07 September 2006
Ignoring the Constitution? What Constitution?
12:23 PM
I can't contextualize it, so I don't know if it was recent or some sort of replay, but I heard Senator Shumer ciriticize the Administration for, among other things, ignoring the Constitution.
It really galls me to hear liberal Democrats--the same people who inform us that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document"--talk about ignoring the Constitution. It is awfully darn difficult to ignore something that isn't there in any significant way, as I observed some time ago:
If the Constitution really is a "living, breathing" document then there is no constitution. If the meaning of the text just changes over time, then the text really doesn't say anything. Consider the right to an abortion. Today, the "living, breathing" document gives us this right. But this same right could be gone tomorrow. (And it will be, says the left, if Goerge Bush gets his nominees on the court.) And right there, they reveal that they do not believe this "living breathing" document excrement either. Right there, they reveal that they really do understand that it is not the document that is living and breathing, but the justices who "interpret" (we should really say, translate) the oracle. But I digress.)
This same right could be gone tomorrow because the "living, breathing" document, whose meaning changes over time, could (it is at least hypothetically possible, is it not?) change back to a document that no longer protects or recognizes that right. (Is it not the least bit interesting that this "living, breathing" document is a left-liberal, and not a right-conservative, document?) And so it is with all of our rights. This "living, breathing" document could change into a document that no longer gives us the rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, or of the press, or religion. Why this living, breathing document could once again give us the right to own slaves. It could give law enforcement officers the right to interrogate suspects without "Mirandizing" them. It could take away our right to trial by jury. This "living, breathing" document could become as arbitrary a ruler as the worst tyrant--all the while hiding from simpletons the fact that the real tyrants are the black-robed pretended prophets who claim to be translating for us the will of this living, breathing, riddle speaking oracle.
When people tell you (a) something like that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" whose meaning changes over time and (b) that someone is guilty of ignoring that living, breathing document whose meaning changes over time, then you may rest assured that you are being addressed by someone who takes it for granted that you are stupid.
It really galls me to hear liberal Democrats--the same people who inform us that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document"--talk about ignoring the Constitution. It is awfully darn difficult to ignore something that isn't there in any significant way, as I observed some time ago:
If the Constitution really is a "living, breathing" document then there is no constitution. If the meaning of the text just changes over time, then the text really doesn't say anything. Consider the right to an abortion. Today, the "living, breathing" document gives us this right. But this same right could be gone tomorrow. (And it will be, says the left, if Goerge Bush gets his nominees on the court.) And right there, they reveal that they do not believe this "living breathing" document excrement either. Right there, they reveal that they really do understand that it is not the document that is living and breathing, but the justices who "interpret" (we should really say, translate) the oracle. But I digress.)
This same right could be gone tomorrow because the "living, breathing" document, whose meaning changes over time, could (it is at least hypothetically possible, is it not?) change back to a document that no longer protects or recognizes that right. (Is it not the least bit interesting that this "living, breathing" document is a left-liberal, and not a right-conservative, document?) And so it is with all of our rights. This "living, breathing" document could change into a document that no longer gives us the rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, or of the press, or religion. Why this living, breathing document could once again give us the right to own slaves. It could give law enforcement officers the right to interrogate suspects without "Mirandizing" them. It could take away our right to trial by jury. This "living, breathing" document could become as arbitrary a ruler as the worst tyrant--all the while hiding from simpletons the fact that the real tyrants are the black-robed pretended prophets who claim to be translating for us the will of this living, breathing, riddle speaking oracle.
When people tell you (a) something like that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" whose meaning changes over time and (b) that someone is guilty of ignoring that living, breathing document whose meaning changes over time, then you may rest assured that you are being addressed by someone who takes it for granted that you are stupid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- James Frank Solís
- Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 26 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(300)
-
▼
September
(33)
- Proclaim liberty throughout the land
- Partying with Lileks? Could be fun.
- Inconsistency, thy name is ‘Liberal’
- Yoda and Han Solo: a deep thought
- Are executive compensation packages too high? (1)
- The Wallace-Clinton interview; a post script
- A paradoxical necessity of the Iraqi theater
- Clinton on Fox. Or was it the other way around?
- Joseph Ratzinger: a serious opponent in a continen...
- What Chavez and Ahmadinejad both understand about ...
- Which Narnia character am I?
- Maybe it’s more like ‘jobs Americans can’t get to ...
- What’s wrong with Common Article 3
- Attention angry (and ignorant!) Muslims: The Pope ...
- Oh, I get it: The Geneva Conventions are a suicide...
- Yes. Let’s rob Muslims of their case against us. (2)
- The Path from 911
- Five years after
- Really, just why do nations rise and fall?
- The ‘conservative’ stereotype and climate change: ...
- Ignoring the Constitution? What Constitution?
- Victor David Hanson on The Good Life
- This is what happens when fools play at wisdom
- More about those ‘jobs Americans won’t do’
- Here’s how Katie should close her evening broadcast
- A “war” by another name
- Yes. Let’s rob Muslims of much of their case agai...
- Forget the cup. Enjoy the coffee
- Can we please stop the 'final throes' nonsense?
- The next change here at Deviant Scholar
- As 11 September approaches, let's recall another d...
- Apparently, the problem with our education system ...
- The First Amendment's 'religion clause' limits rel...
-
▼
September
(33)
0 comments: