Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

about 7 minutes into the audio
1 posted on 10/26/2008 6:49:41 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: TornadoAlley3

I have not heard the audio yet, but let’s give it a shot. For some time, I have been telling people that Obama and his lefties believe that the Constitution was written by rich white guys who owned slaves and no longer applies in modern society. It is a living, breathing document. The judges he appoints are going to tell us what it means, which is simply what they want it to mean.


41 posted on 10/26/2008 7:36:26 PM PDT by doug from upland (8 million views of .HILLARY! UNCENSORED - put some ice on it, witch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3

I see that this has been edited into a summary video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck


43 posted on 10/26/2008 7:37:47 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3
coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change

The Obama campaign in a nutshell.
50 posted on 10/26/2008 7:43:52 PM PDT by visualops (portraits.artlife.us or visit my freeper page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3

I don’t actually mind someone saying they think the Constitution is flawed. What troubles me is when they decide that they can therefore just ignore or reinterpret the parts they don’t like, rather than amending it. We’ve been learning for centuries that governments must be constrained by inviolable, written laws - and many modern liberals would just throw that principle aside in favor of the belief that if they just elect the right leaders, all will be well.


52 posted on 10/26/2008 7:47:52 PM PDT by kc8ukw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3

BTTT


53 posted on 10/26/2008 7:48:00 PM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3

Obama is the new Hitler:

National Socialist Germany is generally held to be the first social welfare state. Changed attitudes in reaction to the Great Depression were instrumental in the move to the welfare state in many countries, a harbinger of new times where “cradle-to-grave” services became a reality after the poverty of the Depression. During the Great Depression, it was seen as an alternative “middle way” between communism and capitalism.[6] In the period following the Second World War, many countries in Europe moved from partial or selective provision of social services to relatively comprehensive coverage of the population.

Yeah free money!!!!


55 posted on 10/26/2008 7:49:22 PM PDT by steve0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3
Well, well. I wonder what the constitutionalists Paul supporters and Libertarians will say about this. Is it still okay to vote third party, thus giving a vote for Obama? I wonder if a Obama, Pelosi and Reid power control will try and change the Constitution?
57 posted on 10/26/2008 7:59:59 PM PDT by jrooney (I am not voting for Spread the Wealth/Senator Government. I am voting for the War Hero and Baracuda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3
But it'll be OK after he submits the new Declaration of Dependence.
58 posted on 10/26/2008 8:00:44 PM PDT by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All


WSJ.com - THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - Opinion: "OBAMA'S PLAN FOR A SECOND-ECONOMY What's so great about another depression?" by Holman W. Jenkins Jr. (October 26, 2008)

Video - "Obama Bombshell - Redistribution of Wealth Audioo Uncovered" (Added October 26, 2008)

Dr. Slogan's Prescriptions - blog: "THE FUTURE HAS ARRIVED: BARACK OBAMA TARGETS KIDS" (October 25, 2008) (Note: Check out the hypertext links.)

FORBES.com: "OBAMA AND AHMADINEJAD" -Commentary by Amir Taheri (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet's cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a "tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West." Commanding "the strongest army on earth," the new ruler in the West will carry "a clear sign" from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: "Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us." In a curious coincidence Obama's first and second names--Barack Hussein--mean "the blessing of Hussein" in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means "he is with us," the magic formula in Majlisi's tradition. Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama's rise as another sign of the West's decline and the triumph of Islam.") (October 26, 2008)
JIHAD WATCH.org: "OBAMA'S FRIENDSHIP WITH KHALIDI, WHO CALLS ISRAEL A 'RACIST' STATE WITH AN 'APARTHEID SYSTEM' AND SAYS AMERICA HAS BEEN 'BRAINWASHED' BY ISRAEL" (October 25, 2008)

CAMPUS-WATCH.org (FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS): "BARACK OBAMA'S ANTI-ISRAEL ALLIANCES [incl. Rashid Khalidi] by Rachel Neuwirth (October 24, 2008)

LA TIMES.com - Campaign '08: Chicago - "ALLIES OF PALESTINIANS SEE A FRIEND IN BARACK OBAMA" by Peter Wallsten (April 10, 2008)



[Post no. 3] - ARCHIVES - Topic: BIDEN & OBAMA (aka B & O) (October 25, 2008 -- Click Here.)

