It’s Alive! Why the Constitution should remain dead.

NRO ^ | 7/8/03 | Jonah Goldberg

[betty boop]

I tend to think they would answer in the affirmative.

I think so, too, without a doubt. Even Hamilton, great "centralizer" that he was, acknowledged as much in The Federalist.

A government that de facto expunges the Constitution is illegitimate on its face; for it is usurping the sovereignty of the people, which is the ultimate foundation of the Constitution, and the political order premised on it.

Should the government so exceed its warrant from the people (and their posterity, of and for whom We the People so clearly spoke in the Preamble) as to do such a thing, the question then becomes a rather thorny one: The government has the de facto AND de jure monopoly of force (except that teeny little bit of it preserved to the people by the Second Amendment).

Before anyone opens that can of worms, I think we ought to get some justices impeached first.

[KC Burke]

It is interesting that virtually all of the arguements made in this column along with the supporting citations from Chesterton, The Tempting of America and others (with the exception of S. Holmes) have been previously made on this forum. I know because I've made some of them or been on the thread where it has been done.

The cutting edge is here and in similar places, not in the main stream media. All that being said, I'm glad Jonah does such a workman-like job.

Any chance FR can sue the mainstream for using the work done here, in poor imitation, in advancing conservatism elsewhere, LOL? Kind of like the WP/LAT in reverse.

[XHogPilot]

BINGO, Betty Boop!

A government that de facto expunges the Constitution is illegitimate on its face; for it is usurping the sovereignty of the people, which is the ultimate foundation of the Constitution, and the political order premised on it. ....Betty Boop

[Noachian]

Whether the Constitution is a living document or not is a moot point since the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is - and therein lies the problem.

There's discussion here about what O'Conner will or won't do, but one day she'll be gone and another, UNelected, justice will take her place and this whole arguement will begin again.

The REAL problem is why justices have no electorial accountability to The People. In other words - how do you fire them?

If you owned a business and the person you hired to run the place ran the business into the ground, wouldn't you fire him?

If you owned a sports team and you had a manager who lost game after game, wouldn't you fire him?

So, how is it that we have a Judiciary that is running the Constitution into the gound, on a yearly basis, and we have no way of firing the people responsible?

Justices are APPOINTED for life and are accountable to one one. The Legislature has the authority to regulate the court, but doesn't. What we have then is a rogue court with an aristocratic mentality.

We're not talking about just one ruling. The high court has consistently passed down rulings that alter the social fabric of this nation without any input from The People.

That is LEGISLATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, and it must be remedied.

The Founding Fathers installed a mechanism within the Constitution to remedy such power grabs. An Amendment to to directly elect the Judiciary is the only way to put the brakes on what has become a runaway court.

[RipSawyer]

"1776 was run by more mature minds informed by a decent and humane respect for the past."

I agree wholeheartedly but was immediately struck with the irony of that statement in that we have all heard of the youth of the founders, wasn't the average age something like 26? It is amazing that so many of the current crop of "leaders" are capable of acting like infants until long past normal retirement age.

[William McKinley]

Any direct democracy addition to the Constitution is a mistake. It was a mistake to make Senators be directly elected, and it would be worse to have SCOTUS justices be.

[Cacique]

I say yes to a constitution that lives by the rules enshrined in it and is interpeted in accordance to such rules. Not a piece of paper deemed open to wild interpretation by fiat, to whomever finds parts of it inconvenient.

[Noachian]

Then you want to just sit back and let unelected justices with no accountability to anyone be our law-makers?

You want to hope and pray that they "do the right thing"? What if they don't? What if this consistent pattern of social rulings leads us down the path of Socialism and on to tyranny? What then?

You may be willing to let others define the way you live your life, but I prefer to have some say in the matter.

I love a representational Republic, and I don't want to change how Senators, or Congressmen, or Justices do their jobs. But, I DO insist on being able to fire them if they break the rules.

You wrote about RULES and the TRADITIONS of the dead. Yet, you're willing to do nothing when those rules and traditions are being whittled away little by little each year. Face facts. The Constitution is being changed each year by judicial fiat, while The People have no way of stopping it.

The Founding Fathers gave us a tool to use to stop such usurpation of power - it's the Amendment process. They didn't add it to the Constitution to take up space - they meant for it to be used.

I for one think it's time to use it.

[William McKinley]

Non sequitor.

I believe in voting out of power those who prevent strict constructionists from being appointed.

I believe in voting in those who take the Constitution seriously.