Or “everybody bullshits so our side has to be better at it.”
Personally, I think it says volumes that political activists
believe this, apparently, nearly to a man, on both sides, and are perfectly shameless about it.
Explains how we got where we are.
Explains why the constitution the “constitution in exile”
folks want back is a fake.
Explains why the lies, distortion, and fakery are so pervasive.
Ask any of the activists on either side.
They fear a constitutional convention like the plague,
convinced the crazies of the other side will be able to write into honest, black letter
law their whole, nut ball agenda.
They prefer to impose their own agendas through lying judges
and fraudulent jurisprudence.
And by stampeding their voters with anger and hate, driven
by more lies.
As for Hunter, he has no idea what judicial integrity would
actually be.
He thinks it's fidelity to principles like federalism.
It's not.
It's not.
Judicial integrity is what you get when judges adhere to and
enforce the law rather than bending it to their own agendas, not even when those
agendas are expressed as principles.
It’s what you get when courts adhere to a constitution instead
of amending, rewriting, or inventing one.
Scalia and the textualists are perfectly right about that much.
It would be a mistake to expect their practice to conform to this understanding.
Here is a notable case of liberal baloney.
They were right to do so.
And the tax defense was inexplicable poppycock.
That a state can and quite reasonably may require you to buy
car insurance or, indeed, health insurance is one thing.
The states have, per the 10th Amendment and by
implication in any case, consistent with the federal constitution, any power to
do anything not denied them outright by it.
Something in the US constitution denies the states the right
to mandate purchase of car insurance?
Something denies Massachusetts the right to mandate purchase
of health insurance?
What, exactly?
14th Amendment due process?
Phooey.
But though the constitution itself clearly implies that the
ability of the federal government to suppress international or interstate commerce in such and such a
thing, or trade with the Indians in that thing, is included in the ability to
regulate commerce there is no text to support the idea that congress can require
anyone to buy anything under that power.
And so not health insurance.
The claim is often made, in fact, by conservatives and libertarians that much of the liberal regulatory state and a good part, if not all, of the welfare state are unconstitutional.
This is probably correct.
Without an illicit reading of either or both of the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause, it's very hard to see how Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, for example, can be within the authority of congress.
Though in passing I note that American social democracy and the regulatory state are among the many matters concerning the constitutional status of which I would prefer the courts to continue to lie in a friendly, liberal direction.
The claim is often made, in fact, by conservatives and libertarians that much of the liberal regulatory state and a good part, if not all, of the welfare state are unconstitutional.
This is probably correct.
Without an illicit reading of either or both of the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause, it's very hard to see how Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, for example, can be within the authority of congress.
Though in passing I note that American social democracy and the regulatory state are among the many matters concerning the constitutional status of which I would prefer the courts to continue to lie in a friendly, liberal direction.
For comparison, DOMA is, in my view, conservative overreach
defying full faith and credit and the First Amendment establishment clause.
Not to mention the reserve powers clause of the 10th
Amendment.
Where in Section 8 or elsewhere did conservatives think they
found constitutional license for congress to pass DOMA?
It cannot rest on the reference to general welfare in
Section 8, clause 1, since that is a mere rhetorical flourish right along with
the reference to providing for the common defense, having no more substance
that the reference to militia in the 2nd Amendment.
For conservatives to say otherwise is grotesque.
But they did.
And Lochner along with numerous other decisions of the era named for it that conservatives and libertarians continue to try to rehabilitate were built on a travesty of due process, both in the 14th Amendment and in the 5th.
As was McDonald, extending the reach of the 2nd Amendment to the states via an absurd abuse of the due process clause in the 14th Amendment.
And Lochner along with numerous other decisions of the era named for it that conservatives and libertarians continue to try to rehabilitate were built on a travesty of due process, both in the 14th Amendment and in the 5th.
As was McDonald, extending the reach of the 2nd Amendment to the states via an absurd abuse of the due process clause in the 14th Amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment