The incoming generation

[A18]

Conservative, obviously. After growing up in the current ultra-left-wing gay era, they will rebel against liberal judges and recoil in disgust. Especially when they find out they can't keep a decent percentage of their pay check, smoke cigarettes without being taxed to hell, or start a business without obsessive government regulation.

[A18]

Only insignifcant laws are made by the Congress. The major laws are made by the Supreme Court.

Yes, liberals dominate the Supreme Court. That is widely understood. There are only two originalists and one conservative fascist who at least believes in restraint.

[A18]

Only insignifcant laws are made by the Congress. The major laws are made by the Supreme Court.

Yes, liberals dominate the Supreme Court. That is widely understood. There are only two originalists and one conservative fascist who at least believes in restraint.

Well, then, like I said, blame the Republicans for having nominated 7 of those 9 justices.

Go tell Robert Bork the president picks the justices.

[A18]

You realize you're backing up my point, right?

[A18]

Well, I just said they'd be conservative because of the dangerously anti-originalist courts. I didn't say Republicans didn't bear any blame.

I don't think most Americans consider themselves originalists; I do think they're getting tired of judges making law.

But, I think you missed the point to my post, which was just a parody of opebo's earlier rambling.

[A18]

Well, I just said they'd be conservative because of the dangerously anti-originalist courts. I didn't say Republicans didn't bear any blame.

I don't think most Americans consider themselves originalists; I do think they're getting tired of judges making law.

But, I think you missed the point to my post, which was just a parody of opebo's earlier rambling.

I would definitely agree that the courts have gone too far in many cases, yes. I would favor reducing the power of unelected officials and putting more into the hands of directly elected ones, if possible without upsetting the balance of checks and balances that is in place. I'm not sure that can be easily done, but I'm definitely open to suggestions.

How about the new oath of office I proposed a couple days ago?

[A18]

The entire New Deal is unconstitutional, and should be struck down as such. I do believe we will, within the next generation, get an orginalist majority on the Supreme Court and eradicate the entire thing. Of course, the liberal states will then implement these things on their own, but that's beside the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of those are unconstitutional at the federal level. And all of them are terrible.

Roe v. Wade was not an extremist ruling, it was just made up. It fit majority opinion, but still had absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever of any kind at all, and so to support it really enrages me and shows complete disrespect for our most important founding document.

[A18]

The entire New Deal is unconstitutional, and should be struck down as such. I do believe we will, within the next generation, get an orginalist majority on the Supreme Court and eradicate the entire thing. Of course, the liberal states will then implement these things on their own, but that's beside the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of those are unconstitutional at the federal level. And all of them are terrible.

Roe v. Wade was not an extremist ruling, it was just made up. It fit majority opinion, but still had absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever of any kind at all, and so to support it really enrages me and shows complete disrespect for our most important founding document.

Well, again, it's a philosophical disagreement. I agree that the Constitution should be respected, but I support a loose interpretation of it, and I support it being a living document that adjusts to the times. I think that a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution is quite often in the best interests of our country, but the purpose of the Constitution is to create "a more perfect union". When an absolute literal interpretation of the Constitution does not create a more perfect union, then insisting on a literal translation defeats the original purpose of the document's entire existence. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

Rules have a purpose, and it isn't to make technocrats and bureaucrats happy; it's to serve the greater good.

So while you could say that it was silly to list everything the federal government could do in the Constitution, if it indeed was permitted to do more than that, I would argue that it was more likely a clarification of government's powers regarding pertinent issues of the day; if the government was not meant to have the power to provide for the common defense and welfare, and provide for a more perfect union, then why even bother to mention these purposes at all? Why not just list what it can do, and not say what the purpose of these rights is? That argument can be used in both directions.

Just something to think about.

Hah! Your idiotic post is exactly what the Anti-Federalists feared. Indeed, the framers of the Constitution dismissed it as ridiculous:

http://speaker.house.gov/library/texts/federalist/default.asp

It is apparent that you know absolutely nothing about the history of the Constitution, and frankly, have no business talking about it.

[A18]

Who makes that determination? It can only be made by personal, political opinion.

And so there is a Constitution, and there is an amendment process.

Their intentions are 100% certain on this matter. I mean, geez... you should seriously have to read the Federalist Papers before being eligible to vote.

[A18]

Who makes that determination? It can only be made by personal, political opinion.

And so there is a Constitution, and there is an amendment process.

Their intentions are 100% certain on this matter. I mean, geez... you should seriously have to read the Federalist Papers before being eligible to vote.

So you agree with Jefferson on this manner, and I side with Hamilton. I guess that's what it boils down to, eh?

Hamilton wrote many of the Federalist Papers. He did not agree with what you're saying.

Hamilton argued that it was constitutional to, for example, create a national bank, if it was being used as a means of realizing the enumerated power to coin money.