JEFF HEAD.com - Videos: "THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH - Obama In His & His Supporters Own Words"

59 posted on 10/26/2008 8:01:02 PM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3; 1COUNTER-MORTER-68; SoldierDad; paratrooper82; DevSix; PGalt
Obama, Sweetie, the U.S. Constitution is not nearly as flawed as you are you insipid, conceited, amoral, lying, arrogant, delusional poor excuse of a Presidential Nominee.

I cannot believe this man!!! GRRRRRRRR!

60 posted on 10/26/2008 8:05:32 PM PDT by Chgogal (Voting "Present" 130 times might be a sign of a smart politician. It is not a sign of a good leader.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution


67 posted on 10/26/2008 8:18:38 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3

Bump


78 posted on 10/26/2008 9:20:51 PM PDT by ChowChowFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3
Flawed it may be, but it's still the highest law of the land, with millions sworn to support and defend it, against *all* enemies, foreign and *domestic*.

It's also the least flawed such document in the world.

80 posted on 10/26/2008 9:38:18 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3

Obama’s Idea of a Supreme Court Judge

Obama=Poor Judgement…
If Barack Obama is elected it is possible that four Supreme Court Justices could be selected during his tenure.

Do you trust him to select Supreme Court Judges?

Obama’s Words
When asked what criteria Obama would require when selecting judges he said,
“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” - Barack Obama, To Planned Parenthood, July 17, 2007

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama on the Confirmation of Judge John Roberts
“Truly difficult cases” should involve “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” September 22, 2005

The Supreme Court Oath
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath: “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

NFRW’s Words
A Supreme Court Justice is to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich”-not just the poor as Obama believes.

A Supreme Court Justice is to, “administer justice without respect to persons,”-not taking into account if that person is “African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old,” as Obama said.

A Supreme Court Justice is to, “be impartial,”-not talking in to account “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy,” as Obama said.

Barack Obama does not honor the Supreme Court Oath and its intent. Do you trust him to select Supreme Court Justices?

20 WEEKS UNTIL THE 2008 ELECTION
Submitted from the TFRW Newsletter
Share and Enjoy:

86 posted on 10/26/2008 9:52:13 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( God doesn't wear a wristwatch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3

No offense, but I don’t want to wait through 7 minutes of audio, and hear that Communist’s voice. I hate that guy.


88 posted on 10/26/2008 10:05:49 PM PDT by wastedyears (Quiet by nature, standing tall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3

Of course it was a flawed document. I happen to agree with him here when he said it was a flawed document with a blindspot.

The blindspot being that a majority of the framers (and most of society at the time) viewed black people as less than human. This was later corrected, or perfected, with the addition of the 14th amendment.

If you believe that the constitution was or is perfect, then you would have to conclude that the framers or legislators are either omnipotent (gods) or prohphets of God and divinely inspired. Either would be blasphemous or silly, depending on your spiritual tendencies.

So the consitution is inherently flawed as it is a product of inherently flawed human minds. This is precisely why room was made for corrections. By allowing constitutional amendments, the framers themselves were admitting that the constitution was not perfect.


93 posted on 10/26/2008 10:29:22 PM PDT by jackmercer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

The comments at the linked source are amazing. The audio has apparently been out since July 30, 2008.

3. Two points:
1) Even though all the legal and academic talk flew over my head, I was impressed with Obama's intellect and eloquence more than ever.
2) All the people who claim Obama's only skill is reading well off a tele-prompter (a skill McCain can't seem to grasp) should listen to this clip.

