The U. S. Constitution: The Ultimate Endangered Species

Accuracy in Academia ^ | September 17, 2016 | Malcolm A. Kline

[Academiadotorg]

Back during the 1972 campaign, satirist Mort Sahl, long thought to be a man of the Left but actually quite independent-minded, said something like this: "In less than 200 years we’ve gone from Madison, Adams, Franklin and Washington to Nixon and McGovern. What can we conclude from this? Darwin was wrong!"

The reference, of course, is to Charles Darwin’s thesis that man evolved into a higher species. Nevertheless, roughly the same could be said of the grand old document that quartet crafted: The United States Constitution.

At a Constitution Day conference at the Cato Institute on September 15, 2016, Elizabeth Price Foley, a law professor at Florida International University, pointed out that there were three levels of Constitutional scrutiny: strict, intermediate, and rational basis.

Arguably, the U. S. Supreme Court and all of those in its orbit--lawyers and law professors alike--are opting for none of the above. Indeed, Professor Foley pretty much does argue it, particularly in the four decades of SCOTUS decisions in abortion cases.

Professor Foley made note of the "creative contortions in them" even while indicating that she herself is pro-choice. Professor Foley is the author of Liberty for All: Reclaiming Individual Privacy in a New Era of Public Morality, and numerous articles and columns.

[Academiadotorg]

There's an old Perry Como song called "I wish it could be Christmas forever." For the sake of my country, I wish it could be Constitution Day forever.

[Bishop_Malachi]

It’s been extinct for quite some time. There’s lip-service payed to it -as if it were still respected in its original intent - but it has failed to restrain the power of the Federal government in any meaningful way for many decades.

[TBP]

The progressives seek to kill it and establish a post-Constitutional America.

[MosesKnows]

It’s been extinct for quite some time

Extinct (no longer in existence) is a harsh word and regarding the Constitution it is an incorrect word.

Dormant (in a state of rest or inactivity) may be more acceptable in this regard.

Here is the real deal.
The Constitution will continue to serve us as the founders intended as long as the words remain.
The Constitution only empowers government to use their herein granted powers to protect rights.

Ignoring the words without changing the words means the government is forever obligated to heed the words.

It is the obligation of the citizens to demand that the elected honor their oath of office.

[Bishop_Malachi]

The words exist, sure, but we are so far removed from the original intent of the Constitution as to render it unofficially dissolved.

The trend has only been one direction -with occasional plateaus. That direction has been towards a more powerful federal government with all sorts of issues increasingly taken out of the hands of states. This cannot be rectified merely through elections as the judicial branch is highly unresponsive to the democratic process (and they will always abuse their incorporation-power via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment).

Let’s assume Trump is elected and he does put the brakes on some Federalizing of issues (while allowing past abuses of Federal power to mostly stand). This is merely a “plateau period” in the grand scheme of things.

So that we don’t talk past one another on semantics, what is the effective difference between “extinct” and a “dormant”-state that will never be practically undone?

[MosesKnows]

what is the effective difference between “extinct” and a “dormant”-state

Now that is a question and questions can be answered.

that will never be practically undone is a statement. It is impossible to address the question without accepting the statement, which I do not.

However, by ignoring the statement I can explain the difference between "extinct" and “dormant” by comparing an extinct volcano to a dormant volcano.

“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”.... Albert Einstein

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do. John Ruskin

Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.

America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” --- opening lines of “101 Things To Do ‘Til The Revolution by Claire Wolfe

[itsahoot]

but it has failed to restrain the power of the Federal government in any meaningful way for many decades.

But, but, but Cruuuuzzzzz would have saved it.