Libertarian liars

Happy Constitution Day

CATO is quoted.

The Constitution was not perfect – what human creation is? – not least in its oblique recognition of slavery, believed necessary to ensure union.

But it provided for amendment, as with the addition of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and the Civil War Amendments several decades later, which ended slavery and brought the Bill of Rights to bear upon the states.

Pshaw.

The ratifiers of that generation and everybody after them for decades must spin in their graves whenever they hear such a ludicrous claim.

Watch carefully, friends.

The courts for going on a century, but mostly since the liberal revolution of the mid-20^th Century, have been erecting the massive fiction of incorporation on the due process clause of the 14^th Amendment.

But lately it has occurred to liberal academics the privileges and immunities clause would be a more plausible candidate, given its ridiculous obscurity makes it easier for the unwary to think that’s what it means, provided they can get a court some time to overturn the Slaughter House cases in which it was flatly denied that clause meant any such thing.

The liberal blog is well named.

Crooks and liars is what they all are, and people with an agenda will be the first to admit they insist all means are good to their own ends.

And lies to gain one’s points are certainly better than assassinations, terrorism, and revolution – always assuming there is no really desirable other way.

Especially when lying them into the constitution as federal judges who make it to the Big Court get to do puts them well out of reach of everybody who thinks or prefers otherwise for generations at a time.

And look at it this way.

The process of amendment only works for putting stuff into the constitution that has widespread public support over the whole country, long enough to successfully pass through all those hoops.

For the unpopular parts of your agenda that door is closed.

Only a lying judiciary will do the job for you.

Hence people lie about what the constitution says or means rather than tell the truth about what they want it to say or mean.

The ERA, for example, died on the table, and deserved to do so.

It was by intention written as a virtual blank check for endless judicial impositions by future liberal courts, themselves reliably far more enamored of feminist ideology than the nation as a whole.

Much better to lie it into the constitution with the help of a bunch of feminist judges, one piece at a time.

As soon as they dare they will begin.

As Sotomayor pretty frankly put the matter concerning gay marriage.

Makes you wonder whether, at this late date, an honest woman could be made of American social democracy, if not of all the measures imposed by the lies of liberal Supreme Courts over the years, by the process of suitable amendment, given the popularity of Social Security and Medicare.

Drafted with only a little broadness the amendment could give constitutional safety to them, to Medicaid, to Food Stamps, and to many other, more frankly redistribute safety net gizmos.

Perhaps even Obamacare's individual mandate!

And don't we honestly think that sex is popular enough, nowadays, for majorities to want to provide a solid foundation for most, if not all, of the sexual revolution in the law made by creative liberal courts, based on the privacy right invented in Griswold and incorporation of the First Amendment?

You have to wonder.

Oh, the regulatory state has issues, too.

Consider that assignments of powers by the constitution to the branches cannot be modified by statute but only by amendment.

And they certainly can’t be re-assigned by statue and lodged somewhere else than where the constitution put them.

And then consider that the constitution gives the power to regulate commerce to the congress and not to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Hmm.