5. Fantastic! A wonderful legal discussion which shows the great intellect and thinking of Obama. I disagree with Sherman's politically biased opinion which seems to be nothing but a set of McCain talking points. I understand that McCain has giant rotating teams with computers whose sole job is to insert opinions on all the blogs and comments throughout the internet. What's funny is that McCain does not even know what the internet is!!! LOL!
Comment: John - 31. July 2008 @ 11:10 am

6. That was a high quality talk show wow! Way to go Chicago. You can get a sense of the great intellect of Obama during this clip.
When you compare his words to the ones of GWB who resumes the credit crunch by the words 'Wall street got drunk..'
Comment: Martin from Montreal - 31. July 2008 @ 12:06 pm

7. Oh, to have an intelligent and thoughtful president for a change! Think of the great people he will place in his government and the advances we can make as a nation based on the good of all rather than the profit of a few! And I agree with the comment that McCain has a whole lot of people whose job it is to write comments to articles. They always seem to have the first two comments on each article, and then the next 100 are real people who write intelligently.
Comment: Al - 31. July 2008 @ 2:48 pm

8. Obama is one of the most impressive individuals I have ever observed in politics. There are millions of people around the world (including here in Australia) willing this man on to become the next President of the United States. Can you imagine the optimism and good that will flow into to the world with Barack as President and Michelle his equally impressive wife as First Lady? These are exciting times. And just in time.

There're plenty more where those came from.

96 posted on 10/26/2008 10:51:07 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3
In your response to my earlier post, you referred to Obama's cite of Justice Breyer's claim that ours is a "living constitution." Note the very last paragraph of the following essay, reprinted with permission, from a volume published in 1987, the Bicentennial Year of our marvelous Constitution.

Do We Have
A Living
Constitution?

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton

In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:

"... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

The Framers knew that the passage of time would surely disclose imperfections or inadequacies in the Constitution, but these were to be repaired or remedied by formal amendment, not by legislative action or judicial construction (or reconstruction). Hamilton (in The Federalist No. 78) was emphatic about this:

"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even know ­ ledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."

The Congress, unlike the British Parliament, was not given final authority over the Constitution, which partly explains why the judicial authority was lodged in a separate and in­dependent branch of government. In Britain the supreme judicial authority is exercised by a committee of the House of Lords, which is appropriate in a system of parliamentary supremacy, but, although it was suggested they do so, the Framers refused to follow the British example.

The American system is one of constitutional supremacy, which means that sovereignty resides in the people, not in the King-in-Parliament; and the idea that the Constitution may be changed by an act of the legislature--even an act subsequently authorized by the judiciary--is simply incompatible with the natural right of the people to determine how (and even whether) they shall be governed.

Unlike in Britain where, formally at least, the queen rules by the grace of God (Dei gratia regina), American government rests on the consent of the people; and, according to natural right, the consent must be given formally. In fact, it must be given in a written compact entered into by the people. Here is Madison on the compacts underlying American government:

Neither civil society (or as Madison puts it, "the people in their social state') nor government exists by nature. By nature everyone is sovereign with respect to himself, free to do whatever in his judgment is necessary to preserve his own life - or, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, everyone is endowed by nature with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of a happiness that he defines for himself. Civil society is an artificial person (constituted by the first of the compacts), and it is civil society that institutes and empowers government. So it was that they became "the People of the United States" in 1776 and, in 1787-88, WE, THE PEOPLE ordained and established "this Constitution for the United States of America."

In this formal compact THE PEOPLE specified the terms and conditions under which "ourselves and posterity," would be governed: granting some powers and withholding others, and organizing the powers granted with a view to preventing their misuse by the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches alike. WE THE PEOPLE were authorized by natural right to do this, and were authorized to act on behalf of posterity only insofar as the rights of posterity to change those terms and conditions were respected. This was accomplished in Article V of the Constitution, the amending article, which prescribed the forms to be followed when exercising that power in the future.

