech - Cornyn to CPAC: Eric Holder's "Litany of Shame"
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Sadly, its true.
What happens when academia fails to keep pace with the growth of the human potential.
Political shills of both parties have contributed to the shredding wholesale of our Constitution for at least 110 years.
Now with so many globalist judges in place . . . they are in a position to bury it wholesale.
May God have mercy on all who Love Him out of an authentic heart.
Thanks for the ping!
Obama Sees Constitution As Obstacle
Thanks for the libks!
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.