Posts Tagged ‘constitution’

Celebrating Constitution Day by busting some Progressive myths about the Constitution

Posted: September 21, 2023 by Jon Fournier in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

This past Sunday marked the 236th anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution.  Most unfortunately for everyone living in the United States, the Federal Government has not followed the original meaning of the Constitution for many decades.  This has caused tremendous harm to the freedom and prosperity of every American. 

Few Americans understand just how far the Federal Government has strayed from the original understanding of the Constitution because they have been inundated with a mountain of misinformation about that particular document.  This is quite dangerous because the American people are the ultimate final barrier that is supposed to ensure that the Federal Government lives under the restraints placed on it by the Constitution.  The only way to reestablish the restraints is to bust the progressives myths that have kept the American people ignorant of true meaning and purpose of the Constitution.

Myth number 1 – The Constitution is a living document who’s meaning changes with the political and cultural climate.

This myth is very much false.  These three quotes are proof of just how wrong that point of view really is.

The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me (as President) according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption – a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible.” – Thomas Jefferson Letter to Messrs. Eddy, Russel, Thurber, Wheaton and Smith, March 27, 1801

On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, let us recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.    From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.     From James Madison to Henry Lee, 25 June 1824

Myth 2 and 3– The Federal Government was granted complete control over the States and The Supreme Court is the only and final absolute arbiter of all things constitutional.

Thomas Jefferson set the record straight on both of these myths when he wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in 1798

Resolved_, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Myth 4—The Constitution granted the Federal Government unlimited powers to regulate all aspects of life inside the borders of the States.

As you can see from this quote from Federalist 45 by James Madison, that myth is false.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negociation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Don Surber notices something I didn’t …

Posted: January 1, 2011 by datechguy in media
Tags: , , ,

…in Ezra Klein’s sort of Mea Culpa:

Ezra Klein made the biggest mistake that can be made by a liberal — progressive — socialist — communist — no labelist — whatever the heck they call themselves on the 31st of the month.

He was being honest.

He does not believe in the Constitution.

He is cynical about it and he projects that same cynicism onto those who disagree with him.

That’s a pretty serious charge but he backs it up:

In reality, the tea party — like most everyone else (emphasis mine) — is less interested in living by the Constitution than in deciding what it means to live by the Constitution. When the constitutional disclaimers at the bottom of bills suit them, they’ll respect them. When they don’t — as we’ve seen in the case of the individual mandate — they won’t.

What a telling statement in that last paragraph is.

What Ezra Klein means by “most everyone else” is Ezra Klein.

And so the sentence means that Ezra Klein is not interested in living by the Constitution but rather, Ezra Klein wants to decide what the Constitution means.

That is his point of view.

Such a belief would explain why the Left was so upset about Gitmo — shredding the Constitution — under Bush but now could not care less about Gitmo.

When a document means whatever people want it to mean then it means nothing. The Constitution is a contract and a contract means what is says. How would you like us to redefine what the deed to your house means? The contract you work under, The rules of blackjack when you are winning? Or as Don puts it:

Well, when you are taught — as Al Gore said it — that “the Constitution is a living and breathing document” you really miss the entire point of having a Constitution.

Bingo!

Light dawns on marble head

Posted: December 31, 2010 by datechguy in oddities
Tags: ,

The internet has many interesting side effects the most pronounced being that when you make a fool of yourself you are going to be called on it. And if you work for a major newspaper and say something breathtakingly stupid not only will it be preserved forever but if you don’t walk it back fast it will define you.

Journolist was something Ezra Klein managed to dodge because although there was plenty of text, there was no video, Places like the NYT have been able to avoid putting up the Climate Gate e-mails because there is no video of the people involved talking about the fudging involved.

But Ezra said what he said about the constitution live on MSNBC and although figures suggest that few people actually watch it all it takes is for the video to be out there for you to end up with stuff like this at the top of memeorandum on a slow news day.

Thus Klein’s mea culpa

I went back and watched the clip — or at least the part someone clipped and sent me, which is above — and thought I was clear enough. But when a lot of people misunderstand you at once, the fault is usually yours.

Ya think?

Update: Don Surber notices something I didn’t

Massachusetts disenfranchises their voters

Posted: July 27, 2010 by datechguy in elections, opinion/news
Tags: , , , ,

Just as the state starts to swing in a more conservative direction our one party state legislature decides that our votes will no longer count.

Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

After all who cares what the voters of Massachusetts think, If enough other states think differently our votes and our decisions are don’t matter. We no longer have control of our own franchise. To say this is an abomination is too weak a word. Why even have a state?

Allahpundit is poo pooing this. He doesn’t live here.

Smitty is as angry as I am:

Abso-effing-lutely. This is what Article Five is about. Understood, there seems to be a psychological joy, which some find, in taking words to mean whatever they wish. Hence the Commerce Clause becoming the Constitution over the last century. Hence the “judicial deference” doctrine, where Congress can emote whatever it wishes, and We The People get to watch the 14-ish trillion dollar debt pile up due to Federal over-reach.

Any legislator who voted for this bill doesn’t deserve his office, PERIOD!

Ironically Under Article 2 section 1 the legislature has the power to do this:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

So in theory if the legislature that electoral college electors would be selected by putting pictures of the candidate on the ground, cutting the head of a chicken and giving the votes to the person in the photo closest to where the body finally drops, they can do it.

And don’t give me the “oh we still need x amount of electoral votes states to go along, it’s this kind of incremental change that is quietly done and unnoticed. In fact it is designed to give legislators that out to minimize what is actually going on so when it takes effect they can claim surprise. The ultimate goal? To make it easier to steal a national election.

Remember we get the government we deserve, for decades we voted a one party legislature into office. We willingly elected legislators who voted away our franchise. We’ve done this to ourselves. It’s our fault.

memeorandum thread here.