The Framers had designed a constitutional structure for a government which would be limited by that structure - by the distribution of power into distinct departments, a system of legislative balances and checks, an independent judiciary, a system of representation, and an enlargement of the orbit "within which such systems are to revolve" And to the judges they assigned the duty, as "faithful guardians of the Constitution," to preserve the integrity of the structure, for it is by the structure (more than by "parchment barriers") that the government is limited. It would he only a slight exaggeration to say that, in the judgment of the Founders, the Constitution would "live" as long as that structure was preserved.

The Enduring American Constitution

Now, almost 200 years later, one can read Hamilton's words in Federalist No. 1 and conclude that, under some conditions, some "societies of men" are capable of "establishing good government," but that most are not. This is not for lack of trying; on the contrary, constitutions are being written all the time - of some 164 countries in the world, all but a small handful (seven by the latest count) have written constitutions - but most of them are not long-lived.

In September 1983, the American Enterprise Institute sponsored an international conference on constitution writing at the Supreme Court of the United States; some twenty-odd countries were represented. With the exception of the Americans, the persons present had themselves played a role - in some cases a major role - in the writing of their countries' constitutions, most of them written since 1970. Only the con­stitution of the French Fifth Republic predated 1970; and the Nigerian, so ably discussed and defended at the 1983 conference by one of its own Framers, had subsequently been subverted, much as the four previous French republican constitutions had been subverted. It would seem that many peoples are experienced in the writing of constitutions, but only a few of them - conspicuous among these the people of America - have an experience of stable constitutional govern­ment. In that sense, we surely have "a living Constitution." That is not, however, the sense in which the term is ordinarily used in the literature of constitutional law as shall be explored herein.

Treating The Constitution As
A Thing Without Form or Substance:
New Definitions Of 'Living'

In the language of many today, a "living Constitution" is not first of all one that is long-lived; rather, its longevity is a secondary or derivative quality which is attributed to its "flexibility" or better, its "adaptability." It is this quality--"adaptability"-- that allows it to be "kept in tune with the times," as the members of this school of thought sometimes say. According to them, a living Constitution is first of all a protean constitution - one whose meaning is not fixed, but variable.

In this respect, it is similar to the Constitution as understood by the "judicial power" school. Some judicial power advocates go so far as to say that, until the judges supply it in the process of adjudication, the Constitution has no meaning whatever. Here are the words of judge Lynn D. Compton of California, writing in 1977 in the pages of the Los Angeles Times:

"Let's be honest with the public. Those courts are policy-making bodies. The policies they set have the effect of law because of the power those courts are given by the Constitution. The so-called "landmark decisions" of both of U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court were not compelled by legal precedent. Those decisions are the law and are considered "right" simply because the court had the power to decree the result. The result in any of those cases could have been exactly the opposite and by the same criteria been correct and binding precedent.

"In short, these precedent-setting policy decisions were the products of the social, economic and political philosophy of the majority of the justices who made up the court at a given time in history .."

So extreme a view of judicial power is not likely ever to be expressed in the official reports; there (perhaps in order to be dishonest with the public) even the most inventive judge will claim to be expounding the Constitution, if not its ex­plicit provisions then, at least its emanations, penumbras, or lacunae (Griswold v. Connecticut). What is of interest is that a judge should be willing to express it anywhere - for what it means is that a constitutional provision can be interpreted, but not misinterpreted, construed but not misconstrued. More to the point here is that it means that the Constitution is a living charter of government only because it is repeatedly being reinvented by the judiciary.

The 'Living Constitution' school and the 'Judicial Power' school may be indistinguishable at the margins, but they derive from unrelated and distinct sources. 'Judicial Power' is a product or an extension of legal realism, the school of thought whose advocates, from the beginning of the twentieth century, have argued that the essence of the judicial process consists not in interpreting law, whether statute or constitutional, but in making it. Its advocates today speak with a certain nonchalance of "creating" constitutional rights (Moore v. City of East Cleveland), and, when pressed to cite their authority for doing so are likely to point to the work of contemporary legal theorists like Ronald Dworkin and his book Taking Rights Seriously . It is Dworkin who has purportedly given this sort of "constitutional lawmaking" what it has always lacked ­ a philosophical underpinning. As he sees it, rights cannot be taken seriously until there has been "a fusion of constitutional law and moral theory," and to make it clear that he is not referring to any particular moral theory that may have informed the Constitution as written, he finishes that sentence by saying that that fusion "has yet to take place."

As it turns out, however, the moral theory he propounds, and which he hopes to "fuse" with constitutional law, proves to be nothing more than a fancy way of justifying what the judge Comptons among us have been doing all along. And what they have been doing is, essentially, treating the Constitution as a thing without form or substance, except insofar as it authorizes the judges to give it substance.

The living Constitution school also claims to have a source more venerable than legal realism or Ronald Dworkin - justice John Marshall. A former president of the American Political Science Association argues that the idea of a " 'living Constitution'...can trace its lineage back to John Marshall's celebrated advice in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): 'We must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding...intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs' " The words quoted are certainly Marshall's but the opinion attributed to him is at odds with his well-known statements that, for example, the "principles" of the Constitution "are deemed fundamental [and] permanent" and, except by means of formal amendment, "unchangeable" (Marbury v. Madison). It is important to note that the discrepancy is not Marshall's; it is largely the consequence of the manner in which he is quoted - ellipses are used to join two statements separated by some eight pages in the original text. Marshall did not say that the Constitution should be adapted to the various crises of human affairs; he said that the powers of Congress are adaptable to meet those crises. The first statement appears in that part of his opinion where he is arguing that the Constitution cannot specify "all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit;" if it attempted to do so, it would "partake of the prolixity of a legal code" (McCulloch v. Maryland), In the second statement, Marshall's subject is the legislative power, and specifically the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the explicitly granted powers.

Neither Marshall nor any other prominent members of the founding generation can be 'appropriated' by the living Constitution school to support their erroneous views. Marshall's and the Founders' concern was not to keep the Constitution in tune with the times but, rather, to keep the times to the extent possible, in tune with the Constitution. And that is why the Framers assigned to the judiciary the task of protecting the Constitution as written.

They were under no illusions that this would prove to be an easy task. Nevertheless, they had reason to believe that they had written a constitution that deserved to endure and, properly guarded, would endure. Hence, Madison spoke out forcefully against frequent appeals to the people for change. Marshall had this Madisonian passage in mind when, in his opinion for the Court in Marbury, he wrote:

At this point, it is well to remember Hamilton's strong warning about unwarranted presumptions by those in government of a power to depart from the people's established form as quoted in the title of this essay.

Marshall referred to the "principles" which he called "permanent," and the "basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected" Yet Marshall also chose to address the much broader issue of the general scope of the national powers. The Constitution must be construed to "...allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people." It is these powers, not the Constitution, which are flexible and adaptable to meet the crises of "human affairs."

Ironically, the very case cited by the "living Constitution" school, when properly read, demonstrates that John Marshall, at least, saw, no need for flexibility in the Constitution.

Summary: Do We Have A Living Constitution?

What has been undertaken here has been providing (within a very brief compass indeed) an accurate statement of the principles underlying the American Constitution: pointing to (but by no means elaborating) the political theory from which they derive and the constitutional conclusions to which they lead. Among the latter is the untenability of the proposition that constitutional limitations can be jettisoned, constitutional power enhanced, or the constitutional divi­sion of powers altered, by means other than formal constitutional amendment.

