Constitutional Originalism or Living Constitution: Gorsuch’s nomination and a tale of two law

Bookwormroom.com ^ | 4-4-2017 | WOLF HOWLING

[TBP]

If you think the Constitution is living, then you must protect it.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the post; ping; thread. BUMP

[gibsosa]

Thank you very much!!

[fella]

Constitutional Originalism vs. a "living Constitution."

Is what this current phase of the demonRAT's Civil War is all about. The RATs have never given up their last rebellion against the Constitution and are screwing themselves up to fight again. Their aim is the reestablishment of a hereditary ruling class with the enslavement of all others.

[The_Republic_Of_Maine]

and your point is what?

[definitelynotaliberal]

Thanks for posting this!

Thanks also to publius for the ping.

[definitelynotaliberal]

Thanks for posting this!

Thanks also to publius for the ping.

[greeneyes]

Thanks for the ping - marking to read later.

[YHAOS]

I suppose I should mention that I am 81 and in poor health. I’ve lost the use of my left leg & am in rehab. So, my participation is limited, and I won’t be answering very fast .
But, I do have a prop for everyone: What is the rule that every government follows, save one, and where can one find the philosophy that governs that lone exception?

YHOAS

[OneVike]

What is the rule that every government follows, save one, and where can one find the philosophy that governs that lone exception?

All governments follow the rule that government is King, and thus it can say or do what ever it decides to do. The one lone exception is the United States, which is ruled by the people. However, as Benjamin Franklin stated to the little old lady who asked him what government they gave us. He replied to her,

“A republic, madam – if you can keep it.">

As for the article, good read.

Now everyone must understand that our constitution is not a living document, it can and only be relevant to things it does not specifically already mention unless we amend it. The current Judges have their desire to write whatever they desire to be constitutional regardless of the truth.

That being said, now our biggest enemy right now is not the leftists on the court. Our problem is the two who make up the conservative bench. Kennedy, who is a mugwump and gets more liberal as he gets older. The other is John Roberts, who has already subverted the Constitution by legalizing the monstrosity known as Obamacare. How did he did it? By calling it a tax, which the administration itself argued it was not. With that ruling, Roberts ruled that the government is our creator and thus has a right to control our life.

The constitution say God is our creator, but the constitution be dammed.

Mark my words, John Roberts will screw us again, and he will do so at a moment we need him the most as he did with Obamacare.

So do not sit by feeling comfortable with the lie that we now own the court because of Gorsuch. We don't. It is still a 5-4 majority in favor of the anti-constitutional side.

Until we get two more judges, and I pray ine replaces Kennedy, or one of the liberals, that will uphold the constitution as Scalia did, we will be biting our finger nails each and every time a case that matters to us goes before the Supreme Court.

[OneVike]

You could also be looking to the fact that we were told by the founding Fathers that unless we look to GOD for guidance we will fail.

So one could say we are the only nation on earth to give credit to GOD for our existence. Which was true, until Roberts ruled with the left to give that power to the government when he ruled that Obamacare is the law of the land.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping; post. Thread BUMP!

[YHAOS]

Thank you for the reply (ies).

Yes, the article is a good read.

And, Yes, all governments. save one, believe their role is to rule every behavior of its constituents (except one very special class).

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security - “

Recognize thr above? Of course you do. It is that portion of The Declaration which declares the philosophy governing the original Constitution (including the first ten Amendments). Mr Jefferson was selected to write the whole of The Declaration not because he held special knowledge not held by others (they all knew the particulars in The Declaration)), but because of his eloquence. He did a magnificent job.

YHAOS

[StonyBurk]

I’d replace four Kennedy, that old alcoholic who takes nips before official functions so she can sleep through the BS—and the self described wise Latina, and that other appointment by the enemy foreign and domestic.Four I would replace with Constitutionalists.

[StonyBurk]

True Chewy BUt it was Judicial Review that upheld the unanimous US supreme Court decision Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the United States 143 US 457 Feb.29,1892 decided—upheld by Judicial Review forty years later in Us vs. Macintosh Between the two Justice Brewer published a collection of his lectures on Holy Trinity —The United States:a Christian Nation Since receiving copy of the legal summary provided by Col .Ronald D.Ray USMC Retired First Principles Press Crestwood KY. back in 2000 I have filled composition books in my study of the Holy Trinity decision. And can do nothing less than agree with George Sutherland in 1931—and David Brewer and the unanimous Court. I cannot support Judicial review when it upholds a LIE like Roe V.Wade.Our LIBERTY like our Constitution does not depend upon what any Court or Judge says these mean today—they speak only for themselves. We the people ought be final arbiter of what the written Constitution means. And ought NOT suffer any human law made contrary to the Laws dictated by God,Himself.

[StonyBurk]

True Chewy BUt it was Judicial Review that upheld the unanimous US supreme Court decision Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the United States 143 US 457 Feb.29,1892 decided—upheld by Judicial Review forty years later in Us vs. Macintosh Between the two Justice Brewer published a collection of his lectures on Holy Trinity —The United States:a Christian Nation Since receiving copy of the legal summary provided by Col .Ronald D.Ray USMC Retired First Principles Press Crestwood KY. back in 2000 I have filled composition books in my study of the Holy Trinity decision. And can do nothing less than agree with George Sutherland in 1931—and David Brewer and the unanimous Court. I cannot support Judicial review when it upholds a LIE like Roe V.Wade.Our LIBERTY like our Constitution does not depend upon what any Court or Judge says these mean today—they speak only for themselves. We the people ought be final arbiter of what the written Constitution means. And ought NOT suffer any human law made contrary to the Laws dictated by God,Himself.