Posted on 08/29/2018 3:11:58 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
Apparently we should argue Constitutional law based on popular consensus of the day.
If we get it wrong, it will all simply 'self-correct'.
How can we have Presidents who are “citizens of the world” if we restricted the office to just natural born citizens, born here of citizen parents?
Anwar al-Awlaki’s kids deserve the same right to run as Ted Cruz.
His demented NWO America, not ours.
Brown-stain is just another addled opinionist at The Hill.
The Hill is a complete cesspool of leftist opinion.
The author is a fool that deserves derision.
The Constitution has been amended with at least 26 changes through the decades...nearly 1 for every decade.
The author is actually arguing to disregard the Constitution in favor of direct democracy.
Over my dead body.
“But originalism conflicts sharply with American reality and American ideals. Years ago, Frank Sinatra sang a song about what America meant to him. The last line was “But especially the people, that’s America to me.”
Who needs the Founders when you’ve got Frank?
“Alan Brownstein is a professor of law emeritus at the University of California, Davis School of Law.“
This “law school” should be burned to the ground and this professor driven naked into the wilderness.
L
Pure idiocy. Originalists believe that the Constitution should be changed only according to the rules that were established for changing the Constitution. “Non-originalists” believe that unelected judges should be able to change the Constitution whenever they see fit.
If “originalism” is so bad, then let’s try this:
Stop defining socialism by the socialism of the 19th and 20th century. It was a horrible failure. 30 times worse than the Black Plague! People have mobility and education today. If they can’t find work, they should move to where the work is. If they lack skills, they should work to gain skills.
We don’t need socialism to mean “free health care” or free anything. The NEW (non-”originalist”)socialism is that all people understand that they must work for what they have. The more they produce, the more benefit to society. When you are successful and prosperous on your own, then society benefits. So, the NEW socialism is to get a job, work, buy your own health care, pay for your own kids’ education, pay your bills on time, and be equipped to join the militia—because nothing is more social than being willing to kill some tyrants with your neighbors!
You think they would cheer for ditching THAT kind of “originalism”?
disclaimer: some idiot will interpret this as me advocating socialism. I am not.
Really, if you don't have originalism, you don't have anything.
More likely in favor of judge-made law.
That's it in a nutshell.
Firstly the Founders intended that the Constitution would be hard to change and would not be interpreted by “Fashionable Opinion”. If it can be easily changed by some judge inventing some new meaning for a word or phrase in the Constitution then it is no longer a Constitution. The Founders put in place two mechanisms to change the constitution both of which require the informed consent of the people. Having judges stick their fingers in the current social or political wind to reinvent the constitution was never intended by the Founders and should be resisted at all costs.
IOW, remove meaning from words and go by feelings.
That would be fun.
Give them enough time, and these leftists will be living in huts and peeing in their own drinking water.
“But originalism conflicts sharply with American reality and American ideals.”
The author is wrong specifically because (a) originalism does not stop at any point in time, and (b) as far as what the Constitution does and not mandate is found across and into all its amendments up to and inlcuding moddern times and (c) it sets squarely with the Constitutional structure for “updating” the Constitution, which the Constitution spells out as via the amednment process and not through mere judicial dictates.
Originalism honors and respects the facts inheremt in the first words of the Constitution, which say “We the people”, not “we the courts” and which in every way implies it is the people, acting through our legislators, state and federal, not judges, that are the only authors of the Constitution recognized by the Constitution.
Of course I would not expect someone like the author well indoctrinated by the Leftists to get either originalism or the Constitution correct.
The liberals' ideal is something like a cable company contract that says "the company can make any modifications to this contract it desires so long as it gives you ten days notice". And, unlike the cable contract, you aren't allowed to cancel and leave.
The Constitution is immutable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s what I thought before the Kenyanesian Usurpation.
It remains to be seen if we survive that.
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.