It will not be argued that it may sometimes be convenient to allow the Senate to originate a bill "for raising revenue," but convenience is not a measure of constitutionality. There is much to be said in favor of the legislative veto - Who would, in principle, deny the need of checks on administrative agencies? - but, as the Supreme Court correctly said, the Framers anticipated that Congress might find reason to employ such devices and, when designing the so-called "presentment clause" in Article 1, Section 7, forbade them ( Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha). And from a particular par­tisan perspective it is understandably frustrating, simply because the required number of states had not yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, to be denied the power to pro­mote the cause of sexual equality; but frustration alone cannot justify a judicial attempt to preclude the necessity of for­mal ratification, as Justice Brennan is said to have wished to do. In Frontiero v. Richardson (411 U.S. 677, 1973) the Supreme Court was divided on the issue of whether sex, like race, should be treated as a suspect classification. We are told that Justice Brennan circulated a draft opinion in which he proposed to declare classification by sex virtually impermissi­ble and that he knew this would have the effect of "enacting" the pending ERA. "But Brennan was accustomed to having the Court out in front, leading any civil rights movement," a major publication stated. Hence, we are further told, he saw "no reason to wait several years for the states to ratify the amendment." No reason, that is, other than the fact, which Brennan implicitly acknowledged, that the Constitu­tion as then written, and which had not yet been rewritten by the only people authorized to rewrite it, did not support the role he would have the Court hand down.

Those who would use "convenience" or "frustration" as reason, or who insist that it lies within the powers of the Court (or the Congress or the Executive) to effect constitutional change, can be charged with a lack of respect for the principles on which, as Marshall wisely observed: "the whole American fabric has been erected."

We are told that it is unreasonable - even foolish - to expect that the Framers could have written a Constitution suitable alike for a society of husbandman and a society of multinational corporations, to say nothing of one as well adapted to the age of the musket and sailing ship as to the age of intercontinental nuclear-tipped missiles. As the problems have changed, the argument goes, so must the manner in which they are confronted and solved, and the Constitution cannot be allowed to stand in the way. Indeed, there is no reason to allow it to stand in the way, we are told, because the Framers intended it to be flexible. And we are told that John Marshall would support this position. But it was Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland, who stated: "Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported." The United States, in this view was not intended to be a simple society of husbandmen, and Marshall Clearly saw that the Constitution empowered Congress to do what was required to meet the crises of the Republic, and to maintain the Constitutional structure intended by the Framers, changing it only when such change would be in keeping with the structure itself.

That the American Constitution is long-lived, has enduring qualities, and was intended for the ages cannot be doubted. That it was founded on enduring principles, and that it was based on the authority of a people who are sovereign has been attested to by many of its leaders. That it can be changed when, and if, the people ordain such change is a part of its own provisions. For these reasons, it can be said to be a "Living Constitution" - but let that not be claimed by those who would use the language to subvert the structure.

Our Ageless Constitution - Part VII (1987) (Publisher: W. David Stedman Associates; W. D. Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Eds.) ISBN 0-937047-01-5       (Essay adapted by Editors for publication in this Volume in consultation with Dr. Walter Berns from Berns' article by the same title in National Forum, The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Fall 1984)

105 posted on 10/27/2008 7:32:19 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3

Question: Can Barack Obama take an oath without mental reservation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?


108 posted on 10/27/2008 8:06:11 AM PDT by Genoa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TornadoAlley3

Question: Does it matter that Obama was talking about the fact that the Constitution permitted slavery and designated slaves as 3/5 of a person?

I’m NOT defending Obama. There are plenty of issues to attack him on that do not require us to support aspects of the Constitution that have since been amended. But this kind of stuff only feeds into the liberal’s characterization of us as racists.

Can we focus on Wright, Ayers, and Rezko, or maybe Obama’s pro-choice stance, or maybe other aspects of his platform that we find terrible?

Or - are we going to defend slavery and criticize Obama for criticizing the Constitution’s recognition of slavery???????


110 posted on 10/27/2008 8:37:57 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson